Vegetarianism

[Matt]

Quote by: big_lefty Yeah, dogs are omnivores. A meat-free diet is doable for a dog.

Vegan=no meat, dairy, or eggs. Not just meat free.

[lindsay7]

I don't think that a vegan diet is healthy. Check out the Vegan Health Study - they list the health advantages and disadvantages they found in people following a vegan diet. There were quite a few disadvantages. Here's just a couple -

Protein Deficiencies Although the majority of reports suggest adequate protein intakes in vegans, the Vegan Health Study has found that sub-optimal amino acid status (the “building blocks” of protein) is relatively common among vegans, and many vegans have low levels of branched-chain amino acids (valine, leucine, and isoleucine) due to insufficient protein intake. Vegans who do not consume enough sulphur-containing amino acids, particularly cysteine and methionine are at risk for reduced production of carnitine, a protein necessary for metabolising fats for energy. Low levels of carnitine can lead to fatigue and reduced physical performance. A lack of these sulphur-containing amino acids also reduces the production of glutathione, a powerful antioxidant needed for detoxification of tissue- damaging free radicals, which can accelerate aging of tissues and increase cancer risk. Essential Fat Deficiencies Long-term vegans commonly have low tissue levels of highly unsaturated fatty acids (HUFA) of the omega-3 family – namely, EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid – 20 carbon atoms in length) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid – 22 carbon atoms in length). Deficiencies in these fatty molecules can lead to dry skin and low energy levels, as well as increased risk for: cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, neurological/behavioural disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, depression, (possibly) ADHD, schizophrenia, immune/inflammatory disorders such as asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, inflammatory bowel diseases, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis. Also, deficiencies of EPA and DHA can lead to sub-optimal infant development with compromised brain function and reduced visual acuity.

emphasis added by me.
Vegetarian Network Victoria - Nutrition: Vegan Health Study - Clinical Summary 2005

A long term, strictly vegan diet is dangerous.

[Matt]

Quote by: lindsay7 I don't think that a vegan diet is healthy. Check out the Vegan Health Study - they list the health advantages and disadvantages they found in people following a vegan diet. There were quite a few disadvantages. Here's just a couple - emphasis added by me. Vegetarian Network Victoria - Nutrition: Vegan Health Study - Clinical Summary 2005 A long term, strictly vegan diet is dangerous.

I know, it can be difficult to be vegan, but it can be done in a healthy way with people who do alot of research. I'm just vegetarian at this point, not vegan. I was just stating the dog was vegan.

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Matt I know, it can be difficult to be vegan, but it can be done in a healthy way with people who do alot of research. I'm just vegetarian at this point, not vegan. I was just stating the dog was vegan.

That's cool.. I'm actually vegetarian myself, I think.. I'm not really sure what the definition is. I eat lots of fish, sometimes eggs, sometimes goat yogurt. But no meat other than that. Is that vegetarian?

I do it for the health of it, not for animal rights, though I do think that huge factory farms treat animals terribly.

[Matt]

Quote by: lindsay7 That's cool.. I'm actually vegetarian myself, I think.. I'm not really sure what the definition is. I eat lots of fish, sometimes eggs, sometimes goat yogurt. But no meat other than that. Is that vegetarian? I do it for the health of it, not for animal rights, though I do think that huge factory farms treat animals terribly.

You would be classified as a pescetarian (meaning the only meat you eat is fish), not vegetarian. I was pescetarian for a while until I went the whole way. A pescetarian lifestyle is quite healthy overall, but alot of fish you buy nowadays have high metal levels in them.

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Matt You would be classified as a pescetarian (meaning the only meat you eat is fish), not vegetarian. I was pescetarian for a while until I went the whole way. A pescetarian lifestyle is quite healthy overall, but alot of fish you buy nowadays have high metal levels in them.

