Vegetarianism & veganism

Hitler

>>9886302
did he have sound arguments for this

>>9886299
Read 'Eating Animals'. I can't help you find some Greek derived philosophy on animals that sounds sufficiently lofty as to be venerated. Modern vegetarianism is very much a reaction against factory farming and climate change.

Ask yourself how you feel about an animal being forcefully made pregnant year on year for milk, it's male young slaughtered for tender meat after three months.

Or if you enjoy the idea of vast fields of excrement seeping into the water table.

Or even the thought that abbatoir workers are frequently shown to be reduced to sadism in revolt against the stressful, machine like operation that is modern day slaughtering.

>>9886299
Is pic from watson and rayner's little Albert thing? Swear I remember it from psychology class. Also Peter singer is known for his animal rights writings

I'll give you the truth /lit/.

Just look at our fucking teeth. We have evolved to be mostly herbivorous. People in ancient times based their diets on what? Make a guess. M&Ms? Nope. Doritos? Nope. Kentucky Fried Chicken: Colonel's Flavor Limited Edition? Noppppe. They would eat wheat and fruit. Do you know the only occasions humans would eat meat? That's right, in winter, when there was no harvest to be eaten. And a very healthy diet is mostly based on green stuff, like herb teas, all kinds of vegetables, soup, and so on... That's why Japanese people live so long, they eat very little red meat, instead they eat tons of algae, rice, and the only meat they eat is fish (sometimes chicken, but only sometimes). Now I'm not a vegan, not even a vegetarian. I do love the taste of a good burger. Just yesterday I had steak. But the thing is, we're not biologically suited to eat red meat every day, it's something like, some two to five meals with red meat per week (7x3=21 meals per week). The only case red meat would be kind of healthy would be if you lift a lot, that would be justified, because you'd get a lot of muscle and red meat stimulates testosterone (although weight lifters age faster and more easily contract diseases like cancer because of meat consumption).

So, in summary:
-humans have evolved to function best from vegetables, wheat, green stuff
-red meat is good but only in moderation
-red meat is good almost all the time only if you are a male AND in a lifting program

This is fact, and fact is fact.

Ignore anyone else with even a slightly different opinion.

Utilitarian argument: Peter Singer

Rights argument: Tom Regan

>>9886402
I agree about the teeth argument, however our large molars and the grinding movement of square jaws were in fact evolved largely to accommodate things like root vegetables and the types of foods that required grinding down, not just leaves and broccoli.

>>9886383
There is a ton of Greek stuff about animal ethics.

Check out "Heretic's Feast" which provides a history of philosophical thought re: animal ethics from the pre-Socratics to modern utilitarians, rights theorists, environmentalists etc.

>>9886399
Peter Singer is NOT an animal rights advocate. He is strongly against rights in general. He is a utilitarian.

File: 20170813_195231.jpg (3MB, 4032x2268px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x2268px

>>9886402
I'm sitting in a PACKED Big Boy in Japan right now. I just ate a steak. Japanese are healthy because of Asian genes and exercise. We eat all kinds of meat all the time.

>>9886424
Well whatever, he is an animal liberation advocate/animal equality advocate or some shit

>>9886428
Japan has a MASSIVE rate of gastric cancer btw

>>9886431
>Well whatever

Do you realize how fucking dumb you sound equating two opposing and irreconcilable schools of thought?

>>9886399
Yeah it's Little Albert. Poor thing didn't even live long after, he died from hydrocephalus at age 6 :(
He was never even deconditioned from the experiment

>>9886299
>What philosohers have written about it?
jeremy bentham

>>9886383
Will do. Thanks.

What do you think of eating animals killed from hunting?

>>9886402
I'm with you on your conclusions. I'm also trying to cut down drastically on red meat.
>>9886407
Cheers, I'll look into them both.
>>9886422
added to my to-read list
>>9886477
will look into his arguments as well


/lit/, are you vegan or vegetarian? If yes, why? If not, why not?

>>9886299
pro
>environmental impact is WAY lower
>billions of animals aren't tortured and killed for your pleasure

con
>generally more expensive, specially when it comes to time of picking your diet
>arguably taste

>>9886299

Reducing your meat consumption is pretty good for the environment. Americans generally eat a ton more meat than they need because of cultural stigma and propaganda.

Cutting down on my meat intake also allowed me to explore more options with vegetables, and also higher quality meat because I'm now no longer consuming a pound a day.

Plus, vegetables are good for you, you fat American lards.

