7 ms·

Or full time vegan and do more good for the planet. It's good to see people are finally acknowledging the great toll that animal ag takes on the planet. Yes, t

Or full time vegan and do more good for the planet. It's good to see people are finally acknowledging the great toll that animal ag takes on the planet. Yes, this guy used to be a big time meat eater, but he's changing his tune which should be taken as a good thing. Our propensity for vilifying people who turn the corner is baffling to me.

eth0up 10y ago
I have several friends who keep chickens. These chickens are never killed, but their eggs are consumed occasionally. These chickens roam freely during daylight, then are corralled into "cages" overnight to prevent wild animals from eating them. What benefit would come of eliminating these chickens? I am neither vegetarian or vegan, but admire both, despite perceiving veganism as the more ideological of the two. I struggle to imagine how the world would be spared demise by invading Tibet and prohibiting the use of yak butter; or banning the cultivation of fish and their superior waste as fertilizer; or exterminating the last remaining nomadic tribe of Africa through prohibiting their practice of non-fatally bleeding their animals for sustenance. If it's a matter of numbers, it is obvious that great benefit would result from the popularity of veganism; but there are also variations in quality and circumstance to consider, i.e. a diet of cellulose might benefit the world and all those not on a cellulose diet, but not necessarily those on the cellulose diet; i.e not all dietary classes are equal and a vast disparity of options may exist between individuals, groups, etc, therefore dietary practices may be circumstantial. The world is large, one person's needs vary from another's, and one group from another's. Might there there be positional benefits to all three diets? I ask this respectfully, as my unsure self, with no desire for debate, but rather a will for suitable answers. Some things I've admired recently: 1. https://impossiblefoods.com/faq/ https://impossiblefoods.com/faq/ 2. http://www.monksmeats.com/ http://www.monksmeats.com/
- epmaybe 10y ago
  I think that you're more right, to be honest. I'm a vegetarian myself, but in my current place of living veganism would be the most environmentally friendly. But if I lived elsewhere, maybe a different diet would be more beneficial.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- chc 10y ago
  This is basically a bunch of red herrings. Most people are not Tibetan yak farmers or the last of some African tribe. These things are not the common case, and if these approaches ever became the most common way we got those items, it would be effectively the same as everyone going vegan, because AFAIK that couldn't support even a noticeable fraction of our current egg and dairy intake.
- adamnemecek 10y ago
  This is a straw man. The issue is with scaling the luxury of meat. If we really want to we can produce meat cheaply (as we are doing now). However this is the reason we are in this situation. > I struggle to imagine how the world would be spared demise by invading Tibet and prohibiting the use of yak butter; or banning the cultivation of fish and their superior waste as fertilizer; or exterminating the last remaining nomadic tribe of Africa through prohibiting their practice of non-fatally bleeding their animals for sustenance. We can talk about invasions in a couple of years. For now, we can be content with reducing meat consumption in our respective home countries. Let's start with getting rid of meat subsidies. Then we can move on to dealing with industrial meat production. Etc etc. > i.e not all dietary classes are equal and a vast disparity of options may exist between individuals, groups, etc, therefore dietary practices may be circumstantial Like a third of India is at least vegetarian. Somehow they manage to get by.
  - marricks 10y ago
    I was writing a lengthy response but this is pretty spot on. What I'll add is I've encountered this dozens of times "what about native peoples?" and honestly, me and most vegans I know don't want to take away native practices. We're not doing outreach to native people either, it's the westernized people which do the most ecological damage, as well a damage to sentient life. Also, most vegans disagree with backyard chickens because they come from a breeder[1]. It's similar to why you should rescue a dog, not get a pure bred, people like doing things efficiently to maximize return which means not much regard for the chickens or dogs, god awful for the animals themselves. So, if your friends rescued them, treats them well, and doesn't kill them when their egg laying slows down, I don't think you'll find many vegans up in arms against them. I personally wouldn't eat the eggs of any chickens I rescued, because I don't need them and preventing them from laying eggs gives them a better life as "modern chickens" are bred to produce way too many eggs so are very prone to ovarian cancer. [1] http://freefromharm.org/farm-animal-welfare/backyard-chickens-expanding-understanding-harm/ http://freefromharm.org/farm-animal-welfare/backyard-chicken...
  - eth0up 10y ago
    "...a third of India is at least vegetarian. Somehow they manage to get by." Yes; as vegetarians - not vegans. Note the parent post I was replying to, which suggested veganism. Strawman, red herrings in olive oil, say what you will, but there are many people who aren't "natives" (reference to other comment by marricks) that might struggle to maintain a healthy vegan diet, especially if they aren't nextdoor to a Wholefoods. That is more my point - not to suggest that we should feast on steak 24/7 "because Natives!". You'll get no argument from me regarding the present state of the meat industry. Big Ag can be and too often is appalling. @marricks: Not one of the dozens of chickens on either friend's property (including the freely roaming ones no longer producing) have ever died of ovarian cancer. When I posed my questions, I was looking for answers - not irrelevant examples of extremes. The egg industry can be putrid. My friends' arrangement with chickens is certainly not. And I still struggle to see how they are scourging the Earth with their non vegan behavior, breeders or no breeders. Have we truly come to such extremes that owning a chicken and eating an egg is worse for the environment than the daily baubles of our throwaway, planned obsolescence society? Is our aim extreme, or practical? Is a vegan's Volvo better than my chicken, etc? When I do see, I'll accept it, but the question remains open. And again, I have much respect for veganism and vegetarianism. Sprats, scarecrows and fallacies aren't things I wish to use against either.
- wybiral 10y ago
  I'm not a vegan or vegetarian either and I've got chickens right now living exactly as you describe (as egg-laying pets, two of them going on 6 years old now). They also cut back on food waste since they'll eat most scraps and generate fertilizer for gardening. Though, dense city conditions would make that less accessible.
- ianjanicki 10y ago
  Another great company is Beyond Meat out of L.A. Over the past few months I've reduced my meat intake by 80-90% (I used to eat a lot of chicken) and their products helped me along the way. And unlike Impossible Foods, you can find this in stores today! http://beyondmeat.com/store-locator http://beyondmeat.com/store-locator
  - eth0up 10y ago
    Thanks for this link; I'll be exploring. But I do hope this concept (or similar) can flourish without soy.
- WorldMaker 10y ago
  As someone that went (slowly) vegan for primarily "green reasons", I've never begrudged others that eat meat (this has always been about my personal carbon footprint, even if it is a drop in the overall bucket) and I've always been willing to make exceptions as I see necessary. (I've never been the strictest vegan in the world.) Especially in situations where I knew exactly where the meat/dairy/eggs were sourced (ie, the farm of a friend of a friend; a "slow food" event; a trustworthy "farm to table" restaurant), I'd make exceptions to eat meat on occasion. I've know not every person feels the same way, but I've certainly seen it respectful to continue to realize as someone that went vegan for primarily green reasons that the problem is not meat, but how we grow/farm/manage/slaughter that meat. My goal has never been to demonize meat, simply to worry about the means to which our civilization is cultivating so much of it.
supernintendo 10y ago
I've been full time vegan for two years and converted over night. I also recognize that this method is not for everyone. The "try it out for a few days of the week" approach has worked for a lot of people I have talked to (sorry, no data on this). Taking incremental steps toward long-lasting diet and lifestyle changes is better than adopting drastic changes over night and giving up shortly after.
- socksy 10y ago
  The other issue I've seen is that people that jump quickly into veganism from climate change reasons alone, is that in those moments of "weakness" later on, they're much more likely to relapse, and go straight back into eating meat. When there's a more fundamental change on an ethics basis (i.e. you do a mental switch and stop looking at that stuff as food to be consumed at all), then the changes seem to be more long lasting. Then it stops being "I shouldn't do this" to "I can't do this".
woofyman 10y ago
>Our propensity for vilifying people who turn the corner is baffling to me. When it's hypocrisy. He lives in a 11,000 square foot house on 1.1 acres (14215 Sunset Blvd., Pacific Palisades). He owns or use to own a Gulfstream Jet. I don't want to be lectured to by wealthy people with huge carbon foot prints.
- clort 10y ago
  I understand what you are saying, but he has a huge voice though and if he can use it to make a small difference in many lives.. perhaps it will add up to something
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
legulere 10y ago
Having a few animals is actually good to better use resources. Cows on meadows that have too bad soil to be converted to fields, pigs that eat food waste, ...

eth0up 10y ago

I have several friends who keep chickens. These chickens are never killed, but their eggs are consumed occasionally. These chickens roam freely during daylight, then are corralled into "cages" overnight to prevent wild animals from eating them. What benefit would come of eliminating these chickens? I am neither vegetarian or vegan, but admire both, despite perceiving veganism as the more ideological of the two. I struggle to imagine how the world would be spared demise by invading Tibet and prohibiting the use of yak butter; or banning the cultivation of fish and their superior waste as fertilizer; or exterminating the last remaining nomadic tribe of Africa through prohibiting their practice of non-fatally bleeding their animals for sustenance. If it's a matter of numbers, it is obvious that great benefit would result from the popularity of veganism; but there are also variations in quality and circumstance to consider, i.e. a diet of cellulose might benefit the world and all those not on a cellulose diet, but not necessarily those on the cellulose diet; i.e not all dietary classes are equal and a vast disparity of options may exist between individuals, groups, etc, therefore dietary practices may be circumstantial. The world is large, one person's needs vary from another's, and one group from another's. Might there there be positional benefits to all three diets? I ask this respectfully, as my unsure self, with no desire for debate, but rather a will for suitable answers. Some things I've admired recently: 1. https://impossiblefoods.com/faq/ https://impossiblefoods.com/faq/ 2. http://www.monksmeats.com/ http://www.monksmeats.com/

epmaybe 10y ago
I think that you're more right, to be honest. I'm a vegetarian myself, but in my current place of living veganism would be the most environmentally friendly. But if I lived elsewhere, maybe a different diet would be more beneficial.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
chc 10y ago
This is basically a bunch of red herrings. Most people are not Tibetan yak farmers or the last of some African tribe. These things are not the common case, and if these approaches ever became the most common way we got those items, it would be effectively the same as everyone going vegan, because AFAIK that couldn't support even a noticeable fraction of our current egg and dairy intake.
adamnemecek 10y ago
This is a straw man. The issue is with scaling the luxury of meat. If we really want to we can produce meat cheaply (as we are doing now). However this is the reason we are in this situation. > I struggle to imagine how the world would be spared demise by invading Tibet and prohibiting the use of yak butter; or banning the cultivation of fish and their superior waste as fertilizer; or exterminating the last remaining nomadic tribe of Africa through prohibiting their practice of non-fatally bleeding their animals for sustenance. We can talk about invasions in a couple of years. For now, we can be content with reducing meat consumption in our respective home countries. Let's start with getting rid of meat subsidies. Then we can move on to dealing with industrial meat production. Etc etc. > i.e not all dietary classes are equal and a vast disparity of options may exist between individuals, groups, etc, therefore dietary practices may be circumstantial Like a third of India is at least vegetarian. Somehow they manage to get by.
- marricks 10y ago
  I was writing a lengthy response but this is pretty spot on. What I'll add is I've encountered this dozens of times "what about native peoples?" and honestly, me and most vegans I know don't want to take away native practices. We're not doing outreach to native people either, it's the westernized people which do the most ecological damage, as well a damage to sentient life. Also, most vegans disagree with backyard chickens because they come from a breeder[1]. It's similar to why you should rescue a dog, not get a pure bred, people like doing things efficiently to maximize return which means not much regard for the chickens or dogs, god awful for the animals themselves. So, if your friends rescued them, treats them well, and doesn't kill them when their egg laying slows down, I don't think you'll find many vegans up in arms against them. I personally wouldn't eat the eggs of any chickens I rescued, because I don't need them and preventing them from laying eggs gives them a better life as "modern chickens" are bred to produce way too many eggs so are very prone to ovarian cancer. [1] http://freefromharm.org/farm-animal-welfare/backyard-chickens-expanding-understanding-harm/ http://freefromharm.org/farm-animal-welfare/backyard-chicken...
- eth0up 10y ago
  "...a third of India is at least vegetarian. Somehow they manage to get by." Yes; as vegetarians - not vegans. Note the parent post I was replying to, which suggested veganism. Strawman, red herrings in olive oil, say what you will, but there are many people who aren't "natives" (reference to other comment by marricks) that might struggle to maintain a healthy vegan diet, especially if they aren't nextdoor to a Wholefoods. That is more my point - not to suggest that we should feast on steak 24/7 "because Natives!". You'll get no argument from me regarding the present state of the meat industry. Big Ag can be and too often is appalling. @marricks: Not one of the dozens of chickens on either friend's property (including the freely roaming ones no longer producing) have ever died of ovarian cancer. When I posed my questions, I was looking for answers - not irrelevant examples of extremes. The egg industry can be putrid. My friends' arrangement with chickens is certainly not. And I still struggle to see how they are scourging the Earth with their non vegan behavior, breeders or no breeders. Have we truly come to such extremes that owning a chicken and eating an egg is worse for the environment than the daily baubles of our throwaway, planned obsolescence society? Is our aim extreme, or practical? Is a vegan's Volvo better than my chicken, etc? When I do see, I'll accept it, but the question remains open. And again, I have much respect for veganism and vegetarianism. Sprats, scarecrows and fallacies aren't things I wish to use against either.
wybiral 10y ago
I'm not a vegan or vegetarian either and I've got chickens right now living exactly as you describe (as egg-laying pets, two of them going on 6 years old now). They also cut back on food waste since they'll eat most scraps and generate fertilizer for gardening. Though, dense city conditions would make that less accessible.
ianjanicki 10y ago
Another great company is Beyond Meat out of L.A. Over the past few months I've reduced my meat intake by 80-90% (I used to eat a lot of chicken) and their products helped me along the way. And unlike Impossible Foods, you can find this in stores today! http://beyondmeat.com/store-locator http://beyondmeat.com/store-locator
- eth0up 10y ago
  Thanks for this link; I'll be exploring. But I do hope this concept (or similar) can flourish without soy.
WorldMaker 10y ago
As someone that went (slowly) vegan for primarily "green reasons", I've never begrudged others that eat meat (this has always been about my personal carbon footprint, even if it is a drop in the overall bucket) and I've always been willing to make exceptions as I see necessary. (I've never been the strictest vegan in the world.) Especially in situations where I knew exactly where the meat/dairy/eggs were sourced (ie, the farm of a friend of a friend; a "slow food" event; a trustworthy "farm to table" restaurant), I'd make exceptions to eat meat on occasion. I've know not every person feels the same way, but I've certainly seen it respectful to continue to realize as someone that went vegan for primarily green reasons that the problem is not meat, but how we grow/farm/manage/slaughter that meat. My goal has never been to demonize meat, simply to worry about the means to which our civilization is cultivating so much of it.

supernintendo 10y ago

I've been full time vegan for two years and converted over night. I also recognize that this method is not for everyone. The "try it out for a few days of the week" approach has worked for a lot of people I have talked to (sorry, no data on this). Taking incremental steps toward long-lasting diet and lifestyle changes is better than adopting drastic changes over night and giving up shortly after.

socksy 10y ago
The other issue I've seen is that people that jump quickly into veganism from climate change reasons alone, is that in those moments of "weakness" later on, they're much more likely to relapse, and go straight back into eating meat. When there's a more fundamental change on an ethics basis (i.e. you do a mental switch and stop looking at that stuff as food to be consumed at all), then the changes seem to be more long lasting. Then it stops being "I shouldn't do this" to "I can't do this".

woofyman 10y ago

>Our propensity for vilifying people who turn the corner is baffling to me. When it's hypocrisy. He lives in a 11,000 square foot house on 1.1 acres (14215 Sunset Blvd., Pacific Palisades). He owns or use to own a Gulfstream Jet. I don't want to be lectured to by wealthy people with huge carbon foot prints.

clort 10y ago
I understand what you are saying, but he has a huge voice though and if he can use it to make a small difference in many lives.. perhaps it will add up to something
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

legulere 10y ago

Having a few animals is actually good to better use resources. Cows on meadows that have too bad soil to be converted to fields, pigs that eat food waste, ...