Yeah the heavy metals are a problem. But I feel that the benefits that I get from the omega-3 fatty acids, selenium, iodine, vitamin D, etc that are abundant in fish, outweigh the risks -- as long as I stick to the small fish that are low in heavy metals, and avoid the large fish.

After all, the Japanese eat a lot of fish, and they have some of the longest lifespans of any culture.

[big_lefty]

I think if people do the right research and are willing to look for some different foods, most would be easily able to become vegetarian (not every single person, but the vast majority). Almost all the nutrients you find in meat you can get from non-meat products too.

I tend to agree,

Come on, we all know plants don't have the abilities like we or animals do. If they did have thoughts or feelings, I'm sure science would have found them out by now. Say even if they did, it would be so minute it would probably add up to almost nothing.

In fact, some studies have been done which suggest plants have feelings. However, there will likely never be a conclusive answer to this because of our lack of understanding of organisms which do not hvae nervous systems as we do.
In one study, researchers hooked up electrodes to trees and consistently got a response when they cut off limbs.

Other interesting stuff;

"Biologists at the University of Turin and the Max Planck Institute in Jena were yesterday reported to have found evidence that plants sensed — and reacted to — the presence of hungry, leaf-chomping grubs. Their response was to emit an odour similar to lavender. This alerted other plants to the presence of a predator."

The Hindu : Can plants feel?

"Plants are able to recognise their siblings, according to a study appearing today in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters.

Researchers at McMaster University have found that plants get fiercely competitive when forced to share their pot with strangers of the same species, but they’re accommodating when potted with their siblings.

“The ability to recognize and favour kin is common in animals, but this is the first time it has been shown in plants” Susan Dudley, associate professor of biology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, said. “When plants share their pots, they get competitive and start growing more roots, which allows them to grab water and mineral nutrients before their neighbours get them. It appears, though, that they only do this when sharing a pot with unrelated plants; when they share a pot with family they don’t increase their root growth. Because differences between groups of strangers and groups of siblings only occurred when they shared a pot, the root interactions may provide a cue for kin recognition.”

Though they lack cognition and memory, the study shows plants are capable of complex social behaviours such as altruism towards relatives, says Dudley. Like humans, the most interesting behaviours occur beneath the surface."

Plants 'recognize' their siblings | Press Esc


Ask yourself why plants grow faster when you play music for them and talk to them.
It may well be that they are far more sensitive than animals.

[Matt]

Quote by: big_lefty I tend to agree, In fact, some studies have been done which suggest plants have feelings. However, there will likely never be a conclusive answer to this because of our lack of understanding of organisms which do not hvae nervous systems as we do. In one study, researchers hooked up electrodes to trees and consistently got a response when they cut off limbs. Other interesting stuff; "Biologists at the University of Turin and the Max Planck Institute in Jena were yesterday reported to have found evidence that plants sensed — and reacted to — the presence of hungry, leaf-chomping grubs. Their response was to emit an odour similar to lavender. This alerted other plants to the presence of a predator." The Hindu : Can plants feel? "Plants are able to recognise their siblings, according to a study appearing today in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Researchers at McMaster University have found that plants get fiercely competitive when forced to share their pot with strangers of the same species, but they’re accommodating when potted with their siblings. “The ability to recognize and favour kin is common in animals, but this is the first time it has been shown in plants” Susan Dudley, associate professor of biology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, said. “When plants share their pots, they get competitive and start growing more roots, which allows them to grab water and mineral nutrients before their neighbours get them. It appears, though, that they only do this when sharing a pot with unrelated plants; when they share a pot with family they don’t increase their root growth. Because differences between groups of strangers and groups of siblings only occurred when they shared a pot, the root interactions may provide a cue for kin recognition.” Though they lack cognition and memory, the study shows plants are capable of complex social behaviours such as altruism towards relatives, says Dudley. Like humans, the most interesting behaviours occur beneath the surface." Plants 'recognize' their siblings | Press Esc Ask yourself why plants grow faster when you play music for them and talk to them. It may well be that they are far more sensitive than animals.

