Post by: WildJager on May 05, 2017, 04:41:09 PM
As a caveat, I'm a bit of a foodie. I don't eat out a lot, but instead find enjoyment on researching food and the best techniques to make amazing meals. Obviously, that leads to a deeper understanding of what it is I'm actually ingesting in order to use the ingredients to their best potential.
I was recently up in Boston for the marathon, and as those events usually do they had plenty of advertisers at the convention. One such advertiser was for a non meat chicken substitute. I tried a sample of their "chicken" salad, and found it quite enjoyable. Curious, I started grilling them a bit on what it was actually made of. I could sense their hesitation to respond thoroughly, but eventually they broke down and told me the details in front of the small crowd. The "meat" is made of mycoprotein, basically a fungus that they formed into a patty substitute. I was impressed on how similar to chicken it actually tasted (to be fair it tasted like bland chicken made from a crossfit recipe book or something, so nothing to write home about, but still).
Anyway, there was a man standing there listening in awe, with a somewhat disgusted look on his face. He was flabbergasted by the whole situation. As he watched me eat the sample, he simply exclaimed, "I hope you enjoy eating your fungus!" and stormed off.
Oh, how I wish I wasn't slightly hung over from the night before and had my wits about me (it was vacation and all, I wasn't the one running the marathon). 10 seconds too late, I wanted to quarry him on if he'd recently enjoyed a mushroom. Considering how ubiquitous good old shrooms are, I would have loved to throw it in his smug face replying to his affirmative, "About as much as you enjoyed your last fungus experience."
Alas, I stood speechless as he walked away. It wasn't the fact that he didn't want to be enlightened to meat alternatives; that's all fine and dandy, it was the fact that he insulted the workers at the presentation while they were trying to do a thing. His ignorance and others' before is why the workers were hesitant to divulge the recipe. Newsflash: Fungus is a great umami alternative to meat.
That got me thinking to many of my past experiences with people either being overly privileged and wasteful with food (I can rarely convince people to eat the well prepared gizzards finely diced in a gravy around Thanksgiving), or just straight up ignorant about what they're eating (people have refused fried pork belly, but turned around and ate bacon).
This thread is intended to be a culinary adventure of food and destroying some of our preconceived notions about it. What experiences have you had? What truth bombs do you want to share with other mustachians that might open a new world of nuanced cooking potential?
Some examples:
Never buy herbs in plastic again. Buy herb plants in a potter if you don't have a garden. They cost about the same. Keep it watered and sunned, and snip off what you need for your current meal. For the same $5, you'll have herbs throughout the spring and summer for "free."
Expiration dates on products and recipes are nonsense. Follow your nose, it's a honed tool over many years of survival based evolution. If it's a dish that can be heated to a boil, don't even worry about it being a few days old, just nuke the shit out of it. Any dead bacteria adds flavor (I kid...but seriously, it's fine).
I had an old friend tell me that he didn't eat mushrooms because he doesn't eat stuff that grows on poop. I contemplated telling him that decaying organic material isn't necessarily poop, but decided to leave the intricacies out of it. I didn't have the heart to tell him that most herbs and vegetables, though, are actually grown in poop.
Some of the most cost effective meat is the stuff that is taboo in first world countries. There's a reason why sausage and hot dogs are made with organs and left over cuts... they're delicious. Throw in some spices, mince it up, cook it until it's tender and you're good to go.
Chorizo has more weird shit in it than hot dogs. I've more than once met someone who refused to eat hot dogs because it has "gross parts", but chowed down on some authentic chorizo and eggs for breakfast.
Horse meat is actually pretty tasty. Try a brat next time you're in Germany.
Insects are a great source of protein. I've had maggots, worms, and grasshoppers raw, though like most cook worthy food I wouldn't recommend it in that fashion. However, using them in a similar technique as sausage they could definitely be a viable food source for the world.
Welp, to avoid going even further down the rabbit hole I'll leave it at that last one. What (less cringe inducing) advice or stories do you have about the realities of food, and where we should be looking for it in the future?
Edit: Spelling
Post by: ND on May 05, 2017, 06:34:32 PM
Hairy tarantulas, though; ugh, no. I wouldn't touch that with a 10 ft pole.
Post by: WildJager on May 05, 2017, 06:53:42 PM
I'd like to try some insects, snakes, worms, and maybe (mayyyybe *squinty eye*) some arachnids. I definitely think I could stomach crickets, as long as they've got some good spices.
Hairy tarantulas, though; ugh, no. I wouldn't touch that with a 10 ft pole.
I hear ya. Though cooking is a thing for a reason. Making unpleasant stuff pleasant.
With that said I have had plank cooked snake. It was awesome. I was hungry... so my opinion might be a bit biased.
Post by: maricela on May 05, 2017, 08:56:26 PM
As for bugs, tried cricket and nope. Texture. Nothing like crispy legs floating around getting stuck under your tongue to ruin a dish.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Squidrow Wilson on May 05, 2017, 10:45:21 PM
As a meat eater I think hunting is probably the most moral choice I can make, even if it is quite a difficult one. When talking to other meat eaters I always advocate that they consider hunting if they have never been. Nothing will make someone reconsider their moral stance on meat consumption faster than having to face a living, breathing animal and being tasked with ending its life. If the act of killing isn't enough, dressing, hauling, and processing your game will certainly bring a new level of respect for meat. No bit of meat is to be wasted once you've humbly seen the full process. In comparison the boneless chicken breasts neatly wrapped in cellophane seem to ring hollow.
Furthermore, hunted game is often downright delicious if prepared correctly. Some of my absolute favorite meals use wild game (like this venison tenderloin with blueberry sauce: http://honest-food.net/venison-recipe-blueberry-sauce/ ). I think people often mistakenly treat venison as if it is just a substitute for beef or pork and their recipes reflect that. Venison definitely needs to utilize recipes that are tailored for its unique flavor profile. Also, as mentioned above the flavor of the meat can vary widely depending on the animal's diet, age, and dying conditions.
Anyways, I'm glad you started such an interesting topic. I'm obviously a big advocate for hunting and fishing but I'm equally curious about foraging and gardening. I think I'll get my first shot at a real garden next summer but I'm unsure how to get into foraging. Does anybody have any experience in that regard? I'm assuming it would be best to find someone who knows the local flora and learn from them. Lastly, Hank Shaw's blog Hunter Angler Gardener Cook (link below) is a wonderful window into the world of "weird" foods.
http://honest-food.net/
Post by: cloudsail on May 06, 2017, 12:43:59 AM
I had co-workers who wouldn't eat duck (or goose, etc). Another co-worker and I couldn't figure out why they felt it was any different from eating chicken.
I've had donkey meat before and it was really good, like beef but more tender. As an Asian I also enjoy the various non-conventional cuts of a pig, like the hocks and the ears. I really miss pork head meat. I've heard that they just throw the head away here and it seems like such a waste.
Post by: cloudsail on May 06, 2017, 12:56:31 AM
I'd like to try some insects, snakes, worms, and maybe (mayyyybe *squinty eye*) some arachnids. I definitely think I could stomach crickets, as long as they've got some good spices.
Hairy tarantulas, though; ugh, no. I wouldn't touch that with a 10 ft pole.
I hear ya. Though cooking is a thing for a reason. Making unpleasant stuff pleasant.
With that said I have had plank cooked snake. It was awesome. I was hungry... so my opinion might be a bit biased.
I had snake before too and didn't really like it.
However, before dinner outside the restaurant, I watched its head get chopped off, fly off the chopping block, and land right in front of a bunch of tourists who all screamed and jumped back. That was pretty entertaining :)
Post by: Inaya on May 06, 2017, 02:56:24 AM
I don't consider myself a foodie (I do, after all, enjoy an occasional McDonald's, which probably disqualifies me), but I do enjoy well-cooked interesting foods. I am willing to pay a lot in good restaurants that prepare these foods because 1) I as yet lack the skill to prepare these foods myself 2) I lack the access to the ingredients or tools to make them.
I'm working on it, though. I recently picked up this cookbook (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004J4X7FS/) from the library because the ethnic market where I shop sells many of the "undesirable" foods that conventional supermarkets don't. My current goal is to be able to prepare one of their whole pigs' heads--and not just because I want to haul a whole pig's head home via public transportation.
I have been working on questioning my own food hangups. I could probably eat brain after some hesitation, but not reproductive parts--no logical reason (although I suspect I'd have issues with the texture). I'm not sure if I could eat bugs--although I do enjoy the larger marine arthropods from time to time. I really struggle with the idea of eating any "pet" animals--cat and dog are absolutely out, but I there is a slim possibility I could eat horse. It's not logical, but I've acknowledged that and I'm comfortable with it. There are lots of other animals to eat.
I dislike artificial "meats," but not for the typical reason. It's about expectation for me. You put the word "meat" or "burger" in there and it gives me expectations that are rarely met. It's, again, not logical, but you could give me a "vegetable-based patty" and I'd probably enjoy it. Whereas you hand me the same thing and call it a gardenburger, and I won't like it. I love mushrooms, but if you call it chicken instead of fungus-based protein, I'll probably dislike it. I love sweet tea, but if you hand me a glass of it but tell me it's Dr Pepper (which I also love), I won't like it.
Post by: GrumpyPenguin on May 06, 2017, 05:01:24 AM
I'd like to think I'm a fun guy, but I really don't like fungi! :p.
No, seriously though, I try mushrooms now and then but the texture of cooked mushrooms just isn't for me. Now, a fungi-based chicken substitute product? I'd give it a shot. If I WERE to be planning to eat a chicken dish and there was a nutritious substitute and I either wouldn't notice the difference or it tasted just as good, I'm all for it. My understanding of the large scale meat industry is that it's environmentally awful and cruel. I have far less animosity for hunting. I eat much less meat now than I did when I was younger, and maybe some day I'll quit it completely.
Post by: Cranky on May 06, 2017, 05:36:39 AM
Post by: zarfus on May 06, 2017, 07:51:23 AM
I have an acre of land and can't even get chickens according to ordinance, wtf! We try to get as many fruits and veggies as we can though!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: big_slacker on May 06, 2017, 08:11:03 AM
The same holds true for produce FWIW. If you even have a backyard garden and grow fruits and veggies you understand what goes into what shows up on your plate.
Divorcing ourselves from the sources of our foods is what leads to people being ok eating foodlike substances out of a box. I'm not a monk and not saying our family eats ONLY whole foods but definitely the majority is.
I don't know that I have any knowledge bombs to drop, but I would encourage everyone here if they have even a little bit of interest to:
Grow a small garden, even some indoor stuff like herbs. Fresh basil on pasta is AMAZING. Understanding what grows well in your local climate, soil and season is eye opening. Then go to the store and start looking at where the produce comes from at different times of year instead of just saying you want watermelon in the middle of winter and picking one up.
Bake some bread. Minimalist baker has some awesome and incredibly easy recipes. My favorite is http://minimalistbaker.com/7-ingredient-muesli-bread/
Make a batch of homemade pasta sauce. It's seriously easy and you can do a large batch to freeze for later. Here again is minimalist baker: http://minimalistbaker.com/spicy-red-pasta-with-lentils/
Oh yeah, and stop freaking out about protein. You don't need that much. :D
Post by: HipGnosis on May 06, 2017, 08:26:50 AM
I've been thru military survival training. I've eaten bugs and know how to test a plant for edibility.
I'm not ignorant of food.
I use to be bothered by how so many people choose to cling to their food ignorance, but I got myself over it.
Post by: Dicey on May 06, 2017, 08:35:15 AM
Post by: surfhb on May 06, 2017, 09:08:28 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Inaya on May 06, 2017, 09:37:25 AM
Don't be such a judge on what others do or think.Isn't there an entire subforum (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/) dedicated to judging what other people do and think?
Why don't we start a thread on some of the stupid shit you're in to? (https://s3.amazonaws.com/tapatalk-emoji/emoji2.png)
I personally find it interesting how different people approach their food.
Post by: gaja on May 06, 2017, 01:24:07 PM
Seals are smaller, but also easier to hunt. You can even hunt them from land or smaller boats. I personally think the meat has a strong oily taste, but my kids like it. They have grown up liking cod liver oil, so they don't find that taste off putting. The pelts are lovely, and make good clothes and shoes.
The main problem with eating marine mammals, is pollution. PCB and mercury are the main culprits, but there are also others, such as lead. Pregnant and nursing women should not eat the meat, and children should be careful with too much meat or blubber, but if you are male, or done with having children, eating whale or seal meat a couple of times a week is not a big problem. Hopefully, we will stop pouring poison into the sea soon.
Post by: WildJager on May 06, 2017, 04:17:56 PM
Fresh basil on pasta is AMAZING.
Just had to quote that because... yes. If I had to choose only one plant for a garden, it would be basil.
I second making fresh pasta sauce too. So easy to do and so much tastier than the jarred stuff. Plus, if you want to spice it up it's a quick transition to making bolognese sauce.
Post by: WildJager on May 06, 2017, 04:39:34 PM
Don't be such a judge on what others do or think.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What was that quote I feel like I heard recently from some guy? Something along the lines of, "How to be Happy, Rich, and Save the World." Who was he again? Ah well, forget about it.
Anywho, I'm not judging people for what others want to do and think. I'm commenting on the lack of thinking behind their "decision" making. Just as this whole site is dedicated to righting the sinking ship of financially literacy among our society, food consumption and production is a second ship sinking just along side. Our current detachment from food sources is not only disrespectful, but practically unsustainable. Just as actions in personal finance have consequences, so do actions at the grocery store. If someone wants to make an informed decision about food that doesn't contribute to fixing the problem, by all means do what you want. However, lambasting cultural differences or non-normative food culture out of ignorance is not a trait I respect.
Why don't we start a thread on some of the stupid shit you're in to?MOD NOTE: Rule #1
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I love White Castle, McDonald's Fillet-O-Fish, and the all-you-can-eat prime rib buffets at casinos. I blame nostalgia. What else would you like to know?
Post by: Inaya on May 06, 2017, 05:22:26 PM
I love White Castle, McDonald's Fillet-O-Fish, and the all-you-can-eat prime rib buffets at casinos. I blame nostalgia. What else would you like to know?I've never actually eaten at White Castle, but my grandma would buy the little frozen cheeseburgers and make them for us. Still love them to this day (though I only eat them about once a year). Filet-O-Fish isn't for me, but I do enjoy a McRib every half-decade or so.
Post by: o2bfree on May 06, 2017, 07:07:33 PM
Post by: nvtribefan1 on May 06, 2017, 07:23:21 PM
It's probably easier to be mustachian if you remain food ignorant. Then you can pay .69 for a dozen factory farmed eggs instead of $3+ for humanely produced eggs.
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on May 07, 2017, 06:25:43 AM
Lately, I've changed my diet to mostly plant-based for my health. I'm thin, but my doctor was concerned about my cholesterol. It's been interesting to learn that very fresh fruits and vegetables can be really delicious when raw or cooked properly. I eat vegetarian for several days of the week and eat only lean meats on the other days. I'm still working on trusting fresh meats. All the meat I currently eat comes frozen.
It was kind of amazing when I learned how to season my food. I had never really had any experience with spices in the kitchen before. I was shocked to learn from online recipes that it's actually very easy and cheap to make healthier versions of my takeout favorites from various restaurants. Currently, my skills have gotten to the point where I don't really feel the urge to order food or eat out at restaurants anymore.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on May 07, 2017, 07:11:23 AM
Post by: ptobest on May 07, 2017, 11:55:13 PM
I'm not familiar with currizo. Is it anything like chorizo?
It's probably easier to be mustachian if you remain food ignorant. Then you can pay .69 for a dozen factory farmed eggs instead of $3+ for humanely produced eggs.
I wish egg labeling didn't make it so difficult - I want to make humane choices, but then my brain blanks when I have to choose between cage-free, organic, free-range, grass fed, pasture-raised, etc.
Post by: GreenSheep on May 08, 2017, 04:48:38 AM
I wish egg labeling didn't make it so difficult - I want to make humane choices, but then my brain blanks when I have to choose between cage-free, organic, free-range, grass fed, pasture-raised, etc.
Here's an article that gives a decent run-down on all of the labels and what they mean (or don't mean):
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/12/23/370377902/farm-fresh-natural-eggs-not-always-what-they-re-cracked-up-to-be
Post by: MightyAl on May 08, 2017, 04:59:40 AM
That is when I learned beef heart is easiest to prepare in the crock pot and delicious.
Post by: Linea_Norway on May 08, 2017, 05:14:01 AM
We have fresh herbs growing in the garden now, from seeds. Otherwise we have planted the stems of spring onions, a garlic fed and tomatoe slices and this is all growing into plants.
About the original example: I would love to try "chicken" made from a fungus. I have also understood that veggie burger nowadays taste pretty good. Last I checked they were made of lentils.
I generally try to eat a bit less meat. At least one dinner without meat a day. We also regularly eat self-caught food, like fish and mushrooms.
Post by: Inaya on May 08, 2017, 06:47:20 AM
That is when I learned beef heart is easiest to prepare in the crock pot and delicious.
Would you share your recipe?
Post by: big_slacker on May 08, 2017, 07:25:27 AM
We have fresh herbs growing in the garden now, from seeds. Otherwise we have planted the stems of spring onions, a garlic fed and tomatoe slices and this is all growing into plants.
About the original example: I would love to try "chicken" made from a fungus. I have also understood that veggie burger nowadays taste pretty good. Last I checked they were made of lentils.
I generally try to eat a bit less meat. At least one dinner without meat a day. We also regularly eat self-caught food, like fish and mushrooms.
Interestingly enough I was listening to a podcast yesterday about the current crop of meat substitutes. Beyond Meat and Impossible foods both have launched burger patties that supposedly are very close to ground beef, enough that blind tests could fool some. The impossible burger one actually has plant derived heme in it to attempt to satisfy the flesh craving, they can be cooked fairly rare. With that said, the meat analogues are highly processed foods, and IMO are most useful if someone want to be vegetarian/vegan and is just so used to eating meat they need a replacement.
Along the same lines the podcast talked about Memphis Meats which is an SF startup that is growing real meat with stem cells from animals. They've actually done it with chicken and I think beef or pork. It's prohibitively expensive now (like $18k pound of meat) but they are planning on launching consumer priced lab grown meat in 2021. This could end factory farming of live animals *IF* people can get past the 'dats unnatural' factor which isn't insignificant. Although I don't know how it's worse than hormone laden cows eating corn and waste standing knee deep in shit, I guess we'll see how it plays out. On the subject of this thread, how would a consumer of this lab grown meat be seen? Cause you're not definitely not producing it yourself or can even understand how it's done?
They also talked about converting land used for animal feed to grazing land and trying to move all meat prod back to organic grass feed grazed, etc. But the numbers just don't work out unless meat consumption were MASSIVELY reduced.
Post by: TravelJunkyQC on May 08, 2017, 07:38:17 AM
That being said, there are certain things (arachnids are an example), that I'm not sure I could stomach. I appreciate that others are able to.
Consumer waste is absolutely disgusting to me; whatever someone wants to eat is fine by me, but by god, don't waste what you haven't consumed, just buy less of it.
Post by: Linea_Norway on May 08, 2017, 07:47:02 AM
My partner is a hunter and fisherman, and while he was "largely" raised to eat everything he killed, he would occasionally take a life of an invasive species (for example), and then leave it there. I draw the line there, though. Now, if he kills, he eats, no exceptions. I've eaten beaver, lots of deer, moose, wild goose and duck, and a multitude of fish. The beaver and certain types of fish aren't extraordinary, but if it's dead, it will be eaten - it's a matter of respecting and appreciating the life you have taken (at least to me). And I would much rather eat an animal that had a full wild life, and whose life ended swiftly and relatively painlessly, than an animal that lived a miserable life, suffered in death, and ended up in the grocery store (although I also shop in the store).
This is good. I have met a hunter who hunted on beavers and didn't do anything with it. Just take a photo beside the big beast and throw it away. This is pointless to me, as the animal just died for someones pleasure and didn't even provide food. Such a waste.
Post by: Cezil on May 08, 2017, 07:48:09 AM
That is when I learned beef heart is easiest to prepare in the crock pot and delicious.
Would you share your recipe?
Yes, please, if you don't mind!
We tried cooking liver a few years ago. It was our first time and we had never had it before. Did not go well - the texture, taste, and smell (oh god I wanted to die, and the smell stayed in the kitchen for days) was not pleasant. We've been afraid to try organs since then. We hate to waste and so are reluctant to possibly waste organ meat, especially since we know it's so good for us.
I grew up in WI and there was a farm with land & forest in the family, so there were hunters. To this day, if my dad gets a deer during season, then Thanksgiving can be spent with mom, dad, my sister, her husband, and my SO and me sitting around a card table, carving and cutting it all up. The guys also fish, so we eat the fish. SO and I have grass-fed meat vendor who lives a little over an hour away. We try to get there at least once a year, take a farm tour, see all the cows, chickens, ducks, pigs, etc.. that we know we'll potentially be eating. We don't do the actual butchering, however, now that you mention it in the thread, I think if we asked to be present, they might let us view (not sure about helping butcher, though). The farm is totally about knowing where your food comes from and meeting the animals (we like to say some thank yous to the animals and spend quiet time with them sending appreciational vibes), so the owners are always happy when people come out to really experience the farm-to-table idea. From the sounds of it, not too many people take them up on this offer- when we go out there, we usually get a few hours by ourselves with the family/owners chit chatting the day away. We know they try to make it as respectful and painless as possible, so we're happy to pay a little extra for this meat. Someone mentioned knowing the animals had a great, happy life instead of one filled with pain and misery. These animals are so freaking happy on that farm, roaming around and mooing at eachother. There's no shortage of grass and field, water, shelter when they want.. That also makes us happy.
We also try to grow food in the backyard, learning as we go. The goal, someday, is to be as self-sufficient as we can be. Hope to get the plants planted by next weekend!
We've had bison (South Dakota) and guinea pig (Peru). Can't remember if we've tried alpaca or not.
Post by: Linea_Norway on May 08, 2017, 07:57:08 AM
Post by: maizefolk on May 08, 2017, 08:26:09 AM
Interestingly enough I was listening to a podcast yesterday about the current crop of meat substitutes. Beyond Meat and Impossible foods both have launched burger patties that supposedly are very close to ground beef, enough that blind tests could fool some. The impossible burger one actually has plant derived heme in it to attempt to satisfy the flesh craving, they can be cooked fairly rare. With that said, the meat analogues are highly processed foods, and IMO are most useful if someone want to be vegetarian/vegan and is just so used to eating meat they need a replacement.
Is it confirmed to be plant derived heme now? I remember last year someone was curious enough to actually sequence an impossible foods hamburger to see what was in there. At the time they were thinking the heme might be being biosynthesized in yeast. (Oh no, fungus again). That said, I could certainly envision isolating heme from the root nodules of soybeans or other legume crops. No idea which would be more cost effective.
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*YBCprJHEmnVo0_uGSU8CYQ.png)
https://medium.com/the-seeq-blog/sequencing-the-worlds-first-vegan-hamburger-3b06c17e4e2d
Post by: Fishindude on May 08, 2017, 08:47:56 AM
I've made a few converts out of people who didn't like wild game by serving them some prime venison backstrap, cooked rare. This stuff can go toe to toe with any prime rib. A good elk meatloaf is hard to beat also, and venison burger is good in any recipe calling for hamburger. Hard to beat fresh grilled salmon or lake trout too.
We really don't buy much red meat with exception of the occasional good steak, and I've not yet taken to raising hogs so we buy a little bacon and sausage. It's nice to know where your food comes from and how it's handled. I like harvesting and processing wild game & fish, you know it's good healthy stuff when you're eating it. Our eggs come from my nephew and we raise a big vegetable garden too, so we have direct input on much of the food we consume.
I'm really envious of the folks that live in coastal areas that would have ready access to; crabs, salmon, halibut, clams, and all of the other tasty critters from the ocean.
Post by: o2bfree on May 08, 2017, 09:07:31 AM
I'm really envious of the folks that live in coastal areas that would have ready access to; crabs, salmon, halibut, clams, and all of the other tasty critters from the ocean.Don't get too envious. Fishing regulations can make it difficult to go after seafood. Closures due to red tides, sewage spills, and other contamination issues add to the problem. Not to mention over-harvesting in some areas.
Post by: WildJager on May 08, 2017, 10:28:36 AM
I'm not familiar with currizo. Is it anything like chorizo?
Nope, just a spelling error. Fixed. Thanks!
Post by: shelivesthedream on May 08, 2017, 10:47:30 AM
Oh yeah, and stop freaking out about protein. You don't need that much. :D
This always makes me want to simultaneously laugh and smack someone. It's like, "Grrrrrr, I'm so tough and rugged I just NEED to eat platefuls of raw meat every day just to stay ALIVE!" Lol, srsly. No one in a developed country above the poverty line who can list three non-meat sources of protein and occasionally thinks about it in passing is going to be protein deficient. I read about the protein gap panic (the idea that the world wasn't producing enough protein and so people were deficient) arising after the Second World War and then being debunked in the 1970s/80s when they realised that humans just didn't need as much protein as they thought, and any deficiencies were usually from a lack of food full stop, rather than a lack of protein.
I'm also disgusted by people's wilful ignorance and hypocrisy about food, particularly meat. I was in France once and watched primary school children have a school trip to a butcher, where the butcher waved Mr Canard and Madame Poulet around and explained how the ducks and chickens got plucked and gutted and turned into the meat on your plate. It was very instructive.
Post by: ptobest on May 08, 2017, 10:57:36 AM
I wish egg labeling didn't make it so difficult - I want to make humane choices, but then my brain blanks when I have to choose between cage-free, organic, free-range, grass fed, pasture-raised, etc.
Here's an article that gives a decent run-down on all of the labels and what they mean (or don't mean):
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/12/23/370377902/farm-fresh-natural-eggs-not-always-what-they-re-cracked-up-to-be
Great link, thanks!
Post by: NESailor on May 08, 2017, 11:53:05 AM
Watched my then 85 year old great grandma butcher chickens like a BOSS. And rabbits - mean little shits that knew they were food so there was no petting them. Same with geese...but man oh man was their roasted meat and LIVER fatty, and juicy and delicious! Participated in killing pigs too, never pulled the trigger but mostly helped the butcher move the still warm meat, blood, etc. around. Watched him make kielbasas and taste the seasoned raw pork as he was seasoning it :).
Bacon, cracklings, kielbasa and other types of sausage - all so flavorful everything from a supermarket now tastes bland.
Post by: o2bfree on May 08, 2017, 12:42:15 PM
This always makes me want to simultaneously laugh and smack someone. It's like, "Grrrrrr, I'm so tough and rugged I just NEED to eat platefuls of raw meat every day just to stay ALIVE!" Lol, srsly. No one in a developed country above the poverty line who can list three non-meat sources of protein and occasionally thinks about it in passing is going to be protein deficient.
I saw an article recently where the author had noticed what seemed to be an epidemic of foamy pee in public urinals. Foam in pee can mean that the kidneys aren't doing their job to filter protein out of the urine. Often it's a sign of kidney disease, but I wonder if high-protein diets can overwhelm the kidneys and also cause this issue.
Post by: Rosy on May 08, 2017, 01:13:14 PM
We tried cooking liver a few years ago. It was our first time and we had never had it before. Did not go well - the texture, taste, and smell (oh god I wanted to die, and the smell stayed in the kitchen for days) was not pleasant. We've been afraid to try organs since then. We hate to waste and so are reluctant to possibly waste organ meat, especially since we know it's so good for us.
Sounds terrible - although liver is not my favorite dish - it is great, if properly prepared:
Calf liver from a grass fed calf - marinated in buttermilk to make it nice and tender and get rid of the smell - toss the marinade and then season with salt and pepper, roll in a dusting of flour - then sauteed with tons of fresh sweet onions, yum.
If you prefer, marinate in milk, then sautee in a little dark beer and serve it with a crust made with seasoned bread crumbs, and lots of parsley - delicious.
The goal is to tenderize and change the flavor to a culinary experience:)
Post by: gaja on May 08, 2017, 02:37:15 PM
Oh yeah, and stop freaking out about protein. You don't need that much. :D
This always makes me want to simultaneously laugh and smack someone. It's like, "Grrrrrr, I'm so tough and rugged I just NEED to eat platefuls of raw meat every day just to stay ALIVE!" Lol, srsly. No one in a developed country above the poverty line who can list three non-meat sources of protein and occasionally thinks about it in passing is going to be protein deficient.
I have cousins who have died due to lack of an aminoacid that is mainly obtained from red meat. Could you please explain why that is a laughing matter, or your reason for smacking my family of meat eaters? Carnitine transporter deficiency is common in my family, and since I care more about keeping my daughters healthy and alive than about your opinion, I probably would keep to our diet anyway, but it would be interesting to hear your reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_primary_carnitine_deficiency
You are probably correct in most of the cases you have met, since this condition is rare in most parts of the world. And today, it can and should be treated with supplements. But traditionally, a protein rich diet(lamb, whale, seal, certain types of fish) has kept most people with this syndrome alive. And since CTD is only one of the fun diet related disorders that runs in my family (biotine deficiency is another, and then there are the bowel syndromes), we will keep filling our plates with fermented sheep meat and dried whale. The good part of that is that most people who like to laugh at other people's diets will have trouble handling the smell of fermented sheep, so we are usually left alone to enjoy our meal.
