Your recent purchases

[several_girls]

Ok, I have a hard time with this whole debate. Vegans traditionally preach that they refuse to support animal cruelty and massacre. However, most are in some way supporting Monsanto in their vegan lifestyle. I'm not sure which is the greater evil.

1. You're conflating two different motives for being vegan/vegetarian.

One is a desire to reduce the amount of suffering. Another is sustainability. Vegans and vegetarians may take on such a diet for both reasons, one or neither (they might have a strictly dietary motive, though that's rare).

2. Supporting Monsanto is not something only vegetarians do. Meat eaters also technically support Monsanto, as the meat they eat will be corn-fed. At this level, meat eaters are actually committing a greater evil since the amount of corn needed to feed the cow/chicken that will be slaughtered is MUCH greater than a vegetarian can eat. IE: it takes an enormous amount of corn to to get 16oz of meat, whereas 16oz of corn is just 16oz of corn. By volume, meat eaters would be the greater supporter of Monsanto.

Lastly, I would say vegetarians and vegans tend to be more politicized and conscious in their diets and would be more likely to support local produce.

[Faust]

I've never listened Nirvana much, my bad



I understand what you mean here, the whole issue of vegetarian or vegan diet only makes sense for you as an ethical choice for the benefit of humanity. there are some vegetarians/vegans with that motivation as well since there have been studies showing that meat takes too big surfaces of land, which could serve for growing crops that could feed the population, but i've heard there are also counter-arguments offered by other studies. so i am not entirely sure which diet is the most sustainable one.
speaking for myself personally, i try to have a lifestyle that causes the least harm to both other humans and animals. i'm far from being fully consequent in that (otherwise, i would never go to a single cross-continental conference because that requires flying, which is one of the least sustainable things nowadays :p). but everyone has to decide on their own about such things, in view of their preferences and other information.

and now i'm really going back to work so no more fuel to the fire pleeeease (at least for the next few days)

I applaud you, of course; what you do is commendable and everyone should be trying to live as sustainably as possible.

[Faust]

On the first point, aren't you just assuming they think of themselves as morally superior? The vegetarians/vegans I know don't think of themselves as such. And if you're going to choose a dogma, vegans at least have a scientific grounding for their choices; evangelicals only have rhetoric and the bible.

I don't follow your second point, Faust. We are allowed to eat meat because millions of people are starving? Or that the utter ridiculousness of living in a world where millions are starving makes any dietary choice no better than the next?

You know that much of the corn produced in the US is fed into the meat market. If everyone in the "first world" cut their meat intake by a significant amount, the amount of surplus corn, soy and wheat could be exported to feed those starving millions. It also take so much more land to produce meat than to produce other crops. Brazil clearcuts their rainforest to meet the demand for meat.

Realpolitik wouldn't kick in if natural resources weren't exhausted. They wouldn't be exhausted if people simply cut their meat intake. Being a meat-eater in the rest of the world means eating it once a week or less. Even then, the "meat" can be as small a portion as a neckbone in a soup.

I also take issue with your argument as a hypothetical situation. Anyone could similarly construct a hypothetical situation wherein you make choices that contradict your own ethics.

All this being said, I am not a vegetarian nor a vegan, but after studying the question and reviewing the social, political and environmental costs of eating meat (and other kinds of mass processed foods), I try to reduce my consumption. I also try to support more 'sustainable' meat choices. I would agree though that vegan/vegetarian identities can be something of a trap.

I know plenty, as do others, vegans/vegetarians that are preachy and self-righteous and don't think that what they are doing is a choice but that everyone should be doing the same. Come on, it's becoming cultural lore almost.

The second point is not an either/or proposition. I am simply saying, people before animals. And I am saying if that's the choice it will come down to, and it might, given that we add 1 billion people to this planet every 15 years, virtually everyone will make that choice. What I mean by realpolitik is making hard fucking choices, which we all will have to make if we don't stop producing babies at the speed of light.

I too have cut down on my meat consumption, and I too think that the US big food industry has perverted our relationship with food, just like US culture of consumer gluttony has perverted our relationship with the material world. It doesn't mean that meat should be banned.