Interesting, though I do think some of that is wishful thinking.

Even if they do have a tiny amount of feelings, it would add up to nothing compared to animals or humans. Just take a look at the next dog and grass you see...see the difference? One of them can express feelings, thoughts, emotions, happiness, sadness, ect. and the other cannot.

[J. Askiloupos]

I've managed to hold myself to a vegetarian diet for the last eight years for the most part- which is far easier in Greece than in, say, America, where meat is part of daily life. Between olives, bread, fruit, and good cheeses, I have a fairly healthy diet.

As to meat subsitutes, the Asian cuisines have provided me with two lovely substances known as tofu and gluten.

Fantastic stuff, and they absorb sauces and marinades extremely well.

Yummmm...

[Muckraker]

Quote by: big_lefty I tend to agree, In fact, some studies have been done which suggest plants have feelings. However, there will likely never be a conclusive answer to this because of our lack of understanding of organisms which do not hvae nervous systems as we do. In one study, researchers hooked up electrodes to trees and consistently got a response when they cut off limbs. Other interesting stuff; "Biologists at the University of Turin and the Max Planck Institute in Jena were yesterday reported to have found evidence that plants sensed — and reacted to — the presence of hungry, leaf-chomping grubs. Their response was to emit an odour similar to lavender. This alerted other plants to the presence of a predator." The Hindu : Can plants feel? "Plants are able to recognise their siblings, according to a study appearing today in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Researchers at McMaster University have found that plants get fiercely competitive when forced to share their pot with strangers of the same species, but they’re accommodating when potted with their siblings. “The ability to recognize and favour kin is common in animals, but this is the first time it has been shown in plants” Susan Dudley, associate professor of biology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, said. “When plants share their pots, they get competitive and start growing more roots, which allows them to grab water and mineral nutrients before their neighbours get them. It appears, though, that they only do this when sharing a pot with unrelated plants; when they share a pot with family they don’t increase their root growth. Because differences between groups of strangers and groups of siblings only occurred when they shared a pot, the root interactions may provide a cue for kin recognition.” Though they lack cognition and memory, the study shows plants are capable of complex social behaviours such as altruism towards relatives, says Dudley. Like humans, the most interesting behaviours occur beneath the surface." Plants 'recognize' their siblings | Press Esc Ask yourself why plants grow faster when you play music for them and talk to them. It may well be that they are far more sensitive than animals.

Plants do not have nerves, nerve bundles, or a central nervous system. They are not animals. While it is true that humans do know everything there is to know about their world, we do know every physical feature of a plant and the exact functions that these physical features perform.

While they may have structural changes with environmental changes, this is only a sign that they are making structural changes with environmental changes, nothing more. Likening these changes to "thought" or "feelings" is no different than saying that the robots at an automobile factory are thinking and feeling.

Research into plants "feeling" is mysticism and right on par with "studying" ghosts and searching for Bigfoot. And it is really annoying that it frequently pops up as people try to justify killing fellow animals for food. Plants and animals are as different as animals and minerals.

If you are going to delve into the realm of mysticism to support eating food that tastes good to you then it would be easier if you went the Christian route. Aside from the Christian god creating all life on Earth as vegetarian in Genesis, he clearly makes eating meat the punishment for Adam and Eve's discretions in the Garden of Eden. So, from a Christian standpoint, you are partaking of one of god's required, Old Testament, punishments when you eat meat.

[big_lefty]

Plants do not have nerves, nerve bundles, or a central nervous system. They are not animals. While it is true that humans do know everything there is to know about their world, we do know every physical feature of a plant and the exact functions that these physical features perform.

Only within the context of our severely limited understanding of organisms different from ourselves.

While they may have structural changes with environmental changes, this is only a sign that they are making structural changes with environmental changes, nothing more. Likening these changes to "thought" or "feelings" is no different than saying that the robots at an automobile factory are thinking and feeling.

That's an interesting theory. Do you have anything factual to support it?

By what mechanism would they adjust to changes in the environment without a way of sensing the changes?

Research into plants "feeling" is mysticism and right on par with "studying" ghosts and searching for Bigfoot. And it is really annoying that it frequently pops up as people try to justify killing fellow animals for food. Plants and animals are as different as animals and minerals.

The Genetic Fallacy of logic. A person makes an unproven claim about the origin of an argument and uses that as a reason why the argument doesn't work, as in "plant emotion research is about mysticism, so plant emotions do not exist".
No sale.

The fact that plants and minerals are different is not evidence that plants cannot feel.

If you are going to delve into the realm of mysticism to support eating food that tastes good to you then it would be easier if you went the Christian route. Aside from the Christian god creating all life on Earth as vegetarian in Genesis, he clearly makes eating meat the punishment for Adam and Eve's discretions in the Garden of Eden. So, from a Christian standpoint, you are partaking of one of god's required, Old Testament, punishments when you eat meat.

Another argument arising from the flawed logic of Genetic Fallacy.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Matt Interesting, though I do think some of that is wishful thinking. Even if they do have a tiny amount of feelings, it would add up to nothing compared to animals or humans. Just take a look at the next dog and grass you see...see the difference? One of them can express feelings, thoughts, emotions, happiness, sadness, ect. and the other cannot.

That is only evidence of ability to express as we know it, not ability to feel or the ability to express in ways we cannot sense.
You've yet to explain why the feelings, if indeed they exist, would add up less than those of other organisms.

Personally, I don't make conclusions about complex issues through mere personal observation, so I'll leave looking at the dog and the grass to you.
What you're basically saying is that that which we cannot perceive through our senses cannot exist.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: big_lefty Only within the context of our severely limited understanding of organisms different from ourselves. That's an interesting theory. Do you have anything factual to support it? By what mechanism would they adjust to changes in the environment without a way of sensing the changes? The Genetic Fallacy of logic. A person makes an unproven claim about the origin of an argument and uses that as a reason why the argument doesn't work, as in "plant emotion research is about mysticism, so plant emotions do not exist". No sale. The fact that plants and minerals are different is not evidence that plants cannot feel. Another argument arising from the flawed logic of Genetic Fallacy.

You are right. I shot myself in the foot being too wordy. Probably "stems" (har har) from the fact that I am vegetarian and am close to the topic.

I didn't need to respond at all to that point. Your presentation of plants fails due to the Strawman Fallacy. You misrepresent a vegetarian as being concerned with "ending life" and defeat the easier argument that plants are alive and without eating plants or animals we would have no food at all.

To summarize in a more succinct manner, I do not care about "life."

My position is that I will avoid directly, or indirectly, affecting creatures of the animal kingdom that possess the biological component of a central nervous system.

I made this choice because it is not a big sacrifice and I believe there is sufficient evidence to state that similar biological structures in different members of the animal kingdom serve similar purposes.

[big_lefty]

You are right. I shot myself in the foot being too wordy. Probably "stems" (har har) from the fact that I am vegetarian and am close to the topic.

<chuckle!> Love the pun.

I didn't need to respond at all to that point. Your presentation of plants fails due to the Strawman Fallacy. You misrepresent a vegetarian as being concerned with "ending life" and defeat the easier argument that plants are alive and without eating plants or animals we would have no food at all.

No, because if you'll look back, I never posted an characterizations of the motives of vegetarians, I responded only to statement regarding plants and emotions. I don't believe that is what motivates most vegetarians at all.I believe it to be concern for the suffering of animals. So you're not also concerned with the suffering of plants. That's fine. Your position can be defended.
This is similar, in a way, to the abortion debate. Since evidence shows that fetuses under 24 weeks are not sentient, one need not be concerned with their suffering. All you need to do is show evidence that plants are not sentient.