>>9886482
Vegetarian for 7 years and mostly vegan for 4 years here. I eat a mostly vegan diet, though I have no moral issue with consuming honey as there's no evidence bees are in any way sentient, capable of feeling pain etc. I also have no issue with consuming eggs and dairy which are produced in a small-scale, ethically conscious way e.g. a local farm, or a hutch in the back gardem. My issue (reinforced by evidence, investigations etc) is that the industrialization of the process of producing eggs & dairy to feed a massive and growing population necessarily involves reducing chickens and cows to means of production alone, which in turn has led to standardized behaviour (i.e. artificially inseminating a cow again and again and either killing or selling her calf each time, intensive milking, etc) that I can't justify because my belly is growling.

All I would say is know your facts before debating someone on the issue, and don't appeal to emotion. I don't generally out myself as vegetarian / vegan and one of the reason is that the people I've met who are are often way too emotionally incontinent and way too quixotic. For example, many animals graze on land which is unsuitable for agriculture, meaning that the environmental argument isn't always (though it is overall) accurate or convincing.

>>9886531
>many animals graze on land which is unsuitable for agriculture
And they produce methane, consume food that needs to be delivered to them, etc, etc

The environmental argument never really goes away.

>>9886543
Accepted, but I've often heard the argument that simply removing animals from a piece of land and growing crops there instead feeds X more people. Which is accurate in many cases, though there's often a reason why the animals are grazing on that land in the first place.

>>9886543
>>9886553
I can't help but feel like the consumption of meat isn't the issue here, but rather the scale of it (if we're talking in terms of enviornmental impact rather than ethics). Do you think we, as a species, are overpopulated? I'm not a vegan or even vegetarian, but the more I think about it the more I worry this is the case. Humanity has become too successful, and I don't see how we can sustain our growth as a species much longer.

>>9886580
Well, of course that matters too, but it's basically like alcohol or any other drug. It's generally bad but as long as you drink it moderately, the harm is neglectable. Same with environmental impact.

As for overpopulation, that depends more on the resource consumption, which is pretty extreme in the West and especially US of A but sustainable in other parts of the world. Theoretically we could easy feed 9-10 billions and probably more with a change of diet and as long they don't use as many resources as we do now, it'd be fine. While it's not going to be a problem this century, it wouldn't hurt to look further into the future and try to keep the number lower, just it's not something we can do without international cooperation.

>>9886448
Japan also has a high rate of not being a longnose roundeye pig, stupid foreigner.

>I care about the ethical treatment of animals
...he typed on a computer manufactured by enslaved babies in concentration camps in China

>>9886604
The way to end economical exploitation isn't as easy as changing your diet.

>>9886448
Do you realise how fucking dumb you sound when your reading comprehension is below that of a 5 year old, i didn't equate shit you nimrod

Any good cookbooks?

>>9886501
>arguably more expensive

Only if you buy a bunch of stupid shit like quinoa or veggie burgers

Veganisn is the cheapest diet you can eat if you stick primarily to whole grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables.

>>9886616
This. The difference of marginal utility

>>9886299
Yes don't don't get your proteins, stay emasculated with underdeveloped brain and body so the non-whites can replace you easier, oh wait people here get off on this

>>9886299

Is anyone in this thread a 100% vegan that doesn't take vitamin injection/pills? It's been correlated with long term (LONG TERM is 5+ years, don't tell me you've been a vegan for 2 years and it's all fine) neural diseases such as minor dementia, depression, etc. So I would say not many people would advocate for the full herbivorous routine.

That said, we eat too much of everything in the developed world, not only meat. Neo-malthusians would say it's all fine as long as we deliver it to the right places, but I think we could actually cut down on much of our production (there is surplus every year if you look at the big industries...what am I saying, big industry is the only industry thanks to late capital). I don't think though, that consumption is what drives production anymore, I rather believe that production is driving consumption in excess through propaganda, as we are bombarded with this shit everyday.

Saying you can eat as many vegetable and green stuff as you like is not beneficial and only propels the spectrum of market choices in food industry (this is similar to much of the Right accelerationist argument used for other markets, to claim they drive atomization). Whenever bad news about read meat arrives, you're also given a healthy alternative [to buy from the same producers]. You don't want to drink sugar? That's ok, take that diet coke. Too much sodium you say? No problem, Coca-Cola also has a whole line of juice products made for you people who enjoy nature! Ultimately, the way we eat is driven by production processes and not by whether or not it is healthy, or even by whether or not it is moral or something. Hence why we stand idle in face of things such as described in >>9886383, but even after we take notice of that, we stand idle in the face of things such as the invasion of soybean across an immense portion of the little rainforest area we still had available.

