General / Off-Topic Let's Have A Debate: To Be, Or Not To Be Vegan? That Is The Question ...

Don't say global, when you actually are talking about your own Country only. It's not just the distribution,
because overproduction in one place, often takes ressources from another.

Take any so-called Third World Country and look at what they mainly produce.
They produce the ressources that they can sell for the most profit, TO YOUR COUNTRY!
Because any given Food "producer" in your Country pays good money for it, Palm Oil, for instance.
Humans become prey to carnivorous traits of an ever increasing greed in Capitalism,
and people feel better when they don't have to see starving children by just closing their eyes to reality.

Your reply was a living example of such ignorance.
Hunger is caused by poverty and inequality, not scarcity. For the past
two decades, the rate of global food production has increased faster than
the rate of global population growth. According to the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (2009a, 2009b) the world produces
more than 1 1/2 times enough food to feed everyone on the planet. That’s
already enough to feed 10 billion people, the world’s 2050 projected population
peak. But the people making less than $2 a day—most of whom
are resource-poor farmers cultivating un-viably small plots of land—cannot
afford to buy this food.
From https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241746569_We_Already_Grow_Enough_Food_for_10_Billion_People_and_Still_Can't_End_Hunger
 
We've historically increased productivity faster than population growth (there is more food produced per person today than at any time in history) and there are a lot of options available to further increase efficiency; shaping demand for less impactful sources of protein will be no small part of that.
Right, and most of that was crawling out of the middle ages, and into modern production methods.
And our major gains for the foreseeable future will still revolve around that.
It's not magic, it's infrastructure.
There are objective limits to what can be squeezed from an acre.



Pasture is an important part of agriculture and yes, it's less work to manage than cropland, but it's production also cannot be scaled to the same degree. Sure you can move animals around more efficiently and mix the right species together for complementary effect, but the productivity potential is lower.
Doesn't matter if the land is unsuitable for crops, period.
We best keep using it.



Still less efficient than many other sources of protein, as is reflected in their current prices, and this differential will certainly grow.
Again, it's a red herring if it can't be grown there at all.


Half of all fish consumed are already farmed (farmed fish production is significantly higher than total beef production and is growing much faster) and good practice aquaculture is a cheaper and more sustainable source of protein than almost anything else involving vertebrates, including essentially all ruminants that can be pasture fed. I believe chicken is still slightly cheaper, but that may change in the near future.

Factory farms are factory farms and all have similar limitations/drawbacks.
ANYTHING done in the ocean is going to be expensive.
Not like the oceans are getting any cleaner either.

Yes, and raising ruminants for meat isn't going anywhere...it's just going to be a progressively less important source of meat for most people.
Agreed.
To what degree?
I don't think it's going to change much in the near future.
 
Can we eat Vegans?
Well, I was at a veggie restaurant the other day [because they allowed dogs inside] and they had three types of burger, a quinoa one, a beet/beetroot one and a "vegan lentil burger"

So, I guess the answer to your question is ... yes!

BTW, has anyone else tried those "Impossible Burgers"? they are really quite good.
 
Well, I was at a veggie restaurant the other day [because they allowed dogs inside] and they had three types of burger, a quinoa one, a beet/beetroot one and a "vegan lentil burger"

So, I guess the answer to your question is ... yes!

BTW, has anyone else tried those "Impossible Burgers"? they are really quite good.
People underestimate how many imitations to meat there are and how good (some) of them taste.
 
You know, this statement makes me quite mad actually. And it's not just naive to say, but ignorant as well. Sure, if you don't look over to the horizon, the scope is much smaller.

FACT:
  • Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five - 3.1 million children each year.
source: https://www.foodaidfoundation.org/world-hunger-statistics.html
Population growth since the 60s:

Europe - 125%
North America - 179%
Asia - 269%
South America - 300%
Africa - 461% ( not slowing down btw. Growth rate was 2.41% in 1960 and 2.49% in 2019)

Fast population growth will cause starvation.

Yes, it's a problem, but not ours - but it is becomming ours since 2014 mass migration to Europe was made public. And the War in Middel East only contributed to it.


We've historically increased productivity faster than population growth (there is more food produced per person today than at any time in history) and there are a lot of options available to further increase efficiency; shaping demand for less impactful sources of protein will be no small part of that.
I don't have statistic, but from my own observation, quality of food has dropped significantly since the good old 90s.
Like I barely managed to find a decent Watermeloon last year. Barely. And other fruits even apples come often with no taste at all.
But hey, we got lots and lots of choice of sugar products on the market this days. :sneaky:
 
Last edited:
Don't say global, when you actually are talking about your own Country only.
I said global because I meant global. Total food produced divided by total human population.