Post by: Inaya on May 08, 2017, 03:35:56 PM
Our eggs come from my nephewWow your nephew lays eggs!? (Sorry, sorry!)
I think for people the emphasis on protein consumption is less "mighty carnivore" than it is the current direction of fad diets. First you had Atkins, and now paleo is hitting the scene big (which many, many people misunderstand to be all meat all the time). Also, it's the new fiber. Fiber used to be billed as "keeping you fuller longer," and now protein is in that position. I'm not saying the manly carnivore attitude doesn't exist--I just don't think it's the primary driver anymore.
Post by: big_slacker on May 08, 2017, 05:47:08 PM
Oh yeah, and stop freaking out about protein. You don't need that much. :D
This always makes me want to simultaneously laugh and smack someone. It's like, "Grrrrrr, I'm so tough and rugged I just NEED to eat platefuls of raw meat every day just to stay ALIVE!" Lol, srsly. No one in a developed country above the poverty line who can list three non-meat sources of protein and occasionally thinks about it in passing is going to be protein deficient.
I have cousins who have died due to lack of an aminoacid that is mainly obtained from red meat. Could you please explain why that is a laughing matter, or your reason for smacking my family of meat eaters? Carnitine transporter deficiency is common in my family, and since I care more about keeping my daughters healthy and alive than about your opinion, I probably would keep to our diet anyway, but it would be interesting to hear your reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_primary_carnitine_deficiency
It's pretty obvious shelives was talking about cultural overconsumption of protein rather than people with a medical condition that .00001% of the population has. No need to look for offense when none was intended.
My original post about it is similar to shelives. Actual protein requirements are WAY lower than most Americans think they are, and heavy meat consumption, especially the factory farmed kind can have serious health implications.
About the heme in the impossible burger, from the horse's mouth:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/02/11/514544431/saving-the-planet-one-burger-at-a-time-this-juicy-patty-is-meat-free
"The Impossible Burger, as it's known, is the culmination of a dream for Pat Brown. For 25 years, Brown was a professor at Stanford University. He was one of the stars in his field, studying a range of biomedical topics."......
"Heme is responsible for the bloody flavor of raw meat, and you generate this explosion of flavor and raw meat when you cook it," Brown explains.
"He says discovering this was the key to his quest, because it turns out that plants have heme, too, but in very small amounts. For instance, soybeans have heme in their roots.
So to re-create the taste of beef, Brown had to figure out how to produce heme from plants in vast amounts. To do that, he and the scientists he works with isolated the gene that produces heme in soybeans and put it in yeast, which ferments in a big steel tank."
Post by: maizefolk on May 08, 2017, 05:52:11 PM
Very cool, thanks big_slacker.
Post by: Squidrow Wilson on May 08, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
My partner is a hunter and fisherman, and while he was "largely" raised to eat everything he killed, he would occasionally take a life of an invasive species (for example), and then leave it there. I draw the line there, though. Now, if he kills, he eats, no exceptions. I've eaten beaver, lots of deer, moose, wild goose and duck, and a multitude of fish. The beaver and certain types of fish aren't extraordinary, but if it's dead, it will be eaten - it's a matter of respecting and appreciating the life you have taken (at least to me). And I would much rather eat an animal that had a full wild life, and whose life ended swiftly and relatively painlessly, than an animal that lived a miserable life, suffered in death, and ended up in the grocery store (although I also shop in the store).
That being said, there are certain things (arachnids are an example), that I'm not sure I could stomach. I appreciate that others are able to.
Consumer waste is absolutely disgusting to me; whatever someone wants to eat is fine by me, but by god, don't waste what you haven't consumed, just buy less of it.
Kind of a funny story. My father-in-law doesn't hunt and lives in a big house in the suburbs (the faux naturey kind of neighborhood). So he's been apparently having a big squirrel problem in his attic. He keeps asking me to bring my gun and shoot them. I turn him down each time and explain that I only kill if I'm going to eat it and that these suburban squirrels just aren't wild, so it wouldn't be fair. Hell, the first squirrel I saw after I moved to Chicago had a bagel in it's mouth. Not gonna happen.
Post by: big_slacker on May 08, 2017, 06:28:13 PM
So a combination of plant-heme rather than animal-heme AND industrial-scale production in bioreactors. I should have remembered some vegetarians/vegans object to even individual proteins cloned from animals (creates issues when arguing about what types of cheese different people consider to be vegetarian, since a lot of rennet is produced using a gene sequence based on a sequence found in the cattle genome).
Very cool, thanks big_slacker.
Definitely some vegans go WAY down a rathole when it comes to what is acceptable or not, it's a wonder they can eat anything given field mice and bugs being killed when crops are harvested FI.
The podcast dude was formerly a PETA exec and said he had tried the lab meat that was animal derived because he didn't feel ethically any animals were harmed in the production although I'm 1000% sure when he said that a bunch of vegans started marching to his house with torches and pitchforks.
Post by: Raenia on May 08, 2017, 06:33:37 PM
Post by: Civex on May 08, 2017, 07:27:42 PM
We have fresh herbs growing in the garden now, from seeds. Otherwise we have planted the stems of spring onions, a garlic fed and tomatoe slices and this is all growing into plants.
About the original example: I would love to try "chicken" made from a fungus. I have also understood that veggie burger nowadays taste pretty good. Last I checked they were made of lentils.
I generally try to eat a bit less meat. At least one dinner without meat a day. We also regularly eat self-caught food, like fish and mushrooms.
Interestingly enough I was listening to a podcast yesterday about the current crop of meat substitutes. Beyond Meat and Impossible foods both have launched burger patties that supposedly are very close to ground beef, enough that blind tests could fool some. The impossible burger one actually has plant derived heme in it to attempt to satisfy the flesh craving, they can be cooked fairly rare. With that said, the meat analogues are highly processed foods, and IMO are most useful if someone want to be vegetarian/vegan and is just so used to eating meat they need a replacement.
Along the same lines the podcast talked about Memphis Meats which is an SF startup that is growing real meat with stem cells from animals. They've actually done it with chicken and I think beef or pork. It's prohibitively expensive now (like $18k pound of meat) but they are planning on launching consumer priced lab grown meat in 2021. This could end factory farming of live animals *IF* people can get past the 'dats unnatural' factor which isn't insignificant. Although I don't know how it's worse than hormone laden cows eating corn and waste standing knee deep in shit, I guess we'll see how it plays out. On the subject of this thread, how would a consumer of this lab grown meat be seen? Cause you're not definitely not producing it yourself or can even understand how it's done?
They also talked about converting land used for animal feed to grazing land and trying to move all meat prod back to organic grass feed grazed, etc. But the numbers just don't work out unless meat consumption were MASSIVELY reduced.
I've had a chance to try the new Beyond Meat burgers and I found them to be quite good. I've followed a plant based diet for about 4 years now, but grew on up a on beef ranch. You touched on the potential market and in my case, I don't want to eat meat anymore, but every now and then, frying up a burger sounds great- this provides a good alternative to a black bean or wild rice patty burger. In a blind taste test, I would say the average burger consumer would be hard pressed to tell the difference if they both had toppings. They don't brown the same as a real burger and almost look undercooked (very pink.)
Post by: shelivesthedream on May 09, 2017, 02:10:17 AM
Oh yeah, and stop freaking out about protein. You don't need that much. :D
This always makes me want to simultaneously laugh and smack someone. It's like, "Grrrrrr, I'm so tough and rugged I just NEED to eat platefuls of raw meat every day just to stay ALIVE!" Lol, srsly. No one in a developed country above the poverty line who can list three non-meat sources of protein and occasionally thinks about it in passing is going to be protein deficient.
I have cousins who have died due to lack of an aminoacid that is mainly obtained from red meat. Could you please explain why that is a laughing matter, or your reason for smacking my family of meat eaters? Carnitine transporter deficiency is common in my family, and since I care more about keeping my daughters healthy and alive than about your opinion, I probably would keep to our diet anyway, but it would be interesting to hear your reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_primary_carnitine_deficiency
It's pretty obvious shelives was talking about cultural overconsumption of protein rather than people with a medical condition that .00001% of the population has. No need to look for offense when none was intended.
My original post about it is similar to shelives. Actual protein requirements are WAY lower than most Americans think they are, and heavy meat consumption, especially the factory farmed kind can have serious health implications.
About the heme in the impossible burger, from the horse's mouth:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/02/11/514544431/saving-the-planet-one-burger-at-a-time-this-juicy-patty-is-meat-free
"The Impossible Burger, as it's known, is the culmination of a dream for Pat Brown. For 25 years, Brown was a professor at Stanford University. He was one of the stars in his field, studying a range of biomedical topics."......
"Heme is responsible for the bloody flavor of raw meat, and you generate this explosion of flavor and raw meat when you cook it," Brown explains.
"He says discovering this was the key to his quest, because it turns out that plants have heme, too, but in very small amounts. For instance, soybeans have heme in their roots.
So to re-create the taste of beef, Brown had to figure out how to produce heme from plants in vast amounts. To do that, he and the scientists he works with isolated the gene that produces heme in soybeans and put it in yeast, which ferments in a big steel tank."
Yeah, wow, clearly I worded my post really badly if it sounded like I was making fun of your family. What I meant was how ridiculous it is that your average Joe/Jane in a country like the UK seriously thinks they might be protein deficient, and how that arises out of outdated nutritional ideas about protein (I think this link explains it: https://drgeoffnutrition.wordpress.com/2016/12/07/the-protein-gap-one-of-the-biggest-errors-in-nutritional-science/). Because honestly, average Joe/Jane says things like, "Oh no, I have to eat meat at every meal to get enough protein" or "Isn't it dangerous to be vegetarian, because you won't get enough protein?" As if eggs, cheese, beans and nuts somehow magically don't exist, or no vegetable ever has even the tiniest micron of protein. Or the former sources just won't be ENOUGH because they're so RUGGED. As if people like vegetarian Indian farmers (no meat but lots of manual labour) ought to just not exist. I was vegetaian for seven years (now eat everything) and people talked a lot of shit about protein deficiency. They should be way more concerned about iron deficiency (vegetarian or not!). But if you don't want to be vegetarian just... don't? No need to hide behind some protein-worry-nonsense. But yeah, obviously #notallmeateaters, etc.
ETA: I hope I don't come across generally on this forum as the kind of person who would make fun of actual medical conditions, or who is excessively absolutist and dogmatic and lacks nuance. Because if I do then I clearly need to have a think about my priorities in life.
Post by: Torran on May 09, 2017, 04:19:31 AM
My boyfriend goes hunting when he's camping and I'm ashamed to say my initial reaction, when first we met, was to be slightly horrified. That he would kill a bunny. And then eat it. But I EAT MEAT! What a hypocrite!
So, two years down the line, and after much guilty consideration, I've asked to come along and join in with the hunting and eating of a rabbit. Or give up eating meat. One or the other. I have to align my values somehow, and if I want to keep eating meat, I have to know what it's like to actually kill the animal I'm going to eat.
Aside from the ethics of meat eating, I have many thoughts on the deliciousness of all foods, and feel really sad when people write off any kind of food as 'gross'.
My granddad used to tell us that eating mouldy cheese was good for us, which I think was him just enjoying pranking us. He also ate a fish eye in front of me because I said it was disgusting to eat the head of the fish. It still tickles me to think of that now. He had no fear when it came to food.
Post by: Linea_Norway on May 09, 2017, 04:57:54 AM
Ooh I like this thread a LOT.
My boyfriend goes hunting when he's camping and I'm ashamed to say my initial reaction, when first we met, was to be slightly horrified. That he would kill a bunny. And then eat it. But I EAT MEAT! What a hypocrite!
So, two years down the line, and after much guilty consideration, I've asked to come along and join in with the hunting and eating of a rabbit. Or give up eating meat. One or the other. I have to align my values somehow, and if I want to keep eating meat, I have to know what it's like to actually kill the animal I'm going to eat.
Aside from the ethics of meat eating, I have many thoughts on the deliciousness of all foods, and feel really sad when people write off any kind of food as 'gross'.
My granddad used to tell us that eating mouldy cheese was good for us, which I think was him just enjoying pranking us. He also ate a fish eye in front of me because I said it was disgusting to eat the head of the fish. It still tickles me to think of that now. He had no fear when it came to food.
Yes, there is a difference between buying meat in the grocery store and catching and slaughtering it yourself. I sometimes catch fish and sometimes kill it for food. I always feel a bit bad about killing it and do apologize to the fish. But as long as we eat it, this should be OK.
This summer I was really provoked. I was in the north of Norway, on holiday. In the evening, a German car stopped and a woman send her son out to throw fish into the sea. He had a pile of 3 BIG cods, like 8-10 kgs each. And they were thrown into the sea. I guess the mother had her caravan full of fish already and didn't know where to put it. But obviously father and sun don't stop fishing for that. So they catch and throw the dead fish away! When I do catch and release sometimes in a mountain lake, I make sure the fish stays well alive when it is put back.
Post by: gaja on May 09, 2017, 05:59:07 AM
Post by: shelivesthedream on May 09, 2017, 07:49:47 AM
@Shelivesadream: There is a Norwegian expression that someone "stepped on (long) sore toes". It means that most people have something that they have already received enough criticism about, and will react out of proportion to (perceived) new criticism. For me, my diet rich in red meat is one of those sore toes, and I'm sorry for attacking. But I also honestly feel there is far too much dogmatic speech on this subject. There is a substantial number of people who do need more protein in their diets than the average person, and explaining that in all types of situations gets tiresome. Especially now, when the climate and environmental lobby also fight for less meat consumption. If you had added a "most" somewhere in your text, I would probably have smiled and nodded in agreement.
You know, I probably have long sore toes about the "inadequate" amount of protein I eat, so in overreaction terms it's probably six of one and half a dozen of the other :)
Post by: Saskatchewstachian on May 09, 2017, 07:51:02 AM
Sounds terrible - although liver is not my favorite dish - it is great, if properly prepared:
Calf liver from a grass fed calf - marinated in buttermilk to make it nice and tender and get rid of the smell - toss the marinade and then season with salt and pepper, roll in a dusting of flour - then sauteed with tons of fresh sweet onions, yum.
If you prefer, marinate in milk, then sautee in a little dark beer and serve it with a crust made with seasoned bread crumbs, and lots of parsley - delicious.
The goal is to tenderize and change the flavor to a culinary experience:)
One other highly recommended recipe for liver that works well even for fully grown cows and not just calves is smoked liver pate. I got some liver (5-6lbs) and wasn't sure what to do with that amount so put it onto the smoker for 4 hours. Once finished smoking it was good but not phenomenal, tried taking a portion of a lobe and running it through the food processor with roasted garlic, salt, a touch of balsamic and a pinch of pepper. It's best eaten on crackers with a soft cheese and is absolutely delicious.
Post by: Saskatchewstachian on May 09, 2017, 08:03:21 AM
This thread is intended to be a culinary adventure of food and destroying some of our preconceived notions about it. What experiences have you had? What truth bombs do you want to share with other mustachians that might open a new world of nuanced cooking potential?
One other note that has come up multiple times for me and I have even had people refuse to eat is the notion of eating pork which is pink in the middle cooked to medium.
People seem to have a fear of undercooked pork, since I cook using Sous Vide quite often I can accurately control the temperature of the meat being cooked. Instead of cooking a pork tenderloin to 165F and having it come out dry and tough, a much better temperature is 145F (or lower based on preference) then holding it at this temperature for a period of time to ensure it is safe to eat.
I have a few family members who are very "steak and potatoes" when it comes to cooking. When I hosted I figured pork and a side dish would be perfect and not too adventurous as I don't want to push anyone way out of their food comfort zone. However since normal cooking methods can't control heat well enough to hold pork at 145F for extended periods of time they had never eaten pork cooked to medium. Everyone that had it loved it except for the one member that wouldn't even try it.
Post by: FIstateofmind on May 09, 2017, 08:22:49 AM
But that's just my 2 cents. ;P
Post by: Inaya on May 09, 2017, 08:23:55 AM
I got a nice pork tenderloin on sale last week and roasted it to a slight pink. And intellectually, I knew it was perfectly safe to eat. But due to hearing for most of my life* that pink pork is unsafe, I couldn't help being a little nervous eating it--delicious though!This thread is intended to be a culinary adventure of food and destroying some of our preconceived notions about it. What experiences have you had? What truth bombs do you want to share with other mustachians that might open a new world of nuanced cooking potential?
One other note that has come up multiple times for me and I have even had people refuse to eat is the notion of eating pork which is pink in the middle cooked to medium.
People seem to have a fear of undercooked pork, since I cook using Sous Vide quite often I can accurately control the temperature of the meat being cooked. Instead of cooking a pork tenderloin to 165F and having it come out dry and tough, a much better temperature is 145F (or lower based on preference) then holding it at this temperature for a period of time to ensure it is safe to eat.
I have a few family members who are very "steak and potatoes" when it comes to cooking. When I hosted I figured pork and a side dish would be perfect and not too adventurous as I don't want to push anyone way out of their food comfort zone. However since normal cooking methods can't control heat well enough to hold pork at 145F for extended periods of time they had never eaten pork cooked to medium. Everyone that had it loved it except for the one member that wouldn't even try it.
*USDA okayed pink pork in 2011 (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-05-24/health/chi-usda-changes-guidelines-for-cooking-pork-20110524_1_cooking-pork-pork-chops-national-pork-board), so a somewhat recent development.
Post by: Proud Foot on May 09, 2017, 08:34:02 AM
This thread is intended to be a culinary adventure of food and destroying some of our preconceived notions about it. What experiences have you had? What truth bombs do you want to share with other mustachians that might open a new world of nuanced cooking potential?
Excellent thread WildJager and everyone else who has contributed! I'm like you that I wonder about these meat substitutes that vegans eat. My wife and I have done vegan occasionally to change up the diet a little bit and it has always seemed strange how the hightly processed tofu and TVP are considered to be healthier than regular meat.
As far as culinary adventures, one of my favorite cuts of meat was Rocky Mountain Oysters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_oysters). Growing up we would go to my grandparents and would spend the day out working the cattle and come in for dinner and my grandma would have some fresh ones fried up. It is always funny to me how some people will eat them and say they are really good until you tell them what they actually are and then they are the most disgusting thing they have ever had!
Post by: GreenSheep on May 09, 2017, 08:58:47 AM
I'm like you that I wonder about these meat substitutes that vegans eat. My wife and I have done vegan occasionally to change up the diet a little bit and it has always seemed strange how the hightly processed tofu and TVP are considered to be healthier than regular meat.
I think this is part of the reason vegan food gets a bad name. I'm vegan, and I don't eat any of that "fake meat" stuff. I find it disgusting, in part because it's so processed (unhealthy) and in part because I have no desire to eat something that is intentionally made to taste like dead animal. I realize that some people do enjoy meat or meat alternatives, and these "fake meats" are a great transitional food for those who want to transition to a vegan diet while they learn what else they can eat. There's lots of food that is vegan without even trying. I joke with people at work who insist on pointing out my vegan-ness (I do not bring it up, but others often notice) that they're eating a "vegan apple" or a bowl of "vegan oatmeal" or whatever. You can easily be vegan and eat a huge variety of delicious food without ever going near the processed junk.
Post by: Fishindude on May 09, 2017, 08:59:54 AM
A good friend works for a large chicken producer. When the free range thing got going, they started missing out on market share so they needed to be able to label their chicken as free range. That required that they create outdoor cages on the side of their large confinement barns so that the chickens could go outdoors if they so chose. He tells me they rarely see chickens in the outdoor pens, they prefer to stay in the confinement buildings. So basically you are eating the same chicken you always were, just paying more for the free range label.
Post by: Bucksandreds on May 09, 2017, 09:05:05 AM
Paying extra for meats labeled "grass fed" and "free range" is a ridiculous waste of money in my opinion.
A good friend works for a large chicken producer. When the free range thing got going, they started missing out on market share so they needed to be able to label their chicken as free range. That required that they create outdoor cages on the side of their large confinement barns so that the chickens could go outdoors if they so chose. He tells me they rarely see chickens in the outdoor pens, they prefer to stay in the confinement buildings. So basically you are eating the same chicken you always were, just paying more for the free range label.
100% grass fed or grass finished is not a scam. Grass fed can be a scam because all beef is at least partially grass fed. 100% grass fed is significantly healthier for human consumption than conventional grain finished beef.
Post by: mm1970 on May 09, 2017, 09:06:36 AM
Paying extra for meats labeled "grass fed" and "free range" is a ridiculous waste of money in my opinion.I'm going to have to disagree, depending on WHERE you get your chicken/ beef.
A good friend works for a large chicken producer. When the free range thing got going, they started missing out on market share so they needed to be able to label their chicken as free range. That required that they create outdoor cages on the side of their large confinement barns so that the chickens could go outdoors if they so chose. He tells me they rarely see chickens in the outdoor pens, they prefer to stay in the confinement buildings. So basically you are eating the same chicken you always were, just paying more for the free range label.
If you are buying "free range" chicken or beef from a grocery store, yeah, risky.
If you are buying it from the ranch/ farm down the street, where you actually see the chickens and cows running in the fields/ pens - completely different story.
Post by: TravelJunkyQC on May 09, 2017, 09:13:56 AM
My partner is a hunter and fisherman, and while he was "largely" raised to eat everything he killed, he would occasionally take a life of an invasive species (for example), and then leave it there. I draw the line there, though. Now, if he kills, he eats, no exceptions. I've eaten beaver, lots of deer, moose, wild goose and duck, and a multitude of fish. The beaver and certain types of fish aren't extraordinary, but if it's dead, it will be eaten - it's a matter of respecting and appreciating the life you have taken (at least to me). And I would much rather eat an animal that had a full wild life, and whose life ended swiftly and relatively painlessly, than an animal that lived a miserable life, suffered in death, and ended up in the grocery store (although I also shop in the store).
That being said, there are certain things (arachnids are an example), that I'm not sure I could stomach. I appreciate that others are able to.
Consumer waste is absolutely disgusting to me; whatever someone wants to eat is fine by me, but by god, don't waste what you haven't consumed, just buy less of it.
Kind of a funny story. My father-in-law doesn't hunt and lives in a big house in the suburbs (the faux naturey kind of neighborhood). So he's been apparently having a big squirrel problem in his attic. He keeps asking me to bring my gun and shoot them. I turn him down each time and explain that I only kill if I'm going to eat it and that these suburban squirrels just aren't wild, so it wouldn't be fair. Hell, the first squirrel I saw after I moved to Chicago had a bagel in it's mouth. Not gonna happen.
Yeah... forgot to mention the random small birds I've eaten because my partner and his grand-father kill the birds that invade the grand-father's bird feeders and don't leave room for the pretty birds... Grand-mother wasn't thrilled about it, but she ate them as well nonetheless. The breasts we're about the size of a dime, but sautéed in some butter they were delicious.
Never had squirrel though... I'd assume it would be pretty tasty.
Post by: Goldielocks on May 09, 2017, 11:13:47 AM
Having stood in an abbatoir, on a 10k acre ranch, and even cleaned chicken guts out of a backed up pump at a chicken processing facility, I can definitely say yes to meats.
Interesting where I draw the line for me, though:
1) Veal. I would rather eat a wild hunted animal than veal. No matter how cheap or tasty.
2) "Free range" chickens and eggs-- meaning uncaged chickens in a barn. Thousands of chickens pecking at their poop and each other, and walking over dead birds. I will buy the omega 3 diet chickens or ones allowed "natural behaviours" such as roosting perches or more space in a cage, but the idea of free range (other than as on a small hobby farm) is just wrong. They don't go outside because of predators out there and inside is like a zombie nightmare. (and the stench makes me gag just remembering it -- those dead chickens get picked up daily and put somewhere, you know.)
3) Bugs - mostly, maybe grasshoppers or large bugs ok. Mealworms, no. Likewise predator game meats, just no.
4) Beef Liver - DH eats it, but every time I try it, the texture gets to me. I don't drink most soy milk because of grainy textures, too.
What I don't understand are people that refuse to eat foods that were cooked on the bone? Or chicken cooked with skin on ?
I hate waste, and cutting off the bone wastes so much (flavor and meat). DH leaves half of his chicken wings behind, why? I am also actually in favor of deboned meats as they call it, using the whole animal has my respect. Just not in favor of the binders and additives sometimes mixed in. What is wrong with eating a bit of cartilage in my hotdogs, if I chew it off of my chicken wings?
Post by: Saskatchewstachian on May 09, 2017, 11:31:27 AM
What I don't understand are people that refuse to eat foods that were cooked on the bone? Or chicken cooked with skin on ?
^^THIS!!!!
I have friends that do it and just can't understand it. Some of it is related to red meat which is fine as everyone has a preference. The weird part comes is chicken thighs that are bought de-boned are fine to eat but buying whole drumsticks and thighs won't fly.
Same as buying a chicken breast is OK yet buying a little roasting chicken and carving the breast out before serving is "gross". It's just something I've never been able to wrap my head around.
Post by: Goldielocks on May 09, 2017, 12:11:27 PM
What I don't understand are people that refuse to eat foods that were cooked on the bone? Or chicken cooked with skin on ?
^^THIS!!!!
I have friends that do it and just can't understand it. Some of it is related to red meat which is fine as everyone has a preference. The weird part comes is chicken thighs that are bought de-boned are fine to eat but buying whole drumsticks and thighs won't fly.
Same as buying a chicken breast is OK yet buying a little roasting chicken and carving the breast out before serving is "gross". It's just something I've never been able to wrap my head around.
On second thought, maybe this is the EXACT market that mycoprotein was developed for?
Post by: Kitsune on May 09, 2017, 12:41:22 PM
What I don't understand are people that refuse to eat foods that were cooked on the bone? Or chicken cooked with skin on ?
^^THIS!!!!
I have friends that do it and just can't understand it. Some of it is related to red meat which is fine as everyone has a preference. The weird part comes is chicken thighs that are bought de-boned are fine to eat but buying whole drumsticks and thighs won't fly.
Same as buying a chicken breast is OK yet buying a little roasting chicken and carving the breast out before serving is "gross". It's just something I've never been able to wrap my head around.
It's like the closer your food comes to admitting it was an animal, the more gross it gets? I have no idea, it makes no sense. Like people who won't eat lamb at our house cause we raised them in the field next door, but will eat supermarket pig... like, what, you'll take the near-certainty of ill-treated meat over the certainty of well-treated animals because seeing them makes you feel guilty so you don't want to face it, and yet you mock vegetarians because... ?? Like, wow, cognitive dissonance that profound must hurt.
If you hate the texture of liver, try pâté. It's surprisingly easy to make and removes the texture issue, and then you can feel satisfied that you're not spending $$ on a type of food that has a reputation for being schmancy but is really just a way to use up off parts. I got my recipe from the River Cottage Meat book, but the author did some tv shows and articles, so it's probably online too.
My personal favorite: roasted bone marrow on toast, with a sprinkling of parsley/shallot/capers/lemon. To. Die. For.
Post by: Squidrow Wilson on May 09, 2017, 01:23:25 PM
What I don't understand are people that refuse to eat foods that were cooked on the bone? Or chicken cooked with skin on ?
^^THIS!!!!
I have friends that do it and just can't understand it. Some of it is related to red meat which is fine as everyone has a preference. The weird part comes is chicken thighs that are bought de-boned are fine to eat but buying whole drumsticks and thighs won't fly.
Same as buying a chicken breast is OK yet buying a little roasting chicken and carving the breast out before serving is "gross". It's just something I've never been able to wrap my head around.
Honestly, I think it stems from the bone being another reminder that it was an actual animal. I could be wrong but I think the mental association people have between meat and animals has diminished greatly over the last sixty years or so. I hope that it's beginning to turn around but it's hard to say.
Post by: Prairie Stash on May 09, 2017, 02:54:38 PM
fertilizer production uses amines to extract minerals, for growing all your cereal crops. Those originate at abattoirs which render the fat down. Most people with moral objections rarely stop to see all the products that utilize animals.
As for food, why is liver widely okay but people get squeamish at tongue and heart? I agree on skipping brains, that's primarily from BSE or CWD concerns. Both diseases are prions found in brain tissue; they cause Jakob-creutzfeld disease, otherwise known as mad cow disease.
Post by: Goldielocks on May 09, 2017, 05:28:05 PM
Yes I like pâté.. I do find marrow to be grainy too, however, though I don't run away from it. Definitely a texture thing.What I don't understand are people that refuse to eat foods that were cooked on the bone? Or chicken cooked with skin on ?
^^THIS!!!!
I have friends that do it and just can't understand it. Some of it is related to red meat which is fine as everyone has a preference. The weird part comes is chicken thighs that are bought de-boned are fine to eat but buying whole drumsticks and thighs won't fly.
Same as buying a chicken breast is OK yet buying a little roasting chicken and carving the breast out before serving is "gross". It's just something I've never been able to wrap my head around.