And, also, meat in moderation is healthy, and lack of meat is unhealthy for plenty of people. I know several vegetarians that had to go back to meat on doctor's orders and have saved themselves. This diet is not for everyone. We have evolved to be omnivores for a reason.

[cjbreed]

Smithfield Foods. oh boy this is a long one. hopefully interesting

I have an interesting story on this whole sustainable food thing. Once upon a time I was in the recycling business. I would buy recyclable waste materials from anyone and everyone that generated it and export it to china, where the actual recycling takes place. China has the cheap labor and thats where all the manufacturing takes place anyway, so that’s where it goes. One fine day I made contact with a company called Smithfield Foods. Apparently some poor soul had been placed in a newly created position at the company to oversee environmental concerns. Oh lawd.

Now, Smithfield foods is the worlds largest pork producer. Think about that. That’s a lot of pork. We all know how horrifying that environment is so I’ll skip over that. But the comparison to plants that zam made earlier comes to mind. Like, you know how when you are gardening or landscaping and you pull up unwanted shrubs 3 or 4 at a time and toss them out across the lawn into a pile and then throw them all into the truck and pack them in there good and tight and then finally smash them into the shredder to make mulch. well that’s exactly how they treat these pigs. Throw, smash, toss, shred. the animals are treated like things. As if they are not alive. Its an odd and disturbing thing to see.

But one major difference is that the pigs scream. They squeal, they fight back. Some of the workers wear earplugs. They’re not supposed to but they do. but this is not the point...

So obviously there are all sorts of issues involved with this whole process. But my point here is that when it comes to the environment, there is another component. This company generates a massive, massive amount of waste. I was only involved in the plastic part, but think about this: they use plastic for damn near every step of the process. Shrink wrap, packaging film, shipping materials, even the dang aprons and HazMat suits that they all wear. It is all plastic, and it all gets used once. One time. Like surgical scrubs. It is all immediately contaminated. We’re talking about millions of pounds a month. millions.

So the first thing I did was ask her to overnight me a sample, in exactly the condition it is in when it is disposed. Let me tell you, this was the most horrifying package I ever opened. bloody plastic. just bloody plastic. the lady completely undersold how "dirty" this stuff was. The smell gave me a headache that lasted all day. I took it immediately to the dumpster and it stunk up the whole parking lot with that oh so distinctive odor of decomposition.

See these plants are like tiny villages. So when one part of a piggy is taken way over to another building to be further processed, it is all transported in plastic. So all of the waste is a blood soaked fuckin mess. You couldn’t ship that 20 feet, let alone all the way to china. Imagine opening that container after 30 days at sea. And man china is crazy there is always someone for the job. These guys send their kids to suffer thru migraine headaches all day long to take apart computer monitors by hand one at a time for recycling, for a bowl of rice a day, and they wouldn’t touch this. No way.

Basically Smithfield would need a recycling plant at their existing plants, complete with a separator, shredder, dryer, baler and magic wand and it still wouldn’t work. You can never get it clean enough. And it will never be fully dry. So you know where it all goes? In the earth. Into the ground. Millions of pounds a month from just this one segment of one company. Extrapolate that to all the other companies in this industry and man this is an incredible amount of damage. Incredible. completely unknown, and in addition to the more obvious ethical concerns.

The other side of this coin is this: how else are you going to feed 200 million people? How? You can’t.

[Denpatou]

regarding monsanto, i think soy's role in the vegan/vegetarian diet has been greatly exaggerated--i will usually take almond milk over soy milk (much better for my skin!), try not to consume too many processed foods (as rilu states, soy is everywhere D:), and i derive most of my protein from beans and nuts. i personally try to support my local farmers' market as often as possible, and when not possible, i try to buy produce only from local groceries rather than from places like wal-mart.