That situation doesn't change based on where I am.

It's not just the distribution, because overproduction in one place, often takes ressources from another.
Those are all aspects of distribution.

Take any so-called Third World Country and look at what they mainly produce.
They produce the ressources that they can sell for the most profit, TO YOUR COUNTRY!
I'm acutely aware of this.

Your reply was a living example of such ignorance.
You are mistaken. I simply wasn't talking about what you are talking about.

Flaws in economic policies, exploitation of developing nations, inegalitarian distribution (of both production and product), excessive waste, and yes, unsustainable agricultural practices...all contributors to the undeniable fact that huge numbers of people still go hungry. However, none of that changes that enough food is being produced and that even if sustainable production is the goal, production will increase.

My impression is that ArtiX is blaming evil capitalism (America in particular, I think) for the people in those developing countries not being able to afford the food that is being produced. Seems like a stretch to me, but perhaps he'll chime in with some details clarifying his position.
He's not wrong.

Long strings of totalitarian dictatorships and banana republics in much of the developing world, as well as the tacit support of wealthier nations for whoever can supply whatever as cheaply as possible, has left much of Central/South America, South East Asia, and most especially Africa, worse off, even as their productivity has increased. Countries with starving populations are frequently increasing their food exports faster than they are their food production.


In many ways, recent practices are just an unofficial extension of colonialism.

Right, and most of that was crawling out of the middle ages, and into modern production methods.
No it was not. Food production per hectare has increased more in each decade from 1940 on than from several centuries prior to the early 1900s.

'Modern' production methods are constantly evolving and stuff I learned less than twenty years ago is often quite outdated today.


There are objective limits to what can be squeezed from an acre.
And, overall, we aren't anywhere near them.

We best keep using it.
And we will, as long as it's profitable to. It's just going to be a proportionally smaller fraction of food production as time goes on.

ANYTHING done in the ocean is going to be expensive.
Generally not as expensive as pasture, in terms of food produced per dollar, and prices are falling.

Not like the oceans are getting any cleaner either.
There are definitely negative sides to aquaculture, but improvements are being made in all areas, including environmental impact.

Agreed.
To what degree?
I don't think it's going to change much in the near future.
Beef production has been growing much more slowly than pork, poultry, or fish production for more than half a century, and this trend is not likely to change. Fewer people eating beef, and those people generally eating less beef, is the trend. Populations are still rising, as is average protien intake...it's just not going to be from ruminants because they are not efficient sources for most people.


Population growth since the 60s:
Global food production has increased faster.

 
Last edited:
Whatever you eat, you kill another living "creature".
Plants are lifeforms, too.

Only synthetic food will one day end that pseudodiscussion between meat-eaters, vegetarians and vegans.
Until then, enjoy your salad.... It died for you.
Hence the 'sentient' stipulation. While true that plants are life forms it is missing the main points of the argument:

1) Plants cannot feel pain or be mistreated like an animal can, especially a close relative of humans like any other mammal.
2) Raising animals for food rather than using a pure plant based source of calories is ecologically damaging and inefficient when taking a global perspective.
 
Have you seen any research on chimpanzees? We share 99% of our DNA with them. They are ruthless killers, carnivores and cannibals.

You can deny your DNA all you want, make whatever "conscious" moral arguments you want, biology dictates our behavior and what we need.

Anytime a population specializes, reducing its capacity to exploit a variety of environments or resources, it becomes more vulnerable to extinction. We need more meat. We need more different types of meat. We need to hunt, dress and prepare our own meat.

Oh, by the way. If you want to save rhinos, elephants, tigers etc. you would farm them. Not many endangered cows or pigs right?
 
Have you seen any research on chimpanzees? We share 99% of our DNA with them. They are ruthless killers, carnivores and cannibals.

You can deny your DNA all you want, make whatever "conscious" moral arguments you want, biology dictates our behavior and what we need.

Anytime a population specializes, reducing its capacity to exploit a variety of environments or resources, it becomes more vulnerable to extinction. We need more meat. We need more different types of meat. We need to hunt, dress and prepare our own meat.

Oh, by the way. If you want to save rhinos, elephants, tigers etc. you would farm them. Not many endangered cows or pigs right?
Right, we should become ruthless cannibals without any real government, rules or knowledge and play by the rules of nature, that's what our DNA dictates right?
 
