Vegetarianism and veganism

[Laird]

I`m curious. I understand the argument, but the practicalities are critical to whether it could work without quick onset of mass starvation and massive resistance in the populace.

Mass starvation? No, I don't think so. Massive resistance? Well, sure, just like there was such massive resistance to the abolition of slavery in the US that the Civil War had to be fought over it. We ought to be willing to go to the same lengths on this issue, but I think that the war in question is more ideological than Civil.

What are the common grains actually used for cattle in feed lots, and pigs, and chickens  in factory farms?

I'm not an expert in this field and I can't provide you with a definitive answer on that. Your googling is no doubt as good as mine, but in any case a bit of googling of my own suggests that it differs from country to country, but that some examples include wheat, barley, sorghum, soy and corn.

If it is mostly soybeans and corn, could we really make most of humanity subsist on such a diet which is very unbalanced and also not particularly palatable?

Recall that we are not replacing all food with feedlot cereals, only meat - so, nobody would be expected to subsist on a diet of solely soybeans and corn - they would still have access to all of the other foods other than meat to which they had previously.

Also, consider that certain meat-eaters are already unable to differentiate the real thing from "fake" meats (made from cereals/grains/legumes/etc), as demonstrated in the video to which I linked in the 30th post in this thread.

Worst case scenario: ramp up production of those "fake" meats and nothing much changes from a consumer's/epicurean's perspective...

Presumably, millions of farmers would have to convert their farms from soybean and corn production to other more palatable grains like wheat and rice, and also legumes like beans and peas in order to have a proper balance of protein amino acids. How practical would that be?

Again, I'm not an expert on all of this, but, that said, I don't expect that a great deal of conversion would be necessary, nor that if it was, it would be much of a difficulty. A proper balance of amino acids is already achievable by combining foods that we already produce aside from meat. See, for example, the Nutrition facts section of the Cereal article on Wikipedia, which points out that combining grains with legumes balances out the amino acid deficiencies of each (lysine and methionine respectively).

I don't know, but certainly their would be a long transition period of deprivation and  build up of massive resistance to this fundamental change in way of life.

I tend to agree that the transition will be long (we are unlikely to be able to stop animal agriculture overnight), but one of "deprivation"? No, I don't think so. There are both sufficient calories and macro- and micro-nutrients in the diet to which we would transition.

As for massive resistance? Sure, we have been conditioned to believe that eating meat is n..., n..., and n... (again, see the Melanie Joy video above). That conditioning makes people irrationally resistant to eliminating it from their diets, even though that is the most ethical choice.

How could this be successfully "sold" politically?

With a solid emphasis on the facts and ethical implications, I would hope.

[Laird]

To add a bit of context to my previous post, nbtruthman, you might find it interesting that according to the National Geographic website, in 2011, the percentage of meat in the global diet (and my argument assumes a global perspective) was only 9%, and that of dairy and eggs, only another 8%. From that global perspective, there is not that large a degree of adaptation necessary in eliminating animal products - only 17% of the diet needs to be re-sourced, with plenty of options to play with in that re-sourcing given that the amount of newly available foods (cereals formerly fed to animals in feedlots) is three times that of the previously available foods (animal meat). It is unlikely that any conversion of crops would be necessary when you have 2/3rds spare capacity, in which there is likely a wide variety of different crops in the full 3/3rds.

Edit: Just curious, what's the problem with eating honey ?

I guess it’s about how they’re treated. I expect it something along the same lines as cows. 

No ones being compelled to be vegan or vegetarian I guess. It’s always good to examine thinks we accept as normal or acceptable the though isn’t it?

I've probably said it before, and probably even referenced/embedded this specific video on PQ before (maybe even in this thread), but I consider Melanie Joy's take on this sort of thing to be utterly insightful. Witness "the three Ns" with respect to eating meat: that our culture teaches us that eating meat is n..., n..., and n.... See if you can guess what those three words are before you see them enumerated in the video, just as Melanie asks of her audience - who, of course, guess them correctly...

Melanie Joy - Carnism: The Psychology of Eating Meat

Id Guess two of them are Normal and Necessary? I didn’t have time to hear the full video lol).

I guess it’s about how they’re treated. I expect it something along the same lines as cows. 

No ones being compelled to be vegan or vegetarian I guess. It’s always good to examine thinks we accept as normal or acceptable the though isn’t it?

Yes but it's also possible to go to extremes, is it not ? Without trying to be facetious, should bears be prevented from eating honey. I mean they just rip out the whole hive and stuff their face. If we're going to stop all suffering we have to stop ALL suffering, but I don't think it's remotely possible even if the concept was feasible (which it's not). I actually think even attempting such an exercise may create hell on earth, instead.   Blame God, Obiwan.

Edit : It just (re) occurred to me with reference to vegans,  as to how they know that vegetables and fruit don't feel pain. An answer that merely states they don't have a central nervous system or something along those lines won't do, however.  https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/24...l-pain.htm

[Laird]

Just curious, what's the problem with eating honey ?

I guess it’s about how they’re treated. I expect it something along the same lines as cows. 

That's part of it. Sometimes, beekeepers replace the honey with some type of sugar water, depriving the bees of their preferred food (honey), and that's obviously mistreating the bees.

