Thinking of going veggie, need some advice??

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 13 2007, 09:32 AM) [snapback]422572[/snapback]</div>

I wasn't necessarily talking about evolution. I was answering EricGo's dumbass rhetorical question about how I would feel if aliens came down and started eating us.. if we could "accept our place" on the food chain. My statement was referring to the fact that this is when survival of the fittest would take place. I realize the darwinian theory of evolution isn't referring to that instance, but the evolutionary process does have a little to do with it.

It's hard to answer a really stupid rhetorical question without sounding like a nutball yourself. B)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(writergal @ Apr 13 2007, 01:22 AM) [snapback]422436[/snapback]</div>

Conspiracy?

Don't be silly..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 13 2007, 08:19 AM) [snapback]422528[/snapback]</div>

Logical fallacies? WOW.. Logical fallacies..

I didn't say Darwin and "Survival of the fittest" are the same. I guess I could teach you a lesson on Darwin, Evolution, or the Survival of the Fittest ... but it wouldn't do any good. You obviously haven't done anymore research about your crappy diet other than from a PETA site. When people like AnOldHouse provide you with FACTS that most vegetarians aren't getting what they need.. you tell him he is "enforcing the social norms" on you.. . You're a rebel without a cause. You just want to be different, and in doing so- are actually hurting yourself and being just like every other kid that "wants to be different".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Apr 13 2007, 08:28 AM) [snapback]422532[/snapback]</div>

I think she's talking about percentage of protein to calories.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 12 2007, 04:14 PM) [snapback]422228[/snapback]</div>

An old British music-hall comedy team, Flanders & Swan, had a song called The Reluctant Cannibal. This one cannibal didn't want to eat people, because he felt it was wrong. Another cannibal told him: "If the Good Lord hadn't meant us to eat people, he wouldn't have made us of meat!"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 12 2007, 06:27 PM) [snapback]422314[/snapback]</div>

The confusion arises because of our fixation on categories. "Vegetarian" is an artificial category that some people try to fit into, and other people judge people by. But we all make distinctions regarding what we will or will not eat. The great majority of humans will not eat other humans. Many meat-eaters in the U.S. will not eat dogs or horses, though horsemeat is popular in Europe, and dog meat is eaten in Asia. Some people eat no red meat but do eat fowl. Some eat no land animals but do eat fish and shellfish. Some people would never dream of eating bugs, while others love them. Some will draw a distinction between warm-blooded and cold-blooded.

Everyone draws his or her lines according to individual criteria, but we only have words for a small number of defined categories. And even there, there is confusion: The word vegan means what the word vegetarian should mean. Eggs and milk are not vegetables, yet the word vegetarian is commonly applied to people who eat them. There's an infinite variety of eating styles, but only a small number of words to describe them. There is no word to describe my diet: I eat fish but no land animals and I eat dairy products but only if they do not contain lactose or any significant amount of fat. There's no word for that.

The question of why some people eat fish but not cows is really no different than the question of why some people eat cows but not dogs. Yeast can be considered an animal. But nobody asks why "vegetarians" drink beer.

Based on what I've read, a small amount of fish added to an otherwise vegan diet is healthier for the cardiovascular system than a pure vegan diet. So a health-motivated vegetarian might well add fish to his diet. And a person whose personal distinction on morality is between warm-blooded and cold-blooded, rather than between "plant" and "animal" could well eat fish.

We just have to realize that all categories are artificial.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 12 2007, 06:36 PM) [snapback]422323[/snapback]</div>

I think you are speaking tongue in cheek here. The ecological balance essential to our own well-being depends on maintaining a large variety of organisms.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 12 2007, 06:54 PM) [snapback]422331[/snapback]</div>

Not intelligent????? That's nuts! All animals have intelligence. By the measures humans use to measure intelligence, we have more of it than most animals. But if the definition of intelligence is the ability to solve problems (a common definition) then all animals have intelligence.

If intelligence is your criteria, you would not eat anything that has a nervous system, and you would certainly eat no vertibrates.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 13 2007, 09:06 AM) [snapback]422683[/snapback]</div>

If you like that one, you'll love the one about killing dear old mom to save the yeast spore that will save the village... B)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 13 2007, 09:06 AM) [snapback]422683[/snapback]</div>

Well I know I'm part of the conspiracy. Weren't you invited?