and while the idea of the preachy vegan is nothing new by now (cultural lore sums it up nicely, haha), i'm probably the least preachy vegan anyone could run into; most people have no idea until we find ourselves ordering food for whatever reason. almost all of my friends are shameless meateaters (this is texas, after all) and if i was preaching to them about their dietary or fashion choices all the time there would literally be no time to talk about anything else, not to mention they probably wouldn't like me very much anymore. in fact, i have a certain amount of respect for the omnivore who knows exactly where their food comes from (faust's notion of the perversion of our relationship with food rings so true where i live that it hurts). that being said, i'm never shy about discussing my lifestyle choices with those who are curious, but i find it ironic that more often than not i end up defending my choices rather than explaining them (preachy meateaters? haha)

a vegan future may not be in the cards, but i feel that it is infinitely more important at this point to simply regain our connection to the food we eat; with this, veg and meateaters alike can share a healthier future.

edit:

[Faust]

anyone who buys non-organic soy (or corn) in the US should have their head examined

[kunk75]

Any male who consumes soy on a regular basis must want a sweet pair of boobs

[Ahimsa]

(I jest)

Quick note:To produce 1 pound of beef requires about 7 pounds of grain and around 2,600 gallons of water.

[several_girls]

The second point is not an either/or proposition. I am simply saying, people before animals. And I am saying if that's the choice it will come down to, and it might, given that we add 1 billion people to this planet every 15 years, virtually everyone will make that choice. What I mean by realpolitik is making hard fucking choices, which we all will have to make if we don't stop producing babies at the speed of light.

I still don't quite follow. What hard choices are people going to be making? Is your point: "Vegetarians are hypocrites, because when the global shit hits the fan they will eat meat." ??? Even if I follow your logic correctly, I still end up with a veg diet. Okay, let's say I favor people over animals. For the benefit of humanity, I choose a vegetarian diet because it requires far less energy, which in turn preserves natural resources such as land, fresh water and fossil fuels.

And the distinction between people and animals doesn't exist for vegans and vegetarians who choose to follow such a diet when motivated by a desire to reduce suffering. Animals experience trauma and suffering as we do. Your own ethic in not buying from sweat shops derives from this same motive, Faust; reducing suffering. Just extend it to other mammals (and poultry, and fish).

This issue also brings up the concept of non-human personhood, which exists in many non-western societies.

[cowsareforeating]

too many people/ if there were 1 billion people i could eat a shit ton of meat.

[flux]

Yeh, yeh, got the 5kg stone yesterday.

[radio-aktivität]

flux,
lovely! apparently doyoureadme have new tote bags, as well.

but seriously, a 296p 46.8x32.4x3.8cm rick manifesto, whose cover is set in arial black? gross.

[pseudonym]

Finally, a pair that fits!!

[beardown]

I finally tracked down a pair of 45.5 for a perfect fit after a few years of floating between 45s and 46s so I know how you feel.

[zamb]

I still don't quite follow. What hard choices are people going to be making? Is your point: "Vegetarians are hypocrites, because when the global shit hits the fan they will eat meat." ??? Even if I follow your logic correctly, I still end up with a veg diet. Okay, let's say I favor people over animals. For the benefit of humanity, I choose a vegetarian diet because it requires far less energy, which in turn preserves natural resources such as land, fresh water and fossil fuels.

And the distinction between people and animals doesn't exist for vegans and vegetarians who choose to follow such a diet when motivated by a desire to reduce suffering. Animals experience trauma and suffering as we do. Your own ethic in not buying from sweat shops derives from this same motive, Faust; reducing suffering. Just extend it to other mammals (and poultry, and fish).

This issue also brings up the concept of non-human personhood, which exists in many non-western societies.

I am reading two possibilities from this part of your argument.
could you please clarify?

Are you saying because you don't eat meat you dont have to make this distinction between animals and people.......or are you saying that you see animals on the same level (in terms of life value) as people?


Also, the idea of non human personhood is pure garbage, regardless of what society it exist in. I am all for respecting peoples rights to believe what they want to believe and for societies to hold whatever standards they want to as they have the freedom to do that, but I too have a right to examine certain ideas and conclude in my own mind whether such things be folly or not.......and I am not saying that there arent beings/ lifeforms existing as persons, that are non human beings. but I find the idea of animals being on the same level as human beings to be ridiculous.........

Human beings are the highest and most valuable lifeforms existing on planet earth, and there is no way of escaping that