Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I fail to see what any part of your post has to do with veganism; it's about organic vegetables and sustainability. Valid concerns, I'm sure, but irrelevant to whether or not veganism helps reduce global warming and other environmental problems. I, for instance, am vegan, and yet none of what you said has relevance to my life (I mostly don't buy organic vegetables, I don't have a garden or a lawn, and I'm not overly concerned with sustainability.) Your post is arguing against a straw man who I guess claimed that a vegan diet was 100% sustainable, but that's irrelevant. The question is whether it's better than a non-vegan diet. Unless your point is that unless we can attain 100% sustainability then we might as well not try to improve at all, in which case even I (who, like I said, am not all that concerned with sustainability) would have to disagree.
Remember when meat was a treat? There was a reason for that...
Mr. Riddler,
The question of eating food from other countries is somewhat up in the air. Generally I think it makes sense that eating locally is better. But I think there are studies that show ocean tankers using less fuel than disel or gasoline trucks. Of course, with peak oil, we will be forced to eat locally.
I don't think any vegans or vegetarians or fish vegetarians think you can eat out of your backyard alone. Where did you get this? The simple rule is if they don't have to cut down forests to plant cow food, in Brazil or elsewhere, that is a net gain. Or cover 60% of the midwest with corn for ruminants that eat grass... I.E. waste of land, gasoline, inputs, and the animals themselves.
No one is forcing someone who can't do without meat medically to do so. That is silly. But the myth that you cannot live without beef is just that, a myth. You have to eat more intelligently, and get your protein from other sources, but then, that is what vegetarians are asking. Somehow India developed a vegatarian culture of many years, and somehow survived as a society. If they return to meat in a major way in that country, they would truly overload their landmass.
The massive meat diets we have are a product of the cheap oil fiesta, and it's going away, folks.
Your main point is well taken ("Vegans who drive personal vehicles can shut their self-righteous yaps about global warming") and I agree with it, but only because of the "self-righteous yaps" part. The ideal solution to most problems is for everybody to "shut their self-righteous yaps" and instead engage in reasoned, honest discussion of the issues. So: does driving contribute to global warming? Yes. Does eating meat? Well, this article sure makes it sound like it does. So if our only overriding goal is reducing global warming, we should all refrain from both. But we have other concerns, one of which is convenience. And it is inconvenient to be vegan, just as it is inconvenient not to drive. But I don't see why either party would condemn the other. As I said in a previous post, doing a little is better than doing nothing, and anyone (from any side) who argues differently seems to be obviously wrong.
Also, a minor quibble. You pointed out that vegans tend to think meat is gross. I think that's probably true, but you say "it's not exactly a moral triumph that they abstain from it." I would put the arrow of causation the other way: it's not that it's gross therefore we stay away from it; it's that we stay away from it and therefore it's gross. Once you've gone a fair amount of time without eating meat, much of it does seem pretty gross. I mean, it is, after all, bloody muscle and flesh that came out of an animal. You have to admit that's kind of gross, right? If it was human flesh instead of animal flesh you'd think it was gross, but physically and aesthetically it's the same thing. I think the only reason most people don't find meat gross is because they grew up with it and are used to it.
Thank you for taking the time to reply to what I had written. I must first state that I had been under the incorrect belief that there were certain amino acids that had to come from animal sources. I believe I had gotten that confused with vitamin B12, which of course it not an amino acid. I apologize for my error, and I appreciate you pointing that out.
Second, however, is your operating assumption that everyone should take a multivitamin. It's a stop-gap solution that does not address our lack of diversity in our diet. I know that physicians and nutritionists are currently recommending use of a multivitamin, but I don't think that's a good idea. Let me show you a couple things.
First, a study that states a very interesting conclusion:
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/145/5/372
The efficacy of multivitamins has never been actually studied. This study is one of the first to show that there aren't exactly any conclusions we can draw about multivitamins, and also to state that, and I am quoting now..."Evidence is insufficient to prove the presence or absence of benefits from use of multivitamin and mineral supplements to prevent cancer and chronic disease."
On top of that, multivitamins are not regulated. A supplement should typically provide no more than 100% of any given vitamin or mineral, but most do not provide simply that. Studies have shown that certain vitamins should not be taken in excess, and that even harmless old vitamin C can destroy DNA when found in surplus.
I'm not going to take one because I eat a healthy primarily vegetarian diet with meat maybe once or twice per week. I have not seen any real benefits, and evidence is starting to support me. I am not entirely convinced that fortified and supplemented food is going to cut it for vegans either, although there are no long-term studies I have seen yet. At this point, it has to be a conviction at best. But I will be damned if they're going to tell me that a multivitamin and veggies are all we need as humans to survive, because they simply don't know that any better than I do.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
