this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
568 points (94.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43963 readers
1290 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Everyone should be vegan. It's great for your health, for the environment, and more importantly, it would save more than a trillion (yes, with a T) lives every year.
In a hundred years we'll look back and be ashamed of what we did to animals.
I accept that a vegan diet can be healthy for many people, however, it may not work for everyone due to individual variations in nutrient absorption and metabolism.
In a hundred years, I think our species will be ashamed of a great many things.
What nutrient absorption and metabolism differences can meat help that other vegetable sources can't? I'm not even vegan and that sounds completely made up
Technically, veganism requires only what is possible and practicable. If you genuinely needed to eat a hundred grams of chicken each week for unavoidable health reasons, you'd still be vegan, if you abstained from any other animal consumption.
It also doesn't have to work for everyone, just for most people. If you 20% of people were vegan, we'd end up with a snowball effect that made the world a better place.
The mental gymnastics here are fascinating. It's as if you thought "Veganism has good effects. Therefore, Veganism is good. Therefore, not-Veganism is bad. But people will be offended if we tell them that their well-intentioned-but-restricted choices are bad. So we should expand the definition of Veganism so that anything which is good, is Veganism."
Congratulations! You made it a religion!
Or maybe you're just misunderstanding what veganism is abiut in the first place.
Some people (mostly non-vegans) seem to believe it's about blindly and thoughtlessly abstaining from animals products. That's how veganism might look like from the outside but it's not actually what it's about at it's core. That would be to avoid all unnecessary suffering. Vegans are for example aware that the farming of plants does indeed cause animal deaths. But we can't avoid those without starving. So it's not unnecessary. And still vegan.
Within the same logic if someone, for whatever reason, would need meat to survive he could consume it still within the same ethical framework. And theoretically that could be vegan. The thing is: For 99.9% of people it's BS that they need meat. So obviously in the vast majority of cases it wouldn't be vegan, just a hypocrite lying to themselves.
The Vegan Society says that "In dietary terms (Veganism) denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
Vegan.com says "The word vegan was originally defined as a diet free of meat, dairy products, and eggs. The term now also refers to any item, from shoes to shampoo, made without animal products."
Both pages, and the Wikipedia article, do mention the ethical considerations, but all make it clear that that is distinct from dietary Veganism.
It's all very well to say that there is a deeper philosophy and decision-making framework driving one's choices than simply "meat bad" - and that's a noble motivation! - but you appear to be in the minority in your claim that a vegan diet can still include animal products. Maybe vegan-inspired, maybe "ethically aligned with Veganism", but not "a vegan diet".
EDIT: to be clear - from everything I can tell, Veganism is a sensible, moral, responsible, ethical, frugal choice; most people could derive great benefits both to their health and their wallet from drastically reducing or entirely cutting out meat and animal products, as well as benefitting the world in general. It's a noble choice, it's one I fully support, and I've seriously cut down my own meat intake over the last couple years and have great admiration for people who cut it out entirely. I'm not arguing with you because I love meat or hate Veganism - I'm arguing with you because, by being a dipshit about definitions, you are undermining a worthwhile cause and making it look ridiculous to people sitting on the fence.
Did you seriously look at the FAQ of the vegan society, picked something that confirmed your preestablished opinion, and ignored the sentence right before it?
Here, let me show the whole quote:
You just have a very superficial view of veganism. Just ask yourself this: Why abstain from animals products? What is the intention of a vegan lifestyle? You've claimed that a nuanced application would have "made a religion", but the opposite is true. It would be a religion if we'd blindly apply a rule of conduct without any considerations. Which we don't, as you will see all over the vegan society's website. Just check what they write about animal products in medication. They are absolutely clear how a vegan lifestyle should work: "As far as is possible and practicable." An important principle that practically every single vegan out there knows and lives by.
Veganism is a religion. Just like CrossFit, the NRA, and Amway.
Yeah, I know someone who tried to go vegan (or vegetarian? I forget which but I lean more towards the former), but had to stop because of health issues.
Based on the ratio, we have a genuinely unpopular opinion here. Well done.
Its actually not good for your health... Also we count lifes as in human lifes.
source
https://www.sciencealert.com/veganism-is-increasing-malnutrition-in-wealthy-countries
Im not saying we should eat meat all day everyday, we should definitely reduced it or stop that, but not eating any animal products does cause malnutrition (as by above source) and supplementing our everyday life with pills isn't exactly a great way to live.
Im ok with vegetarianism, im more or less myself, but vegan is something that isn't suitable for humans naturally.
Yeah, switching your diet to anything has that risk, obviously. You need to understand what you eat.
And your daily life is already supplemented with pills, the only difference is they're given to the animals you eat. Cattle is given B12 because they don't graze and don't have access to enough cobalt.
Yeah, a study found most vegans quit for health reasons like bloating from too much fiber.
I'm not sure we can handle that type of population increase. It those numbers are right meat is probably keeping the population density under control.
"save" is a bit of misnomer. The animals are forcibly bred into a life of pure suffering. That is what they are being saved from. The less demand for animal torture, the less the industry needs to breed.
