5 ms·

How is a layman supposed to differentiate between the author of this article and the authors of the studies done? I take it for granted that both sides consist

How is a layman supposed to differentiate between the author of this article and the authors of the studies done? I take it for granted that both sides consist of experts in the field, and yet the positions taken are radically different from one another. I would assume a priori that the vegan side would be more widely supported amongst the experts (to say nothing of its merit), only on the basis of veganism being more congruent with the standard compassion of postmodernism.

tracker1 8y ago
Vegan/Vegetarianism is the driving differentiation in terms of opinion. Common sense sides more with the omnivore pov imho, but I don't hold it against individuals for choosing a vegetarian/vegan path.
- porpoisely 8y ago
  You should hold it against them because veganism ( and to a lesser degree vegetarianism ) is morally wrong as it the most environmentally destructive and the most unnatural healthy diet. Veganism is the worst diet you can choose for your health, the health of the environment and causes the harm to animals ( mostly small mammals, insects and worms ). You can see the absurdity of veganism as they proudly support locally sourced organic food but their diet makes "locally sourced organic food" an impossibility. A vegan anywhere on earth will die without importing avocados, all kinds of seeds, vegetation, etc from all over the world and still be lacking nutrients and have to resort to lab processed supplements. Real "natural" and "organic". And omnivore ( a diet of every human society ) can have diet from locally sources. You can have a homestead almost anywhere and as an omnivore survive just from your own homestead. A vegan homestead can't exist anywhere because you can't grow all the necessary vegetation and supplements to survive. Veganism is one of these great lies that seem "good" on surface but dig a little deeper and people will see what an absurd notion it is.
  - littlecosmic 8y ago
    1) Since we already grow enough plants to feed the entire human population, we will only reduce animal suffering and land use by eating a vegan diet. It’s just that at the moment we feed grain to animals that we then slaughter instead of growing it to eat ourselves. An overview: https://youtu.be/Hvdgz536ZLE https://youtu.be/Hvdgz536ZLE 2) A vegan diet is very healthy. An overview: https://youtu.be/iBs7TcBqeIc https://youtu.be/iBs7TcBqeIc Both these videos have references in their notes.
    - Mirioron 8y ago
      >1) Since we already grow enough plants to feed the entire human population, we will only reduce animal suffering and land use by eating a vegan diet. It’s just that at the moment we feed grain to animals that we then slaughter instead of growing it to eat ourselves But do we grow enough plants to eat a vegan diet? A vegan diet requires a rather narrow set of plants in much higher quantities than we normally consume, eg beans, soy etc. You can't just look at the calories we get from corn or grain and say that we have enough. >2) A vegan diet is very healthy. As long as you supplement B12, maybe.
      - maxerickson 8y ago
        Feed conversion for beef is around 6:1, so you have 6 pounds of plants for every pound of beef. Lots of those plants are grass and other stuff humans don't really want to feed on though. Still, the large number of calories cattle need to make gains leave some room to adjust the crop mix.
        tracker1 8y ago
        Of course grazing animal migration patterns and grassland effects (desertification/deforestation) not withstanding. I would love to see an increase in variety and number of grassland mammals in general in order to preserve/expand grasslands.
      - littlecosmic 8y ago
        Corn, wheat, rye, oats, beans and soy are staple foods for humans and are what is often fed to the animals we intensively farm. For the non human-edible crops like alfalfa, canola, etc there is some wriggle room to change to other crops. My main point is that it is a realistic change not an environmental and moral disaster as it was framed. As far as supplementing B12, I say better safe than sorry, but even that is not straight forward when you look into it.
DVassallo 8y ago
The best way I found to acquire information is to see what passed the test of time. For example, if humans have been eating red meat for 200,000 years, it's very unlikely it is net harmful. It's still possible, but the burden of proof is on who thinks it's harmful. (And it better be very strong evidence.) Mother nature has a very good filter for harmful things.
- DenisM 8y ago
  Humans didn't wash hands for 200,000 years and suffered from horrible diseases. Test of time is hardly conclusive.
  - DVassallo 8y ago
    Not doing something can't be tested against the test of time. Hygiene and antibiotics obviously improved our lives. So did cooking food and building civilizations. But if red meat was eaten for 200K years, we've very likely adapted ourselves to benefit from it... not only not get harmed by it. (Obviously in the right quantities.)
    - bluejekyll 8y ago
      Interestingly, the overuse of antibiotics has the likelyhood of causing them to create superbugs that make the antibiotics completely useless. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_misuse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_misuse Also, while cleanliness is absolutely important, over cleanliness appears to be a potential cause of asthma and allergies in general. https://www.webmd.com/allergies/news/20140606/too-clean-homes-may-encourage-child-allergies-asthma-study https://www.webmd.com/allergies/news/20140606/too-clean-home...
- rwmj 8y ago
  People only lived into their 50s (assuming they survived infancy). (Figures from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Variation_over_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Variation_over... )

tracker1 8y ago

Vegan/Vegetarianism is the driving differentiation in terms of opinion. Common sense sides more with the omnivore pov imho, but I don't hold it against individuals for choosing a vegetarian/vegan path.