It's like the closer your food comes to admitting it was an animal, the more gross it gets? I have no idea, it makes no sense. Like people who won't eat lamb at our house cause we raised them in the field next door, but will eat supermarket pig... like, what, you'll take the near-certainty of ill-treated meat over the certainty of well-treated animals because seeing them makes you feel guilty so you don't want to face it, and yet you mock vegetarians because... ?? Like, wow, cognitive dissonance that profound must hurt.
If you hate the texture of liver, try pâté. It's surprisingly easy to make and removes the texture issue, and then you can feel satisfied that you're not spending $$ on a type of food that has a reputation for being schmancy but is really just a way to use up off parts. I got my recipe from the River Cottage Meat book, but the author did some tv shows and articles, so it's probably online too.
My personal favorite: roasted bone marrow on toast, with a sprinkling of parsley/shallot/capers/lemon. To. Die. For.
Post by: big_slacker on May 09, 2017, 05:43:18 PM
I'm like you that I wonder about these meat substitutes that vegans eat. My wife and I have done vegan occasionally to change up the diet a little bit and it has always seemed strange how the hightly processed tofu and TVP are considered to be healthier than regular meat.
I think this is part of the reason vegan food gets a bad name. I'm vegan, and I don't eat any of that "fake meat" stuff. I find it disgusting, in part because it's so processed (unhealthy) and in part because I have no desire to eat something that is intentionally made to taste like dead animal. I realize that some people do enjoy meat or meat alternatives, and these "fake meats" are a great transitional food for those who want to transition to a vegan diet while they learn what else they can eat. There's lots of food that is vegan without even trying. I joke with people at work who insist on pointing out my vegan-ness (I do not bring it up, but others often notice) that they're eating a "vegan apple" or a bowl of "vegan oatmeal" or whatever. You can easily be vegan and eat a huge variety of delicious food without ever going near the processed junk.
Also since veganism is an ethical lifestyle choice there are definitely those on the 'just don't eat animal products' side of things instead of the 'whole foods plant based' healthy type folks. I'm a lot more on the rice 'n beans, salads and oatmeal side of things myself but I will have mock meats from time to time, don't find them disgusting but they're definitely not staples since they're heavily processed foods.
Post by: Bucksandreds on May 09, 2017, 06:22:06 PM
I spent my early career working with food processing and being on and off large farms, so I had to come to terms with my meat -eating behaviours.
Having stood in an abbatoir, on a 10k acre ranch, and even cleaned chicken guts out of a backed up pump at a chicken processing facility, I can definitely say yes to meats.
Interesting where I draw the line for me, though:
1) Veal. I would rather eat a wild hunted animal than veal. No matter how cheap or tasty.
2) "Free range" chickens and eggs-- meaning uncaged chickens in a barn. Thousands of chickens pecking at their poop and each other, and walking over dead birds. I will buy the omega 3 diet chickens or ones allowed "natural behaviours" such as roosting perches or more space in a cage, but the idea of free range (other than as on a small hobby farm) is just wrong. They don't go outside because of predators out there and inside is like a zombie nightmare. (and the stench makes me gag just remembering it -- those dead chickens get picked up daily and put somewhere, you know.)
3) Bugs - mostly, maybe grasshoppers or large bugs ok. Mealworms, no. Likewise predator game meats, just no.
4) Beef Liver - DH eats it, but every time I try it, the texture gets to me. I don't drink most soy milk because of grainy textures, too.
What I don't understand are people that refuse to eat foods that were cooked on the bone? Or chicken cooked with skin on ?
I hate waste, and cutting off the bone wastes so much (flavor and meat). DH leaves half of his chicken wings behind, why? I am also actually in favor of deboned meats as they call it, using the whole animal has my respect. Just not in favor of the binders and additives sometimes mixed in. What is wrong with eating a bit of cartilage in my hotdogs, if I chew it off of my chicken wings?
A lot of the mustachian anti more expensive food talk is self serving because if you can convince yourself that there is no difference between a chicken in a disgustingly small cage and one that roams like a chicken is meant to, you can make it to FIRE quicker. Mustachian ideals (environmentalism and mindfulness) don't always line up with real world cost savings. Stop supporting neglect of animals just because it's cheaper. EOR
Post by: Inaya on May 09, 2017, 07:07:12 PM
But Mustachianism is about being mindful and identifying your values and priorities, rather than blindly consuming--be it cars or fancy meats. Hopefully part of that involves some introspection on consumption and use of animal products. There are plenty of people on these forums who have made the choice to pay more for for more humane products because they've prioritized it over FIRE for themselves.I spent my early career working with food processing and being on and off large farms, so I had to come to terms with my meat -eating behaviours.
Having stood in an abbatoir, on a 10k acre ranch, and even cleaned chicken guts out of a backed up pump at a chicken processing facility, I can definitely say yes to meats.
Interesting where I draw the line for me, though:
1) Veal. I would rather eat a wild hunted animal than veal. No matter how cheap or tasty.
2) "Free range" chickens and eggs-- meaning uncaged chickens in a barn. Thousands of chickens pecking at their poop and each other, and walking over dead birds. I will buy the omega 3 diet chickens or ones allowed "natural behaviours" such as roosting perches or more space in a cage, but the idea of free range (other than as on a small hobby farm) is just wrong. They don't go outside because of predators out there and inside is like a zombie nightmare. (and the stench makes me gag just remembering it -- those dead chickens get picked up daily and put somewhere, you know.)
3) Bugs - mostly, maybe grasshoppers or large bugs ok. Mealworms, no. Likewise predator game meats, just no.
4) Beef Liver - DH eats it, but every time I try it, the texture gets to me. I don't drink most soy milk because of grainy textures, too.
What I don't understand are people that refuse to eat foods that were cooked on the bone? Or chicken cooked with skin on ?
I hate waste, and cutting off the bone wastes so much (flavor and meat). DH leaves half of his chicken wings behind, why? I am also actually in favor of deboned meats as they call it, using the whole animal has my respect. Just not in favor of the binders and additives sometimes mixed in. What is wrong with eating a bit of cartilage in my hotdogs, if I chew it off of my chicken wings?
A lot of the mustachian anti more expensive food talk is self serving because if you can convince yourself that there is no difference between a chicken in a disgustingly small cage and one that roams like a chicken is meant to, you can make it to FIRE quicker. Mustachian ideals (environmentalism and mindfulness) don't always line up with real world cost savings. Stop supporting neglect of animals just because it's cheaper. EOR
Post by: Linea_Norway on May 10, 2017, 06:58:13 AM
But Mustachianism is about being mindful and identifying your values and priorities, rather than blindly consuming--be it cars or fancy meats. Hopefully part of that involves some introspection on consumption and use of animal products. There are plenty of people on these forums who have made the choice to pay more for for more humane products because they've prioritized it over FIRE for themselves.I spent my early career working with food processing and being on and off large farms, so I had to come to terms with my meat -eating behaviours.
Having stood in an abbatoir, on a 10k acre ranch, and even cleaned chicken guts out of a backed up pump at a chicken processing facility, I can definitely say yes to meats.
Interesting where I draw the line for me, though:
1) Veal. I would rather eat a wild hunted animal than veal. No matter how cheap or tasty.
2) "Free range" chickens and eggs-- meaning uncaged chickens in a barn. Thousands of chickens pecking at their poop and each other, and walking over dead birds. I will buy the omega 3 diet chickens or ones allowed "natural behaviours" such as roosting perches or more space in a cage, but the idea of free range (other than as on a small hobby farm) is just wrong. They don't go outside because of predators out there and inside is like a zombie nightmare. (and the stench makes me gag just remembering it -- those dead chickens get picked up daily and put somewhere, you know.)
3) Bugs - mostly, maybe grasshoppers or large bugs ok. Mealworms, no. Likewise predator game meats, just no.
4) Beef Liver - DH eats it, but every time I try it, the texture gets to me. I don't drink most soy milk because of grainy textures, too.
What I don't understand are people that refuse to eat foods that were cooked on the bone? Or chicken cooked with skin on ?
I hate waste, and cutting off the bone wastes so much (flavor and meat). DH leaves half of his chicken wings behind, why? I am also actually in favor of deboned meats as they call it, using the whole animal has my respect. Just not in favor of the binders and additives sometimes mixed in. What is wrong with eating a bit of cartilage in my hotdogs, if I chew it off of my chicken wings?
A lot of the mustachian anti more expensive food talk is self serving because if you can convince yourself that there is no difference between a chicken in a disgustingly small cage and one that roams like a chicken is meant to, you can make it to FIRE quicker. Mustachian ideals (environmentalism and mindfulness) don't always line up with real world cost savings. Stop supporting neglect of animals just because it's cheaper. EOR
Indeed. I always buy the most expensive eggs that we free range and biological, in the hope the chickens are getting a better life. I also try to eat much fish that we catch ourselves. And I often buy the most expensive sausages, made of pigs that have a big outside area to walk in.
I also try to eat without meat from time to time to save money. And I save money on all kinds of other food.
Post by: shelivesthedream on May 10, 2017, 07:00:39 AM
Post by: Inaya on May 10, 2017, 07:14:10 AM
Can anyone recommend a comprehensive but total beginner book on cooking organs and other "odd" cuts like oxtail? I'm really on board in theory but am generally anxious about new foods, so I don't want to try these things in public (like at a restaurant) but can't try them at home because I haven't the first idea what to do with them. I'm not very good at cooking meat generally because we don't eat it often and I was vegetarian when I first learned to cook - I can cope with fish fillets, bacon and sausages. Anything else and my husband gets called in to tell me what to do!Odd Bits by Jennifer McLagan (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004J4X7FS/). I'm not sure if it qualifies as "total beginner." I'd say my skill level is pretty average, and most of the recipes seemed doable. But it's an interesting read either way, even if you never cook anything from it.
ETA: If you need more beginner advice handling meats, there are lots of resources out on the Internet, YouTube videos, books, etc. For more general-purpose cooking, Mark Bittman's books are amazing.
Post by: Thegoblinchief on May 10, 2017, 07:34:45 AM
I raise a frequently controversial animal for meat: rabbit. They have a good life here that ends in one bad minute. It's delicious and a meat that nearly anyone with a small yard can produce in good quantity.
Post by: Raenia on May 10, 2017, 07:52:28 AM
I raise a frequently controversial animal for meat: rabbit. They have a good life here that ends in one bad minute. It's delicious and a meat that nearly anyone with a small yard can produce in good quantity.
Seconding the small yard/good quantity. We were in a rowhome with a tiny yard, and still almost replaced storebought meat. With the added bonus of a stack of inexpertly tanned furs for projects! Plus I didn't have to mow the lawn much at all, after we built a covered run that could be moved around the yard to give them more space to roam.
I was surprised by how little bad reaction we got from friends and family when we decided to raise rabbits for meat. I was expecting people to be grossed out. There was one roommate's vegan sister who was predictably horrified, but everyone else was either pretty neutral or even enthusiastic. I still hope to get the BF on board to keep rabbits again someday.
Post by: Inaya on May 10, 2017, 08:54:29 AM
But as an aside, would it be considered antiMustachian to have somebody else slaughter your animals? Or is it still a net gain (ethically, economically, and/or ecologically)?
Post by: Thegoblinchief on May 10, 2017, 10:35:21 AM
Mad props to everyone who is raising their own meat. I couldn't do it. Even if I outsourced the slaughtering and processing, I'd just be too attached to eat anything that I raised. Hell, I get upset when a stuffed animal gets damaged!
But as an aside, would it be considered antiMustachian to have somebody else slaughter your animals? Or is it still a net gain (ethically, economically, and/or ecologically)?
I don't think outsourcing slaughter is a bad thing. It's usually a cost/time/equipment calculation. I know homesteaders who do it and many farmers do it even when not legally required for resale.
With rabbits there's not much equipment needed so it's easy to do yourself. The first couple were definitely weird to eat, both because we'd never had rabbit before and becaus they were animals we'd bonded with.
Slaughtering an animal is never easy emotionally. In fact, many people say that if it starts to become too easy you should rethink raising animals. But it's a part of the circle of life.
Post by: shelivesthedream on May 10, 2017, 11:19:24 AM
I raise a frequently controversial animal for meat: rabbit. They have a good life here that ends in one bad minute. It's delicious and a meat that nearly anyone with a small yard can produce in good quantity.
Seconding the small yard/good quantity. We were in a rowhome with a tiny yard, and still almost replaced storebought meat. With the added bonus of a stack of inexpertly tanned furs for projects! Plus I didn't have to mow the lawn much at all, after we built a covered run that could be moved around the yard to give them more space to roam.
I was surprised by how little bad reaction we got from friends and family when we decided to raise rabbits for meat. I was expecting people to be grossed out. There was one roommate's vegan sister who was predictably horrified, but everyone else was either pretty neutral or even enthusiastic. I still hope to get the BF on board to keep rabbits again someday.
I've never killed anything personally, so I'm wondering how the heck you can manage killing and butchering a rabbit in a rowhome (assuming this is what I think of as a standard Victorian terrace). Did stuff not just get everywhere? I would be so worried about contaminating stuff.
Post by: sw1tch on May 10, 2017, 11:49:56 AM
Can anyone recommend a comprehensive but total beginner book on cooking organs and other "odd" cuts like oxtail? I'm really on board in theory but am generally anxious about new foods, so I don't want to try these things in public (like at a restaurant) but can't try them at home because I haven't the first idea what to do with them. I'm not very good at cooking meat generally because we don't eat it often and I was vegetarian when I first learned to cook - I can cope with fish fillets, bacon and sausages. Anything else and my husband gets called in to tell me what to do!
This post got me thinking about Jamaican oxtail.... Ahhh, that's so good; I've made it at home before. Oxtail definitely is very fatty and rich (if you like that kind of thing which I do).
As for the strangest food I've had, I tried bat curry when I visited Indonesia a number of years ago. That was pretty tasty but definitely had a lot to do with how it was prepared (slow cooked in curry).
Post by: Goldielocks on May 10, 2017, 01:01:10 PM
I spent my early career working with food processing and being on and off large farms, so I had to come to terms with my meat -eating behaviours.
Having stood in an abbatoir, on a 10k acre ranch, and even cleaned chicken guts out of a backed up pump at a chicken processing facility, I can definitely say yes to meats.
Interesting where I draw the line for me, though:
1) Veal. I would rather eat a wild hunted animal than veal. No matter how cheap or tasty.
2) "Free range" chickens and eggs-- meaning uncaged chickens in a barn. Thousands of chickens pecking at their poop and each other, and walking over dead birds. I will buy the omega 3 diet chickens or ones allowed "natural behaviours" such as roosting perches or more space in a cage, but the idea of free range (other than as on a small hobby farm) is just wrong. They don't go outside because of predators out there and inside is like a zombie nightmare. (and the stench makes me gag just remembering it -- those dead chickens get picked up daily and put somewhere, you know.)
3) Bugs - mostly, maybe grasshoppers or large bugs ok. Mealworms, no. Likewise predator game meats, just no.
4) Beef Liver - DH eats it, but every time I try it, the texture gets to me. I don't drink most soy milk because of grainy textures, too.
What I don't understand are people that refuse to eat foods that were cooked on the bone? Or chicken cooked with skin on ?
I hate waste, and cutting off the bone wastes so much (flavor and meat). DH leaves half of his chicken wings behind, why? I am also actually in favor of deboned meats as they call it, using the whole animal has my respect. Just not in favor of the binders and additives sometimes mixed in. What is wrong with eating a bit of cartilage in my hotdogs, if I chew it off of my chicken wings?
A lot of the mustachian anti more expensive food talk is self serving because if you can convince yourself that there is no difference between a chicken in a disgustingly small cage and one that roams like a chicken is meant to, you can make it to FIRE quicker. Mustachian ideals (environmentalism and mindfulness) don't always line up with real world cost savings. Stop supporting neglect of animals just because it's cheaper. EOR
My point is that the "free range" choice people make is often no better and sometimes much worse than the "larger" cage alternatives. Likewise expensive veal is a horror that I would like to abolish.... I am ok with segregating a poorly growing young animal for health care reasons for a short time, but the concept of veal that I saw... nope.
Post by: Thegoblinchief on May 10, 2017, 05:46:54 PM
I've never killed anything personally, so I'm wondering how the heck you can manage killing and butchering a rabbit in a rowhome (assuming this is what I think of as a standard Victorian terrace). Did stuff not just get everywhere? I would be so worried about contaminating stuff.
Rabbits are not messy to butcher. A tarp to catch stray blood, a bucket for the guts underneath where you hang the carcass to dress. The mess stays easily within a radius of, say, six feet tops. I do mine in the garage to not be so visible to the neighbors since our yard is pretty visible but many US rowhouses have a pretty private backyard with a tall wall enclosing it.
Post by: shelivesthedream on May 11, 2017, 01:53:06 AM
I've never killed anything personally, so I'm wondering how the heck you can manage killing and butchering a rabbit in a rowhome (assuming this is what I think of as a standard Victorian terrace). Did stuff not just get everywhere? I would be so worried about contaminating stuff.
Rabbits are not messy to butcher. A tarp to catch stray blood, a bucket for the guts underneath where you hang the carcass to dress. The mess stays easily within a radius of, say, six feet tops. I do mine in the garage to not be so visible to the neighbors since our yard is pretty visible but many US rowhouses have a pretty private backyard with a tall wall enclosing it.
Ah, OK, I think your house layout is different from the one I was envisaging. Fair enough if you have a garage or a decent sized back garden.
Post by: Venturing on May 13, 2017, 03:33:59 AM
Post by: cheapass on June 01, 2017, 08:25:43 AM
Oh yeah, and stop freaking out about protein. You don't need that much. :DThis always makes me want to simultaneously laugh and smack someone. It's like, "Grrrrrr, I'm so tough and rugged I just NEED to eat platefuls of raw meat every day just to stay ALIVE!" Lol, srsly. No one in a developed country above the poverty line who can list three non-meat sources of protein and occasionally thinks about it in passing is going to be protein deficient.
This may apply for the general population but for those of us who engage in strenuous weight training 3-4x per week a bit of extra protein can be the difference between being sore and run down vs. feeling great and recovered for the next workout. You can't build a house without lumber.
Post by: Raenia on June 01, 2017, 09:00:38 AM
I've never killed anything personally, so I'm wondering how the heck you can manage killing and butchering a rabbit in a rowhome (assuming this is what I think of as a standard Victorian terrace). Did stuff not just get everywhere? I would be so worried about contaminating stuff.
Rabbits are not messy to butcher. A tarp to catch stray blood, a bucket for the guts underneath where you hang the carcass to dress. The mess stays easily within a radius of, say, six feet tops. I do mine in the garage to not be so visible to the neighbors since our yard is pretty visible but many US rowhouses have a pretty private backyard with a tall wall enclosing it.
Ah, OK, I think your house layout is different from the one I was envisaging. Fair enough if you have a garage or a decent sized back garden.
Sorry for not responding earlier, but Thegoblinchief nailed it. Our yard was only about 12-14 ft wide, but had a tall privacy fence to hide from the neighbors. I did mine on the cement patio, with a small tarp and a bucket to catch the drips and discards. The hutch plus the pen we used for grazing took up more space than my slaughtering setup.
Post by: cheapass on June 01, 2017, 09:29:51 AM
Ooh I like this thread a LOT.
My boyfriend goes hunting when he's camping and I'm ashamed to say my initial reaction, when first we met, was to be slightly horrified. That he would kill a bunny. And then eat it. But I EAT MEAT! What a hypocrite!
At least you're honest enough with yourself to evaluate your biases and improve your mindset. Many people never recognize that outsourcing the killing is still killing. Buying a cellophane wrapped steak is much "easier" than shooting an animal and butchering it yourself but which one is the more ethical choice? They both died, but which animal lived a better life? And which system do we want to support with our dollars?
Post by: dreams_and_discoveries on June 01, 2017, 10:02:25 AM
Veg and grains and dairy I'm good with, I know how they are grown/raised
Post by: cobbb11 on June 02, 2017, 09:29:45 AM
Also I personally don't think anyone can complain about climate change and the environment without first adopting a vegan diet. It's something simple everyone can do at any time and you don't need a President to tell you to do it.
In regards to the mock meats discussion, no one ever claims they're healthy. Trust me you can be unhealthy as a vegan, but at least you're only hurting yourself and not causing harm to other beings. They are meant to be occasional treats like pizza and ice cream (both have great vegan varieties, even Ben and Jerry's has vegan ice cream), and also help people who are transitioning to plant-based and still have meat cravings. But I promise you within 2/3 weeks, your tastes will change.
There's also a 30 minute Q&A video that takes place after this lecture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4&t=1502s
Post by: Bart1ma3u5 on June 02, 2017, 11:46:49 AM
Raising rabbits is something that intrigues me that I might look into in the future, in addition to chickens for eggs.
Post by: Sailor Sam on June 02, 2017, 12:17:34 PM
If you can get through this whole lecture and not be vegan after, than kudos, but this changed me on the spot. There is no such thing as "humane" in the animal products world when the end result is always an early death to an otherwise perfectly functioning and sentient animal. That's why we don't have things like humane rape and humane murder.
Also I personally don't think anyone can complain about climate change and the environment without first adopting a vegan diet. It's something simple everyone can do at any time and you don't need a President to tell you to do it.
In regards to the mock meats discussion, no one ever claims they're healthy. Trust me you can be unhealthy as a vegan, but at least you're only hurting yourself and not causing harm to other beings. They are meant to be occasional treats like pizza and ice cream (both have great vegan varieties, even Ben and Jerry's has vegan ice cream), and also help people who are transitioning to plant-based and still have meat cravings. But I promise you within 2/3 weeks, your tastes will change.
There's also a 30 minute Q&A video that takes place after this lecture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4&t=1502s
Hey cobbb11, maybe you can answer some questions for me. I've often wondered what the idea solution to the existence of animals, under a fully vegan moral code. If no animals are food, then they must be either pets or wild.
Animal in the wild don't die of old age. They die of predation, exposure, or illness. Wouldn't setting all the feed animals free also be humans causing the premature ending of an otherwise viable animal?
Perhaps that example doesn't help, because we can all admit the magical release of all feed animals currently awaiting slaughter ain't never going to happen. But even a carefully scheduled released plan seems problematic. At this point the breed of cows, chickens, and hogs eaten in N. American have been heavily modified by humans, and those modifications do not emphasis survival in the wild. If anything, the things humans want reduces survivalist in the wild. Chicken's with breasts so massive they cannot walk will have brutish lives in the wild. When taking into account those human adaptations, is it moral to simply release the current version of Holstein or Angus into the wild.
If wild release isn't moral, and they must remain pets, that also has moral implications on the continued existence of large animals. We're no longer a society predicated on the ability to keep a cow and a sheep in the back garden. Urban density is just going to increase.
From your post count, you seem new here and you might not know me very well. Let me assure you this is a sincere conversation, based on curiosity. I'm not collecting ammunition to rebut. I don't agree with you, but I accept your right to think keeping animals for meat is immoral, but correcting the moral issue creates a whole slew of future moral questions. I'm interested in your thoughts.
Post by: Thegoblinchief on June 02, 2017, 12:25:28 PM
Also I personally don't think anyone can complain about climate change and the environment without first adopting a vegan diet.
I challenge you to do some research on this issue. I don't claim to have read everything on the topic, but my understanding is that few biological systems sequester more carbon than grasslands pulsed by rotationally grazing herbivores. Contrary to the common vegan/environmental crowd's belief that cows are killing the planet, grass-fed cattle (and other ruminants) on properly managed pastures do wondrous things to heal the planet. The amount of carbon sequestered by actively managed pasture or sylvopasture can approach 100x the amount of wild forest systems, in that topsoil builds at close to an inch a year versus an inch a century.
If you look at regenerating landscapes with design systems like permaculture, it nearly always involves animals.
The killing and eating of sentient beings is a whole other issue, not going to try debating that as the viewpoints are just too far apart to make discussion practical, but veganism - especially one based primarily off of annual food crops is NOT more environmentally friendly than a mixed diet of animal and plants with the animal portion coming exclusively from perennial systems. As someone involved with meat animals from birth to death, it's not an easy choice to make, but I take it because it's what is personally best for my body (after experimenting with plant-based diets for some time) and I make sure that the death is as quick and painless as possible.
Post by: Davnasty on June 02, 2017, 12:33:46 PM
Yeah... forgot to mention the random small birds I've eaten because my partner and his grand-father kill the birds that invade the grand-father's bird feeders and don't leave room for the pretty birds... Grand-mother wasn't thrilled about it, but she ate them as well nonetheless. The breasts we're about the size of a dime, but sautéed in some butter they were delicious.It is, but so little meat. I had it battered and fried so that may have influenced my opinion.
Never had squirrel though... I'd assume it would be pretty tasty.
Post by: Case on June 02, 2017, 12:42:24 PM
Now, I'm going to challenge you on something: it is ok to not know where your food came from, or what's in it. Saying that detachment from food sources is disrespectful is false, and possibly an inappropriate personification. Finally, the connection between detachment of food origin and sustainability is indirect at best.
Don't be such a judge on what others do or think.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What was that quote I feel like I heard recently from some guy? Something along the lines of, "How to be Happy, Rich, and Save the World." Who was he again? Ah well, forget about it.
Anywho, I'm not judging people for what others want to do and think. I'm commenting on the lack of thinking behind their "decision" making. Just as this whole site is dedicated to righting the sinking ship of financially literacy among our society, food consumption and production is a second ship sinking just along side. Our current detachment from food sources is not only disrespectful, but practically unsustainable. Just as actions in personal finance have consequences, so do actions at the grocery store. If someone wants to make an informed decision about food that doesn't contribute to fixing the problem, by all means do what you want. However, lambasting cultural differences or non-normative food culture out of ignorance is not a trait I respect.Why don't we start a thread on some of the stupid shit you're in to?MOD NOTE: Rule #1
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I love White Castle, McDonald's Fillet-O-Fish, and the all-you-can-eat prime rib buffets at casinos. I blame nostalgia. What else would you like to know?
Post by: cobbb11 on June 02, 2017, 01:04:47 PM
If you can get through this whole lecture and not be vegan after, than kudos, but this changed me on the spot. There is no such thing as "humane" in the animal products world when the end result is always an early death to an otherwise perfectly functioning and sentient animal. That's why we don't have things like humane rape and humane murder.
Also I personally don't think anyone can complain about climate change and the environment without first adopting a vegan diet. It's something simple everyone can do at any time and you don't need a President to tell you to do it.
In regards to the mock meats discussion, no one ever claims they're healthy. Trust me you can be unhealthy as a vegan, but at least you're only hurting yourself and not causing harm to other beings. They are meant to be occasional treats like pizza and ice cream (both have great vegan varieties, even Ben and Jerry's has vegan ice cream), and also help people who are transitioning to plant-based and still have meat cravings. But I promise you within 2/3 weeks, your tastes will change.
There's also a 30 minute Q&A video that takes place after this lecture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4&t=1502s
Hey cobbb11, maybe you can answer some questions for me. I've often wondered what the idea solution to the existence of animals, under a fully vegan moral code. If no animals are food, then they must be either pets or wild.
Animal in the wild don't die of old age. They die of predation, exposure, or illness. Wouldn't setting all the feed animals free also be humans causing the premature ending of an otherwise viable animal?
Perhaps that example doesn't help, because we can all admit the magical release of all feed animals currently awaiting slaughter ain't never going to happen. But even a carefully scheduled released plan seems problematic. At this point the breed of cows, chickens, and hogs eaten in N. American have been heavily modified by humans, and those modifications do not emphasis survival in the wild. If anything, the things humans want reduces survivalist in the wild. Chicken's with breasts so massive they cannot walk will have brutish lives in the wild. When taking into account those human adaptations, is it moral to simply release the current version of Holstein or Angus into the wild.
If wild release isn't moral, and they must remain pets, that also has moral implications on the continued existence of large animals. We're no longer a society predicated on the ability to keep a cow and a sheep in the back garden. Urban density is just going to increase.
From your post count, you seem new here and you might not know me very well. Let me assure you this is a sincere conversation, based on curiosity. I'm not collecting ammunition to rebut. I don't agree with you, but I accept your right to think keeping animals for meat is immoral, but correcting the moral issue creates a whole slew of future moral questions. I'm interested in your thoughts.
I've been here for years, just post very little. But no worries, I love discussing this topic. Although I think many questions you have would be answered in the video I linked.
Animals killing other animals in nature is of no concern to me. True carnivores need to eat other animals to survive (they don't have to worry about clogged arteries like humans, who are truly herbivorous and eat meat/dairy at our own detriment. It is true we have basically "engineered" animals at this point to have no chance for survival in the wild and instead provide maximum output of meat/milk/eggs etc. There is no good solution, but whether we give as many as possible to sanctuaries, or did some kind of cut off and just "finished off" the current animal stock and stopped after that....I don't know. But the concern is the future of these animals and not exploiting them for generations to come, the same way I would assume you wouldn't exploit your dog/cat.
Post by: cobbb11 on June 02, 2017, 01:07:22 PM
Also I personally don't think anyone can complain about climate change and the environment without first adopting a vegan diet.
I challenge you to do some research on this issue. I don't claim to have read everything on the topic, but my understanding is that few biological systems sequester more carbon than grasslands pulsed by rotationally grazing herbivores. Contrary to the common vegan/environmental crowd's belief that cows are killing the planet, grass-fed cattle (and other ruminants) on properly managed pastures do wondrous things to heal the planet. The amount of carbon sequestered by actively managed pasture or sylvopasture can approach 100x the amount of wild forest systems, in that topsoil builds at close to an inch a year versus an inch a century.