But even when bees are treated well, I still have a problem with honey. For example, I have been told (and have no reason to disbelieve), that, given the opportunity, bees store up an excess of honey - more than they need for the winter - and that the more considerate of beekeepers simply source honey from that excess.

To me, though, this is like somebody saying to me: "Oh, hey, your larder is well-stocked, so I'm just going to help myself to a bunch of the excess food in it whether you like it or not. After all, there's more than enough in there, and more than enough time for you to restock it."

I wouldn't accept that as a valid justification for thieving what is mine, and I don't accept it either in the case of thieving excess honey from bees.

Now, tim asks in a later post:

Without trying to be facetious, should bears be prevented from eating honey. I mean they just rip out the whole hive and stuff their face.

I think we have to ask to what extent we are responsible for suffering/conditions in the natural world, to what extent we are obligated to intervene in that world in a forceful way, and to what extent doing so would be counterproductive. Personally, my (philosophical) view tends towards non-interventionism. There are only limited circumstances in which I am comfortable with humans intervening systematically into the natural world. Preventing bears from thieving honey in the wild from bees is not one of them. Nor do I believe that veganism implies that it ought to be. Veganism, for me, is much more about eliminating human-caused animal suffering than about eliminating the innate animal suffering in the natural world. Philosophically, I tend to trust that the natural world is God's - however imperfect - Creation, and that I (we) know and understand so little about how and why that world works as it does that I (we) would be more likely to cause additional suffering by intervening into that world than to minimise the suffering within it.

That leads me to that with which tim followed his question about bears:

If we're going to stop all suffering we have to stop ALL suffering

This isn't the principle upon which I base my veganism though, because I don't think - short of Divine intervention - that it is even possible to stop ALL suffering. My veganism is instead based upon the principle of eliminating avoidable suffering, especially in the sense in which I described above: that suffering which is caused directly by humans.

I am pretty sure that if you think about it, trying to be fair, tim, you will accept that this is a reasonable approach. We would have to be God(s) for it to be otherwise.

And you pretty much acknowledge that you do recognise why the principle "that we should stop ALL suffering" would be an unreasonable one to adopt with this:

I actually think even attempting such an exercise may create hell on earth, instead.

Right. That's what I'm saying. An overly interventionist approach towards the natural world would be foolish. Instead, let's focus on the world we have created, where we have a more reasonable chance of creating heaven on Earth.

And I want to respond to one more thing from your later post, tim:

It just (re) occurred to me with reference to vegans,  as to how they know that vegetables and fruit don't feel pain. An answer that merely states they don't have a central nervous system or something along those lines won't do, however.

This has come up several times already in this thread, but I don't expect you to dig back into it, so, somewhat repeating that which has already been said in earlier posts:

There are a lot of vegans who would deny plant sentience, but I am not one of them; hence, I am more strictly speaking a fruitarian than a vegan. I try to avoid harm to and killing of plants as well as animals. Neverthless, I accept the more strictly vegan argument that the animals that we eat consume so many plants themselves that veganism is by far a kinder diet towards plants than a standard omnivorous diet anyway. And I recognise that there is a degree of harm towards and killing of plants which is inevitable given that agricultural land must be cleared and kept clear - I just think that we should try to minimise this.

Regarding your suggestion that fruit too feels pain, my own view is that this is unlikely for various reasons. For culinary (sweet) fruit - apples, bananas, etc - and (non-sweet) vegetable-like fruits - capsicums, pumpkins, etc - it is unlikely because plants produce this type of fruit so that it can be eaten (in return for its seeds being spread far and wide), and it is unlikely that plants would build pain into their reproductive processes by design. For (that which I count as) fruit like nuts, seeds, grains, cereals, etc, which are essentially reproductive units, my sense is that these are not so much living as potential lives; that it is only when they germinate that they attain sentience, and that prior to that they are dormant (and insentient). I could be wrong about all this, it just seems most likely to me.

[Laird]

Id Guess two of them are Normal and Necessary?

Two from two. Go for the trifecta!

Laird, your position is extreme and it's also full of special pleading and self exoneration. The harm that a bear does is no different in respect of the pain felt by the recipient than if it was a human being ripping the hive out of the tree. Primitive tribes are human and we don't stop them taking honey. 

Giving the natural world an exemption is fine but please don't try to sell that to me as "absolving" yourself  because you're not; you're merely being selective. If I wanted to spend some time really going through this step by step, I feel confident I could pull your whole manifesto to pieces although I guess like anyone with strong ideals, you'd likely keep defending it and telling me in return I was wrong etc. 

I guess your answer to that would be go on then. My answer to that is I really don't care to for various reasons, one of them being I like you and I don't want to start battering your sincerely held principles. Once again though, I would at least urge you to consider the practicalities of all this.

Maybe some of the other posters could tackle your view. My view is not extreme.

[Laird]

Tim, it's probably best that we leave it there then. In my view, I have adequately addressed your objections, but you don't seem to recognise as much. There is more that I could add to clarify various points which you might otherwise view as "special pleading and self exoneration", but with the aim of remaining on good terms with you and avoiding an extended, potentially hostile exchange, I won't.

I hope that we can at least end on an affirmation that the harm and suffering that humans cause to animals in factory farms is both callous and unnecessary, and should be ended.