porpoisely 8y ago
You should hold it against them because veganism ( and to a lesser degree vegetarianism ) is morally wrong as it the most environmentally destructive and the most unnatural healthy diet. Veganism is the worst diet you can choose for your health, the health of the environment and causes the harm to animals ( mostly small mammals, insects and worms ). You can see the absurdity of veganism as they proudly support locally sourced organic food but their diet makes "locally sourced organic food" an impossibility. A vegan anywhere on earth will die without importing avocados, all kinds of seeds, vegetation, etc from all over the world and still be lacking nutrients and have to resort to lab processed supplements. Real "natural" and "organic". And omnivore ( a diet of every human society ) can have diet from locally sources. You can have a homestead almost anywhere and as an omnivore survive just from your own homestead. A vegan homestead can't exist anywhere because you can't grow all the necessary vegetation and supplements to survive. Veganism is one of these great lies that seem "good" on surface but dig a little deeper and people will see what an absurd notion it is.
- littlecosmic 8y ago
  1) Since we already grow enough plants to feed the entire human population, we will only reduce animal suffering and land use by eating a vegan diet. It’s just that at the moment we feed grain to animals that we then slaughter instead of growing it to eat ourselves. An overview: https://youtu.be/Hvdgz536ZLE https://youtu.be/Hvdgz536ZLE 2) A vegan diet is very healthy. An overview: https://youtu.be/iBs7TcBqeIc https://youtu.be/iBs7TcBqeIc Both these videos have references in their notes.
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    >1) Since we already grow enough plants to feed the entire human population, we will only reduce animal suffering and land use by eating a vegan diet. It’s just that at the moment we feed grain to animals that we then slaughter instead of growing it to eat ourselves But do we grow enough plants to eat a vegan diet? A vegan diet requires a rather narrow set of plants in much higher quantities than we normally consume, eg beans, soy etc. You can't just look at the calories we get from corn or grain and say that we have enough. >2) A vegan diet is very healthy. As long as you supplement B12, maybe.
    - maxerickson 8y ago
      Feed conversion for beef is around 6:1, so you have 6 pounds of plants for every pound of beef. Lots of those plants are grass and other stuff humans don't really want to feed on though. Still, the large number of calories cattle need to make gains leave some room to adjust the crop mix.
      - tracker1 8y ago
        Of course grazing animal migration patterns and grassland effects (desertification/deforestation) not withstanding. I would love to see an increase in variety and number of grassland mammals in general in order to preserve/expand grasslands.
    - littlecosmic 8y ago
      Corn, wheat, rye, oats, beans and soy are staple foods for humans and are what is often fed to the animals we intensively farm. For the non human-edible crops like alfalfa, canola, etc there is some wriggle room to change to other crops. My main point is that it is a realistic change not an environmental and moral disaster as it was framed. As far as supplementing B12, I say better safe than sorry, but even that is not straight forward when you look into it.

DVassallo 8y ago

The best way I found to acquire information is to see what passed the test of time. For example, if humans have been eating red meat for 200,000 years, it's very unlikely it is net harmful. It's still possible, but the burden of proof is on who thinks it's harmful. (And it better be very strong evidence.) Mother nature has a very good filter for harmful things.

DenisM 8y ago
Humans didn't wash hands for 200,000 years and suffered from horrible diseases. Test of time is hardly conclusive.
- DVassallo 8y ago
  Not doing something can't be tested against the test of time. Hygiene and antibiotics obviously improved our lives. So did cooking food and building civilizations. But if red meat was eaten for 200K years, we've very likely adapted ourselves to benefit from it... not only not get harmed by it. (Obviously in the right quantities.)
  - bluejekyll 8y ago
    Interestingly, the overuse of antibiotics has the likelyhood of causing them to create superbugs that make the antibiotics completely useless. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_misuse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_misuse Also, while cleanliness is absolutely important, over cleanliness appears to be a potential cause of asthma and allergies in general. https://www.webmd.com/allergies/news/20140606/too-clean-homes-may-encourage-child-allergies-asthma-study https://www.webmd.com/allergies/news/20140606/too-clean-home...
rwmj 8y ago
People only lived into their 50s (assuming they survived infancy). (Figures from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Variation_over_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Variation_over... )