If you look at regenerating landscapes with design systems like permaculture, it nearly always involves animals.
The killing and eating of sentient beings is a whole other issue, not going to try debating that as the viewpoints are just too far apart to make discussion practical, but veganism - especially one based primarily off of annual food crops is NOT more environmentally friendly than a mixed diet of animal and plants with the animal portion coming exclusively from perennial systems. As someone involved with meat animals from birth to death, it's not an easy choice to make, but I take it because it's what is personally best for my body (after experimenting with plant-based diets for some time) and I make sure that the death is as quick and painless as possible.
It's pretty simple logic to me, but I have done the research as well:
We need to grow crops for not only human consumption, but also a MASSIVELY greater number of animal consumption so that they can grow old enough for future human consumption as well. How does it not make perfect sense that cutting out the "middle man" and everyone only eat the crops directly would have nothing but positive benefits for the planet? We already grow enough food for all humans if we would just allocate it. Please watch the video I linked above if you haven't. It answers many questions, the guy speaking has done this for years.
Post by: KCM5 on June 02, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Also I personally don't think anyone can complain about climate change and the environment without first adopting a vegan diet.
I challenge you to do some research on this issue. I don't claim to have read everything on the topic, but my understanding is that few biological systems sequester more carbon than grasslands pulsed by rotationally grazing herbivores. Contrary to the common vegan/environmental crowd's belief that cows are killing the planet, grass-fed cattle (and other ruminants) on properly managed pastures do wondrous things to heal the planet. The amount of carbon sequestered by actively managed pasture or sylvopasture can approach 100x the amount of wild forest systems, in that topsoil builds at close to an inch a year versus an inch a century.
If you look at regenerating landscapes with design systems like permaculture, it nearly always involves animals.
The killing and eating of sentient beings is a whole other issue, not going to try debating that as the viewpoints are just too far apart to make discussion practical, but veganism - especially one based primarily off of annual food crops is NOT more environmentally friendly than a mixed diet of animal and plants with the animal portion coming exclusively from perennial systems. As someone involved with meat animals from birth to death, it's not an easy choice to make, but I take it because it's what is personally best for my body (after experimenting with plant-based diets for some time) and I make sure that the death is as quick and painless as possible.
It's pretty simple logic to me, but I have done the research as well:
We need to grow crops for not only human consumption, but also a MASSIVELY greater number of animal consumption so that they can grow old enough for future human consumption as well. How does it not make perfect sense that cutting out the "middle man" and everyone only eat the crops directly would have nothing but positive benefits for the planet? We already grow enough food for all humans if we would just allocate it. Please watch the video I linked above if you haven't. It answers many questions, the guy speaking has done this for years.
You're surmising that all meat is fed annual crops grown by humans. There are other options - grazing, as Thegoblinchief mentioned, and wild hunted meat. Both of these options do not require crops that humans would eat.
I'm seconding the above suggestion that you do more research on the issue.
One thing that is clear, is that humans (North Americans among them) generally eat way more meat than is reasonable for the planet to sustain. In order to have a sustainable system, we'd need to change the way we grow/raise/catch our food as well as reduce our meat consumption. But eliminating it would not necessarily be the answer.
Post by: Goldielocks on June 02, 2017, 06:26:55 PM
Post by: Kitsune on June 02, 2017, 06:57:57 PM
You're surmising that all meat is fed annual crops grown by humans. There are other options - grazing, as Thegoblinchief mentioned, and wild hunted meat. Both of these options do not require crops that humans would eat.
I'm seconding the above suggestion that you do more research on the issue.
One thing that is clear, is that humans (North Americans among them) generally eat way more meat than is reasonable for the planet to sustain. In order to have a sustainable system, we'd need to change the way we grow/raise/catch our food as well as reduce our meat consumption. But eliminating it would not necessarily be the answer.
Around here, deer hunting is a necessity - with the elimination of natural predators, the deer population can either be (humanely) thinned out, or a decent portion can starve over winter.
Also, a small-scale farm can't function with no animals. Vegetables need fertilizer. In short, that means composted manure or chemical additives (or vegetable compost with chemical additives...) Large-scale grain farming is environmentally dubious, requires pesticides and a range of chemical fertilizers, and kills a whole lot of field-dwelling animals (mice, voles, rabbits) as a byproduct.
I'll definitely agree that current meat consumption is unsustainable (and unhealthy), and current industrial farming is problematic in the extreme, but if your ethical standard is "nothing should die"... well, good luck...
Post by: AnnaGrowsAMustache on June 02, 2017, 07:18:14 PM
I'd definitely try faux chicken fungus, though.
My co-workers have a thing with milk. They actually pour it down the sink if it gets within a FEW DAYS of the best before date, and they certainly wouldn't drink it after that, even if it looks and smells just fine. The rule now is that no one pours away milk. Just leave it for Anna and she'll take it home. And they think this means I"M the weirdo...
Post by: cobbb11 on June 03, 2017, 08:55:08 PM
Also I personally don't think anyone can complain about climate change and the environment without first adopting a vegan diet.
I challenge you to do some research on this issue. I don't claim to have read everything on the topic, but my understanding is that few biological systems sequester more carbon than grasslands pulsed by rotationally grazing herbivores. Contrary to the common vegan/environmental crowd's belief that cows are killing the planet, grass-fed cattle (and other ruminants) on properly managed pastures do wondrous things to heal the planet. The amount of carbon sequestered by actively managed pasture or sylvopasture can approach 100x the amount of wild forest systems, in that topsoil builds at close to an inch a year versus an inch a century.
If you look at regenerating landscapes with design systems like permaculture, it nearly always involves animals.
The killing and eating of sentient beings is a whole other issue, not going to try debating that as the viewpoints are just too far apart to make discussion practical, but veganism - especially one based primarily off of annual food crops is NOT more environmentally friendly than a mixed diet of animal and plants with the animal portion coming exclusively from perennial systems. As someone involved with meat animals from birth to death, it's not an easy choice to make, but I take it because it's what is personally best for my body (after experimenting with plant-based diets for some time) and I make sure that the death is as quick and painless as possible.
It's pretty simple logic to me, but I have done the research as well:
We need to grow crops for not only human consumption, but also a MASSIVELY greater number of animal consumption so that they can grow old enough for future human consumption as well. How does it not make perfect sense that cutting out the "middle man" and everyone only eat the crops directly would have nothing but positive benefits for the planet? We already grow enough food for all humans if we would just allocate it. Please watch the video I linked above if you haven't. It answers many questions, the guy speaking has done this for years.
You're surmising that all meat is fed annual crops grown by humans. There are other options - grazing, as Thegoblinchief mentioned, and wild hunted meat. Both of these options do not require crops that humans would eat.
I'm seconding the above suggestion that you do more research on the issue.
One thing that is clear, is that humans (North Americans among them) generally eat way more meat than is reasonable for the planet to sustain. In order to have a sustainable system, we'd need to change the way we grow/raise/catch our food as well as reduce our meat consumption. But eliminating it would not necessarily be the answer.
If you're going to say I need more research, then please provide citation for your own claims. You can watch the video I originally linked (again, I request everyone that has a rebuttal to the idea that veganism is one of the best things for ourselves and our planet to please watch that Gary Yourofsky speech before trying to refute), Cowspiracy, Forks Over Knives, the research on nutritionfacts.org, Drs Barnard, Esselstyn, McDougall, Gregor etc. and many other places that will show you a vegan diet is not only viable for every stage of human life, but we thrive on it. Even the World Heath Org has connected meat to cancer.
I really hate that argument that "I agree we eat too much of it so we should MODERATE it". When you say something is healthy in moderation, you're basically saying "I know this will harm me if I do too much of it, so I should moderate it to keep the danger lower". Does anyone ever say to moderate the amount of fruits and vegetables you should eat? Here's a good video on that topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY1PFPhQbLg&t=358s
Post by: cobbb11 on June 03, 2017, 08:59:01 PM
You're surmising that all meat is fed annual crops grown by humans. There are other options - grazing, as Thegoblinchief mentioned, and wild hunted meat. Both of these options do not require crops that humans would eat.
I'm seconding the above suggestion that you do more research on the issue.
One thing that is clear, is that humans (North Americans among them) generally eat way more meat than is reasonable for the planet to sustain. In order to have a sustainable system, we'd need to change the way we grow/raise/catch our food as well as reduce our meat consumption. But eliminating it would not necessarily be the answer.
Around here, deer hunting is a necessity - with the elimination of natural predators, the deer population can either be (humanely) thinned out, or a decent portion can starve over winter.
Also, a small-scale farm can't function with no animals. Vegetables need fertilizer. In short, that means composted manure or chemical additives (or vegetable compost with chemical additives...) Large-scale grain farming is environmentally dubious, requires pesticides and a range of chemical fertilizers, and kills a whole lot of field-dwelling animals (mice, voles, rabbits) as a byproduct.
I'll definitely agree that current meat consumption is unsustainable (and unhealthy), and current industrial farming is problematic in the extreme, but if your ethical standard is "nothing should die"... well, good luck...
If the biggest problem is fertilizer than fine, keep cows/pigs/chickens on farms as regular pets like dogs and cats, let them live healthy lives, feed them regularly but not the obcense amounts to get them fat for consumption, and then take their manure for fertilizer. I'm sure a cow would much rather it's crap be used to grow more food (that they themselves would be eating too), then be forcefully impregnated to provide humans with its milk while its baby is stolen and killed for veal.
Post by: maizefolk on June 03, 2017, 10:27:32 PM
If you're going to say I need more research, then please provide citation for your own claims. You can watch the video I originally linked (again, I request everyone that has a rebuttal to the idea that veganism is one of the best things for ourselves and our planet to please watch that Gary Yourofsky speech before trying to refute), Cowspiracy, Forks Over Knives, the research on nutritionfacts.org, Drs Barnard, Esselstyn, McDougall, Gregor etc. and many other places that will show you a vegan diet is not only viable for every stage of human life, but we thrive on it. Even the World Heath Org has connected meat to cancer.
I really hate that argument that "I agree we eat too much of it so we should MODERATE it". When you say something is healthy in moderation, you're basically saying "I know this will harm me if I do too much of it, so I should moderate it to keep the danger lower". Does anyone ever say to moderate the amount of fruits and vegetables you should eat? Here's a good video on that topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY1PFPhQbLg&t=358s
Last time I stuck my nose into a thread on what the science says about veganism it took days and finally ended up getting locked by the mods, but there is some faulty reasoning in your second paragraph that is bothering me: You say "When you say something is healthy in moderation, you're basically saying "I know this will harm me if I do too much of it, so I should moderate it to keep the danger lower"." Yet there are countless examples of foods that truly are healthy in moderation, which means that too much OR too little is bad for you.
For example, vitamin A. Too little and you get night blindness, impaired immune function, and birth defects. Too much and you get vomiting, skin peeling, cirrhosis, and bleeding in the lungs. This is why one should always avoid eating polar bear liver if you ever find yourself stranded in the arctic (also keep any sled dogs you may have with you from eating it).
Spinach is another good example of a food that is healthy in moderation. Loaded full of various vitamins and actually quite high in protein per calorie. But too much of it in the diet increases the amount of oxalate in your bloodstream increasing your risk of kidney stones.
Red wine seems to provide health benefits (reduced heart disease), but again, over indulgence creates its own problems, meaning moderation is likely the best course...
So without weighing in on the case meat specifically (although I believe evidence collected to date does suggest that consumption of fish, at least, is linked with even more favorable health outcomes than vegan diets), I think it is clear there are lots of foods which can indeed be healthier to eat in moderation than either overindulgence or abstention.
TL;DR "Too much meat is bad for you" != "The best amount of meat to eat is zero."
Post by: cobbb11 on June 04, 2017, 11:55:03 AM
If you're going to say I need more research, then please provide citation for your own claims. You can watch the video I originally linked (again, I request everyone that has a rebuttal to the idea that veganism is one of the best things for ourselves and our planet to please watch that Gary Yourofsky speech before trying to refute), Cowspiracy, Forks Over Knives, the research on nutritionfacts.org, Drs Barnard, Esselstyn, McDougall, Gregor etc. and many other places that will show you a vegan diet is not only viable for every stage of human life, but we thrive on it. Even the World Heath Org has connected meat to cancer.
I really hate that argument that "I agree we eat too much of it so we should MODERATE it". When you say something is healthy in moderation, you're basically saying "I know this will harm me if I do too much of it, so I should moderate it to keep the danger lower". Does anyone ever say to moderate the amount of fruits and vegetables you should eat? Here's a good video on that topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY1PFPhQbLg&t=358s
Last time I stuck my nose into a thread on what the science says about veganism it took days and finally ended up getting locked by the mods, but there is some faulty reasoning in your second paragraph that is bothering me: You say "When you say something is healthy in moderation, you're basically saying "I know this will harm me if I do too much of it, so I should moderate it to keep the danger lower"." Yet there are countless examples of foods that truly are healthy in moderation, which means that too much OR too little is bad for you.
For example, vitamin A. Too little and you get night blindness, impaired immune function, and birth defects. Too much and you get vomiting, skin peeling, cirrhosis, and bleeding in the lungs. This is why one should always avoid eating polar bear liver if you ever find yourself stranded in the arctic (also keep any sled dogs you may have with you from eating it).
Spinach is another good example of a food that is healthy in moderation. Loaded full of various vitamins and actually quite high in protein per calorie. But too much of it in the diet increases the amount of oxalate in your bloodstream increasing your risk of kidney stones.
Red wine seems to provide health benefits (reduced heart disease), but again, over indulgence creates its own problems, meaning moderation is likely the best course...
So without weighing in on the case meat specifically (although I believe evidence collected to date does suggest that consumption of fish, at least, is linked with even more favorable health outcomes than vegan diets), I think it is clear there are lots of foods which can indeed be healthier to eat in moderation than either overindulgence or abstention.
TL;DR "Too much meat is bad for you" != "The best amount of meat to eat is zero."
I would never recommended a diet of only one food, but assuming you have overall healthy organs, you would have to consume a near impossible amount of food in a short amount of time to "overdose" on those vitamins/minerals. One of the best things about a vegan diet is you don't have to calorie restrict. Your stomach will naturally send signals to your brain when it has consumed enough. Eating over processed crap and oils have way more calories in them than what your stomach thinks based on the receptors it has so you will think you're hungry when you already consumed plenty of calories.
Any supposed benefits you can get from meat/dairy, you can get from plant foods. And yes the best amount of meat is zero when we have to worry about things like heart disease and cancer. Not to mention the ethical argument as well. https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer.html
I know mustachians tend to look at the cold hard facts and not let emotions guide them, one of the reasons why I love the moment so much. I just don't get when it comes down to "hey, look at all this research that shows mean/dairy is bad for you and we are naturally herbivores and the longest lived societies in the world are at least vegetarian", everyone goes all emotional
and can't stand the thought of not having meat or cheese anymore.
As anyone actually watched the Gary Yourofsky lecture yet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4&t=1707s
Post by: Sailor Sam on June 04, 2017, 12:50:31 PM
As for morals, well, I'm 36 and the only person responsible for my moral landscape is me. It's possible you might sway me with sincere discussion, but it certainly won't happen if you lecture me from a lofty position so high above my omnivorous self. The only thing that hill is going to earn you is increased truculence, and fortification of my current position. I don't want to watch your video, because I won't believe it. Instead, why don't you tell me why veganism is working for you, from both a moral and physical standpoint?
Example, I'd still like to have a discussion on what we should morally do with all those extra feedlot animals currently in existence. And what to do about breeds that have been so heavily modified by humans. Let them die? Make them pets? Is pet ownership moral?
Last time you replied with 'meh, dunno'. Uninspiring, and unsurprising that I won't follow your leadership down some new path. So, here. Here is your space inspire me!
Post by: maizefolk on June 04, 2017, 12:52:28 PM
Any supposed benefits you can get from meat/dairy, you can get from plant foods. And yes the best amount of meat is zero when we have to worry about things like heart disease and cancer. Not to mention the ethical argument as well. https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer.html
Note that this link is specifically about processed meats. The presumptive mode of action are nitrates added as preservatives (either directly or from nitrate containing celery extracts in foods labeled as having no added nitrates). The WHO makes these classifications based on the level of statistical confidence in the link, not the estimated effect size.
So it is helpful to understand that the same risk category the WHO has put processed meats (Category 1) into also includes very scary and dangerous things (cigarettes and asbestos), but also a lot of things that, while we know with a lot of statistical evidence do increase the risk of cancer, but do so by small amounts: alcoholic beverages, wood dust, sunlight, and flying on planes (through increased exposure to ionizing radiation). But again, this is a bit of a side tangent, because the article you linked to is specifically about the health effects of a preservation method used for some meat products, not meat itself.
And again, there is plenty of evidence that high consumption levels of red meat isn't great for the heart, so I'm not arguing that high meat diets are necessarily healthy. Just that the specific evidence and reasoning being used here doesn't hold up.
Quote
I know mustachians tend to look at the cold hard facts and not let emotions guide them, one of the reasons why I love the moment so much. I just don't get when it comes down to "hey, look at all this research that shows mean/dairy is bad for you and we are naturally herbivores and the longest lived societies in the world are at least vegetarian", everyone goes all emotional and can't stand the thought of not having meat or cheese anymore.
I find that generally when a person, or group of people, who I know well react in a way that is completely different from how I would expect, that it is often a sign there is something about the situation that I don't understand or misinterpreted. In this case you feel like you've presented strong evidence for three points (we'll get to them individually below), and a group of people that you know to be generally very rational and evidence driven are irrationally rejecting that evidence. So now you're confronting with two possibilities. 1) In this particular case, many different individual people are all suddenly picking this one issue to be irrational about or 2) The evidence that seems clear cut and convincing to you isn't actually as convincing to others as you think it should be.
1) "meat/dairy is bad for you"
See above for a discussion of how the evidence you presented about the specific link to cancer for all meat/dairy doesn't hold up with the evidence collected to date. There is lots of evidence that excessive amounts of red meat and dairy is bad for the human heart. Does anyone on this thread want to speak up and disagree with this point? However, the problem with the reasoning that if an excessively large amount of something is bad for you, a small amount must also be bad for you was the subject of my last point.
2) "we are naturally herbivores"
This one could easily devolve into an argument about the definition of what naturally is. We certainly have the capacity to live on diets completely free of animals and animal products. So you could say that we naturally have the capacity to be herbivores. But what do "natural" humans do? Well we can look at our closest living relatives: chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. All three consume a lot less meat than we do, but they do eat meat. We can look at our closest extinct relatives, Neanderthals (Homo sapiens ssp. neanderthalensis), who appear to have gotten approx. 80% of their calories from meat.* Looking at existing hunter gatherer populations, the proportion of calories coming from meat ranges from ~30-75%.**
3) "the longest lived societies in the world are at least vegetarian"
I'm assuming this is a reference to the Blue Zone studies of places in the world where people are most likely to live to 100? If so, I'm going to steal the below from another thread on diet and health.
"[There were five blue zones identified in the original National Geographic story on blue zones] we have the Okinawans who eat (small) portions of fish and pork and are the longest lived people on Earth. We have the seven day adventists, where those who consumed fish tended to live longer than those who were purely vegan or even purely vegetarian (source: http://www.livescience.com/37102-vegetarians-live-longer.html). We have the greeks of the island Icaria where goats milk and goats cheese are a regular part of the diet. We have Sardinia, where the people have non-trivial amounts of meat and cheese in their diets (though likely less than the average american), and we have Nicoya peninsula where diets include lots of eggs and meat from both chickens and pigs."
But that's a guess. If you have a different source of evidence for this third point, I'd be happy to take a look at it.
Summary: I'm not trying to get you to question your own dietary choices. I'm not questioning your ethics. I think everyone is entitled to their own views on ethics as long as they are trying to impose those values on others by force. I'm not even trying to get you to stop trying to convince other people to stop eating meat if you feel you are ethically compelled to do so. I'm simply trying to show you how the current evidence and logic you are using to make your case is at best ineffective and at worst misleading.
*Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160314091128.htm
**Source Table 3 in the linked PDF: http://www.unm.edu/~hkaplan/KaplanHillLancasterHurtado_2000_LHEvolution.pdf
Post by: cobbb11 on June 04, 2017, 01:04:29 PM
I think the problem has always been, and continues to remain, that the study of nutrition is still in its infancy. You have studies; I have studies; they appear to contraindicate each other. Then only answer we can currently point to with certainty is that we don't yet have the answers.
As for morals, well, I'm 36 and the only person responsible for my moral landscape is me. It's possible you might sway me with sincere discussion, but it certainly won't happen if you lecture me from a lofty position so high above my omnivorous self. The only thing that hill is going to earn you is increased truculence, and fortification of my current position. I don't want to watch your video, because I won't believe it. Instead, why don't you tell me why veganism is working for you, from both a moral and physical standpoint?
Example, I'd still like to have a discussion on what we should morally do with all those extra feedlot animals currently in existence. And what to do about breeds that have been so heavily modified by humans. Let them die? Make them pets? Is pet ownership moral?
Last time you replied with 'meh, dunno'. Uninspiring, and unsurprising that I won't follow your leadership down some new path. So, here. Here is your space inspire me!
I could say something like, "I choose to buy coke over pepsi. It's MY choice". That is a different argument then saying "let me eat meat because it's MY choice". In this second case, your choice directly affects the lives of other beings. That's like saying being a slave owner is my choice. Your choices can very well have consequences on others.
What you consider "lofty", I consider simple morals. I highly doubt if you saw a chicken in the middle of the street you would chase it down and kill it. Dogs/cats are treated like family members, and in some cases even better since they aren't expected to go to work and provide for the good of the family. They pretty much consume and just give love back. I fail to see any moral dilemma there. Chickens/cows/pigs are born and bred to be killed in their prime solely to be eaten by a species that has no true need for them to survive.
I've given you several links. You are choose to be purposefully ignorant. Are you afraid that what he lecturer says might actually be a complete mindf*** and change your whole outlook as it did mine over a year ago? I went vegan, changed nothing else about my lifestyle, and went from 227 to 197 from Feb'16 to August'16. But I'm not telling you take my word for it. I'm providing you with a lot of evidence, evidence not funded by the meat and dairy industry that have profits to be concerned about, and i'm just asking you to try it out for 2 weeks minimum. That's the time I gave myself. I'm fully Italian and from NJ. I thought there was no way I could keep it up long term without cheese, but 2 weeks was doable. I haven't looked back since.
Just take an hour out of your day and watch the lecture. If you still don't agree, then fine, it's your call. I would just prefer taking the path that doesn't cause pain and suffering to creatures I share this world with that wish no harm on me. Everyone cares so much about climate change and the Paris Accords we just backed out of in the USA...here's a great way to make a difference that doesn't require a presidential order.
Post by: Sailor Sam on June 04, 2017, 01:16:04 PM
But, eh, you're not interested. So good day and good luck.
Post by: cobbb11 on June 04, 2017, 02:19:17 PM
Post by: AnnaGrowsAMustache on June 04, 2017, 03:35:38 PM
Wrong sir. I find the whole process of animal agriculture abhorrent, and I'm trying to show you various outlets that will do a better job explaining it than I possibly could do in a MMM forum, and you seem to prefer to keep your head in the sand. It's your call. Just know that your call also affects innocent sentient lives.
I'm guessing that you're against battery egg farming, as we all should be, and probably against "barn raised" and all that stuff that isn't much better than battery farming. What's your opinion on owning your own chickens for meat and eggs? I guess what I'm asking is whether you're against the entire idea of livestock, or just commercial operations. Simply interested in your personal take on things.
Post by: cobbb11 on June 04, 2017, 03:47:07 PM
Wrong sir. I find the whole process of animal agriculture abhorrent, and I'm trying to show you various outlets that will do a better job explaining it than I possibly could do in a MMM forum, and you seem to prefer to keep your head in the sand. It's your call. Just know that your call also affects innocent sentient lives.
I'm guessing that you're against battery egg farming, as we all should be, and probably against "barn raised" and all that stuff that isn't much better than battery farming. What's your opinion on owning your own chickens for meat and eggs? I guess what I'm asking is whether you're against the entire idea of livestock, or just commercial operations. Simply interested in your personal take on things.
Pretty much only way I can see around the ethics argument would be if you found a dead animal somewhere that died of natural causes, freak accident, or was the remains of some other animal's kill, and decided to bring it home and eat it. Raising chickens as pets that you intend to keep until they die naturally and taking their eggs that would otherwise be unfertilized would probably be considered ok as well. I'm not the "vegan police" though. I just operate under the simple premise of treat others how you would want to be treated. So if I was able to have all my needs met and someone wanted eggs that came out of me that I had no use for and couldn't turn into a baby chick and would just rot on the ground anyway...I don't see why I would have a problem with that. But obviously those examples are the staggering minority and we haven't even talked about the health implications on why someone would want to eat those things other than taste and habit.
I just re-read what you said though and saw you mentioned raising chickens for meat. This goes to the "humane" argument and I would challenge anyone that there is no such this as humane killing. Taking someone's life against their will is not tolerated in our society when it is human to human, or even human to dogs/cats/Cecil the Lion (i've seen an article pop up on my facebook of some punks forcing an alligator to inhale cigarette smoke for christ's sake). And the first thing I do is go to the comment section and look at the rabid hypocrisy of people condemning those guys to death or long prison sentences for harming the animals, yet I'm sure after hitting 'send' they head straight for McD's or put some steaks on a grill. There is no reason why some animals should be considered cruel to kill and others not.
Post by: AnnaGrowsAMustache on June 04, 2017, 04:07:10 PM
Wrong sir. I find the whole process of animal agriculture abhorrent, and I'm trying to show you various outlets that will do a better job explaining it than I possibly could do in a MMM forum, and you seem to prefer to keep your head in the sand. It's your call. Just know that your call also affects innocent sentient lives.
I'm guessing that you're against battery egg farming, as we all should be, and probably against "barn raised" and all that stuff that isn't much better than battery farming. What's your opinion on owning your own chickens for meat and eggs? I guess what I'm asking is whether you're against the entire idea of livestock, or just commercial operations. Simply interested in your personal take on things.
Pretty much only way I can see around the ethics argument would be if you found a dead animal somewhere that died of natural causes, freak accident, or was the remains of some other animal's kill, and decided to bring it home and eat it. Raising chickens as pets that you intend to keep until they die naturally and taking their eggs that would otherwise be unfertilized would probably be considered ok as well. I'm not the "vegan police" though. I just operate under the simple premise of treat others how you would want to be treated. So if I was able to have all my needs met and someone wanted eggs that came out of me that I had no use for and couldn't turn into a baby chick and would just rot on the ground anyway...I don't see why I would have a problem with that. But obviously those examples are the staggering minority and we haven't even talked about the health implications on why someone would want to eat those things other than taste and habit.
I just re-read what you said though and saw you mentioned raising chickens for meat. This goes to the "humane" argument and I would challenge anyone that there is no such this as humane killing. Taking someone's life against their will is not tolerated in our society when it is human to human, or even human to dogs/cats/Cecil the Lion (i've seen an article pop up on my facebook of some punks forcing an alligator to inhale cigarette smoke for christ's sake). And the first thing I do is go to the comment section and look at the rabid hypocrisy of people condemning those guys to death or long prison sentences for harming the animals, yet I'm sure after hitting 'send' they head straight for McD's or put some steaks on a grill. There is no reason why some animals should be considered cruel to kill and others not.
Well, I agree with a lot of what you've said. Killing is always nasty, and animals deserve kindness and dignity and all that also. It's not always cruel though. It's not cruel to put a loved pet to sleep in the face of injury or illness, is it? I don't believe it's cruel to take the life of a chicken as long as it has minimal stress and hasn't a clue what's happening. Yes, it's being killed for my purposes. You could argue that it would not have lived were it not for my purposes, as well. I think it's about intention. Hunting for sport is something I find revolting. But hunting for food I'm fine with.
Post by: cobbb11 on June 04, 2017, 04:29:33 PM
Wrong sir. I find the whole process of animal agriculture abhorrent, and I'm trying to show you various outlets that will do a better job explaining it than I possibly could do in a MMM forum, and you seem to prefer to keep your head in the sand. It's your call. Just know that your call also affects innocent sentient lives.
I'm guessing that you're against battery egg farming, as we all should be, and probably against "barn raised" and all that stuff that isn't much better than battery farming. What's your opinion on owning your own chickens for meat and eggs? I guess what I'm asking is whether you're against the entire idea of livestock, or just commercial operations. Simply interested in your personal take on things.
Pretty much only way I can see around the ethics argument would be if you found a dead animal somewhere that died of natural causes, freak accident, or was the remains of some other animal's kill, and decided to bring it home and eat it. Raising chickens as pets that you intend to keep until they die naturally and taking their eggs that would otherwise be unfertilized would probably be considered ok as well. I'm not the "vegan police" though. I just operate under the simple premise of treat others how you would want to be treated. So if I was able to have all my needs met and someone wanted eggs that came out of me that I had no use for and couldn't turn into a baby chick and would just rot on the ground anyway...I don't see why I would have a problem with that. But obviously those examples are the staggering minority and we haven't even talked about the health implications on why someone would want to eat those things other than taste and habit.