Hence the 'sentient' stipulation. While true that plants are life forms it is missing the main points of the argument:

1) Plants cannot feel pain or be mistreated like an animal can, especially a close relative of humans like any other mammal.
2) Raising animals for food rather than using a pure plant based source of calories is ecologically damaging and inefficient when taking a global perspective.
Sorry Jenner, but you're wrong, plants do feel pain, it has been scientifically proven. What we as humans can't do, without scientific equipment, is detect that plants feel pain. I think it's naive to think that something that is alive, and grows and dies, can get diseases or be eaten while still alive ..... doesn't feel pain, simply because it's not obvious to us when that plant is in pain.

Also what we do with animals for our food supply, is far far better than what some animals do to other animals. For example, there is a wasp that preys on caterpillars. It drags it to a hole, injects an egg inside it, and bricks it up so it can't escape. The wasp larvae then eats the caterpillar from within while it's still alive. Things like that make me glad we have the capacity to understand what we're doing and how we treat animals. By the way, have you ever seen an abattoir? I have. They are very respectful to the animal. It's killed in the kindest way we can possibly do it. We treat cows far far better than lions treat antelopes. Think about that.
 
Last edited:
@Morbad, not seeing the "fault" of the buyers there. If you or anyone else wants to assign blame, then you should stick with the third world regimes exporting their products to the detriment of their people, at least in this particular equation. The leaders of these countries could use the money to do something good for their people, but they don't, and that is nobody's fault but their own.

@Siobhan, still waiting for your elaboration on your "population culling" plan. Can't wait for some practical details.
 
Last edited:
@Morbad, not seeing the "fault" of the buyers there. If you or anyone else wants to assign blame, then you should stick with the third world regimes exporting their products to the detriment of their people, at least in this particular equation. The leaders of these countries could use the money to do something good for their people, but they don't, and that is nobody's fault but their own.
They know those they are paying do not have the will or well being of their people in mind and they do not care. When a corporation or congolmerate buys enormous tracts of land in a country like Sudan, specifically to grow food for export, it's no different than you or I watching a mugging then buying a discount, blood spattered, watch from the mugger.

I'm not making any moral judgements about either activity (and who am I to judge? After all, I buy the food these conglomerates sell, knowing full well how they got much of it), just pointing out their obvious equivalence.
 
Last edited:
Have you seen any research on chimpanzees? We share 99% of our DNA with them. They are ruthless killers, carnivores and cannibals.

You can deny your DNA all you want, make whatever "conscious" moral arguments you want, biology dictates our behavior and what we need.

Anytime a population specializes, reducing its capacity to exploit a variety of environments or resources, it becomes more vulnerable to extinction. We need more meat. We need more different types of meat. We need to hunt, dress and prepare our own meat.

Oh, by the way. If you want to save rhinos, elephants, tigers etc. you would farm them. Not many endangered cows or pigs right?
I've liked this not because I necessarily agree with it, but it certainly provides a fresh perspective.

I specifically refer to your farming comment. I don't know if I'm comfortable with it yet, but I do see the logic you are using, and have to concede that you might be onto something.
 
Right, we should become ruthless cannibals without any real government, rules or knowledge and play by the rules of nature, that's what our DNA dictates right?
In the blink of an eye society can evaporate. In many places on the globe it does not exist. Would you cut off your left hand because there is speech to text and you don't need to type any more? We need to preserve our capacities to exploit and endure a variety of environments and resources. Limit your capacities at your descendants' peril.
 
Oh, by the way. If you want to save rhinos, elephants, tigers etc. you would farm them. Not many endangered cows or pigs right?
Plenty of recently extinct or endangered wild and domesticated pig and cattle species and breeds.

Also, ones bred for hundreds or thousands of years to be food for us no longer fill the ecological niches their ancestors did. Domesticating and farming something can destroy it just as thoroughly as hunting it to extinction or annihilating it's natural habitat.
 
In the blink of an eye society can evaporate. In many places on the globe it does not exist. Would you cut off your left hand because there is speech to text and you don't need to type any more? We need to preserve our capacities to exploit and endure a variety of environments and resources. Limit your capacities at your descendants' peril.
Even in places where society has virtually broke down, people still don't behave and do what we did in the stone age because technology is so embedded in us nowadays (cough cough, weapons), leveling a whole medium city is no joke, do you seriously think that you can mess around like Tarzan in a place where society has broken down?. BTW, those "many places" are the exception, not the rule.

I might as well buy a bunker and a good amount of food supplies to prepared for the ever coming end of the world.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom