Turmeric wrote:I guess it's always good to debunk unfounded myths. But being an omnivore doesn't mean it's unhealthy to stick to a vegan diet. Being able to eat all kinds of food doesn't necessarily mean one must eat all kinds of food.
totally agree here.
Does someone who's not eating because he (or her) thinks it's inflicting 'suffering' understands the human body and what it is designed for?
Depends on the person, I'd say the answer for most people is, a bit astounding....NO hence the standard american diet and the disease crisis around the world from poor eating habits especially in the USA. I was one of those people until about 8 or 9 years ago where I HAD to focus on diet and nutrition in order to essentially save my life.
Enlightened2B wrote:You COULD be limiting your body's nutrients by eating a diet that does not fit your personal metabolism because of your own belief system.
possible with a vegan diet and a non-vegan diet.
Once again, I agree very much so. Understand, I'm not trying to debunk veganism itself, but merely the myths that are being spewed about eating meat (especially in this thread)
Enlightened2B wrote:Therefore, one should be eating to gain the most nourishing value from the food
There may be several roads to accomplish that.
Of course, what is right for one person is not necessarily right for another.
And for those arguing against it being spiritual, you should really read this:
Habits in some religions and/or societies are in my opinion not very strong arguments for meat eating not conflicting with spirituality. That said I do not argue meat eating always conflicts with spirituality. Among possible other aspects one has to look at least in what this meat eating is embedded.
here's my take. I think if we're gorging on bad, factory farmed meat with no consciousness of what we are doing, then we are doing a disservice to not only our own bodies, but to life itself. Appreciating the food you eat regardless of whether it's a cow or if it's a flower or a bacteria (fermented foods) goes a long way to appreciating life itself.
Enlightened2B wrote:And finally, the crux of the issue here:
..... It is possible to raise animals humanely. This is why organic, preferably Biodynamic, farming is to be encouraged: it is cleaner and more efficient, and produces healthier animals and foodstuffs from those animals. .....
Organic farming (not necessarily Biodynamic) has some advantages. It may however be a myth organic farmers treat their animals humanely (although perhaps a little more
It can be a myth of course in certain places, but if you actually visit the farms yourself, you can see first hand how these animals are treated. I know people who live on farms around the country and how they treat their animals. Of course, this isn't the case for all farms, but that's why it's so important to know where your food is coming from for multiple reasons.
To use animals as production-machines and slaughter them when one cannot use them (enough) for ones production may give another picture.
That's your own slant on it. How does a lion kill a zebra in the wild? How does a frog kill a fly? It's the same process of life and death to sustain life.
That's unavoidable indeed. Therefore veganism is defined as a strive for reducing the use of animals as much as is reasonable an practically possible.
here's a myth buster for that which might change your outlook:
Myth #1: Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth’s natural resources.
Some vegetarians have claimed that livestock require pasturage that could be used to farm grains to feed starving people in Third World countries. It is also claimed that feeding animals contributes to world hunger because livestock are eating foods that could go to feed humans. The solution to world hunger, therefore, is for people to become vegetarians. These arguments are illogical and simplistic.
The first argument ignores the fact that about 2/3 of our Earth’s dry land is unsuitable for farming. It is primarily the open range, desert and mountainous areas that provide food to grazing animals and that land is currently being put to good use (1).
The second argument is faulty as well because it ignores the vital contributions that livestock animals make to humanity’s well-being. It is also misleading to think that the foods grown and given to feed livestock could be diverted to feed humans:
Agricultural animals have always made a major contribution to the welfare of human societies by providing food, shelter, fuel, fertilizer and other products and services. They are a renewable resource, and utilize another renewable resource, plants, to produce these products and services. In addition, the manure produced by the animals helps improve soil fertility and, thus, aids the plants. In some developing countries the manure cannot be utilized as a fertilizer but is dried as a source of fuel.
There are many who feel that because the world population is growing at a faster rate than is the food supply, we are becoming less and less able to afford animal foods because feeding plant products to animals is an inefficient use of potential human food. It is true that it is more efficient for humans to eat plant products directly rather than to allow animals to convert them to human food. At best, animals only produce one pound or less of human food for each three pounds of plants eaten. However, this inefficiency only applies to those plants and plant products that the human can utilize. The fact is that over two-thirds of the feed fed to animals consists of substances that are either undesirable or completely unsuited for human food. Thus, by their ability to convert inedible plant materials to human food, animals not only do not compete with the human rather they aid greatly in improving both the quantity and the quality of the diets of human societies. (2)
Furthermore, at the present time, there is more than enough food grown in the world to feed all people on the planet. The problem is widespread poverty making it impossible for the starving poor to afford it. In a comprehensive report, the Population Reference Bureau attributed the world hunger problem to poverty, not meat-eating (3). It also did not consider mass vegetarianism to be a solution for world hunger.
What would actually happen, however, if animal husbandry were abandoned in favor of mass agriculture, brought about by humanity turning towards vegetarianism?
If a large number of people switched to vegetarianism, the demand for meat in the United States and Europe would fall, the supply of grain would dramatically increase, but the buying power of poor [starving] people in Africa and Asia wouldn’t change at all.
The result would be very predictable — there would be a mass exodus from farming. Whereas today the total amount of grains produced could feed 10 billion people, the total amount of grain grown in this post-meat world would likely fall back to about 7 or 8 billion. The trend of farmers selling their land to developers and others would accelerate quickly. (4)
In other words, there would be less food available for the world to eat. Furthermore, the monoculture of grains and legumes, which is what would happen if animal husbandry were abandoned and the world relied exclusively on plant foods for its food, would rapidly deplete the soil and require the heavy use of artificial fertilizers, one ton of which requires ten tons of crude oil to produce (5).
As far as the impact to our environment, a closer look reveals the great damage that exclusive and mass farming would do. British organic dairy farmer and researcher Mark Purdey wisely points out that if “veganic agricultural systems were to gain a foothold on the soil, then agrochemical use, soil erosion, cash cropping, prairie-scapes and ill health would escalate.” (6)
Neanderthin author Ray Audette concurs with this view:
Since ancient times, the most destructive factor in the degradation of the environment has been monoculture agriculture. The production of wheat in ancient Sumeria transformed once-fertile plains into salt flats that remain sterile 5,000 years later. As well as depleting both the soil and water sources, monoculture agriculture also produces environmental damage by altering the delicate balance of natural ecosystems. World rice production in 1993, for instance, caused 155 million cases of malaria by providing breeding grounds for mosquitoes in the paddies. Human contact with ducks in the same rice paddies resulted in 500 million cases of influenza during the same year.(7)
There is little doubt, though, that commercial farming methods, whether of plants or animals produce harm to the environment. With the heavy use of agrochemicals, pesticides, artificial fertilizers, hormones, steroids, and antibiotics common in modern agriculture, a better way of integrating animal husbandry with agriculture needs to be found. A possible solution might be a return to “mixed farming,” described below.
The educated consumer and the enlightened farmer together can bring about a return of the mixed farm, where cultivation of fruits, vegetables and grains is combined with the raising of livestock and fowl in a manner that is efficient, economical and environmentally friendly. For example, chickens running free in garden areas eat insect pests, while providing high-quality eggs; sheep grazing in orchards obviate the need for herbicides; and cows grazing in woodlands and other marginal areas provide rich, pure milk, making these lands economically viable for the farmer. It is not animal cultivation that leads to hunger and famine, but unwise agricultural practices and monopolistic distribution systems. (8)
The “mixed farm” is also healthier for the soil, which will yield more crops if managed according to traditional guidelines. Mark Purdey has accurately pointed out that a crop field on a mixed farm will yield up to five harvests a year, while a “mono-cropped” one will only yield one or two (9). Which farm is producing more food for the world’s peoples? Purdey well sums up the ecological horrors of “battery farming” and points to future solutions by saying:
Our agricultural establishments could do very well to outlaw the business-besotted farmers running intensive livestock units, battery systems and beef-burger bureaucracies; with all their wastages, deplorable cruelty, anti-ozone slurry systems; drug/chemical induced immunotoxicity resulting in B.S.E. [see myth # 13] and salmonella, rain forest eradication, etc. Our future direction must strike the happy, healthy medium of mixed farms, resurrecting the old traditional extensive system as a basic framework, then bolstering up productivity to present day demands by incorporating a more updated application of biological science into farming systems. (10)
It does not appear, then, that livestock farming, when properly practiced, damages the environment. Nor does it appear that world vegetarianism or exclusively relying on agriculture to supply the world with food are feasible or ecologically wise ideas.
Enlightened2B wrote:I hope these postings I have made end the debate here once and for all.
Why are you so eager to see the debate ended?
Because there IS no debate other than the moral debates in your mind. Why do you want to continue debating something which only proves an act of the ego? I'm trying to debunk bad dietary advice because I'm very knowledgeable about it. Which diet is healthier? Simple. If you eat an extremely clean organic based vegan diet, that could be healthy, but NOT as healthy as compared to an extremely clean organic, pastured raised omnivorous diet with organic produce and healthy fats and fermented foods, there is not even a QUESTION which diet is healthier. That's not a knock against the vegan diet. It's just simple understanding that you are getting a WIDER range of nutrients and vitamins by eating animals products, animal fats, bone broths, and fermented foods than those who are NOT eating these foods by restricting their diets. Understand how your GI tract works and you'll have a very different outlook on food.
You've turned it into a moral debate, but I don't think you've really grasped Eckhart's message. By turning it into a moral debate (which food is not supposed to be), you've identified with a position of the mind by creating an ideological view on food. Food is supposed to be nourishing for the body. Not to mention that Eckhart eats meat and so does the Dalai Lama.
All vegans I know are well aware of the destruction of bacteria (and other small organisms) inside human bodies and on human bodies.
Good to know!
There have been done some studies in this field. Just look at Pain in animals
You've completely missed the point. What about zebras who suffer at the hands of lions? Should we tell lions to stop eating meat? Just because an organism does not suffer, does that mean killing it is ok?
A vegan lifestyle is not only about the suffering of animals but also about the environmental impact caused by the consumption of animal food. All the current livestock animals on Earth together are estimated to weigh 7 times as much as the total current weight of humanity. It's something to think about.
Once again Tum, read the link I attached to this post. What you're posting is incredibly wrong.