I just re-read what you said though and saw you mentioned raising chickens for meat. This goes to the "humane" argument and I would challenge anyone that there is no such this as humane killing. Taking someone's life against their will is not tolerated in our society when it is human to human, or even human to dogs/cats/Cecil the Lion (i've seen an article pop up on my facebook of some punks forcing an alligator to inhale cigarette smoke for christ's sake). And the first thing I do is go to the comment section and look at the rabid hypocrisy of people condemning those guys to death or long prison sentences for harming the animals, yet I'm sure after hitting 'send' they head straight for McD's or put some steaks on a grill. There is no reason why some animals should be considered cruel to kill and others not.
Well, I agree with a lot of what you've said. Killing is always nasty, and animals deserve kindness and dignity and all that also. It's not always cruel though. It's not cruel to put a loved pet to sleep in the face of injury or illness, is it? I don't believe it's cruel to take the life of a chicken as long as it has minimal stress and hasn't a clue what's happening. Yes, it's being killed for my purposes. You could argue that it would not have lived were it not for my purposes, as well. I think it's about intention. Hunting for sport is something I find revolting. But hunting for food I'm fine with.
So if killing is always nasty, how does killing an animal as long as it doesn't have a clue that's happening be considered ok? Again, plenty of people are murdered and don't see it coming, we still treat murder as murder. Hunting for food is only slightly better than hunting for no reason at all, but in modern society with all the options at our disposal (including vegan options that mimic the taste of milk/meat/cheese etc), it is completely unnecessary.
Putting a loved pet (or even human in a vegetative state or what-have-you) to sleep because of a debilitating illness or injury where it is judged that it will be in terrible pain for the rest of its life is considered an act of mercy. It is not done for personal gain and everyone wishes it didn't have to be done at all. I see a big difference there. I want my dog to live as long and as healthy as possible.
Post by: AnnaGrowsAMustache on June 04, 2017, 05:43:48 PM
My attitude is that I'm an omnivore. I've had my time being vegetarian and vegan for a short period, but it wasn't healthy for me. I've accepted that's I'm an omnivore. I'm picky about what I buy. I'm picky about how my animals live. Seems to me that it's all a balancing exercise. You know, you buy sisal shopping bags to save the environment but it's grown in Madagascar and the rain forests are chopped down to grow it, killing lemurs. You buy free range eggs but they're actually produced by the free range arm of the biggest battery farm in the country, so you're still supporting battery farming. You drink only soy milk, but soy farming has a bigger impact on the environment than dairy farming. Whatever you do, you're having a potentially negative impact. So you just do what you feel is best.
Post by: big_slacker on June 04, 2017, 08:00:06 PM
Whatever you do, you're having a potentially negative impact. So you just do what you feel is best.
Some things are definitely MORE harmful than others and you don't have to go all Portlandia chicken cult (google, it's hilarious) to come up with your own 80/20 rules.
Post by: Turnbull on June 04, 2017, 09:25:55 PM
I'm thankful for the opportunity to kill and butcher healthy meat for my family.
Post by: snacky on June 04, 2017, 09:38:22 PM
If humans and animals are not equal than the death of an animal is not tragic in the same way the death of a human is.
Which is it, Cobb?
Post by: gaja on June 05, 2017, 06:33:30 AM
In 1929, Albert Scweitzer wrote that it is good to keep and support life, and evil to destroy and hinder life. He claimed that a human being is acting morally correct when it adjusts to the limits that are necessary to support all life, and that it takes on burdens to avoid to harm anything living. Some of this is similar to what vegans claim. The big difference, is that Schweitzer valued ALL life. He even suffered from a bad conscience because he was a "mass murderer of bacteria" (Schweitzer, 1950, Kultur und Ethik).
Most of us live with an antroposentric world view, where the humans have a special role and position. Some don't think anything more about it, and don't really care if animals die (unless they are loved pets) or nature gets destroyed. Other people think that humans have been given, or should take, a special role, and have a responsibility to take care of nature. The pope is a typical example of this.
A lot of animal activists are still antroposentric, it is just that they include animals that they find cute or intelligent into their inner circle. They will not hesitate to kill a bug, but will fight fiercly to protect a whale (because "it is just as intelligent as a human"). Some vegans, like that man in the video cobbb11 pointed to, are moving just one step further, and include all animals. But they are still a long step from a true biosentric world view. There is no logical reason to set the limit for "worthy of life" between animals and plants. In fact, some philosophers claim that there is no logical reason to set the limit between socalled living and non living objects. This is when you move into deep ecology, or eco-sophy. I highly recommend reading this summary, by George Sessions and Arne Næss: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/arne-naess-and-george-sessions-basic-principles-of-deep-ecology
I can't claim I manage to live 100% after Næss' principles, but I try. Going vegan or even vegetarian is not part of this for me, because I believe the morally correct thing to do is to cause as little suffering as possible in total, not just to a selected group of living beings on this planet. I believe it is better to eat a sheep that has lived a good life on a farm, than to eat palmoils or soybeans that have been grown where rainforests used to grow and transported halfway around the globe.
As to the health argument (which, again, is totally antroposentric), the fascinating thing about human beings is how well we are able to adapt to different living condition. This article describes how more or less animals in the traditional diet affects us on the genetic level: https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/users/41254-kaixiong-ye/posts/17234-opposite-genetic-adaptation-to-the-diets-of-european-hunter-gatherers-and-farmers
Post by: SachaFiscal on June 05, 2017, 07:22:47 AM
Post by: cobbb11 on June 05, 2017, 07:59:52 AM
If humans and animals are equals then why is it wrong for a human to eat meat but not another omnivore? Bears, for example.
If humans and animals are not equal than the death of an animal is not tragic in the same way the death of a human is.
Which is it, Cobb?
Hippos are animals and you don't see them eating meat. Being an animal has nothing to do with it. Every animal simply goes after for what it is evolved to. Lions are built to chase down and kill zebras. If you see a squirrel run in front of you do you have any desire whatsoever to go after it? Even if you did, do you really think you can? Look up specific traits of herbivores/omnivores/carnivores and you will see we fit right in with herbivores, no matter how much you want it to be different. (for the millionth time, this is all in that lecture I'm trying show people). Just because we can subsist of off meat doesn't mean it is what we should be eating for optimal health. And since it requires the taking of a life, if it isn't optimal, I argue we shouldn't be doing it.
Our jaws go side to side for chewing and grinding, actual meat eaters go up and down. Our intestines are much longer than omnivores/carnivores. This is because we are designed to digest plant matter. You eat meat and it rots and decays inside you. The much shorter intestine of a lion allows it to crap out the waste quickly, which is why things like cholesterol and saturated fat do not matter to a lion. We sweat, carnivores pant through their tongues. We don't have claws. Look at all the tools and tricks we needed to develop to kill animals with any sort of effectiveness.
Here's a picture to demonstrate:
http://www.whale.to/c/10013268_676368449097110_1949968139_n.jpg
Post by: cobbb11 on June 05, 2017, 08:08:14 AM
Whatever topic you study at university in Norway, you first have to go through something called "examen philosophicum". This topic is an introduction to scientific theory, ethics and the history of philosophy. Depending upon what you are planning to study, you can then choose between different types of philosophy to focus on. I chose environmental philosophy, and it forwever changed my view on the world:
In 1929, Albert Scweitzer wrote that it is good to keep and support life, and evil to destroy and hinder life. He claimed that a human being is acting morally correct when it adjusts to the limits that are necessary to support all life, and that it takes on burdens to avoid to harm anything living. Some of this is similar to what vegans claim. The big difference, is that Schweitzer valued ALL life. He even suffered from a bad conscience because he was a "mass murderer of bacteria" (Schweitzer, 1950, Kultur und Ethik).
Most of us live with an antroposentric world view, where the humans have a special role and position. Some don't think anything more about it, and don't really care if animals die (unless they are loved pets) or nature gets destroyed. Other people think that humans have been given, or should take, a special role, and have a responsibility to take care of nature. The pope is a typical example of this.
A lot of animal activists are still antroposentric, it is just that they include animals that they find cute or intelligent into their inner circle. They will not hesitate to kill a bug, but will fight fiercly to protect a whale (because "it is just as intelligent as a human"). Some vegans, like that man in the video cobbb11 pointed to, are moving just one step further, and include all animals. But they are still a long step from a true biosentric world view. There is no logical reason to set the limit for "worthy of life" between animals and plants. In fact, some philosophers claim that there is no logical reason to set the limit between socalled living and non living objects. This is when you move into deep ecology, or eco-sophy. I highly recommend reading this summary, by George Sessions and Arne Næss: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/arne-naess-and-george-sessions-basic-principles-of-deep-ecology
I can't claim I manage to live 100% after Næss' principles, but I try. Going vegan or even vegetarian is not part of this for me, because I believe the morally correct thing to do is to cause as little suffering as possible in total, not just to a selected group of living beings on this planet. I believe it is better to eat a sheep that has lived a good life on a farm, than to eat palmoils or soybeans that have been grown where rainforests used to grow and transported halfway around the globe.
As to the health argument (which, again, is totally antroposentric), the fascinating thing about human beings is how well we are able to adapt to different living condition. This article describes how more or less animals in the traditional diet affects us on the genetic level: https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/users/41254-kaixiong-ye/posts/17234-opposite-genetic-adaptation-to-the-diets-of-european-hunter-gatherers-and-farmers
I appreciate you taking the time to watch the video. The point of veganism is to do as little harm to other animals as is practically possible. I never submit we should live like those monks who walk with brooms to delicately sweep away insects so they don't step on them. I am full aware life as a whole is "unfair" and some animals are born with a disadvantage over others. But when all the science, and to me common sense, shows that we perform better eating whole food plant based meals, then the fact that we can live optimally and NOT have to kill billions of animals in the process is a no-brainer.
Post by: snacky on June 05, 2017, 08:28:19 AM
If humans and animals are equals then why is it wrong for a human to eat meat but not another omnivore? Bears, for example.
If humans and animals are not equal than the death of an animal is not tragic in the same way the death of a human is.
Which is it, Cobb?
Hippos are animals and you don't see them eating meat. Being an animal has nothing to do with it. Every animal simply goes after for what it is evolved to. Lions are built to chase down and kill zebras. If you see a squirrel run in front of you do you have any desire whatsoever to go after it? Even if you did, do you really think you can? Look up specific traits of herbivores/omnivores/carnivores and you will see we fit right in with herbivores, no matter how much you want it to be different. (for the millionth time, this is all in that lecture I'm trying show people). Just because we can subsist of off meat doesn't mean it is what we should be eating for optimal health. And since it requires the taking of a life, if it isn't optimal, I argue we shouldn't be doing it.
Our jaws go side to side for chewing and grinding, actual meat eaters go up and down. Our intestines are much longer than omnivores/carnivores. This is because we are designed to digest plant matter. You eat meat and it rots and decays inside you. The much shorter intestine of a lion allows it to crap out the waste quickly, which is why things like cholesterol and saturated fat do not matter to a lion. We sweat, carnivores pant through their tongues. We don't have claws. Look at all the tools and tricks we needed to develop to kill animals with any sort of effectiveness.
Here's a picture to demonstrate:
http://www.whale.to/c/10013268_676368449097110_1949968139_n.jpg
Your teeth argument is nonsense, and has been thoroughly debunked. You can do your own googling on that one. We are omnivores, biologically, and have an instinctive desire to eat meat when we smell it cooking. Being omnivorous has been a fantastic evolutionary strategy; it has helped us establish viable settlements everywhere but Antarctica.
Just because you wish humans were herbivores doesn't make us herbivores.
Post by: cobbb11 on June 05, 2017, 09:07:03 AM
If humans and animals are equals then why is it wrong for a human to eat meat but not another omnivore? Bears, for example.
If humans and animals are not equal than the death of an animal is not tragic in the same way the death of a human is.
Which is it, Cobb?
Hippos are animals and you don't see them eating meat. Being an animal has nothing to do with it. Every animal simply goes after for what it is evolved to. Lions are built to chase down and kill zebras. If you see a squirrel run in front of you do you have any desire whatsoever to go after it? Even if you did, do you really think you can? Look up specific traits of herbivores/omnivores/carnivores and you will see we fit right in with herbivores, no matter how much you want it to be different. (for the millionth time, this is all in that lecture I'm trying show people). Just because we can subsist of off meat doesn't mean it is what we should be eating for optimal health. And since it requires the taking of a life, if it isn't optimal, I argue we shouldn't be doing it.
Our jaws go side to side for chewing and grinding, actual meat eaters go up and down. Our intestines are much longer than omnivores/carnivores. This is because we are designed to digest plant matter. You eat meat and it rots and decays inside you. The much shorter intestine of a lion allows it to crap out the waste quickly, which is why things like cholesterol and saturated fat do not matter to a lion. We sweat, carnivores pant through their tongues. We don't have claws. Look at all the tools and tricks we needed to develop to kill animals with any sort of effectiveness.
Here's a picture to demonstrate:
http://www.whale.to/c/10013268_676368449097110_1949968139_n.jpg
Your teeth argument is nonsense, and has been thoroughly debunked. You can do your own googling on that one. We are omnivores, biologically, and have an instinctive desire to eat meat when we smell it cooking. Being omnivorous has been a fantastic evolutionary strategy; it has helped us establish viable settlements everywhere but Antarctica.
Just because you wish humans were herbivores doesn't make us herbivores.
Again, if you're going to refute, please don't just make empty assertions. I have cited multiple peer-reviewed doctors and studies that have shown a vegan diet is healthy for all stages of a human's life. And even IF you are right that we got where we are because of eating meat, perhaps in an ice age of some sort or arid lands where growing crops and foraging was not possible, what does any of that have to do with today where there is a walmart and wholefoods on nearly every corner? We are not cavemen anymore. You know damn well if you were hungry and saw a banana hanging from a tree and a cow chilling out in a field, you would go for the banana every singe time. Dogs are omnivores. They can be fed several kinds of vegetables and survive, while also are equipped with the physical features and instincts necessary to chase down certain small animals if needed (hence why my dog always tries to take off after every squirrel and rabbit it sees while I just sit back and admire nature. What TRUE ominvore only cares about meat when it's cooking? Real omnivores like it raw. You should see roadkill with the same eyes as a bucket of KFC if you were a real omnivore. Get back to me when a pack of lions actually fires up a grill the next time it chases down some Savannah animals.
Post by: maizefolk on June 05, 2017, 09:33:48 AM
Hippos are animals and you don't see them eating meat. Being an animal has nothing to do with it. Every animal simply goes after for what it is evolved to. Lions are built to chase down and kill zebras. If you see a squirrel run in front of you do you have any desire whatsoever to go after it? Even if you did, do you really think you can? Look up specific traits of herbivores/omnivores/carnivores and you will see we fit right in with herbivores, no matter how much you want it to be different. (for the millionth time, this is all in that lecture I'm trying show people). Just because we can subsist of off meat doesn't mean it is what we should be eating for optimal health. And since it requires the taking of a life, if it isn't optimal, I argue we shouldn't be doing it.
2) "we are naturally herbivores"
This one could easily devolve into an argument about the definition of what naturally is. We certainly have the capacity to live on diets completely free of animals and animal products. So you could say that we naturally have the capacity to be herbivores. But what do "natural" humans do? Well we can look at our closest living relatives: chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. All three consume a lot less meat than we do, but they do eat meat. We can look at our closest extinct relatives, Neanderthals (Homo sapiens ssp. neanderthalensis), who appear to have gotten approx. 80% of their calories from meat.* Looking at existing hunter gatherer populations, the proportion of calories coming from meat ranges from ~30-75%.**
*Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160314091128.htm
**Source Table 3 in the linked PDF: http://www.unm.edu/~hkaplan/KaplanHillLancasterHurtado_2000_LHEvolution.pdf
Quote
Our jaws go side to side for chewing and grinding, actual meat eaters go up and down.I don't know about you, but my jaw goes up and down much more comfortably than it goes side to side.
Quote
Our intestines are much longer than omnivores/carnivores. This is because we are designed to digest plant matter. You eat meat and it rots and decays inside you. The much shorter intestine of a lion allows it to crap out the waste quickly, which is why things like cholesterol and saturated fat do not matter to a lion.Off the top of my head, pigs are an unrelated omnivorous speices, and pig's small intestine can be ~60 ft long. Ours is about 20 ft long. I'd need to spend a lot more time googling to come up with a comprehensive list, but I'm going to put a big ol' citation needed, on this claim.
If you want to compare our intestines to obligate carnivores like a lion, yes, we're clearly not obligate carnivores, but you're saying our intestines are too long for us to be omnivores.
Quote
We sweat, carnivores pant through their tongues. We don't have claws. Look at all the tools and tricks we needed to develop to kill animals with any sort of effectiveness.
I'd like to point out that the vast majority of herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores do not sweat for thermoregulation like humans do.
I'll also mention that our ability to sweat profusely (combined with a relative lack of body hair) is actually thought to have been a critical adaption that allowed our ancestors to hunt more effectively through a strategy called "persistence hunting" prior to the development of any tools, tricks, or technology more sophisticated than a pointy rock.
An antelope or gazelle or what have you in the serengeti can outrun pretty much any human over the short term, but because we can stay cool while running, while they need to slow down and pant to cool off, a trained endurance runner (or hunter gatherer) can usually continue to chase many types of animals during the hottest part of the day for hours until they overheat and collapse.
For an example of what adaptation to an extremely low meat diet looks like in a hominid, it is interesting to read up on Paranthropus boisei https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3111330/ Unlike humans and our direct ancestors, Paranthropus had a much heaver and more muscles jawbone, with wider, flatter molars adapted to chewing raw plant material for hours on end.
Post by: snacky on June 05, 2017, 09:45:37 AM
The key issue for me is that you seem to want everyone to conform to your personal ethics. That attitude is abhorrent to me.
If you want to be vegan, awesome. Go for it! But don't assert that your food choices and ethics are best for everyone. That's ignorant and hubristic. You live according to your values, and accept that others will live according to theirs.
Post by: cobbb11 on June 05, 2017, 09:47:41 AM
Hippos are animals and you don't see them eating meat. Being an animal has nothing to do with it. Every animal simply goes after for what it is evolved to. Lions are built to chase down and kill zebras. If you see a squirrel run in front of you do you have any desire whatsoever to go after it? Even if you did, do you really think you can? Look up specific traits of herbivores/omnivores/carnivores and you will see we fit right in with herbivores, no matter how much you want it to be different. (for the millionth time, this is all in that lecture I'm trying show people). Just because we can subsist of off meat doesn't mean it is what we should be eating for optimal health. And since it requires the taking of a life, if it isn't optimal, I argue we shouldn't be doing it.2) "we are naturally herbivores"
This one could easily devolve into an argument about the definition of what naturally is. We certainly have the capacity to live on diets completely free of animals and animal products. So you could say that we naturally have the capacity to be herbivores. But what do "natural" humans do? Well we can look at our closest living relatives: chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. All three consume a lot less meat than we do, but they do eat meat. We can look at our closest extinct relatives, Neanderthals (Homo sapiens ssp. neanderthalensis), who appear to have gotten approx. 80% of their calories from meat.* Looking at existing hunter gatherer populations, the proportion of calories coming from meat ranges from ~30-75%.**
*Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160314091128.htm
**Source Table 3 in the linked PDF: http://www.unm.edu/~hkaplan/KaplanHillLancasterHurtado_2000_LHEvolution.pdfQuoteOur jaws go side to side for chewing and grinding, actual meat eaters go up and down.I don't know about you, but my jaw goes up and down much more comfortably than it goes side to side.QuoteOur intestines are much longer than omnivores/carnivores. This is because we are designed to digest plant matter. You eat meat and it rots and decays inside you. The much shorter intestine of a lion allows it to crap out the waste quickly, which is why things like cholesterol and saturated fat do not matter to a lion.Off the top of my head, pigs are an unrelated omnivorous speices, and pig's small intestine can be ~60 ft long. Ours is about 20 ft long. I'd need to spend a lot more time googling to come up with a comprehensive list, but I'm going to put a big ol' citation needed, on this claim.
If you want to compare our intestines to obligate carnivores like a lion, yes, we're clearly not obligate carnivores, but you're saying our intestines are too long for us to be omnivores.QuoteWe sweat, carnivores pant through their tongues. We don't have claws. Look at all the tools and tricks we needed to develop to kill animals with any sort of effectiveness.
I'd like to point out that the vast majority of herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores do not sweat for thermoregulation like humans do.
I'll also mention that our ability to sweat profusely (combined with a relative lack of body hair) is actually thought to have been a critical adaption that allowed our ancestors to hunt more effectively through a strategy called "persistence hunting" prior to the development of any tools, tricks, or technology more sophisticated than a pointy rock.
An antelope or gazelle or what have you in the serengeti can outrun pretty much any human over the short term, but because we can stay cool while running, while they need to slow down and pant to cool off, a trained endurance runner (or hunter gatherer) can usually continue to chase many types of animals during the hottest part of the day for hours until they overheat and collapse.
For an example of what adaptation to an extremely low meat diet looks like in a hominid, it is interesting to read up on Paranthropus boisei https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3111330/ Unlike humans and our direct ancestors, Paranthropus had a much heaver and more muscles jawbone, with wider, flatter molars adapted to chewing raw plant material for hours on end.
When you're chewing food, it goes side to side a lot more than up and down.
I already conceded that in extreme conditions where plant food is scarce, the need to eat animals might be required for survival where anything is better than nothing.
Even obligate omnivores don't have to worry about heart disease. Please show me one animal besides humans that has a history of atherosclerosis. Only herbivores eating food their digestion is not meant to handle can contract this disease. And furthermore, a vegan diet is the only diet shown to reverse heart disease as well. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100124/
My argument, and veganism's argument, is that IN THIS DAY IN AGE, with the abundance of food at our disposal, there is no longer a need to breed animals solely to kill them for food. Especially when that food is detrimental to our health. I don't know how much plainer this needs to be said. If you could show actual evidence that we NEED to eat animals, that our lives depend on it here and now in 2017, I'm all ears. Even if we were omnivores, that would mean we could go either way, so even in that case why would you not choose the path of less violence and suffering?
Post by: cobbb11 on June 05, 2017, 09:52:50 AM
Every indigenous group living a traditional lifestyle on the planet disagrees with you, as do the majority of small farmers.
The key issue for me is that you seem to want everyone to conform to your personal ethics. That attitude is abhorrent to me.
If you want to be vegan, awesome. Go for it! But don't assert that your food choices and ethics are best for everyone. That's ignorant and hubristic. You live according to your values, and accept that others will live according to theirs.
Sadly you are patently wrong in this case. Your decisions affect others. I'm sorry you don't see cows/pigs/chickens/etc as "others" but you don't just get to say "you do your thing and i do mine". This is not a decision in a vacuum. I don't want everyone to conform simply because I have these ethics. I would love if everyone watched that lecture, saw what actually happens at slaughter houses and how sick and obese we are as a society from these choices that we make out of pure habit at this point, and worked to do something about it.
But if you can get through all of it and still want to continue then fine. Just admit your apathy and that you have an arbitrary line where you are fine with certain animals dying and not others, but don't be a part of the "lets save our planet" campaign, because veganism is not only the first and easiest step, it also would be the largest impact if everyone did it.
Don't call me ignorant if you can't even be bothered to watch the lecture and open your mind up even slightly to the fact that maybe we've done this whole food thing wrong for generations. The difference between you and I is that I did it your way for a long time. Have you even given this a fair shot?
Post by: snacky on June 05, 2017, 09:56:40 AM
Later, skater.
Post by: cobbb11 on June 05, 2017, 10:04:03 AM
I disagree with you so I must be wrong? Got it.
Later, skater.
Whatever dude. You clearly lack reading comprehension if that's all you got out of what is a pretty elementary statement. One last time and I'm gone anyway. This is getting to tiresome:
You: "You do you and I do me"
Me: "Saying 'you do you and I do me' makes it sound like only you and I are affected. Your choice to eat meat/dairy is affecting the lives of billions of sentient animals that we share this planet with. It's not as simple as you do you and I do me".
You: "I disagree with you so I must be wrong?"
Good luck in your future endeavors buddy. Just try not to think too hard about the hypocrisy you live every time you pet a dog or cat and eat a steak.
Post by: snacky on June 05, 2017, 10:22:50 AM
Your argument closely parallels the anti-abortion line, which I also disagree with. That killing x is fundamentally wrong.
My point is that your ethics are not empirically superior to all other ethics, and just because you believe something doesn't make it true.
Post by: cobbb11 on June 05, 2017, 10:34:29 AM
Who the hell is arguing that farm animals slaughtered for meat aren't already alive? But good for you killing a rabbit that had no quarrel with you. Bet you feel like a real man after that. Next time try letting the rabbit outside without cages or fences and see if you can chase it down with your bare hands/feet.
Post by: Sailor Sam on June 05, 2017, 11:23:25 AM
Post by: cobbb11 on June 05, 2017, 11:46:37 AM
The reason why you're all getting upset over my points is that they directly contradict what you've been doing your whole life, and I'm (rightfully) accusing you of being the cause of billions of animals suffering that we all know you wouldn't want to cause if you had to do it yourself. Buying some boneless skinless chicken breast all wrapped up nicely in a grocery store is really easy when you don't have to do the raising and slaughtering of the chickens. I have seen video of baby chicks tossed into a grinder, completely alive and awake. Suddenly my taste buds don't seem that important anymore. Like I said, after all the BS excuses and arguments meat eaters make (I made the same arguments myself at one point), you are left with the bare essentials that (unless you're already a butcher), you would never go up to a cow and kill it yourself and the only reason bacon is such a big deal is because all of the violence is done far away from your eyes. It's a hypocritical position and one I just wish people would admit instead of making lame excuses.
Post by: maizefolk on June 05, 2017, 12:47:47 PM
My argument, and veganism's argument, is that IN THIS DAY IN AGE, with the abundance of food at our disposal, there is no longer a need to breed animals solely to kill them for food. Especially when that food is detrimental to our health. I don't know how much plainer this needs to be said. If you could show actual evidence that we NEED to eat animals, that our lives depend on it here and now in 2017, I'm all ears. Even if we were omnivores, that would mean we could go either way, so even in that case why would you not choose the path of less violence and suffering?
If you stick to making the argument that people don't absolutely need to eat meat to survive, I won't have to keep dropping into this thread. In every post I've made it clear I don't disagree with the statement that humans are able to survive on a diet that doesn't include animals or animal products.
However, you've got about three arguments going at once: eating meat is unethical for humans, eating meat is unhealthy for humans, and eating meat is unnatural for humans. Whenever someone points out the hole in the case you make for one of these three you response by switching to one of the other two and don't acknowledge the flaws in your own previous statements. That's not the way to be taken seriously or win over hearts and minds.
The first argument is one of philosophy or ethics, so there's really no hard empirical truth to be found there. You cannot prove that you're right, and no one else is going to be able to prove that you're wrong. But trying to convince people to adopt your ethical position works better when it's clear you've thought long and hard about the evidence and reasoning you're presenting.
The second is true when red meat is consumed in large quantities, but you haven't been able to successfully make the case that any amount of meat consumption is harmful, and, as discussed above, almost all the longest lived populations on the planet include some level of meat or animal production consumption in their diets.
The third is completely inaccurate, and if you keep bringing up faulty and misleading evidence, I'm going to continue to point out the issues with that evidence. ... see below.
Quote
Even if we were omnivores, that would mean we could go either way, so even in that case why would you not choose the path of less violence and suffering?
That's not what the word omnivore means. You're specifically talking about facultative omnivores (which is seems we are, if just only). Obligate omnivores would need to consume both animals and plants.
Quote
you are left with the bare essentials that (unless you're already a butcher), you would never go up to a cow and kill it yourself and the only reason bacon is such a big deal is because all of the violence is done far away from your eyes
Given that this whole thread started with a discussion about things like hunting where people do kill and butcher animals themselves, this statement is clearly false for the population of people ("you") who are reading this thread.
Quote
Next time try letting the rabbit outside without cages or fences and see if you can chase it down with your bare hands/feet.
Most people in the USA wouldn't last a day trying to grow crops with their bare hands and feet. Obviously they could train up to being able to do so, but they can also train up to how to chase down and kill a rabbit so it seems this objection is equally valid to people who eat plants or animals or both.
Quote
Please show me one animal besides humans that has a history of atherosclerosis.
Dogs: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021997505801264
Cats: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9389784
Post by: cobbb11 on June 05, 2017, 01:35:04 PM
"Also, I have been accused of being a hypocrite for both having pets and eating meat. I proved that there is no contradiction, and was told that my faltering sense of masculinity caused me to murder poor little bunnykins."
If the bunny was destined to be killed for your consumption, then it wasn't your pet. Here's the definition if you need help: a domestic or tamed animal kept for companionship or pleasure.
"If you stick to making the argument that people don't absolutely need to eat meat to survive, I won't have to keep dropping into this thread. In every post I've made it clear I don't disagree with the statement that humans are able to survive on a diet that doesn't include animals or animal products.