 

Sunnyvale, sorry I am too lazy to find your exact post I am responding to --

Perhaps I am slow this morning, but I do not see the straw man argument in my questions to you.

You categorically state that 'intelligence' (a more arbitrary notion would be hard to come by) is why some animals are property and food, and others are not. But then you carve out exclusions on both sides to fit your arbitrary personal preferences.

Just like practically everybody else, within the law, you can choose what you eat, and what you do not. But please do not couch it in terms of a value system, or an ethical system, because those require internal consistency and logic you are not engaging in.

Truly, I am not trying to single you out. More of my ire is directed at people like deSync, who seem to believe that a lifestyle blessed by the church is by definition logical and ethical, when in fact it is hypocritical, nasty drivel.

Sometimes I am just astounded at theologies that teach respect for life as a main tenet, and then denigrate 99.99% of life as worthless. One might think that someone taking this position would be laughed out of the pulpit, but it seems to match what the congregation wants to hear, so instead each pats the other on the back for being ethical and upstanding, and then the plate is passed around.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 13 2007, 09:13 AM) [snapback]422693[/snapback]</div>

Hey, I thought it perfectly logical given the nutball scenario or question.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Apr 13 2007, 11:11 AM) [snapback]422690[/snapback]</div>

That's not what she said.

And even if it's what she meant, how much 'usable' (her term) proteins which comprise a set of completely balanced essential amino acids (ie: 'usable' proteins) are there in broccoli as a percentage of calories as compared to the same in meat?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 12 2007, 10:06 PM) [snapback]422411[/snapback]</div>

The cognitive difference isn't huge between humans and many animals. And pigs are smarter than dogs by the way. But, whether or not we should exploit an animal and cause it to suffer discomfort and/or isolation should only depend on whether it can feel physical and/or emotional pain, traits which are found in countless animals including livestock.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 13 2007, 10:25 AM) [snapback]422760[/snapback]</div>

There are great studies on the subject of cognition by Greg Bateson, Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. I read about it in "The Web of Life" by Fritjof Capra (theoretical physist)

http://www.combusem.com/CAPRA4.HTM

Quoted from 1995:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Apr 12 2007, 07:23 PM) [snapback]422278[/snapback]</div>

Huh??? You lost me here AOL.

Canola oil is one of the healthier fats we can ingest, as is olive oil which is also manufactured. If you've relayed this information based on the chemicals that are required in the manufacturing process, you can purchase these oils from companies that don't utilize hexane, etc., in the process. If that's not of what you speak, provide information, please.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 13 2007, 01:25 PM) [snapback]422760[/snapback]</div>

I find this argument completely invalid.

The farm animals in question would not be alive if it were not for food production reasons. (Hence they are not exploited). I'm not saying that allows carte blanche to abuse them, but I don't think unnecessary animal cruelty is commonplace or at least intentional.

ALL animals encounter physical and emotional pain, regardless of human involvement. ALL animals die, regardless if it was at the hands of humans or not. Most animals in nature die a MORE painful and brutal death than cattle. Either by disease, starvation, or by predator, as opposed to a quick knockout or whatever method is used. IE: Chickens are stuck through a cone and the head is whacked off. In nature, a bird like that, when caught by predator would die a much slower death. And humans are predators. This is not up for debate. We kill our food faster though and thus, less painfully than say a lion, or your houscat killing a mouse, who plays with the wounded mouse for a while first. Now if that was slaughterhouse practice, then I would have a problem with it.

You can't eliminate pain and suffering from the world.
You can't even eliminate pain and suffering from humans!
Despite your not wanting anyone (man or animal) to suffer, feel pain, or die, we all will. It's part of life. Utopian sentiments make for terrible social, political, and environmental practices.

As I said before, I am not anti-vegetarian, I actually applaud someone who can maintain such a diet, as it is not an easy path. But I AM offended when vegetarians paint me as somehow immoral if I choose to eat meat.






Olive oil is one of the healthies oils, along with hemp seed oil.
canola oil is NOT one of the healthies.
Canola (comes from canadian oil) comes from the rape seed.
This is the same plant genus from which we extract linseed oil, which is toxic. It actually took quite a bit of breeding effort to modify the rape seed plant to produce less of the qualities that make it good for products like linseed, and instead make it edible. They called it canola oil at the time, as consumers knew rape seed = linseed and the product would not sell.