As much as I like the animal ethics delivered by the Greeks and can understand people like Singer and Regan, it does not matter that much because their solutions are merely increasing choice in a market which keeps driving production, which perpetuates the same problems read meat causes in our surroundings. So I would recommend (on top of, by all means, still reading Peter Singer at least), you also read up on some stuff about the actual politics of why you even HAVE the option of being a vegan nowadays, such as "Food Politics" by Marion Nestle (which is one of the few works I know of, that is not apocalyptical towards either side of the argument).

Read The Omnivore's Dilemma. I'm a vegetarian for numerous reasons, but I'm not the proselytizing type. I am just aware that their is a moral component to your diet and I encourage others just to be mindful of that.

>>9886531
>many animals graze on land which is unsuitable for agriculture, meaning that the environmental argument isn't always (though it is overall) accurate or convincing.
Do you have more info on this? I've read this study:
https://www.elementascience.org/articles/10.12952/journal.elementa.000116/
Which shows vegetarian agriculture is still the most productive/land-efficient. And this only considers land, not other factors (like lower pollution, lower water or fossil fuel usage, etc.). Nor does it consider the potential to rehabilitate marginal land for arable, or (in vegan agriculture) for forestry, etc.. I've heard of Fairlie's book about this but it seems even his nutty post-apolyptic de-industrialized ideal is less efficient than the vegan/vegetarian scenario.

The underlying assumptions of veganism lead to a conclusion I think most vegans wouldn't be comfortable with: universal antinatalism, which would include wildlife. I never understood why there are vegans with a hard on for wildlife reserves. There's a lot of suffering out there, probably more than in factory farms if you take all wildlife combined. In principle, vegans should have no qualms with hunting because that animal would in all likelihood die a much worse death at the hands of nature.

>>9886299
imho:
Peter Singer has the most simple and accessible ethical argument.

Stuff like Eating Animals is also okay. China Study is shit.

I'd rather argue from a humanitarian standpoint. Meat and animal product industry is just harmful to the environment and humans. That's just a fact. It's perfectly logical to be a vegan without giving a shit about animals.
Tho I don't know of any books that specifically attacks the issue from this point.

>>9887548
> veggie burgers
Fuck you, nigga. That shit is glorious. I am not even a real vegan nor vegetarian but they are more tasty and less heavy than real burgers. Not really more expensive either unless you go for the cheapest meat.

File: 1496074825606.png (52KB, 700x419px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 700x419px

>>9886299
>arguments for
spooks
it's healthy
helps the environment

>arguments against
most of the arguments for are spooks
don't care enough about the environment or my health to stop doing something i enjoy

this is basically it

peter signer has some of the worst arguments known to man on this subject - check him out for the laughs

>>9886302
You fell for hundred year old propaganda

>>9887673
>The underlying assumptions of veganism
Veganism is a set of practices, not beliefs. If someone eats a vegan diet (and depending on your definition does the other stuff like not wearing leather etc) then they are a vegan regardless of what they believe.

>universal antinatalism
I highly doubt the contents of very many vegans beliefs will lead to this conclusion. As I said before veganism is an orthopraxy, not an orthodoxy. It is easy to come up with reasons that are compatible with veganism that do not lend themselves towards universal antinatalism such as making distinctions between moral agents and moral subjects for example.

http://www.penttilinkola.com/pentti_linkola/ecofascism_writings/translations/voisikoelamavoittaa_translation/III%20-%20Animal%20Rights/


Find "A Glance at Vegetarianism".

>>9886402
Incorrect, it's not meat, it's calories in general that causes aging, disease and deterioration (metabolism = aging), meat just happens to be some of the most calorie dense foods available and most overconsumers/obese people eat meat (obviously, as it would be challenging to even find enough calories on a vegan diet).

The argument about ancient man also falls apart as it is highly dependent on geography. Northern Eurasians (siberians, scandinavians) for example relied almost entirely on dairy, meat and fish year round, coincidentally, these also have palatal shapes more akin to carnivorous animals (like a wolf).

>>9886616
Pure hypocrisy and self-indulgence.

>>9889821
How?

>try not eating this, this and that but feel free to enjoy whatever the fuck else
isn't the same as
>give up your job, go live in a forest and avoid almost all man made things because forced labor had a part in creating them

>>9887661
It is the most productive GIVEN that the land if suitable for agriculture.