However, you've got about three arguments going at once: eating meat is unethical for humans, eating meat is unhealthy for humans, and eating meat is unnatural for humans. Whenever someone points out the hole in the case you make for one of these three you response by switching to one of the other two and don't acknowledge the flaws in your own previous statements. That's not the way to be taken seriously or win over hearts and minds.
The first argument is one of philosophy or ethics, so there's really no hard empirical truth to be found there. You cannot prove that you're right, and no one else is going to be able to prove that you're wrong. But trying to convince people to adopt your ethical position works better when it's clear you've thought long and hard about the evidence and reasoning you're presenting.
The second is true when red meat is consumed in large quantities, but you haven't been able to successfully make the case that any amount of meat consumption is harmful, and, as discussed above, almost all the longest lived populations on the planet include some level of meat or animal production consumption in their diets.
The third is completely inaccurate, and if you keep bringing up faulty and misleading evidence, I'm going to continue to point out the issues with that evidence. ... see below."
First off, none of my arguments contradict each other, so who cares how many I have? One of the cornerstones of ethics/morality all that stuff is the golden rude. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Where does this state that "others" only applies to humans? Because we have greater cognitive thought than any other species, we can apply it this rule and extrapolate it better. A lion really doesn't have an excuse for doing what it does. We don't need to. It's as simple as this: If you were a human female (I'm assuming you're a dude so sorry if I'm wrong), would you appreciate being raped and kept it constant pregnancy to produce milk for a different species, and then have your baby taken away that will get slaughtered for food? If the answer is no, why is it bad if it happens to a human but ok for a cow? Does the empathy really stop when you go across species lines? Do you not get upset when you hear about dog fighting and other animal abuses to "the cute ones"?
Regarding the prefix in front of omnivore, it doesn't matter in this case because either one doesn't have to worry about food-related diseases from plants or meat. We eat meat at the cost of our health. This is proven over and over again. You still haven't shown any citations to refute the work at nutritionfacts.org for example. A website funded by donations from anyone like Wikipedia, and run by Dr. Michael Gregor, who takes the most recent peer-reviewed science and makes videos out of them for the lay person to understand. He's vegan.
Please prove me wrong by going up to a cow and literally tearing into it with your bare hands like other carnivores or omnivores would do. Good luck with that. Would be nice to see what happens when the animal has a chance to fight back.
You could never be "Trained" to chase down and kill a rabbit in the wild unless the thing was completely tired out or something. In the open, you aren't fast enough. That's why we need all these stupid tricks to be able to hyperinflate ourselves on the food chain. Even if you did catch the rabbit, are you going to eat it straight down to the bone like other animals? Doubt it.
In regards to the atherosclerosis request, well done. Your 2 examples were literally the 2 most popular pets we humans keep and have full control over their diet. I meant more so show me a carnivore/omnivore in the wild that was shown to have died from artery clogging.
Post by: gaja on June 05, 2017, 01:47:48 PM
So to the three main arguments that maizeman so eloquently sorted out:
1: "It is ethically wrong to eat animals". No: it is ethically wrong to put any type of being over any other, because of arbitrary similarity to your own species. If you want to live in balance with nature, you need to take a much broader perspective, and try to live with as little imprint on nature as you can. In some areas that can be combined with a vegetarian diet, in other areas wild meat and fish are the local sources that can be harvested with the least environmental impact.
2: "Eating meat is unhealthy for people". This is wrong, some of us will die if we don't eat red meat. Unless you think drinking fake expensive vegan amino acids from a plastic bottle imported from the other side of the world is a proof in favour of the vegan diet? Here are some stats about the Inuit diet: http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-heart-disease-and-cancer/
3: "Eating meat is unnatural": Humans survive and thrive because we adapt. Are the Inuit living an "unnatural" life?
Post by: cobbb11 on June 05, 2017, 02:20:36 PM
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18457208
I would put the 7th day Adventists, who are strict vegetarians in California with an average span of about 89 years over them any day.
But look where your argument is going: a tribe of people in a much more exotic locale. I'm talking about first world places like America, where produce abounds on every street corner.
Here's a video that talks about the Inuit "paradox". He provides plenty of citations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N7Sk1ZRohU
Post by: Goldielocks on June 05, 2017, 02:26:14 PM
My favorite line:
A lot of animal activists are still antroposentric, it is just that they include animals that they find cute or intelligent into their inner circle.
With regards to the concept that plant life has equal value to all life, and animal life... it reminds me of this song (a favorite of my daughters')... Okay, it is a satire, and no offense is meant to anyone here, other than this song came to mind reading gaja's post...
Carrot Juice is Murder (Arrogant Worms)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov5Jgw_Nwx4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov5Jgw_Nwx4)
On the whole vegan / Vegetarian / hunter / meat eater / consumer scale... two things that I believe a) We need to grow (hunt? raise?) our food sustainably and respectfully, as we best know according to science ,and b) If we kill something, let's make certain we reduce waste.
Post by: cobbb11 on June 05, 2017, 02:28:05 PM
Gaja, nice post, thoughtful.
My favorite line:A lot of animal activists are still antroposentric, it is just that they include animals that they find cute or intelligent into their inner circle.
With regards to the concept that plant life has equal value to all life, and animal life... it reminds me of this song (a favorite of my daughters')... Okay, it is a satire, and no offense is meant to anyone here, other than this song came to mind reading gaja's post...
Carrot Juice is Murder (Arrogant Worms)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov5Jgw_Nwx4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov5Jgw_Nwx4)
On the whole vegan / Vegetarian / hunter / meat eater / consumer scale... two things that I believe a) We need to grow (hunt? raise?) our food sustainably and respectfully, as we best know according to science ,and b) If we kill something, let's make certain we reduce waste.
We have to eat SOMETHING to survive. I don't think anyone argues this. The whole "plants have feelings too" is the lamest cop-out ever. They don't have nervous systems and cannot feel pain. Also when you pick a banana or apple off a tree, the tree doesn't die with it.
Post by: Goldielocks on June 05, 2017, 03:06:42 PM
Gaja, nice post, thoughtful.
My favorite line:A lot of animal activists are still antroposentric, it is just that they include animals that they find cute or intelligent into their inner circle.
With regards to the concept that plant life has equal value to all life, and animal life... it reminds me of this song (a favorite of my daughters')... Okay, it is a satire, and no offense is meant to anyone here, other than this song came to mind reading gaja's post...
Carrot Juice is Murder (Arrogant Worms)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov5Jgw_Nwx4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov5Jgw_Nwx4)
On the whole vegan / Vegetarian / hunter / meat eater / consumer scale... two things that I believe a) We need to grow (hunt? raise?) our food sustainably and respectfully, as we best know according to science ,and b) If we kill something, let's make certain we reduce waste.
We have to eat SOMETHING to survive. I don't think anyone argues this. The whole "plants have feelings too" is the lamest cop-out ever. They don't have nervous systems and cannot feel pain. Also when you pick a banana or apple off a tree, the tree doesn't die with it.
Sigh.... Eye roll.
Post by: cobbb11 on June 05, 2017, 03:11:06 PM
Gaja, nice post, thoughtful.
My favorite line:A lot of animal activists are still antroposentric, it is just that they include animals that they find cute or intelligent into their inner circle.
With regards to the concept that plant life has equal value to all life, and animal life... it reminds me of this song (a favorite of my daughters')... Okay, it is a satire, and no offense is meant to anyone here, other than this song came to mind reading gaja's post...
Carrot Juice is Murder (Arrogant Worms)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov5Jgw_Nwx4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov5Jgw_Nwx4)
On the whole vegan / Vegetarian / hunter / meat eater / consumer scale... two things that I believe a) We need to grow (hunt? raise?) our food sustainably and respectfully, as we best know according to science ,and b) If we kill something, let's make certain we reduce waste.
We have to eat SOMETHING to survive. I don't think anyone argues this. The whole "plants have feelings too" is the lamest cop-out ever. They don't have nervous systems and cannot feel pain. Also when you pick a banana or apple off a tree, the tree doesn't die with it.
Sigh.... Eye roll.
Once again, a reply with zero substance.
Alright ladies and fellas, I'm done. I just popped into this thread because it was talking about ignorance with food consumers and until you've watched this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4&t=2705s I don't think you can claim to be well informed on what goes into the food you buy. Do with it what you will. Just be glad you're a human and don't have to deal with the horrors that billions of animals do just so you can eat a burger. I'm sorry I don't have that little empathy.
At least we can agree on frugality if nothing else...but I'm sure the idea of saving most of your income and riding a bike to work seemed crazy at one point too, until you opened your mind a bit.
Post by: gaja on June 05, 2017, 03:13:11 PM
To quote what you yourself has urged several times: please read the links I have posted. Especially this one: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/arne-naess-and-george-sessions-basic-principles-of-deep-ecologyGaja, nice post, thoughtful.
My favorite line:A lot of animal activists are still antroposentric, it is just that they include animals that they find cute or intelligent into their inner circle.
With regards to the concept that plant life has equal value to all life, and animal life... it reminds me of this song (a favorite of my daughters')... Okay, it is a satire, and no offense is meant to anyone here, other than this song came to mind reading gaja's post...
Carrot Juice is Murder (Arrogant Worms)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov5Jgw_Nwx4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov5Jgw_Nwx4)
On the whole vegan / Vegetarian / hunter / meat eater / consumer scale... two things that I believe a) We need to grow (hunt? raise?) our food sustainably and respectfully, as we best know according to science ,and b) If we kill something, let's make certain we reduce waste.
We have to eat SOMETHING to survive. I don't think anyone argues this. The whole "plants have feelings too" is the lamest cop-out ever. They don't have nervous systems and cannot feel pain. Also when you pick a banana or apple off a tree, the tree doesn't die with it.
Simply by your argument of "nervous systems" and "ability to feel pain" you are showing that you place value on life only if it is similar to your own. Your empathy, moral and ethics doesn't extend further than the chosen few you deem worthy. The biosentric view has nothing to do with those types of arguments, but rather about the inherent value every living (and for some; non-living) beings have. Not because they are useful to humans, not because they feel pain, not because they are cute. Simply because we are all a part of nature, and there is no reason we as human beings should have a right to take more than we need to have a decent life.
(I don't normally lecture people on their ethics and "faults" in their world view. But as the old saying goes: "people on high horses put themselves in a good position to be chopped down by axes").
Post by: AZDude on June 05, 2017, 04:10:41 PM
I think that would be the ultimate test on what "food" you are willing to eat.
As for hunting, as someone who used to hunt and fish, I certainly have no moral qualms against the practice, but I will say that many hunters are not exactly environmentally conscious consumers, or at least the ones I have met.
Post by: maizefolk on June 05, 2017, 06:03:08 PM
Okay, here we go again.
First off, none of my arguments contradict each other, so who cares how many I have?
You can have as many arguments as you want, but it does make it important to keep track of which people are debating which positions. Instead, you've mixed and matching and trying to use ideas from one argument as a response to people pointing out flaws in your position on a completely different argument.
You're making 3 true/false assertions, which means there are 2*2*2 = 8 possible combinations of outcomes. For example, if killing animals for food is unethical that doesn't make it any more or less likely that eating animals is bad for your health.
Quote
One of the cornerstones of ethics/morality all that stuff is the golden rude. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Where does this state that "others" only applies to humans? Because we have greater cognitive thought than any other species, we can apply it this rule and extrapolate it better. A lion really doesn't have an excuse for doing what it does. We don't need to. It's as simple as this: If you were a human female (I'm assuming you're a dude so sorry if I'm wrong), would you appreciate being raped and kept it constant pregnancy to produce milk for a different species, and then have your baby taken away that will get slaughtered for food? If the answer is no, why is it bad if it happens to a human but ok for a cow? Does the empathy really stop when you go across species lines? Do you not get upset when you hear about dog fighting and other animal abuses to "the cute ones"?
This is a great example. I've pointed out problems with the statements you claim are evidence for your 2nd and 3rd arguments (meat is unhealthy, and humans eating meat is unnatural), so you've pivoted back to the ethics angle. Which would be fine if I wasn't concerned you'll go right back to asserting the 2nd and 3rd arguments again without regard to the problems previously raised with both once the thread went on a bit further.
Quote
Regarding the prefix in front of omnivore, it doesn't matter in this case because either one doesn't have to worry about food-related diseases from plants or meat. We eat meat at the cost of our health. This is proven over and over again. You still haven't shown any citations to refute the work at nutritionfacts.org for example. A website funded by donations from anyone like Wikipedia, and run by Dr. Michael Gregor, who takes the most recent peer-reviewed science and makes videos out of them for the lay person to understand. He's vegan.
... (from another post) ...
The inuit people have a much lower life span than average.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18457208
I would put the 7th day Adventists, who are strict vegetarians in California with an average span of about 89 years over them any day.
But look where your argument is going: a tribe of people in a much more exotic locale. I'm talking about first world places like America, where produce abounds on every street corner.
I see you didn't read, or forgot, or decided to disregard, my post up thread about the 7th day adventists. Not all 7 day adventists are vegans. Some are vegetarians, some are pescetarians (fish eaters), some occasionally eat red meat, and some eat meat regularly. Comparing the death rates across these five groups within the same population (so same environment, a lot of the same genetics and behavioral factors), the fish eaters have the lowest risk of death, vegetarians and occasional red meat eaters are about the same, and vegans and regular meat eaters have the highest rates of mortality.*
This also leaves aside the other four populations around the world with the longest lifespans, all of whom eat some meat (although less than the standard american). Again, this was already posted upthread.
*See Table 7 of this paper: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/516s/T7.expansion.html
Quote
Please prove me wrong by going up to a cow and literally tearing into it with your bare hands like other carnivores or omnivores would do. Good luck with that. Would be nice to see what happens when the animal has a chance to fight back.
Surely you'll allow me a rock or a stick? After all, chimpanzees and ravens and sea otters all use tools at at least that level.
Quote
You could never be "Trained" to chase down and kill a rabbit in the wild unless the thing was completely tired out or something. In the open, you aren't fast enough. That's why we need all these stupid tricks to be able to hyperinflate ourselves on the food chain. Even if you did catch the rabbit, are you going to eat it straight down to the bone like other animals? Doubt it.
Again, this was discussed up thread. The way a human being would hunt a rabbit in the absence of any tools is persistence hunting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting)which would indeed end with the rabbit completely tired out and exhausted. The same method used by our ancestors for literally hundreds of thousands of years until the development of the throwing spear made ambush hunting more feasible.
Over a long enough distance, on a hot day, human beings can run practically any other animal on the planet to exhaustion, including cheetahs.*
*Note that in this case the villagers who ran down the cheetah who was eating their goats didn't kill it but turned it over to the local wildlife service for relocation. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24953910
Quote
In regards to the atherosclerosis request, well done. Your 2 examples were literally the 2 most popular pets we humans keep and have full control over their diet. I meant more so show me a carnivore/omnivore in the wild that was shown to have died from artery clogging.
Indeed. It could well be argued that the prevalence of atherosclerosis in domesticated animals is an indication that the standard american diet isn't particularly healthy for either us or our companion animals. However, your specific argument up thread was was animals adapted to eat meat cannot get atherosclerosis, therefore the fact that humans do means we are not adapted to eat meat. Cats, at least, are complete obligate carnivores, so the fact that they can indeed develop this condition, regardless of diet, would seem to indicate there are other potential mechanisms that can produce this condition because an animal that doesn't "naturally" eat meat deciding to start eating it.
Quote
At least we can agree on frugality if nothing else...but I'm sure the idea of saving most of your income and riding a bike to work seemed crazy at one point too, until you opened your mind a bit.
So here the argument appears to be: $X seemed crazy until you thought about it, therefore anything that doesn't make sense must be true, even if you think about it and still think it doesn't make sense.
But since cob is out of this thread now, maybe this can be my last post of the subject?
Post by: Kitsune on June 05, 2017, 06:19:03 PM
On a more pleasant note, we now have lambs in the pasture, and they're quite lovely and will have a happy life until late October or so.
Next step: building a chicken coop.
I'm starting to think that straight-up buying a farm would've been more cost-effective. A hell of a lot less effort, anyway.
Post by: GreenSheep on June 05, 2017, 08:04:38 PM
Swear to god, I'm bookmarking this thread for the next time someone tells me that not all vegans proselytize...
Please don't think we all do. I'm vegan and have been reading this thread with interest. I enjoy this community because it's full of intelligent, thoughtful people who make interesting arguments for their way of approaching life. I suspect there are probably other vegans quietly watching this from the sidelines, too. We're the ones you're not hearing from.
Post by: Goldielocks on June 05, 2017, 08:39:47 PM
Swear to god, I'm bookmarking this thread for the next time someone tells me that not all vegans proselytize...
Please don't think we all do. I'm vegan and have been reading this thread with interest. I enjoy this community because it's full of intelligent, thoughtful people who make interesting arguments for their way of approaching life. I suspect there are probably other vegans quietly watching this from the sidelines, too. We're the ones you're not hearing from.
I know several vegans. One whom i work with and talk with regularly, that I did not know was vegan for the first two years I knew her... (she is gluten free vegan, too)
Post by: cobbb11 on June 06, 2017, 06:59:29 AM
*sigh*
Okay, here we go again.First off, none of my arguments contradict each other, so who cares how many I have?
You can have as many arguments as you want, but it does make it important to keep track of which people are debating which positions. Instead, you've mixed and matching and trying to use ideas from one argument as a response to people pointing out flaws in your position on a completely different argument.
You're making 3 true/false assertions, which means there are 2*2*2 = 8 possible combinations of outcomes. For example, if killing animals for food is unethical that doesn't make it any more or less likely that eating animals is bad for your health.QuoteOne of the cornerstones of ethics/morality all that stuff is the golden rude. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Where does this state that "others" only applies to humans? Because we have greater cognitive thought than any other species, we can apply it this rule and extrapolate it better. A lion really doesn't have an excuse for doing what it does. We don't need to. It's as simple as this: If you were a human female (I'm assuming you're a dude so sorry if I'm wrong), would you appreciate being raped and kept it constant pregnancy to produce milk for a different species, and then have your baby taken away that will get slaughtered for food? If the answer is no, why is it bad if it happens to a human but ok for a cow? Does the empathy really stop when you go across species lines? Do you not get upset when you hear about dog fighting and other animal abuses to "the cute ones"?
This is a great example. I've pointed out problems with the statements you claim are evidence for your 2nd and 3rd arguments (meat is unhealthy, and humans eating meat is unnatural), so you've pivoted back to the ethics angle. Which would be fine if I wasn't concerned you'll go right back to asserting the 2nd and 3rd arguments again without regard to the problems previously raised with both once the thread went on a bit further.QuoteRegarding the prefix in front of omnivore, it doesn't matter in this case because either one doesn't have to worry about food-related diseases from plants or meat. We eat meat at the cost of our health. This is proven over and over again. You still haven't shown any citations to refute the work at nutritionfacts.org for example. A website funded by donations from anyone like Wikipedia, and run by Dr. Michael Gregor, who takes the most recent peer-reviewed science and makes videos out of them for the lay person to understand. He's vegan.
... (from another post) ...
The inuit people have a much lower life span than average.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18457208
I would put the 7th day Adventists, who are strict vegetarians in California with an average span of about 89 years over them any day.
But look where your argument is going: a tribe of people in a much more exotic locale. I'm talking about first world places like America, where produce abounds on every street corner.
I see you didn't read, or forgot, or decided to disregard, my post up thread about the 7th day adventists. Not all 7 day adventists are vegans. Some are vegetarians, some are pescetarians (fish eaters), some occasionally eat red meat, and some eat meat regularly. Comparing the death rates across these five groups within the same population (so same environment, a lot of the same genetics and behavioral factors), the fish eaters have the lowest risk of death, vegetarians and occasional red meat eaters are about the same, and vegans and regular meat eaters have the highest rates of mortality.*
This also leaves aside the other four populations around the world with the longest lifespans, all of whom eat some meat (although less than the standard american). Again, this was already posted upthread.
*See Table 7 of this paper: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/516s/T7.expansion.htmlQuotePlease prove me wrong by going up to a cow and literally tearing into it with your bare hands like other carnivores or omnivores would do. Good luck with that. Would be nice to see what happens when the animal has a chance to fight back.
Surely you'll allow me a rock or a stick? After all, chimpanzees and ravens and sea otters all use tools at at least that level.QuoteYou could never be "Trained" to chase down and kill a rabbit in the wild unless the thing was completely tired out or something. In the open, you aren't fast enough. That's why we need all these stupid tricks to be able to hyperinflate ourselves on the food chain. Even if you did catch the rabbit, are you going to eat it straight down to the bone like other animals? Doubt it.
Again, this was discussed up thread. The way a human being would hunt a rabbit in the absence of any tools is persistence hunting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting)which would indeed end with the rabbit completely tired out and exhausted. The same method used by our ancestors for literally hundreds of thousands of years until the development of the throwing spear made ambush hunting more feasible.
Over a long enough distance, on a hot day, human beings can run practically any other animal on the planet to exhaustion, including cheetahs.*
*Note that in this case the villagers who ran down the cheetah who was eating their goats didn't kill it but turned it over to the local wildlife service for relocation. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24953910QuoteIn regards to the atherosclerosis request, well done. Your 2 examples were literally the 2 most popular pets we humans keep and have full control over their diet. I meant more so show me a carnivore/omnivore in the wild that was shown to have died from artery clogging.
Indeed. It could well be argued that the prevalence of atherosclerosis in domesticated animals is an indication that the standard american diet isn't particularly healthy for either us or our companion animals. However, your specific argument up thread was was animals adapted to eat meat cannot get atherosclerosis, therefore the fact that humans do means we are not adapted to eat meat. Cats, at least, are complete obligate carnivores, so the fact that they can indeed develop this condition, regardless of diet, would seem to indicate there are other potential mechanisms that can produce this condition because an animal that doesn't "naturally" eat meat deciding to start eating it.QuoteAt least we can agree on frugality if nothing else...but I'm sure the idea of saving most of your income and riding a bike to work seemed crazy at one point too, until you opened your mind a bit.
So here the argument appears to be: $X seemed crazy until you thought about it, therefore anything that doesn't make sense must be true, even if you think about it and still think it doesn't make sense.
But since cob is out of this thread now, maybe this can be my last post of the subject?
Sorry but this is just too funny not to reply. So you admit that longer lifespan communities all seem to demonstrate eating less meat than your traditional obese American, yet you never thought to maybe follow that thread to it's most logical conclusion that maybe eating no meat can give you the longest average lifespan possible?
If the only way people got their meat fix anymore was running all day to chase down one animal, then you know what? Have it. You earned it. The animal had its chance to get away but the better species won. Sadly, we both know that clearly doesn't happen anymore. But don't try to justify getting steaks at Walmart to what our ancestors did to survive another day.
Seriously though, did you watch the speech? That's all I really need to know.
Swear to god, I'm bookmarking this thread for the next time someone tells me that not all vegans proselytize...
On a more pleasant note, we now have lambs in the pasture, and they're quite lovely and will have a happy life until late October or so.
Next step: building a chicken coop.
I'm starting to think that straight-up buying a farm would've been more cost-effective. A hell of a lot less effort, anyway.
It's not proselytizing if you back it up with facts. Otherwise would you say a science teacher is proselytizing to the students? If so then I guess I am. I'm not coming to you with a bible and telling you to take what I say on faith. Nor did I even create this thread. Just trying to spread more information out there to people who I assumed were open-minded, given the nature of this website. If you look at my first post, I gave a simple opinion on why I think that a vegan diet is the best diet for our health and the planet, and provided a link to a speech that does a really good job of explaining these points further. I could tell you all about how my body has reacted the last year in a half but, and correctly I might add, I would get hit with "that's just an anecdote". In addition to the video of the speech from a guy that has been doing this for years and provides his own website with further citations, I also gave information on numerous doctors in relevant fields that also agree that plant based is best. And of course, I got immediate blow back from people who refused to even watch any of it before replying. I can only assume it is because no one wants to feel they are associated with pain and suffering on a daily basis and try to block out the facts or look for whatever excuses they can to continue to justify their more "ignorance is bliss" lifestyle. Unless you can look at slaughterhouse videos without cringing even slightly, I think it is grounds to rethink your dietary choices. There is a reason why there are agriculture laws that ban filming inside and they try to keep this stuff away from the public. The McD's clown sells burgers a lot better than images of cows getting their throats slit.
Still haven't heard anyone with direct refutations to peer-reviewed research showing eating meat gives any special benefit that you can't get equally, if not better, from plants. And please don't waste my time with B12.
Post by: maizefolk on June 06, 2017, 07:56:40 AM
Sorry but this is just too funny not to reply. So you admit that longer lifespan communities all seem to demonstrate eating less meat than your traditional obese American, yet you never thought to maybe follow that thread to it's most logical conclusion that maybe eating no meat can give you the longest average lifespan possible?
...
Still haven't heard anyone with direct refutations to peer-reviewed research showing eating meat gives any special benefit that you can't get equally, if not better, from plants. And please don't waste my time with B12.
... but in the exact same post you quoted....
I see you didn't read, or forgot, or decided to disregard, my post up thread about the 7th day adventists. Not all 7 day adventists are vegans. Some are vegetarians, some are pescetarians (fish eaters), some occasionally eat red meat, and some eat meat regularly. Comparing the death rates across these five groups within the same population (so same environment, a lot of the same genetics and behavioral factors), the fish eaters have the lowest risk of death, vegetarians and occasional red meat eaters are about the same, and vegans and regular meat eaters have the highest rates of mortality.*
This also leaves aside the other four populations around the world with the longest lifespans, all of whom eat some meat (although less than the standard american). Again, this was already posted upthread.
*See Table 7 of this paper: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/516s/T7.expansion.html
Observe the citation to peer reviewed literature providing data consistent with, but not proving, that the risk of death is higher for both those with "average american" levels of meat consumption and zero animal product consumption than those with moderate and/or fish based meat consumption.
If the only way people got their meat fix anymore was running all day to chase down one animal, then you know what? Have it. You earned it. The animal had its chance to get away but the better species won. Sadly, we both know that clearly doesn't happen anymore. But don't try to justify getting steaks at Walmart to what our ancestors did to survive another day.
Interesting. So if a human being overcomes an animal based strength or endurance, you're fine with taking another life? But if a human being overcomes that same animal based on intelligence or cunning, then you're not okay with taking another life? I'm guessing you're not that morally inconsistent. Also, now that you've acknowledged that persistence hunting is indeed what our ancestors did to survive another day, does this mean we are finally at the end of the debate on whether eating meat is unnatural?
It's interesting that in this set of responses you've started to adopt several tactics of the false dilemma logical fallacy. Notably, phrases like "don't try to justify getting steaks at Walmart" and "your traditional obese American" while obviously not crossing the line into directly putting words into my mouth, definitely try to set up a particular set of cultural values and a particular lifestyle as the only alternative to your position. Obviously this is incorrect as people around the world eat, and thrive, on a wide range of diets, demonstrating that there are many options besides the standard american diet and strictly vegan (and as the meta analysis study I posted above shows, there is at least some evidence these two choices may be among the least healthy options).
Post by: cobbb11 on June 06, 2017, 08:29:49 AM
Sorry but this is just too funny not to reply. So you admit that longer lifespan communities all seem to demonstrate eating less meat than your traditional obese American, yet you never thought to maybe follow that thread to it's most logical conclusion that maybe eating no meat can give you the longest average lifespan possible?
...
Still haven't heard anyone with direct refutations to peer-reviewed research showing eating meat gives any special benefit that you can't get equally, if not better, from plants. And please don't waste my time with B12.
... but in the exact same post you quoted....I see you didn't read, or forgot, or decided to disregard, my post up thread about the 7th day adventists. Not all 7 day adventists are vegans. Some are vegetarians, some are pescetarians (fish eaters), some occasionally eat red meat, and some eat meat regularly. Comparing the death rates across these five groups within the same population (so same environment, a lot of the same genetics and behavioral factors), the fish eaters have the lowest risk of death, vegetarians and occasional red meat eaters are about the same, and vegans and regular meat eaters have the highest rates of mortality.*
This also leaves aside the other four populations around the world with the longest lifespans, all of whom eat some meat (although less than the standard american). Again, this was already posted upthread.
*See Table 7 of this paper: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/516s/T7.expansion.html
Observe the citation to peer reviewed literature providing data consistent with, but not proving, that the risk of death is higher for both those with "average american" levels of meat consumption and zero animal product consumption than those with moderate and/or fish based meat consumption.If the only way people got their meat fix anymore was running all day to chase down one animal, then you know what? Have it. You earned it. The animal had its chance to get away but the better species won. Sadly, we both know that clearly doesn't happen anymore. But don't try to justify getting steaks at Walmart to what our ancestors did to survive another day.
Interesting. So if a human being overcomes an animal based strength or endurance, you're fine with taking another life? But if a human being overcomes that same animal based on intelligence or cunning, then you're not okay with taking another life? I'm guessing you're not that morally inconsistent. Also, now that you've acknowledged that persistence hunting is indeed what our ancestors did to survive another day, does this mean we are finally at the end of the debate on whether eating meat is unnatural?