I'm not saying canola oil is bad for you either, I'm just saying I don't believe is is the most healthy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Apr 13 2007, 01:00 PM) [snapback]422813[/snapback]</div>

While the fat profile of canola oil appears very healthy "on paper" as it is high in monounsaturated fats (I can't at the moment quote exact amounts as I'm not at all interested in ever using it), low in sat fats (not a big deal) and has a fairly balanced omega-3 to omega-6 ratio (at least as compared to soybean or corn oils), the oil is highly processed and damaged. The oil is rape seed oil and since that name wasn't terribly marketable, the Canadians who produce it came up with the name "Canola." The problem with rape seed as in other seed oils it that a solvent is required to disolve the hard shell. Benzene or hexane, it's all carcinogenic. There is no such thing as cold-expellar pressed canola oil. Proponents claim to be successful at removing all the solvents, but I'm not about to take a chance on that. The next problem is that natural canola oil stinks to high heaven. It must go through a double process to deodorize it. The process that's used is partial hydrogenization. Yes, transfats. Although at the end of the process, the transfats are supposed to be removed, I personally wouldn't touch that. Canola is very popular also because it is quite cheap and is considered "shelf-stable." Well, those just aren't qualifications for any oil that's going to get into my system.

Yes, some olive oils are "manufactured." Those can be identified as anything that doesn't explicitly say "extra virgin." Extra virgin olive oil at 72% monounsaturated that must be cold-expellar pressed is all the "manufacturing" of oil that I'm interested in. EVOO has a 1:12 ratio between omega-3 and omega-6 which isn't bad, but it isn't ideal either. Extra virgin macadamia nut oil at 84% monounsaturated has an even more impressive profile that EVOO, but also costs more. It is very low in polyunsaturated and has a perfect 1:1 ratio between omega-3 and omega-6. I think I'm worth it and macadamia nut oil is my overall favorite choice.

I also use of extra virgin coconut oil which is 94% saturated fat (also nearly a 1:1 omega balance) and organic butter which also has an excellent omega balance.

 

I think what a lot of people are overlooking, and I am not trying to start a feces slinging match, just stating the obvious that gets so overlooked, there are just too many people! Going "veg" thinking it will solve the worlds problems isnt going to help jack! Urban Sprawl is eating up farmland by 100's if not 1000's of acres each day. What happens when farmland disappears to be replaced by asphault and cement? Here in IL, some of the richest farmland in the world is being replaced by housing! In addition, now that the Ethanol craze has hit, more and more farming is going towards ethanol production, specifically corn. What is the impact on that? Anything and everything that is produced from corn, from chickens and cattle, to the tortilla you wrap your lettuce in will go up in cost. The production of corn also has an environmental impact, the use of herbicides, and fertilizers impact the ground water. Lets not forget, ground water is pumped out of aquafers that took 100's if not 1000's of years to fill, to irrigate the crops. How much longer can they be sustained? When it comes to globlal warming, those who believe the alarmists, well, so be it, baaa sheep, open up your minds, there is more to it than that. GW is a natural occurance and we humans are so niave in thinking we can control it, we can't, move on. What we can control is the birth rate, there are too many people, period. I cringe whenever I hear that someone who has 2 kids already is thrilled that they are going to have another. That is just being selfish and not realizing the impact that has on the earth. When you have a large amount of people, you need a large amount of foodstuffs, large amount of foodstuffs takes up a large amount of space to create. How much longer will the earth sustain us? Recently there have been stories of Coyotes in cities, well, duh we invade their land with homes, of course you're going to see them, where are they going to go? They were there first. With the exception of mosquitoes, every creature has a function on this earth from the tiniest bacteria, the the largest land animal. What we do on the earth impacts not only us, but them as well.

Final word in my rant. I have no issues with people who prefer vegetables over meat, in fact sometimes I prefer a plain simple salad over anything else, but I do like an occasional steak, but I have been giving it some thought to reduce my meat intake and eat more veggies. When the main reason you are doing it is to "help" the environment, give me a break, that is the worse BS one can spout. IOW, you have no clue what the big picture is. Open up your eyes and mind, and really look around. People, too many of them, period!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Apr 13 2007, 11:35 AM) [snapback]422852[/snapback]</div>

LOL /cheer

While we cannot manage many of the things you mentioned I do believe we can do some things smarter to lessen or elimate our impact on them. Ecological Design is a step in that direction though the 1st thing that needs to change is what is between our ears. For more information look up John Todd at Ocean Arks International, David W. Orr at Oberlin College, John T. Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies at Cal Poly Pomona.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Apr 13 2007, 11:32 AM) [snapback]422849[/snapback]</div>

Where do you get that?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Apr 12 2007, 08:17 PM) [snapback]422308[/snapback]</div>

There are approx. 42 million cows in this country. If we converted every single one of these cows to grazing, cows and their pasture would comprise about 1/4 of our land. Considering that all of our land isn't viable to support pasture, and considering the rate of human population growth (and the corresponding increased population of cows), I don't foresee grazing as a sustainable practice.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Apr 13 2007, 11:55 AM) [snapback]422863[/snapback]</div>

The whole idea is to reduce the amount of meat eaten daily plus moving to more responsibe grazing practices.

An acre of polyculture grasses is much more productive than an acre of the most advanced corn and serves as a much better biological community than any monoculture.

When you cut the tops off of a grass a similar amount of root structure is shed. This root structure then decomposes and helps nurish and build the soil. By rotating grazers on different sections of grassland at timely intervals you end up with a large amount of food product, a healthy soil, and no land loss and you maintain some biodiversity. All this without the use of pesticides and very little fossil fuel.

A large portion of our country was grasslands and relied heavily on grazers in the past. We convertet the vast majority of it to non-sustainable monocultures which poison the land, air and waterways and contribute to land loss into the air and ocean. We are now realizing the importance of native grasses and of grazers and there is work here in California to allow and manage cattle on the remaining grasslands and vernal pool areas to promote healthy ecosystems.

So in essense I think there is some nice middle ground. We cannot sustain everyone on a vegetarian diet nor can we do it the was we currently are. Something has to change. The change IMO should be centered on the decentralization of our food supplies and go back to bioregional production. Then again I may be biased since I live in California and I have grasslands, estuaries, oceanic, mountainous and desert based foods. Go Salmon Nation!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 13 2007, 01:51 PM) [snapback]422860[/snapback]</div>

I agree with that. For example, the main fuel used to farm, transport goods, and public transportation is Diesel. For those who dont know the history of Diesel, a little lesson. Diesel is actually the person's name who invented the engine, not the fuel. In fact the very first diesel engine did not run on petroleum, it ran on of all things, peanut oil. Instead of the big hype to make ethanol, the fuel to make should be bio diesel from many different sources of oil, including used frying oil. Much less is required to make bio diesel than is require for ethanol. The only true ingredient that has a worry factor is the lye used for tritration. The byproduct of bio diesel manufacturing is glycerin, which can be used for composting and fertilizers, it is also a main ingredient for soap. In addition to it being easier to produce, it also gives out far less pollutants than ethanol, in fact a clean burning dino diesel gives out less pollutants. Bio D also has equal or better MPG results, and it smells like french fries. One other benefit is the the equal co2 fatcor, one washes the other. I forget the terms and such, but the growing of the crops equals the output of co2 by the use of bio d.

While we cannot stop GW, yes we can do things to slow down what we put out there, but seriously, do we need the algores out there to brainwash people into thinking the world will end? We really need to think for ourselves and get ALL the facts before jumping on the wagon, because you never know where that wagon will lead to until it gets there, and if it goes in the wrong direction, do you really want to be there?

 

Just to throw this out there... most of the meat I consume is from free range grass fed cattle. I buy the "organic" meat from Whole Foods.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 13 2007, 02:05 PM) [snapback]422871[/snapback]</div>

You have some good points there, and I tend to agree with them, the drawback is, MONEY. Farmers dont make any grazing cattle, but have to pay the taxes on that land, so the true outcome will be the land will be sold, and when that happens it is usually a developer with money lined pockets for the politicians, and well, goodbye farmland, hello subdivisions. The only real way to prevent that is for government to change. It all starts with us. More people should get behind something like this to help the owners of that land be able to keep it. It saddens me to no extreme when I see large acres of good viable farmland being dug up and covered with housing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 13 2007, 02:30 PM) [snapback]422889[/snapback]</div>

Um, are you serious.....or are you throwing out some bait.

If serious, what are your reasons for this and for how long?