Many animals graze on land that is not fit for agriculture because the farmer can't do anything else with it.

>>9890473
Appeal to consequences. Just because you find a moral imperative difficult to enact, that doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do. Even if ethically consuming electronics was as difficult as you described (it isn't), it does not follow that it is therefore ethical to unethically consumer electronics.

Nirvana fallacy. You can take actions to minimize the human suffering your consumerism causes that don't include abandoning civilization. Just like there are steps of varying sizes you can take to minimize animal suffering (e.g vegetarianism vs veganism), you can likewise take measures to better consume electronics that are simple, such as more carefully selecting which hardware brands you purchase and whatnot. Even being aware of how your phone is made is a step in the right direction. You don't need to be perfect to be better.

I'd be satisfied with just giving a verbal sop to the human suffering caused by consumerism before launching into arguments for vegetarianism. But veggies never do that because apt heart they're misanthropes.

>>9890555
>Even if ethically consuming electronics was as difficult as you described (it isn't)
Pretty much everything decent is made in China under variations of horrible conditions and that's even before we go to the materials.

>such as more carefully selecting which hardware brands you purchase and whatnot.
Oh yes, do you prefer quasi slave work from Shenzhen or Guangzhou?

>You can take actions to minimize the human suffering your consumerism causes that don't include abandoning civilization.
Like simply minimizing consumption. Basically the most realistic solution with meat too, although it's probably easier to skip on KFC than iPhones.

>Even being aware of how your phone is made is a step in the right direction.
Just not very useful if not followed by an action. And while we're at it, there is the whole clusterfuck with other food too, so it's not like veggies got the ultimate solution, it's just a tiny bit less shitty way.

>>9890636
Not that guy, but:
>Pretty much everything decent is made in China under variations of horrible conditions and that's even before we go to the materials.
China's labor standard have improved significantly over the past decades. Also Western companies tend to enforce their own standards, in fear of lawsuits or just because.
i.e.: Universal healthcare was introduced a couple years back. It's isn't unlikely that the person who built an iPhone has better healthcare coverage than the consumer who uses it.
This China = Communist Shithole meme has to die. It's embarrassing.

Not to mention that even Sweatshop labor can still be preferable to the alternative, depending in the circumstances.

>Oh yes, do you prefer quasi slave work from Shenzhen or Guangzhou?
Guangzhou. As far as I know, most companies there are western and quasi-voluntarily enforce their own safety standards.
It would be less preferable to buy from the Chinese tech companies, that are popping up. They are less likely to get sued, so their standards are lower.
>Like simply minimizing consumption. Basically the most realistic solution with meat too, although it's probably easier to skip on KFC than iPhones.
Correct.
Personally, I think a factor that is also often overlooked is how your ethical behavior influences YOU as a person. In my experience, it tends to spread out to other areas. Not saying you should be a cunt about it. But acting ethical obviously also includes desirable changes in yourself. You are what you do repeatedly.
>Just not very useful if not followed by an action. And while we're at it, there is the whole clusterfuck with other food too, so it's not like veggies got the ultimate solution, it's just a tiny bit less shitty way.
It's not just a tiny bit. Plant based agriculture is generally more efficient and has a lower impact on the environment, resources and local economies. Sure, sometimes it's shit (like with many soy-plantations or this superfood BS). But as a rule of thumb, veggie is almost always better.

Seafood is a bit more tricky. Tho I rarely eat that, unless I happen to be in a coastal region.

>>9891344
>China's labor standard have improved significantly over the past decades.
And they are still shit, just like they are shit around the world. The point being, that there is often human suffering included, China is just the example most people are relatively familiar with. In the end, a huge part of the labour force isn't doing it really voluntary around the world but that's only adding more complexity to the topic.

>the person who built an iPhone has better healthcare coverage than the consumer who uses it
Probably true, another funny thing is that Foxconn factories got a lower suicide rate than, say United States.

>how your ethical behavior influences YOU as a person
Well, it's kinda given, although of course one runs into the dangers of being a selfrighteous cunt, though guess that's still better than being an unapologetic asshat. One underrated factor for it all is time, hence it's often initiated from the middle class, when people actually have the time to inform themselves about the consequences of their own choices.

>But as a rule of thumb, veggie is almost always better.
Definitely but how much better really? Many of the more exotic foods are still farmed/collected by people in horrible conditions and even more ordinary stuff often includes people doing backbreaking work for a laughable pay.