Living near a rural area in Australia, my unpopular opinion is the cows bread for meat in the whole area are living beautiful lives. Roaming in lovely paddocks, with good food, care and medical taken care of. They're happy, healthy and live an enviable life. Not sure what it's like where you're from, but generally here farmers really look after the animals.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, considering you're on lemmy.ml, and assume you understand how capitalism works. You also know how the exploitation of the planet, the minoritized, and the worker class works.
Why in the world would things somehow magically be different when it comes to animals? They are resources with very little rights. Any and all suffering that increases profit is MANDATORY under capitalism. It's a huge billion dollar industry, why in the world would they suddenly be any nicer than every other industry?
More importantly, they exploit actual humans, with acutal rights, that can actually talk, every single day. It's insanity to believe they wouldn't treat animals, who can't speak and have less rights, well.
To your example: My grandparents are land lords. They're really nice. By your logic, every landlord is therefore nice and I shouldn't ever question their existence.
haha, looks like I had an actual unpopular opinion. Here's a little story to help set what it's like here in Australia, one of the world's large beef producers.
I was driving through an area that had recent flooding, trying to see if I could cut about 800KM off my trip, by cutting through a regional / rural area.
I came to a road, which I wanted to take, that was cut off from the floods. There was a farmer there. I stopped to ask him if there was any way I could proceed.
There was not. He was upset and on edge. I asked if he was ok. He nearly cried. He told me his cows were trapped in an area which was flooded, and they might be dead if the high ground went under. He then did cry and was geniunely distraught for the wellbeing of those animals. There was just nothing to be done. Thousands of acres of land underwater, no way out and his pain for the cows was real.
Farmers are not these crazed psychopaths that you make out. Maybe in some parts of the world? Maybe? People usually like their jobs though, do them with pride and want to do the best they can. Particularly when animals are involved.
This is not one farmer, like your analogy with a landlord. This is a nationwide industry, that is full of good people, providing a great environment for these animals, as a whole. Sure, there will always be a shonky operator, as there are in all walks of life. But, by and large, you are incorrect, and wildly so. At least in Australia.
https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch
Explain what you'll do with the millions of people whose livelihoods depend on the meat/dairy industry.
No one is suggesting that the transition would happen overnight... It would be just like any other job that became obsolete in the past, it would gradually phase out.
Being vegan neither means no life will die nor the environment will be spared. On the contrary.
All life on the fields including small mammals, animals like hares, mice and such and all insects in a normal multi culture will be killed and replaced by monocultures that are not good for the soil and do not exist naturally. You canβt call yourself vegan while pretending to save lifes. Youβre just trying to spare lives that you care about. Probably cows and pigs. No animals lives forever. We need to make sure these animals live a good life before they are consumed.
Weβre not meant to eat plants. No doctor will tell you you can live well on a vegan diet without any supplements.
Guess, what? We have those monocultures today. That's how we feed cattle. But if everything went vegan we would be able to cut that land usage down to 75%.
Veganism is about killing as little as possible, it's not about being 100% perfect. We would need those farms to feed people, and of course animals would die in the process. But it's a smaller harm.
Says who? Here's a quote for you (source):
You're right, we would need supplements, like B12. Today those supplements are given to cattle, because they can't get it when they don't graze. That's were you get your B12: from supplements given to animals. Maybe we could skip the middleman?
Dude, you canβt eat grass and expect to get B12.
No, but you can just take B12 supplements, the same ones that are given to cattle.
What do you think the animals you eat eat themselves? I'm an omnivore but this is a really bad argument.
Lmfao we aren't meant to eat plants. Holy shit my dude this is the worst take on this thread. Congrats you win.
Exclusively. Be my guest and just gorge yourself on plants only. Donβt run to a doctor if you get any issues.
I mean I hate to break it to you bud but like vegans exist. And have for a long time. Wait till you find out that large amounts of Indians have been vegetarian for generations
Vegetarian, not vegan. Essential difference. True Indians, thatβs native Americans, were dieting mainly on meat in their prime by the way. Until the white men came and took all they had away from them, including their land and bisons.
True Indians? I'm talking about people from India dumbass.
Veg rage π€£. I assume you're Indian. Please do yourself and a world a favor and get familiar with history, nutrition, common sense and a bit of etiquette.
Says the guy who forgot that Indians exist and have been existing as vegetarians for an extremely long time Just admit you're a fucking dumbass who doesn't know what the hell you are talking about.
Iβm not fighting Pakis over the internet.
Wow fucking racism to boot. Jesus fuck. I'm also a white American you fucking racist shit.
A white American who doesnβt know how to read apparently. Typical π€£. Hey, we all have our weaknesses. Some more than others.
And how didn't I know how to read you fucking racist? You're the one too stupid to know how to write. Fuck off racist.
If you did you wouldnβt write this embarrassing hate speech. First move out of your momβs basement. Then go to evening school or how do you call it in Murica. Maybe learn a language or two. And learn the difference between vegan and vegetarian. Well, I wonβt argue with dummies. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
What fucking hate speech? You're the one being racist against people from Pakistan and India. Holy fuck you are delusional.