It's interesting that in this set of responses you've started to adopt several tactics of the false dilemma logical fallacy. Notably, phrases like "don't try to justify getting steaks at Walmart" and "your traditional obese American" while obviously not crossing the line into directly putting words into my mouth, definitely try to set up a particular set of cultural values and a particular lifestyle as the only alternative to your position. Obviously this is incorrect as people around the world eat, and thrive, on a wide range of diets, demonstrating that there are many options besides the standard american diet and strictly vegan (and as the meta analysis study I posted above shows, there is at least some evidence these two choices may be among the least healthy options).
I'll see your link and raise you this one, from the same site no less http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1627S.long.
I'm not saying being a vegan automatically puts you at the pinnacle of health. Ben and Jerry's has vegan ice cream now for Christ's sake. But it is proven time and time again that you can be, at worst, just as "healthy" as someone who eats meat/dairy, but also have a much larger chance of being at a better BMI, reduce your risks for many cancers, and, most important, nothing has to be murdered so that you can live. If you knew when you were going to die, and it wouldn't change whether you had to kill animals or didn't, would you not choose the path of least pain and suffering? If not, then clearly there is no changing your mind and that's fine, at least you would admit you're apathetic to the idea instead of trying to do whatever it takes to show that we actually NEED meat to be healthier humans, despite looking around and seeing what our diets have been doing to us for the past several generations.
One of several reasons why I don't have a problem with a lion eating a gazelle is because the lion doesn't always win. The gazelle does have a chance to escape. That is nature. The way we do things, keeping animals in obscene conditions from birth to death is in no way the same thing. At this point it isn't intelligence or cunning, it's an assembly line that ends in death. I would submit this link to show actual holocaust survivors comparing what the animals go through to what they go through for some perspective. http://bitesizevegan.com/ethics-and-morality/holocaust-survivors-speak-lessons-from-the-death-camps/
Please provide examples of people "thriving" off of meat-centered diets. Like we already discussed, the Inuit had a much more limited life-span, which probably lowered their cancer numbers because they didn't even live long enough to develop them. I wouldn't call that thriving.
Lastly, should I just assume at this point you have no intention of watching the video I linked in my very first post, which was really the only reason I posted at all to begin with?
Post by: KCM5 on June 06, 2017, 01:51:04 PM
I'm not saying being a vegan automatically puts you at the pinnacle of health. Ben and Jerry's has vegan ice cream now for Christ's sake. But it is proven time and time again that you can be, at worst, just as "healthy" as someone who eats meat/dairy, but also have a much larger chance of being at a better BMI, reduce your risks for many cancers, and, most important, nothing has to be murdered so that you can live. If you knew when you were going to die, and it wouldn't change whether you had to kill animals or didn't, would you not choose the path of least pain and suffering? If not, then clearly there is no changing your mind and that's fine, at least you would admit you're apathetic to the idea instead of trying to do whatever it takes to show that we actually NEED meat to be healthier humans, despite looking around and seeing what our diets have been doing to us for the past several generations.
One of several reasons why I don't have a problem with a lion eating a gazelle is because the lion doesn't always win. The gazelle does have a chance to escape. That is nature. The way we do things, keeping animals in obscene conditions from birth to death is in no way the same thing. At this point it isn't intelligence or cunning, it's an assembly line that ends in death. I would submit this link to show actual holocaust survivors comparing what the animals go through to what they go through for some perspective. http://bitesizevegan.com/ethics-and-morality/holocaust-survivors-speak-lessons-from-the-death-camps/
Why are you saying that animals don't die in order to feed you (ignoring that for some reason we're valuing the lives of animals over the lives of plants)? Just because you're not eating them? Humans, with our industrialized agriculture, modify the environment and kill an incredible amount of creatures in order to grow the food that we require to live. Even your local farmer selling you leeks at the farmers market probably traps and kills groundhogs (I love groundhogs - they're the cutest rodents) because they're destructive to their crop. And then there's the rodent massacre that happens any time a combine goes through a field.
As a former vegetarian that was coming to terms with my different diet, I enjoyed reading this book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Mindful-Carnivore-Vegetarians-Hunt-Sustenance/dp/B00AZ9DZSA (https://www.amazon.com/Mindful-Carnivore-Vegetarians-Hunt-Sustenance/dp/B00AZ9DZSA)
Post by: maizefolk on June 06, 2017, 04:33:24 PM
I'll see your link and raise you this one, from the same site no less http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1627S.long.
Interesting paper. In your own words would you mind summarizing what you feel the central message or important fact from that manuscript is with regards to our discussion?
After reading the paper, I would summarize the paper has having two primary messages.
1) There are a lot of potential health risks to a vegan diet (iron deficiency, vitamin D deficiency, omega-3 fatty acids, B12, etc). Based on a review of the published literature, most of these potential deficiencies can be managed or overcome with dietary planning and/or supplementation.
"Typically, vegans can avoid nutritional problems if appropriate food choices are made."
2) There are also a lot of potential health benefits to a vegan diet. There are lots of cancer protective secondary metabolites in fruits and vegetables, and since vegans eat more of these foods, we would expect that their incidence of cancer should be lower. However.
"With this wide array of useful phytochemicals in the vegetarian diet, it is surprising that population studies have not shown more pronounced differences in cancer incidence or mortality rates between vegetarians and nonvegetarians ... Further research is needed to explore the relation between consuming plant-based diets and risk of cancer because there are many unanswered questions about how diet and cancer are connected. To date, epidemiologic studies have not provided convincing evidence that a vegan diet provides significant protection against cancer."
So I'm not sure how you see this paper as a counter-argument to the one linked above that shows both vegans and standard americian diet level meat eaters dying at higher rates than pescatarians.
The paper also mentions that vegans tend to have lower BMIs than non-vegans, which could be either a good or bad thing for reducing risk of death. It turns out that people with somewhat higher BMIs (25-29.9 the "overweight" category) tend to have lower death rates than people with lower or higher BMIs.*
*http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1555137 (Note that followup studies looking specifically at body fat percentage, have found that having a high percent body fat is still a bad sign for your health. Low BMI and high body fat percentage are independently associated with increased mortality. The best case scenario seems to be moderately overweight, but to hit that point on the scales using lean body mass rather than fat.)
Quote
I'm not saying being a vegan automatically puts you at the pinnacle of health. Ben and Jerry's has vegan ice cream now for Christ's sake. But it is proven time and time again that you can be, at worst, just as "healthy" as someone who eats meat/dairy, but also have a much larger chance of being at a better BMI, reduce your risks for many cancers, and, most important, nothing has to be murdered so that you can live. If you knew when you were going to die, and it wouldn't change whether you had to kill animals or didn't, would you not choose the path of least pain and suffering? If not, then clearly there is no changing your mind and that's fine...
I have said over and over again in this thread, that I'm not trying to convince you that eating animals is ethical, so I'll confine my response to the health argument here.
Looking at the paper you linked, at worst, a vegan diet can produce all sorts of nutrient deficiencies that are indeed far worse than a balanced diet that includes a wide range of plant and animal derived foods. Note, I'm not saying it's not possible to also eat a very healthy diet as a vegan, or that every diet that contains meat must be a healthy diet. I am saying the determining factor for whether a diet is healthy or not is not whether or not the diet is entirely free of food from animals.
Earlier in this thread you commented that you were surprised people weren't reacting more to your convincing evidence that eating animals was unhealthy and unnatural, and I have been trying for the last couple of days to show you that the reason people aren't responding to these arguments is because the evidence you're presenting for both isn't actually as convincing to people who don't start out already agreeing with you as you seem to think it is.
Quote
...at least you would admit you're apathetic to the idea instead of trying to do whatever it takes to show that we actually NEED meat to be healthier humans, despite looking around and seeing what our diets have been doing to us for the past several generations.
The standard american diet today is clearly quite bad for human health. Have I ever said otherwise? However, if you went back four of five generations ago, to a time when obesity was a sign of wealth rather than poverty and you compared the food people ate then to the food people ate today, what would the biggest differences in diet and lifestyle be? You've find americans of five generations ago walked and worked with their muscles a lot more than today. You've find far less refined sugar and other sweeteners in the diet. Significantly less white flour too. You've find many more meals cooked from scratch. What you wouldn't find is an absence of meat and animal products in people's diet.
Quote
Please provide examples of people "thriving" off of meat-centered diets. Like we already discussed, the Inuit had a much more limited life-span, which probably lowered their cancer numbers because they didn't even live long enough to develop them. I wouldn't call that thriving.
I've never said meat centered diets. I've said diets containing meat or other animal products. My examples are that of the five places in the world where people live the longest four populations all consume meat and/or animal products (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/ignorant-food-consumers/msg1576707/#msg1576707) and in the remaining population (7th day adventists) the people who eat fish live longer than the people who are purely vegan or purely vegetarian. This seems hard to reconcile with the idea that any and every amount of meat or animal product consumption is unhealthy. If so, I'd expect the longest lived places in the world to be dominated by strictly vegan cultures.
You keep trying to make this an either/or discussion. Either you're a thin vegan, or an obese american who shops a walmart. Either you're an inuit subsisting on whale and seal blubber through the winter, or you never eat so much as a single serving of fish or slice of cheese.
It is not the case that either the diet of the inuit is the healthiest diet or a vegan diet is the healthiest diet on the planet. I'm pointing out that there is a broad middle ground between those two where it tends to be easier to end up with a healthy diet without putting as much work and thought into it as at either of those extremes.
Post by: Raenia on June 06, 2017, 04:43:28 PM
And now I'll go back to keeping my mouth shut and my blood pressure within acceptable parameters.
Post by: maizefolk on June 06, 2017, 04:56:09 PM
Post by: jeninco on June 06, 2017, 05:23:48 PM
I've felt bad about how my responses on this thread seem to always turn into walls of text a page or more long. Means an awful lot to hear they are being read -- and appreciated. Thank you, Raenia.
I'm also enjoying reading your thoughtful, reasonable, patient, well-considered responses. (I have the patience for few of these things, and I am a little in awe of your abilities.) Thank you!
Post by: Papa bear on June 06, 2017, 06:17:19 PM
+1I've felt bad about how my responses on this thread seem to always turn into walls of text a page or more long. Means an awful lot to hear they are being read -- and appreciated. Thank you, Raenia.
I'm also enjoying reading your thoughtful, reasonable, patient, well-considered responses. (I have the patience for few of these things, and I am a little in awe of your abilities.) Thank you!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Civex on June 06, 2017, 06:45:40 PM
Swear to god, I'm bookmarking this thread for the next time someone tells me that not all vegans proselytize...
Please don't think we all do. I'm vegan and have been reading this thread with interest. I enjoy this community because it's full of intelligent, thoughtful people who make interesting arguments for their way of approaching life. I suspect there are probably other vegans quietly watching this from the sidelines, too. We're the ones you're not hearing from.
Also follow a plant based diet and haven't proselytized......lead by example; some people will be interested in what you do
Post by: Kitsune on June 06, 2017, 08:56:29 PM
Swear to god, I'm bookmarking this thread for the next time someone tells me that not all vegans proselytize...
Please don't think we all do. I'm vegan and have been reading this thread with interest. I enjoy this community because it's full of intelligent, thoughtful people who make interesting arguments for their way of approaching life. I suspect there are probably other vegans quietly watching this from the sidelines, too. We're the ones you're not hearing from.
Also follow a plant based diet and haven't proselytized......lead by example; some people will be interested in what you do
Haha fair, I stand corrected.
if only Morena people did that, both for diet and religioN. it'd probably be a lot more successful. :)
Post by: cobbb11 on June 07, 2017, 07:28:18 AM
This whole "You have to eat a perfect vegan diet or you can be nutritionally deficient" makes literally no sense because the same can be said about anything. So if I'm not on a vegan diet, does that mean I can eat pizza and ice cream all day and not have to worry about doing it perfectly? Once you accept the fact that ANY diet can be potentially bad if done wrong, and you accept that a vegan diet CAN be extremely beneficial (when it is based off of mainly whole foods like fruit,veg,nuts,seeds,grains), then all you are left with is one very specific diet that doesn't needlessly slaughter billions of animals, and every other diet that does. It seems like a no brainer to me, and if you're still ok with killing some animals but calling possibly still considering yourself an animal lover, then I'm sorry but that makes you a hypocrite. That was the realization I had to come to that had me re-thinking my ways. Also keep in mind that when you eat meat, all the nutrients you're getting from them come from the grains and fruit/veg they ate. There is nothing inherent in meat that is special, except carcinogens I suppose. And B12 comes from bacteria that we used to get from well water and not completely clean plant we would eat. They even have to supplement livestock with B12 now.
You mentioned generations ago when being fat was considered a sign of wealth. You would absolutely find less meat in poor people's diets. Rice and beans are dirt cheap. Eating meat is supposed to be a luxury but its subsidized to hell where a cheese burger is a dollar but a salad (if you can even find one without cheese on it these days) is like 5. Go back even further, the peasants (who yes, also did a lot more physical labor than the royalty), were doing a lot better off health-wise. When you think "peasant food", do you think of filet mignon? http://westernreservepublicmedia.org/middleages/feud_peasants.htm Yea, it says "some meat". Again, why not take it to its logical conclusion that if a culture that eats a lot of meat is like a 2 out of 10 health wise, and a culture that has little is like 7 out of 10, then maybe a culture that had none would be even higher?
I know you aren't trying to tell me that eating animals is ethical, because there really isn't much ground to stand on there.
And to KCM5: I'm aware that some animals/insects die during the planting and picking of crops. As I've said before, the idea is to minimize it as practically as possible. And there is a HUGE difference between a rodent from the wild that decides to make an attempt at easy food that a farmer decides to shoot, vs a cow/pig/chicken kept locked up its entire life for the sole purpose of becoming food. That's why I have no problem watching a lion kill a zebra. It's about free of choice and free will. I'll swat the crap out of a mosquito that tries to bite me. It's self defense.
One last time people, these were the videos I wanted to share on a thread that talked about ignorant food consumers and i'm sure they will answer many questions. Not sure why everyone is so afraid of maybe learning a new thing or two. And if you watch them come back here and say they didn't absolutely nothing for you, then fine, I have no problem with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4&t=2706s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIkC4OJEx3c
Post by: KCM5 on June 07, 2017, 08:32:48 AM
I know you aren't trying to tell me that eating animals is ethical, because there really isn't much ground to stand on there.
And to KCM5: I'm aware that some animals/insects die during the planting and picking of crops. As I've said before, the idea is to minimize it as practically as possible. And there is a HUGE difference between a rodent from the wild that decides to make an attempt at easy food that a farmer decides to shoot, vs a cow/pig/chicken kept locked up its entire life for the sole purpose of becoming food. That's why I have no problem watching a lion kill a zebra. It's about free of choice and free will. I'll swat the crap out of a mosquito that tries to bite me. It's self defense.
The point I'm making is that going vegan doesn't minimize animal deaths. Getting your food from wild or foraged sources does. The deer I shoot in the fall leads to one death (and prevents many others as an overpopulation of deer leads to a crash during harsh winters). The wheat I eat in my fancy vegan artisanal pasty resulted in mice that died during harvest and after harvest due to increased predation. I argue that hunting is an honest assessment of the damage that I do as a human being that eats. Consuming food raised by modern agriculture (animal or vegetable) hides the damage from me so I can ignore the destruction that I've caused. I'm trying to live with my eyes wide open.
Of course, our population is too high to support hunting and gathering as a sole food source. Agriculture is a problem and a solution.
Post by: cobbb11 on June 07, 2017, 08:47:55 AM
I know you aren't trying to tell me that eating animals is ethical, because there really isn't much ground to stand on there.
And to KCM5: I'm aware that some animals/insects die during the planting and picking of crops. As I've said before, the idea is to minimize it as practically as possible. And there is a HUGE difference between a rodent from the wild that decides to make an attempt at easy food that a farmer decides to shoot, vs a cow/pig/chicken kept locked up its entire life for the sole purpose of becoming food. That's why I have no problem watching a lion kill a zebra. It's about free of choice and free will. I'll swat the crap out of a mosquito that tries to bite me. It's self defense.
The point I'm making is that going vegan doesn't minimize animal deaths. Getting your food from wild or foraged sources does. The deer I shoot in the fall leads to one death (and prevents many others as an overpopulation of deer leads to a crash during harsh winters). The wheat I eat in my fancy vegan artisanal pasty resulted in mice that died during harvest and after harvest due to increased predation. I argue that hunting is an honest assessment of the damage that I do as a human being that eats. Consuming food raised by modern agriculture (animal or vegetable) hides the damage from me so I can ignore the destruction that I've caused. I'm trying to live with my eyes wide open.
Of course, our population is too high to support hunting and gathering as a sole food source. Agriculture is a problem and a solution.
Going vegan doesn't minimize animal deaths???? Ok clearly there is no rational debate to be had with you after that statement. But I guess I'll take a long shot here. Did you not hear about the e.coli recall on all the beef?
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2017/recall-059-2017-release
How many animals just had to die for literally no reason at all from that alone? If there is no demand for meat, then there would be no animal agriculture. Farmers would stick to just growing the crops and people would eat that directly. Whatever animals were going to die from the crop growing that vegans ate would die anyway, but the crops needed to feed BILLIONS of land animals and fish (fish farms) wouldn't even be needed. So those crop pests would survive, as would the livestock. And if certain other animals have to die during the crop growing process (again, because they decided to go after those crops) then that is ethically completely different. Those animals were free to make a choice on where to try and get their food. I'm pretty sure the chickens/cows/pigs would love to just run away.
And in all honesty, if our biggest issue as a society was how to minimize the death of farm pests, I'd say that is an extremely good problem to have.
If you're really trying to live with your eyes open, I would suggest not coming up with rebuttals until after you watched the video.
Post by: prognastat on June 07, 2017, 09:11:17 AM
There have been so many fallacies in your arguments that it is becoming hard to keep track.
Among them are:
Strawman - those you are arguing against(arguing as if their argument is for the standard american diet which the whole point of this thread was discussing how the average person does not make good food choices and many here agreed).
False Cause - Correlation does not mean causation(you fail to respond to maizeman when he indicates that many of the studies aren't accounting for the fact that certain populations that happen to be vegan might also be practicing other behaviors that improve health which seriously puts a question on wether the effect is because of the veganism)
Appeals to Emotion - Whenever you get called out on flaws in your reasoning you instead try to fall back on the moral/ethical case which people have rejected since these morals and ethics are not objective.
Ad hominem - attacking Maizeman's name as a joke instead of effectively arguing his points.
Anecdotal - Just because you or someone you know has managed to survive on a purely vegan diet doesn't mean everyone can(as some including Maizeman have pointed out)
Genetic/Appeal to Nature - Just because something is natural doesn't make it good and just because something is unnatural doesn't make it bad.
Personal Incredulity - Just because you think your arguments are good and can't see the flaw in it doesn't mean you are right.
Moving the goalpost - You make a claim, Maizeman or others disprove it. You then slightly alter what your supposed claim was to try to counter instead of conceding your claim was wrong. Your most persistent case of this is changing your argument from vegan is inherently better to it is better than the standard american diet when it is convenient and later going back to arguing the former.
Black or White - Arguing as if there are only two options in diet, the standard American diet or veganism. Convenient since this is the only situation where you have any chance of saying your option is the superior one and even that is a struggle.
Cherry Picking - You pick data that confirms your moral/ethical opinion despite people disputing it and discount the data provided that counters your moral/ethical opinion.
You might want to see how you are using all these fallacies in your arguments on top of some disingenuous tactics that aren't fallacies but still dishonest and how this might be hurting your believability and actually harming your cause of your cause is minimizing animal suffering.
I have to say Maizeman, hats off to you both in your patience and breadth of information provided in spite of severely lackluster arguments being returned.
Post by: Inaya on June 07, 2017, 09:14:37 AM
Post by: KCM5 on June 07, 2017, 09:16:18 AM
I know you aren't trying to tell me that eating animals is ethical, because there really isn't much ground to stand on there.
And to KCM5: I'm aware that some animals/insects die during the planting and picking of crops. As I've said before, the idea is to minimize it as practically as possible. And there is a HUGE difference between a rodent from the wild that decides to make an attempt at easy food that a farmer decides to shoot, vs a cow/pig/chicken kept locked up its entire life for the sole purpose of becoming food. That's why I have no problem watching a lion kill a zebra. It's about free of choice and free will. I'll swat the crap out of a mosquito that tries to bite me. It's self defense.
The point I'm making is that going vegan doesn't minimize animal deaths. Getting your food from wild or foraged sources does. The deer I shoot in the fall leads to one death (and prevents many others as an overpopulation of deer leads to a crash during harsh winters). The wheat I eat in my fancy vegan artisanal pasty resulted in mice that died during harvest and after harvest due to increased predation. I argue that hunting is an honest assessment of the damage that I do as a human being that eats. Consuming food raised by modern agriculture (animal or vegetable) hides the damage from me so I can ignore the destruction that I've caused. I'm trying to live with my eyes wide open.
Of course, our population is too high to support hunting and gathering as a sole food source. Agriculture is a problem and a solution.
Going vegan doesn't minimize animal deaths???? Ok clearly there is no rational debate to be had with you after that statement. But I guess I'll take a long shot here. How much of the population hunts and kills every piece of meat they eat? Did you not hear about the e.coli recall on all the beef? https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2017/recall-059-2017-release
How many animals just had to die for literally no reason at all from that alone? If there is no demand for meat, then there would be no animal agriculture. Farmers would stick to just growing the crops and people would eat that directly. If certain other animals had to die during the process (again, because they decided to go after those crops) then that is ethically completely different. Those animals were free to make a choice on where to try and get their food.
And in all honesty, if our biggest issue as a society was how to minimize the death of farm pests, I'd say that is an extremely good problem to have.
You're a vegan who is trying to do better and minimize animal suffering/death. That's who I'm speaking with. Not someone who thinks that animal agriculture is all hunky-dory and doesn't have a problem with getting a double cheeseburger made from a cow that was kept in a feedlot and fed corn. That e. coli recall is immaterial to this discussion (as it happens, I didn't follow that one. Terrible. I did follow the tragedy caused by the avian flu here in the midwest - millions of bird in confined feeding operations died or were culled. Also terrible). At the end of the day, eating as responsibly as possible means minimizing eating food from industrial agriculture.
Here's a good discussion (written by a vegan, don't worry, you'll agree with her conclusion) on the topic of industrial agriculture, grain harvesting, etc: http://bitesizevegan.com/environmental-societal-impact/do-vegans-kill-more-animals-than-meat-eaters/ (http://bitesizevegan.com/environmental-societal-impact/do-vegans-kill-more-animals-than-meat-eaters/)
Also, you're blaming the field mouse and its offspring for living/nesting in the field that will eventually be harvested? Harsh, man.
I, a female millennial from a non-hunting family, took up hunting because there are no more apex predators to keep the deer population down where I live. We are the apex predator. And as an environmental scientist, I understand the damage caused by industrial agriculture. I won't accept the argument that veganism is always or even generally better than an omnivorous diet. It can be better, of course. It can be worse.
Post by: yakamashii on June 07, 2017, 09:35:57 AM
The speaker and Cobbb came out guns blazing and saying things like "You are responsible for the rape and murder of animals" and "people who are okay with killing animals and call themselves animal lovers are hypocrites." That sounds to me like hunting and gathering (probably just gathering) is the only acceptable way. But you're not doing that, and when called out on it, the rhetoric becomes "minimizing animal deaths." I'd like to see some acknowledgement that the incendiary rhetoric and application of distinctly human-on-human crimes are merely tactics used to make the argument. If the argument is that damn strong, those tactics shouldn't be necessary.
Post by: cobbb11 on June 07, 2017, 10:25:25 AM
Cobbb I think the problem here is that your argument(s) have gotten lost in all of the discussion. Maybe you can summarize/reiterate them (and their evidence) for us?
Here is the summary, because I agree there are too many points being thrown around to keep up with:
Do you consider yourself an "animal lover" in any way shape or form?
If yes, and you eat meat, please explain to me how you reconcile with killing certain animals, while passionately crying foul when others are abused. I'm sure everyone has heard about those Asian dog meat fairs they are trying to shut down. How is that any different from factory farming of other animals? Why do the dogs get a pass? You talk about moving goal posts, how do you come up with that arbitrary line between a pet and dinner?
Do you consider yourself someone that cares about the environment?
Animal agriculture is the one of, if not the worst, offenders of climate change (assuming you believe it exists and man-made and all that stuff not relevant to this discussion). How can you complain about car pollution and the Paris Accord exit, but have no problem contributing to factory farming and all of its problems?
I have already provided plenty of peer-reviewed research that shows a vegan diet is healthy for all stages of life and recommended several doctors in the field that back them up. No one has given me a single nutrient you REQUIRE meat for that cannot be gotten through plant-based foods or supplements, because there is none. Now that you know you don't require meat to live, and it's purely a luxury, I am wondering why an animal has to die for your taste buds. There are vegan alternatives to pretty much everything, including something like 10 different vegan milks alone. If you can get those same tastes and textures without killing something, is that not the more ethical choice?
In response to yakamashii: Everything the speaker said had evidence backed up on his website. It wasn't simply rhetoric. "Gathering" like our ancestors doesn't make sense anymore in today's society. Like I have already conceded, something like my house being built has cost animal lives, and I wish it hadn't. We don't live in a perfect world. But eliminating blatant animal products from our lives is ridiculously easy and cuts down tremendously on suffering and death, so why is that not the clear and ethical choice. I'm not sure what you mean by the human-on-human crimes, but I believe the basic idea is that as an average person, you don't want to wish harm on other humans, so why is it ok to do things that you know directly causes hard to other living beings. Why is empathy so difficult in this situation where you know if you were a cow in a slaughterhouse, you would want to leave it alive.
Seriously guys, this is my last post on this topic. I came in with a simple video to people that I thought would be open to a new way of thinking like you already were to the MMM philosophy. It's been scientifically proven to be good for you as long as you aren't stupid and eating oreo cookies all day and eat a variety of whole plant based foods (I can tell you my anecdotes if you really want but I don't believe in anecdotal claims). So if you can be better off health-wise, and not kill animals doing it, why is that not the ideal choice? And if you still don't believe me, what is the harm in trying it for 2 measly weeks and seeing how your body reacts? That's how I got started. The first days were rough, like what I imagine a detox would be. But then it was all uphill.
Lastly, simply stating the ironical fact that maizeman's name has the word maize(corn) in it, is not an ad-hominem. Nice try though. Hope you all have a fantastic day.
Post by: maizefolk on June 07, 2017, 10:42:40 AM
It seems like it may be time to wrap up because it is clear cobb and I are talking past each other and we're just repeating the same points instead of at least coming up with interesting new arguments for or against to debate. While I was writing this post it seems cobb came to the same conclusion independently (see post above), so that's good.
1) Cobb, you seem to subscribe the the belief that anything that is unhealthy in excess is obviously unhealthy in any amount at all. I disagree with this point both generally (I've cited examples of other things we eat where both too much or too little is harmful to human health), and specifically with regard to animal derived foods, pointing out both studies that find those who eat a little red meat, or fish, or vegetarians tend to die at lower rates than strict vegans, and anecdotal data that the longest lived populations on earth generally consume some amount of meat and/or animal products. Note that even so, I'm not arguing that a vegan diet cannot be healthy, simply that there is absolutely no evidence that such a diet is automatically healthier than a diet containing moderate amounts of meat.
2) It is my position that figuring out whether eating meat is unnatural, or whether eating meat is unhealthy, is a separate debate from whether eating meat is ethical. I seems to me like you don't treat these as separate these concepts, so when people push back on your view that it is obvious any amount of meat in the diet is unhealthy or it is obvious that human beings are naturally herbivores you interpret that as an attack on your choice not to eat animals for ethical reasons.
Less seriously:
3) I have continued to monitor my chewing since you brought up the idea that humans are side to side chewers and we just don't realize it. So far I really don't notice much of any side to side motion. I've tested while eating a sandwich, fried sweet potatoes, chana masala (essentially chickpeas), and a carrot (obviously not all in one sitting). If you think there are other foods that evoke a stronger side to side chewing response, feel free to suggest some. Or if other people notice horizontal chewing motions, I'm certainly open to the idea that my jaw movements and/or skull shape may be non-representative of humans as a whole.
4) What's ironic about my username containing the word for corn?
I'm going to answer one more point again because it really is at the core of the impasse we've had in this discussion.
Again, why not take it to its logical conclusion that if a culture that eats a lot of meat is like a 2 out of 10 health wise, and a culture that has little is like 7 out of 10, then maybe a culture that had none would be even higher?
This would actually be a very logical thing to do if the only people who had ever lived were those who ate a lot of meat and those who ate a little meat. If I was in charge of trying to come up with the diet that would keep people alive and healthy for as long as possible and someone came to me with that result and nothing else, I'm smack my hand against my forehead and say "By gosh, we aughta have some folks try eating no meat at all right away and see what happens!"