>Seafood is a bit more tricky.
Heh, quite an understatement, although of course depends on the exact thing in question. Generally in tends to be the most horrible one ... feels good being able to avoid all possible ethical dilemmas simply because I don't like the stuff sans tuna.

>>9891451
>And they are still shit, just like they are shit around the world. The point being, that there is often human suffering included, China is just the example most people are relatively familiar with. In the end, a huge part of the labour force isn't doing it really voluntary around the world but that's only adding more complexity to the topic.
You can still have valid ethical preferences. China >>> Pakistan
>Probably true, another funny thing is that Foxconn factories got a lower suicide rate than, say United States.
Looking into economic psychology, you'll find that money only matter in terms of satisfaction up until the person roughly and subjectively belongs to the middle class. People don't mind so much being poor (within reason), so long as they feel they are in good company.
Another reason to detest the Indian """abandoned""" caste system.
>One underrated factor for it all is time, hence it's often initiated from the middle class, when people actually have the time to inform themselves about the consequences of their own choices.
Yeah. My point is, however, that the often used "just to feel good about yourself" isn't a valid counter-argument to ethical behavior. Quite the opposite.
>Definitely but how much better really? Many of the more exotic foods are still farmed/collected by people in horrible conditions and even more ordinary stuff often includes people doing backbreaking work for a laughable pay.
So don't buy shit like superfoods. It's just a common sense thing. Buy local/seasonal, if you don't feel like checking. Look for stuff like FLO labels.
What of "exotic" meats? They just add another layer of shit labor conditions and environmental/economical burdens.

And again: Don't be too quick to judge "shit work". Depending on where the local economy is, it still might be preferable to no work at all. Obviously you shouldn't use it as an excuse to buy from literal slave-labor. But doing shit like knowingly boycotting the only export of a certain region is more harmful than consuming it and letting the economy develop self-sufficiently.

>Heh, quite an understatement, although of course depends on the exact thing in question. Generally in tends to be the most horrible one ... feels good being able to avoid all possible ethical dilemmas simply because I don't like the stuff sans tuna.
Sadly, tuna is often one of the shit options, depending on where you get it. Especially farming. They say they fixed it, but I've heard otherwise.

Fingers crossed for insects becoming a viable meat-alternative. May seem weird, but it's just so fucking efficient, that it's difficult to ignore.

>>9891491
>They say they fixed it, but I've heard otherwise.
Yeah, pretty much where my knowledge stands. AFAIK the majority of labels is nearly useless too.

As for insects, depending on the form it shouldn't be too hard to market them, say a paste and protein bars. If people are cool with protein shakes and the memeworthy market of supplements is booming, that way seems promising. Though I doubt they will pick up in the West in any other form faster than lab meat becomes available.

>>9891540
>AFAIK the majority of labels is nearly useless too.
Depends. I Europe they are usually accurate. With some of the companies you should still check now and again with specific products. Like I've heard FLO had some difficulty with banana plantations. But as a general rule of thumb, it's fine.
>Though I doubt they will pick up in the West in any other form faster than lab meat becomes available.
Dunno. People have been particularly phobic about GM. Monsanto is pretty much equated with Capitalist Devils, with Devil Law Department.
A bunch of parts in the world have been pushing for GM labeling.
Slap an "All Natural" or "Bio" label on some locust chips and constantly compare it to shellfish and you could swing that quicker, imho.
But apart from that, I think it is a huge opportunity to introduce insects as staple food in developing nations, where they are culturally more okay with it or even already eat it.
By then it isn't "weird" here anymore. Just "ethnic". And we know people will eat some weird shit, so long as it is "ethnic". I mean, I've eaten insects in China, just because "weird street food, lel".
And doesn't the Southern US have novelty shit like scorpion lollipops?

But yeah. Lab meat might be cool also.

>>9886402
Holy shit this a mad blue pill. Is your IQ above 80?
Cavemen ate meat and picked some fruit, the tooth argument is literally the complete opposite of your post. Cavemen had much nicer teeth because they did not eat wheat and grains, which didn't fucking exist back then. Farming did not exist. Humans also had much stronger jaws back in the day, because you had to chew thru thick meat and not grain. Grains are proven to be bad for your teeth. Cavemen did not grow vegetables. Being vegan will deteriorate your body and/or kill you. Vegetarian is OK, but vegans are not human.

>>9891894
. Look into anthropology journals and many people are in conflict with this modern understanding. Many so called "cavemen" were not in fact eating meat everyday but when they had the chance. they were most likely scavenging meat from random carrion.