5 ms·

Ask HN: Why Aren't You Vegan?

• frnkng 5y ago
  What about meat obtained by hunting? In Germany there is a massive population of boars and >500.000 are shot every year to control the population. The meat is mostly of high quality. It would be wasteful to not eat that meat.
  • hilbert42 5y ago
    Presumably much of that meat is eaten by humans. Any that is not should not be wasted (it should used to feed pets and other animals). Every part of a pig is useful (skin, bristles, intestines, etc.). No part of the animal should be wasted.
• NicoJuicy 5y ago
  If nobody would eat meat, there wouldn't be an economic incentive to keep those animals alive. Veganism is a first world luxury problem.
  • nikivi 5y ago
    Why would you want to keep animals alive in conditions that most animals live in to meet global meat demand?
    • NicoJuicy 5y ago
      A lot of land is used for giving animals sufficient ground. Eg. For cows, they "earn" the land with meat/milk. Without that, the land would be reporposed ( not every country has available land in abundance) for other things. Eg. For growing crops
• kqr 5y ago
  Two reasons: - I eat fish and other animal-based non-meat products (eggs, milk) regularly for nutrition reasons. I tries going full vegan and ended up having trouble eating enough of everything. Probably a cultural thing -- I just never learned how to live like that. - I very occasionally eat other types of meat to make sure my digestive system doesn't forget how to deal with it. Also worth mentioning that I'm of the opinion that it's a roughly linear scale where the difference between 99 % vegan and 100 % vegan is small, and I'm okay being at 70 % the way there for the time being.
• Woadray 5y ago
  Because animals are food, that's literally the most natural thing ever. Nature is violent, period. Animal suffering, of course I'm against it, but killing an animal with respect and then eating it without waste is another thing.
  • kqr 5y ago
    How do you kill your animals with respect?
    • NicoJuicy 5y ago
      The current consensus is to not make them suffer or to stun them before slaughter.
      • kqr 5y ago
        That sounds like a much better choice of words. I was curious what it meant. Thanks.
    • hilbert42 5y ago
      "How do you kill your animals with respect?" It can and should certainly be done with respect, but industrialized process being what they are means that the absolute minimum is paid to doing so (as always, economics gets in the way). Thus we need stricter laws to force operators to comply (if left to their own devices they'd do nothing). As I pointed out in my earlier post, animals are sentient beings so I'd add here that it's not just a matter of dispatching an animal quickly, we also have to consider that they are very aware that other animals around them are dying (especially so if they can see the execution process happening). However, it's not nearly enough just to keep the process out of the site of waiting animals as they've a much keener sense of death in the air than we humans have. We therefore need to take this into consideration so as not to alarm or frighten them. It seems to me that we've still a lot more to do in this regard—as the welfare of the animals ought to be paramount but all too often it's not. (That's not a call to veganism, rather it's a demand that we be kind to all living creatures even if we have to eat them for food).
  • 5y ago
• yannis 5y ago
  I was born omnivorous. However, I accept the premise to minimize suffering of animals, including humans in all respects.
• jaworrom 5y ago
  Great question! Here are a few that come to mind: - Animal protein is superior to plant-based protein if you consider the natural amino acid profile. Plant-based protein simply lacks several amino acids and many sources aren't "complete" proteins. - Vitamin B12 is essential for the body and found almost exclusively animal proteins. A Vitamin B12 deficiency can be serious over time and lead to some nasty side effects. Of course, you can always supplement Vitamin B12 and eat fortified foods. My personal preference is to get as much vitamins and minerals from my diet. - Satiety. Animal proteins simply tend to be more satiating (at least for me). - Calorie content. It's really difficult to eat the calories needed on a vegan diet. A massive calorie deficit (especially long-term) can wreak havoc on your hormone profile and bring about a number of other health issues. - Animal overpopulation. If we don't hunt certain species of animals periodically, they'll overpopulate. Hunting keeps nature at a healthy balance of which the available habitat can support. The hunting license fees also support wildlife conservation so that we can protect wild animals and their natural habitats. frnkng mentioned wild boars... they serve as a great example of the threat to pose to farms, because they damage acres and acres of crops. With that said, my diet varies throughout the week. I'll have moderate amounts of meat for a few days and then I'll switch to plant-based proteins for a few days. I find that it's better on my digestive system.
  • dennis_jeeves 5y ago
    >Animal protein is superior to plant-based protein if you consider the natural amino acid profile. Plant-based protein simply lacks several amino acids and many sources aren't "complete" proteins. - Vitamin B12 is essential for the body and found almost exclusively animal proteins. This really is the wrong way to argue. So what was the situation before we developed tests to detect amino acids and Vitamin B12? Did vegans get to correctly argue that nutritionally plants were equivalent to animal foods? No. Well they still incorrectly argue based on what you said that all that one needs to do be successful vegan is to eat a variety, take some b12 and some protein power and the nutritional aspect is taken care off, They can also they can argue that plants contain useful compounds not found in animal foods, how do you you argue? My point being that must ultimately look at the health outcome of each food group experimentally.
• jka 5y ago
  Mostly vegetarian, mostly-non-meat, rarely fish-eater perspective: - Habit is part of it (cow's milk in hot drinks, for example) - Availability is a factor (almost all products now have vegan substitutes, which is great, but they may not be so widely-distributed) - Taste and presentation - while vegan meals can be as enjoyable as meat-based dishes, fewer chefs and restaurants seem to specialize in them currently (somewhat related to availability) - Hesitation regarding change - change is always difficult, for people, communities, events and industries. It'd be best to minimize avoidable suffering to both humans and animals. So far, protein/nutrition hasn't been a factor for me personally. If anything, I feel broadly healthier since reducing meat intake, although that effect could also be due to other lifestyle changes.
• emteycz 5y ago
  Because I love meat. I don't buy from big brands. The pigs and cows I have eaten lived a good life.
  • dotsam 5y ago
    I also love the taste of meat. Do you eat dairy and eggs (and products that contain them), and do you care about whether the animals involved had a good life? My concern is that something as innocuous as, say, a croissant, may contain ingredients that were produced using processes that promote animal suffering, but that I don't think about it because I am so far removed from it.
    • emteycz 5y ago
      I source eggs, milk etc from small farms. But where I live I wouldn't be able to buy anything if I went all the way to exclude final products like that, however I do exclude many vendors and don't buy much processed food.
• yuppie_scum 5y ago
  Meat tastes awesome.
• dennis_jeeves 5y ago
  Health, plain and simple. In fact I almost eat no plant foods.
• jschveibinz 5y ago
  Unfortunately this is a polarizing question. Perhaps readers might consider answering some less polarizing questions that help the author to get more relevant data: 1. Do you see eating vegetables as important for your diet? 2. Do you feel it’s important to care for animals? How would you best care for animals raised for food? 3. Would you consider eating less meat products if it benefitted society to do so? 4. Would you consider eating more vegetables if it benefitted society to do so? 5. Do you fear that vegetable protein alone is insufficient nutritionally? 6. If it were healthier to eat a diet of primarily vegetables and whole grains with less animal products, would you consider trying such a diet? And so on... My opinion: Animal products are deeply intertwined with human culture. The path to less animal suffering and more vegetable consumption is most likely one of reduction in meat eating as opposed to elimination. Factory farms and slaughterhouses exist because of demand. If we all just worked toward less meat consumption—all 10 billion of us-we could probably make life better for humans and for all animals-not just those raised for food. It’s worth a try.
  • NicoJuicy 5y ago
    I think the question was polarizing on purpose with "if you accept the premise that we should try to minimise the avoidable suffering of animals." That's why I started with opposite premise: "if everyone would be vegan, why keep those animals alive", to get the conversation going.
• hilbert42 5y ago
  This post follows on from my reply to Woadray. As mentioned therein, this post is my response to that other major strand of veganism—that of environmental veganism. I have no doubt that we have a serious problem with the environment and that it's getting considerably worse as the world's population increases. Also, I've no doubt that those who engage in environmental veganism do so mostly for the best of reasons. However, I would contend that given the fact that vegans only represent a tiny percentage of the world's population, and that the world's population is exploding exponentially, that their net effect on the environment is negligible and likely to remain that way into the near future. To put it bluntly, they may as well be pissing in the wind for all that it matters. Sure that comment seems unkind but let's look at the figures and then judge: Current world pop: ≈7,800 million. [1] No. of vegans sans India: ≈195 million, ≈2.5% of world pop. (max) [2] No. of vegans in India: ≈375 million, ≈4.8% of world pop.[3] ∴ No. of vegans incl. India: ≈570 million, ≈7.3% of world pop. [3] Est. world pop in 2100: Between 7,300 & 15,600 million [4] Assuming the number of vegans continues to grow at its present rate then it will do so mostly outside of India's existing vegan population. Whilst India has the highest number of vegans worldwide (375 million), we need to remember that this number is longstanding in that it's emergent from a cultural belief of a subset of India's population. As such, the growth in the number of vegans in this section of India's population will be identical to the growth in that population (as they're one and the same). (Thus, the world's largest block group of vegans will not follow the substantially higher growth rate as experienced by those outside its ranks as it's not subject to the modern popularity of veganism that's driving veganism elsewhere (exactly what the average annual growth rate in vegans is worldwide is still unclear). Thus, estimates of veganism growth rates must be based on the remaining 2.5% figure (as they're substantially higher in that group). Given that the vegan population outside the Indian group is effectively very small at only 2.5%, then it's clear that if veganism is to contribute in any significant way towards improving the world's ecosystem in the critically short time available left to us, then it will have to increase its growth rate very dramatically to achieve that impact (and on current figures this seems doubtful). The enormous elephant in the room is population growth and it's not something that people other than demographers are taking with sufficient seriousness. Moreover, population growth is a factor that environmentalists have continually played down for decades, as they well know that proselytizing that people shouldn't have any children would severely undermine their mission. They, therefore, push every other factor that has a negative environmental impact on the planet for all it's worth. There's nothing wrong with this but given the figures it's unlikely to be enough to achieve what's necessary (as we need the population to fall rapidly). Moreover, to my mind, sweeping the elephant under the carpet is utter hypocrisy and sheer foolishness (remember, the upper estimate of the world's population by 2100 is 15.6 billion, if that figure were to be achieved then it would be a catastrophe). As we've seen from the failure of China's one-child policy, no one wants to be told that they cannot have more than one child, and no government in the world would be game to impose a population growth limit of less than one child per person (even though some counties, albeit too few, are headed that way). In fact, many governments are concerned that their populations are declining for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the environment (and the fact that they think this way is a real problem). Of course, no one seriously criticizes them for wanting increased population numbers for the very reasons I've already stated. Let's address this a little further. In my lifetime, the world's population has grown at least 250%—and I've noticed it and I don't like what I see for a multitude of infrastructural reasons. Moreover, at present, it's growing by nearly a billion people per decade and even though it's expected to stabilize eventually, it will not do so for some considerable time. Now let's address what that actually means in practical terms: every child that is brought into the world will consume resources. For starters, during that individual's life he/she will consume about 100 tons of food (some estimates say 70). Can you envisage what 100 tons of food actually looks like? Now multiply that figure by eight, nine or ten billion. Then there's all the other goods and accoutrements one gathers throughout one's life—clothing, cars, houses, furniture, smartphones and computers (and these electronic devices use a number of valuable elements such as cobalt, tantalum, indium and others that are currently in very short supply). Then there's even more children that that child will bring into the world. Moreover, for vegans, your child may be wayward and decide not to follow your veganism. (It doesn't look good for the environment, does it?) Simply, if we decrease the population then we lower the demand on every other type of resource proportionally (and that means proportionally less carbon dioxide is produced). In quantitative terms, reducing the population remains by far the best option to achieve a sustainable world—but one has to concede that it's also the most difficult to achieve. Right, vegans will not consume quite as much of the world's resources per capita but each individual vegan will still consume a huge amount of resources including all those goods that everyone else will acquire. Then there's all that extra vegetable matter that they'll need to supplement and offset the fact that they are not consuming meat. Moreover, this extra bulk vegetable matter will require additional land to grow on—and that land area will need to be incremented even further given the fact that vegan food contains significantly less energy than does meat. Leafy vegetables have very few calories, carbohydrates, bread etc.: ≈5 calories/gram (≈21kJ/g); animal protein: 7 calories/g (29.4kJ/g); animal fat: 9 calories/g (37.8kJ/g). In the end, given that vegans will also own homes, smartphones and lots of other junk as well as food-eating children, the net benefit of their efforts are unlikely to be anywhere near as effective as they would hope—or that they would have the rest of us believe. They will however assuage themselves of some degree of guilt and, no doubt, this will add a few happiness utiles to the world. Vegans may be very sincere but the figures show that they're not going to make a huge difference in the little time we've left to rectify matters. No matter what, the world has a huge problem left to solve in a very short time. It still remains very unclear how that will pan out (with population estimates varying wildly between 7,300 and 15,600 million by 2100, then the only thing that is clear is that we still have no definitive plan about how to tackle the problem let alone be way down the path towards fixing it. [1] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-populat...) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country) [3] Note: India's huge number of vegans is based on centuries-old custom, and thus this number is lower and more constant when it comes to measuring the potential growth of veganism. Check the other links for specific details. [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population