However, we don't only have data from "lots of meat" and "less meat" we also have data from "only fish", "no meat, but still eggs and cheese" and "not meat, no animal products." We have this data both in terms of very large population surveys of individuals and their health outcomes, and also looking at health outcomes across whole cultures who have adopted different diets for reasons ranging from economic to religious to "this is what tastes good to us." And we don't see any positive health consequences, and may actually see some negative ones when the average person gives up fish, eggs, and/or small amounts of land meat.*
Maybe it'd be more clear if I flipped your previous statement around:
If a culture that eats no meat or animal products is a 7 out of 10 health wise, but cultures that eat some meat or eggs or fish are 9 out of 10 health wise, wouldn't a logical conclusion be that a culture that ate entirely meat would be a 10 out of 10 health wise?
If those were the only two data points we had, we'd have to agree that seemed like a logical conclusion. Fortunately, we do have more information that that, so we can conclude that maybe cheeseburgers every single data might not be the healthiest thing for a human being. But my hope is that this counterfactual example illustrates how, when you remove a bunch of the data from a comparison, you can get misleading trends. And that's what you're doing by making statements that only consider that data on high and low meat consumption, without including the data on the health of vegans, vegetarians, and fish eaters.
I hope this helps to explain why people aren't being as convinced by this particular argument as it sounded like you were originally expecting them to be. I know it can be a very frustrating or unsettling feeling when people respond to actions or words in ways that aren't at all consistent with how I had been expecting them to react.
*It is also important in these discussions to distinguish between "what an ideal diet X looks like" and "what people actually do when they adopt diet X." This works both ways. It's likely many people eating a vegan diet aren't eating an ideal one, with possible negative health consequences relative to an ideal vegan diet, and it's likely many people who tell themselves they aren't going to adopt any diet with strict rules, just make healthy eating decisions end up circling back towards a standard american diet (with definite negative health consequences relative to the ideal diet for a human) simply because having to make judgement calls each time you sit down to a meal quickly introduces decision fatigue.
I think that is why many folks who adopt almost any diet (vegan, vegetarian, gluten free, carb free, paleo, keto, what have you) end up feeling a lot healthier. Absolute rules take a lot less mental energy to follow, and at this point most changes from the standard american diet tend to be improvements.
Post by: Inaya on June 07, 2017, 10:51:33 AM
Cobbb I think the problem here is that your argument(s) have gotten lost in all of the discussion. Maybe you can summarize/reiterate them (and their evidence) for us?
Here is the summary, because I agree there are too many points being thrown around to keep up with:
Do you consider yourself an "animal lover" in any way shape or form?
If yes, and you eat meat, please explain to me how you reconcile with killing certain animals, while passionately crying foul when others are abused. I'm sure everyone has heard about those Asian dog meat fairs they are trying to shut down. How is that any different from factory farming of other animals? Why do the dogs get a pass? You talk about moving goal posts, how do you come up with that arbitrary line between a pet and dinner?
Do you consider yourself someone that cares about the environment?
Animal agriculture is the one of, if not the worst, offenders of climate change (assuming you believe it exists and man-made and all that stuff not relevant to this discussion). How can you complain about car pollution and the Paris Accord exit, but have no problem contributing to factory farming and all of its problems?
I have already provided plenty of peer-reviewed research that shows a vegan diet is healthy for all stages of life and recommended several doctors in the field that back them up. No one has given me a single nutrient you REQUIRE meat for that cannot be gotten through plant-based foods or supplements, because there is none. Now that you know you don't require meat to live, and it's purely a luxury, I am wondering why an animal has to die for your taste buds. There are vegan alternatives to pretty much everything, including something like 10 different vegan milks alone. If you can get those same tastes and textures without killing something, is that not the more ethical choice?
In response to yakamashii: Everything the speaker said had evidence backed up on his website. It wasn't simply rhetoric. "Gathering" like our ancestors doesn't make sense anymore in today's society. Like I have already conceded, something like my house being built has cost animal lives, and I wish it hadn't. We don't live in a perfect world. But eliminating blatant animal products from our lives is ridiculously easy and cuts down tremendously on suffering and death, so why is that not the clear and ethical choice. I'm not sure what you mean by the human-on-human crimes, but I believe the basic idea is that as an average person, you don't want to wish harm on other humans, so why is it ok to do things that you know directly causes hard to other living beings. Why is empathy so difficult in this situation where you know if you were a cow in a slaughterhouse, you would want to leave it alive.
Seriously guys, this is my last post on this topic. I came in with a simple video to people that I thought would be open to a new way of thinking like you already were to the MMM philosophy. It's been scientifically proven to be good for you as long as you aren't stupid and eating oreo cookies all day and eat a variety of whole plant based foods (I can tell you my anecdotes if you really want but I don't believe in anecdotal claims). So if you can be better off health-wise, and not kill animals doing it, why is that not the ideal choice? And if you still don't believe me, what is the harm in trying it for 2 measly weeks and seeing how your body reacts? That's how I got started. The first days were rough, like what I imagine a detox would be. But then it was all uphill.
Lastly, simply stating the ironical fact that maizeman's name has the word maize(corn) in it, is not an ad-hominem. Nice try though. Hope you all have a fantastic day.
I know you said you're done, but if you see this, I'm curious about your views of other animal uses--specifically where the animal doesn't have to die. This could range from anything to working dogs/horses (herding, service, policing, bearing burdens, etc.) to using their products (milk, wool) to keeping them as companions or using them for entertainment.
Post by: prognastat on June 07, 2017, 12:01:06 PM
Lastly, simply stating the ironical fact that maizeman's name has the word maize(corn) in it, is not an ad-hominem. Nice try though. Hope you all have a fantastic day.
I appreciate you conceding all the other fallacies you are enacting through only addressing this one. I hope it is a learning moment. Keep in mind none of this means you are wrong, simply a learning moment as to what might be undermining your argumentation.
Post by: prognastat on June 07, 2017, 12:37:34 PM
Do you consider yourself an "animal lover" in any way shape or form?
If yes, and you eat meat, please explain to me how you reconcile with killing certain animals, while passionately crying foul when others are abused. I'm sure everyone has heard about those Asian dog meat fairs they are trying to shut down. How is that any different from factory farming of other animals? Why do the dogs get a pass? You talk about moving goal posts, how do you come up with that arbitrary line between a pet and dinner?
I think this dichotomy is false as in a way I am an animal lover, I love my pets near as much as I love my family. I don't love all animals this way just like I don't love all people this way.
I love my family and friends, yet I am ok with some people being killed. For example I am against the death penalty, but only because it is impossible to have a completely flawless system of law at this time and some innocent people end up convicted. If there were a way of being 100% sure someone was guilty of some of the more heinous crimes I would have no qualms about them being removed from society in a way that minimized their suffering. If we are attacked by another country I accept that in returning in kind will lead to the death of people both on our side and on the other side, but this is in my opinion still the right action to take.
Do you consider yourself someone that cares about the environment?
I do, however you have not addressed other people's concerns with how what you advocate will affect the environment and you have yet to set out a clear way that we could take care of the current population of farm animals without utterly destroying the environment either. In this case there is a kind of clash between what would be good for the animals and what would be good for the environment as a whole. The mass release of animals would undoubtedly harm the environment in many expected and probably plenty of unexpected ways too. Yet keeping the current stock until we run out will mean more animals suffer longer from the mistreatment you intend to fight. There is no way all farm animals will somehow be kept as pets as a decent few are in no shape to act as pets and I doubt there is a large enough group of people willing or capable(city ordinances etc) to take in farm animals on the scale required to make that work.
You also haven't addressed the point of certain species like deer actually having the problem of overpopulation if humans don't intercede in certain areas it actually leads to objectively more suffering of animals(mass starvation) and harm to the direct environment(overgrazing). What in your ethical/moral framework would be the best action, culling the population through hunting where a few animals die a relatively quick death or letting it run it's natural cause and overgrazing the land hurting the eco system and leading to starvation of not only more of that species, but many other species too in a long drawn out death? If the environment and minimizing animal suffering is your ultimate goal then the latter is by far the worse result, yet it would also require a human "unnaturally"(I don't prescribe to the belief humans fall outside nature) ending the lives of animals.
Keep in mind saying I don't know or falling back on your ethical problems with the current system is not going to convince people if you have no viable solution.
Post by: GreenSheep on June 07, 2017, 12:48:33 PM
I think that is why many folks who adopt almost any diet (vegan, vegetarian, gluten free, carb free, paleo, keto, what have you) end up feeling a lot healthier. Absolute rules take a lot less mental energy to follow, and at this point most changes from the standard american diet tend to be improvements.
Your thinking seems to match mine when it comes to rules, and I agree that just about any change from the SAD is a good one, but apparently not everyone thinks this way. This is something that it took me a while to realize. When I first switched to a plant-based diet, I didn't understand why people who ate partially plant-based and generally agreed with my outlook on nutrition wouldn't just go 100%, or why people always commented on my "strong willpower." I didn't think willpower had anything to do with it. I had made one over-arching decision, so there were no daily decisions to be made, which, from my perspective, was easy.
Gretchen Rubin's idea of the Four Tendencies (link below) really opened my eyes to the fact that, gasp!, not everyone thinks the way I do! I am an Upholder, so I really enjoy rules. Although I am aware that there are no studies that show that 100% plant-based is any better than 95% plant-based, I find that my life is easier when I just say, "That contains something from an animal, so I don't eat it, any more than I would eat that pen over there. It is simply not food for me." No decision-making required. Of course you could apply that to any diet decisions, not just plant-based versus SAD.
Apparently I'm in the minority, and most other people seem to prefer to have options, to be able to have a little bit of something that contains something they wouldn't normally eat, etc. Each of the Four Tendencies probably approaches their food decisions completely differently. Rebels would probably need to try out a new way of eating for themselves before deciding on whether to keep doing it or not. Questioners would want to know all the research behind it. Obligers would benefit from joining a group or sharing their new eating habits with a friend or family member. Upholders... I'm not sure how we make the initial decision, but once it's made, that's it, no wavering. I like the Four Tendencies idea in general, for lots of aspects of life, and I think it's really interesting to apply it to food decisions. There's so much psychology involved in food.
http://gretchenrubin.com/happiness_project/2015/01/ta-da-the-launch-of-my-quiz-on-the-four-tendencies-learn-about-yourself/
Post by: Turnbull on June 07, 2017, 02:36:12 PM
Post by: maizefolk on June 07, 2017, 03:45:37 PM
I think that is why many folks who adopt almost any diet (vegan, vegetarian, gluten free, carb free, paleo, keto, what have you) end up feeling a lot healthier. Absolute rules take a lot less mental energy to follow, and at this point most changes from the standard american diet tend to be improvements.
Your thinking seems to match mine when it comes to rules, and I agree that just about any change from the SAD is a good one, but apparently not everyone thinks this way. This is something that it took me a while to realize. When I first switched to a plant-based diet, I didn't understand why people who ate partially plant-based and generally agreed with my outlook on nutrition wouldn't just go 100%, or why people always commented on my "strong willpower." I didn't think willpower had anything to do with it. I had made one over-arching decision, so there were no daily decisions to be made, which, from my perspective, was easy.
Gretchen Rubin's idea of the Four Tendencies (link below) really opened my eyes to the fact that, gasp!, not everyone thinks the way I do! I am an Upholder, so I really enjoy rules. Although I am aware that there are no studies that show that 100% plant-based is any better than 95% plant-based, I find that my life is easier when I just say, "That contains something from an animal, so I don't eat it, any more than I would eat that pen over there. It is simply not food for me." No decision-making required. Of course you could apply that to any diet decisions, not just plant-based versus SAD.
Apparently I'm in the minority, and most other people seem to prefer to have options, to be able to have a little bit of something that contains something they wouldn't normally eat, etc.
Various studies have suggested that people are drawn to the idea have having more options, but if they are presented with fewer options they tend to end up much happier with whatever they chose. There's a fun experiment that illustrates this with offering people the chance to taste 2 out of either 6 or 24 flavors of jam in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/your-money/27shortcuts.html
But on top of the difference between what we think will make us happy and what actually ends with us the happiest is the idea of decision fatigue, which you and I have both identified. I certainly am in the group of people who prefer to have options in what I eat, but I also recognize that having options means I spend more of my limited ability to make hard decisions in the day on food, or that I'm likely to ultimately make unhealthy choices because I've exhausted that ability.
Even very simple rules like "I shall never stop get takeout on the way home from work" help sidestep a whole mental argument I used to have several times a week: "Well I'm really tired. It'll just be this once. I don't remember if I have anything to make at home." and so on.
The one time I had to adopt a significantly calorie restricted diet (<1,000 day), I had standard meals I made every single day for breakfast lunch and dinner. Like you I got a lot of complements on my willpower, but after the first couple of days of being really hungry had passed it wasn't actually taking any additional willpower because I wasn't having to make decisions about what I ate from meal to meal.
Post by: Watchmaker on June 07, 2017, 03:46:10 PM
Over the last few years this has become an issue near and dear to my heart. Long story short, I was raised in rural Wisconsin where we hunt and fish but now live in a trendy Chicago neighborhood. I still hunt and fish every year, so I'm a bit of an outcast. I've had difficulties reconciling the foodie culture surrounding me with the reality that most of those people would look down on me for having killed deer and other animals.
I think I'll get my first shot at a real garden next summer but I'm unsure how to get into foraging. Does anybody have any experience in that regard? I'm assuming it would be best to find someone who knows the local flora and learn from them. Lastly, Hank Shaw's blog Hunter Angler Gardener Cook (link below) is a wonderful window into the world of "weird" foods.
Check out Sam Thayer's books and website (http://www.foragersharvest.com/). He's actually from Wisconsin, so he tends to talk about midwestern foraging as well.
Also, you could try going on one of the foraging trips run by Iliana Regan, the chef/owner of Elizabeth and Kitsune (in Chicago). I've done the trip and it was great fun and very educational.
Or come back up to rural Wisconsin and go foraging with my SO. She forages blueberries, blackberries, elderberries, sumac, wild apples, ramps, cattails, and a variety of mushrooms (morels, chicken of the woods, hens of the woods, puffballs).
Post by: Goldielocks on June 07, 2017, 06:02:57 PM
Okay, I watched the videos, and there is SO MUCH WRONG with the speaker and how he presents his opinion. (In my opinion)
I will start with the easiest -- vegan foods should not be made to mimic meat foods. A vegetable patty can be flavorful and wonderful in its own right. "Vegan Bacon" like "Vegan Mayo" just generally sucks. IT IS WRONG to try to make VEGETABLES look and TASTE LIKE MEAT, when they are even better than meat!!!
I had to face my opinions about eat meat early on, as I entered a career in food manufacturing / industrial agricultural. Previously I studied environmental science and protection at university. I had to look with very open eyes at what was really happening, and decide where my values lay, I will be honest, i was expecting to turn vegetarian in the week leading up to my first trip an abbotoir. But I did not. So, nearly all of what was shown in the video about industrial agriculture is such a minor minor fraction of a percentage, that I call it hyperbole, false emphasis, compared to what I have seen with my own eyes as a designer, surprise inspector, surveyor, etc. Most of the worst images in those videos would have the FARMERS calling for laws to prevent this from happening, as it would absolutely kill any potential profit, etc. Farmers actually want healthy, happy animals and would fire those employees shown immediately.
People abusing living things happens all over the world, to people, children, pets, and yes, farm animals. It is always wrong, whether you are vegan or not, we can agree on that.
To your question, yes, Asian dog market is no different from a beef or goat market, at its essence.
Of course this is my opinion, but I think that your videos linked are slanted, biased trash opinion pieces, in terms of persuasive arguments, and even insulted Vegans (with its emphasis of vegan meat products promotion). I can't believe he had the gall to trap an audience for an hour to listen to that, including the exceptionally disturbing videos.
Post by: Road42 on June 07, 2017, 08:36:50 PM
I have to say Maizeman, hats off to you both in your patience and breadth of information provided in spite of severely lackluster arguments being returned.
+1
Maizeman, I am in awe of your calm, logic, and patience.
Post by: Basenji on June 09, 2017, 10:53:03 AM
So, to get back to the original topic: I pay more for chickens and eggs from a farmer I know has no cages and runs a small operation. His chickens run around outside. I try to buy other meat as locally and from non-factory farm origins as possible.
I've tried a lot of different foods. The one thing that activated an irrational squicky response in me was a dish of scrambled eggs and brains in Spain. It tasted good, but something deep in me freaked out afterwards.
Post by: Kitsune on June 09, 2017, 01:15:07 PM
Many of us, being intelligent, curious people, have done a lot of research (beyond youtube) about environmentally friendly farming and eating choices. In the end, I have been most convinced by the small farm, mixed-use plan, such as that advocated by Joel Salatin. But for it to work we eat some animals that have lived a good life.
So, to get back to the original topic: I pay more for chickens and eggs from a farmer I know has no cages and runs a small operation. His chickens run around outside. I try to buy other meat as locally and from non-factory farm origins as possible.
I've tried a lot of different foods. The one thing that activated an irrational squicky response in me was a dish of scrambled eggs and brains in Spain. It tasted good, but something deep in me freaked out afterwards.
Oh man I really like Joel Salatin! I'm pretty sure that in real life we'd disagree about almost everything except food, but hey, common ground starts somewhere, right?
Post by: Basenji on June 09, 2017, 02:46:04 PM
Many of us, being intelligent, curious people, have done a lot of research (beyond youtube) about environmentally friendly farming and eating choices. In the end, I have been most convinced by the small farm, mixed-use plan, such as that advocated by Joel Salatin. But for it to work we eat some animals that have lived a good life.
So, to get back to the original topic: I pay more for chickens and eggs from a farmer I know has no cages and runs a small operation. His chickens run around outside. I try to buy other meat as locally and from non-factory farm origins as possible.
I've tried a lot of different foods. The one thing that activated an irrational squicky response in me was a dish of scrambled eggs and brains in Spain. It tasted good, but something deep in me freaked out afterwards.
Oh man I really like Joel Salatin! I'm pretty sure that in real life we'd disagree about almost everything except food, but hey, common ground starts somewhere, right?
Same here re Salatin, but the "grass farmer" concept is profound.
Post by: big_slacker on June 10, 2017, 08:15:54 AM
Oh yeah, and stop freaking out about protein. You don't need that much. :DThis always makes me want to simultaneously laugh and smack someone. It's like, "Grrrrrr, I'm so tough and rugged I just NEED to eat platefuls of raw meat every day just to stay ALIVE!" Lol, srsly. No one in a developed country above the poverty line who can list three non-meat sources of protein and occasionally thinks about it in passing is going to be protein deficient.
This may apply for the general population but for those of us who engage in strenuous weight training 3-4x per week a bit of extra protein can be the difference between being sore and run down vs. feeling great and recovered for the next workout. You can't build a house without lumber.
Super late and I didn't see this till and missed it with all internet debate club stuff. But I do want to circle back just in case cheapass reads this again or others still labor under the protein mythology.
Of course athletes need a little more protein than an average person, but the oft quoted rule of thumb is 1-1.5x bodyweight (or a little more sane LBM) which is WAY high. When going plant based this is what freaked me out the most but I got over it. These days I average maybe 70 grams or protein a day. Many other athletes are discovering this, focusing on recovery by nutritional density rather than just protein. Tom Brady is a very notable example but there are a lot more.
Pic from a few weeks ago on 'flex friday', this is a 42 year old that eats hella carbs and doesn't get enough protein. I'm 165 lbs and bench 225x3, I'll be going out for a 4.5 hour mountain bike ride with some decent vertical gain a little after I type this.
Post by: frugalwitch on June 10, 2017, 08:32:26 AM
Well I had my second meal of mealworm this week. Cooked in butter and garlic and it was delicious. In a few months my farm will be able to provide me with enough protein source that I'll be able to have a decent amount of food every week. I eat insects for all the nutritional benefits (vit b12, protein, fiber, etc). I mostly eat plant based at home but I don't consider myself a vegetarian or a vegan.
I also garden a lot and try to avoid produce in supermarkets as they don't contain as much vitamins as home grown produce does.
Post by: Linea_Norway on June 11, 2017, 12:18:38 AM
I have a mealworm farm that I use for my own consumption. My fiancé was completely traumatized when I brought mealworm in our house, but knowing that I won't let go until I do it, he let it be.
Well I had my second meal of mealworm this week. Cooked in butter and garlic and it was delicious. In a few months my farm will be able to provide me with enough protein source that I'll be able to have a decent amount of food every week. I eat insects for all the nutritional benefits (vit b12, protein, fiber, etc). I mostly eat plant based at home but I don't consider myself a vegetarian or a vegan.
I also garden a lot and try to avoid produce in supermarkets as they don't contain as much vitamins as home grown produce does.
Even though I am not really into eating insects, I should let this know to my DH. He tkinks eating insects is the way to go. In Norway you cannot buy them for human consumption, but farming them yourself is a smart move. I would also like to eat proteins that require a smaller footprint.
Maybe I should also learning to eat them without freaking out. Last time, my DH served a salad with some (quite a few) fried insects over it. I ate ut, but fresked out near the end. I guess I need to start with fewer species or disguise them as a burger or something.
Post by: AnnaGrowsAMustache on June 11, 2017, 02:09:13 AM
Post by: frugalwitch on June 11, 2017, 07:17:45 AM
I have a mealworm farm that I use for my own consumption. My fiancé was completely traumatized when I brought mealworm in our house, but knowing that I won't let go until I do it, he let it be.
Well I had my second meal of mealworm this week. Cooked in butter and garlic and it was delicious. In a few months my farm will be able to provide me with enough protein source that I'll be able to have a decent amount of food every week. I eat insects for all the nutritional benefits (vit b12, protein, fiber, etc). I mostly eat plant based at home but I don't consider myself a vegetarian or a vegan.
I also garden a lot and try to avoid produce in supermarkets as they don't contain as much vitamins as home grown produce does.
Even though I am not really into eating insects, I should let this know to my DH. He tkinks eating insects is the way to go. In Norway you cannot buy them for human consumption, but farming them yourself is a smart move. I would also like to eat proteins that require a smaller footprint.
Maybe I should also learning to eat them without freaking out. Last time, my DH served a salad with some (quite a few) fried insects over it. I ate ut, but fresked out near the end. I guess I need to start with fewer species or disguise them as a burger or something.
I started eating insects in the form of flour. You cannot tell there's some in muffins or bread. Then, as the price per pound was ridiculous, I wanted to start my own farm in a plastic shoe box. Was able to get a few meal from the second generations and now I think I'll have to upgrade into a few more plastic boxes lol, they reproduce so fast and in quantity.
Post by: shelivesthedream on June 14, 2017, 08:03:04 AM
As a teenager I was really into PETA for a little while and watched all the slaughterhouse etc videos. At some point I also read a thing about how PETA's videos are all American and it's different and not so bad in British "industrial" farms and slaughterhouses because the laws on animal welfare are much stricter here. I've wondered about it ever since. Is this true?
Post by: Linea_Norway on June 18, 2017, 02:06:15 AM
I've scrolled past the recent walls of text but it's reminded me of something someone on this thread might be able to answer. Short answers appreciated!
As a teenager I was really into PETA for a little while and watched all the slaughterhouse etc videos. At some point I also read a thing about how PETA's videos are all American and it's different and not so bad in British "industrial" farms and slaughterhouses because the laws on animal welfare are much stricter here. I've wondered about it ever since. Is this true?
I don't know about British slaughter houses, but there are different rules for animal care in different countries. In Norway it is said that animal care rules are much stricter than elsewhere i Europe and that therefore there isn't such a big difference between normal meat and organic meat.
Post by: Kitsune on June 18, 2017, 07:38:26 AM
I've scrolled past the recent walls of text but it's reminded me of something someone on this thread might be able to answer. Short answers appreciated!
As a teenager I was really into PETA for a little while and watched all the slaughterhouse etc videos. At some point I also read a thing about how PETA's videos are all American and it's different and not so bad in British "industrial" farms and slaughterhouses because the laws on animal welfare are much stricter here. I've wondered about it ever since. Is this true?
I don't know about British slaughter houses, but there are different rules for animal care in different countries. In Norway it is said that animal care rules are much stricter than elsewhere i Europe and that therefore there isn't such a big difference between normal meat and organic meat.
I also can't speak to Britain, but Quebec-wise: the difference between organic and regular milk is so small as to be non-existant. The milk industry is also regulated like whoa and there's a minimum price set for milk (6.50ish/gallon), which ensures that farmers will have the income necessary to treat their animals well. I've lived near several dairy farms: all the animals go outside regularly in summer (not in winter: they can't graze under 2ft of snow...), cows are milked on a rotating schedule (so my neighbor has a herd of 70, 35 of which are milked during any given period), which gives cows a year "off" for calf-bearing and health. These are healthy well-treated animals who will run up to you for neck-scratches (they're like large cats, when well-socialized), no unnecessary antibiotics, etc. Basically: zero objections, and I've been to multiple dairy farms and they've all been run like this. Our milk is more expensive but frankly I'm good with that trade-off.
Um. Egg and chicken and pork production here is a similar level of fucking horrifying confinement shit and should have people drawn and quartered over it, but small farms selling direct-to-customer do it differently (we buy a whole pig that we split with friends - it works out within 1$/lb of the grocery store price if you buy the whole pig) - the farm we buy from is primarily a beef farm, but It has an outdoor pig run. Pity they can't combine it with the neighbouring orchard, which would be ébat for everyone, but maybe long-term...
Lamb/sheep/goats here tend to be well-raised... I know of one single farm that confines their sheep and that's because of the amount of predators that kept killing them, so they're inside in a space with windows and a yard and not getting eaten by the literal wolves, so... yeah.
I keep meaning to look into actual slaughterhouses here and see what's up (and hassle my MPs if needed), but honestly that's taking second place to setting up garden, chicken coop, handling our lambs, etc (and raising our kids, working an interesting but demanding job, supporting aging parents... the plate is pretty full). We don't do business with a slaughterhouse and use the local butcher, who works independantly and ethically, so it's a secondary priority. For now. Next winter, once things calm down a bit? I'm on it.
Post by: Arktinkerer on June 18, 2017, 08:51:13 AM
I like chicken livers (coat with seasoned flour and deep fry) but have not been able to find a way to prepare deer liver in an appetizing way. Best use I've been able to find is to use it for catfish bait. Anyone found a good way to prepare deer liver so it winds up more like chicken? Can't say I've ever really tried pate'. Maybe I should give it a go. There is some concern about liver flutes but I read now that this is an aesthetic and not a health issue.
With the discussion of organ meats, one of my favorites is to use the heart and a kidney to make a meat pie. I've done the tongue as a spread for crackers.
Post by: Arktinkerer on June 18, 2017, 08:56:31 AM
Post by: cadillacmike on June 18, 2017, 11:55:06 AM
... Chorizo has more weird shit in it than hot dogs. I've more than once met someone who refused to eat hot dogs because it has "gross parts", but chowed down on some authentic chorizo and eggs for breakfast...
This thread hasn't been locked yet?
As for Chorizo, there is nothing better with your breakfast eggs than authentic choriozo from Spain.
... It's probably easier to be mustachian if you remain food ignorant. Then you can pay .69 for a dozen factory farmed eggs instead of $3+ for humanely produced eggs.
I wish egg labeling didn't make it so difficult - I want to make humane choices, but then my brain blanks when I have to choose between cage-free, organic, free-range, grass fed, pasture-raised, etc.
As for me, I get eggs from the Target across the road, 18 pack for much less than any organic / schmorganic produced eggs.
Poor cobbb11; 41 posts and half of them are in this thread. Give it up while you're behind (yeah, someone already said that, but I'm not going back to find and quote it).
Post by: gaja on June 18, 2017, 12:33:24 PM
To bring back a line of thought from much earlier in this thread--
I like chicken livers (coat with seasoned flour and deep fry) but have not been able to find a way to prepare deer liver in an appetizing way. Best use I've been able to find is to use it for catfish bait. Anyone found a good way to prepare deer liver so it winds up more like chicken? Can't say I've ever really tried pate'. Maybe I should give it a go. There is some concern about liver flutes but I read now that this is an aesthetic and not a health issue.
With the discussion of organ meats, one of my favorites is to use the heart and a kidney to make a meat pie. I've done the tongue as a spread for crackers.
This is originally a recipe for lamb liver pate, but works very well for roe deer. Haven't tried it on larger deer, but it doesn't hurt to try. Sorry for the weird language, this is an on the spot translation from Faroese:
250 g liver
125 g margarine
100 g flour (white flour without baking soda or other weird US additives)
1 onion
1 egg
1/2 tea spoon (ts) salt
1/2 ts ground black pepper
1.5 dl full fat cream
On top:
2 onions
6 pieces bacon
2 apples
Grind the liver and 1 onion 3 times (for young/small animals 2 times might be enough). Stir in egg and spices. Melt margarine in a pot, and stir in the flour. Stir in so much boiling water that the flour mix lets go of the pot (1-2 dl). Set aside to cool. Stir then the liver mixture into the flour mixture together with the cream until smooth (but not longer). Grease a oven proof form, put the liver mixture in this, and heat the oven to 200 deg Celcius. Bake the pate for 40-50 minutes.
Cut the 2 onions, bacon, and 2 apples in small pieces, and fry them until lightly brown. Pour this on top of the pate when it gets out of the oven.
Serve warm.
BTW; noone has mentioned blood yet. I grew up with black sausage, but it is not my kids' favourite. I have plans to make blood pancakes soon, hope that works out better.
Post by: shelivesthedream on June 19, 2017, 02:01:03 AM