To summarize in a more succinct manner, I do not care about "life." My position is that I will avoid directly, or indirectly, affecting creatures of the animal kingdom that possess the biological component of a central nervous system. I made this choice because it is not a big sacrifice and I believe there is sufficient evidence to state that similar biological structures in different members of the animal kingdom serve similar purposes.

Understood. A reasonable position and well stated. I have similar feelings,
but health problems prevent me from following such a diet as yours.

[Matt]

Quote by: big_lefty That is only evidence of ability to express as we know it, not ability to feel or the ability to express in ways we cannot sense. You've yet to explain why the feelings, if indeed they exist, would add up less than those of other organisms. Personally, I don't make conclusions about complex issues through mere personal observation, so I'll leave looking at the dog and the grass to you. What you're basically saying is that that which we cannot perceive through our senses cannot exist.

Sometimes we must use common sense to discern between two different things. I'm sure if I polled people across Canada asking them if an animal or plant had more feelings/thoughts the vast majority would say animals. Common sense will prevail.

Ok, I'll explain. Animals have feelings, thoughts, emotions, and thinking capabilities. If plants do, it is probably 1% of what animals have. Question...would you rather kill a human or a fish? You'd probably pick to kill the fish, since you would view it morally better. Same thing goes for me...I would rather kill a clover then a chicken since it is morally better. A clover has less feelings/thoughts then a chicken, and a human has more feelings/thoughts then a fish. Common sense.

[big_lefty]

Sometimes we must use common sense to discern between two different things. I'm sure if I polled people across Canada asking them if an animal or plant had more feelings/thoughts the vast majority would say animals. Common sense will prevail.

Appeal to Common Belief fallacy. Because something is commonly believed does not make it reasonable.
You obviously have a lot more faith in the common sense of the average person than I do.

Ok, I'll explain. Animals have feelings, thoughts, emotions, and thinking capabilities. If plants do, it is probably 1% of what animals have.

Where did you come up with the !% figure? I'm curious.

Question...would you rather kill a human or a fish? You'd probably pick to kill the fish, since you would view it morally better. Same thing goes for me...I would rather kill a clover then a chicken since it is morally better. A clover has less feelings/thoughts then a chicken, and a human has more feelings/thoughts then a fish. Common sense.

That's not really common sense, just traditional belief. You've been exposed all your life to the notion that other mammals are more worthy because they are more like humans than fish, invertebrates, insects and plants, so you believe it without question.

Incidentally, there are plenty of humans I'd rather kill than kill a fish, but the law prevents me. What a drag.

[Matt]

Quote by: big_lefty Appeal to Common Belief fallacy. Because something is commonly believed does not make it reasonable. You obviously have a lot more faith in the common sense of the average person than I do. Where did you come up with the !% figure? I'm curious. That's not really common sense, just traditional belief. You've been exposed all your life to the notion that other mammals are more worthy because they are more like humans than fish, invertebrates, insects and plants, so you believe it without question. Incidentally, there are plenty of humans I'd rather kill than kill a fish, but the law prevents me. What a drag.

In general, I do question common sense alot...but in this case, I don't.

From no where, just some more common sense I guess...

Actually, no. I'm a aquarium fish hobbyist, I have two tanks and am extremely into many species of fish. I do know some species of fish, like Oscars, can be as smart as a cat or even more intelligent. I keep invertebrates in my tanks too. I take care of them.

I am a rock gardener and I'm a aqua-gardener too. I respect the plants, and try to get them to grow and be healthy.

I am also into butterfly 'catching' too and love IDing species (I don't kill them...I let them go).

As you can see, I've spent alot of time with bugs, plants, fish, and invertebrates. I know what they are like through personal experience and I can gage their intellect to a certain extent. Fish I can tell have the most thoughts/feelings, followed by invertebrates and bugs (depends on the species), then plants. I would feel bad killing a fish, a bug, or a invertebrate, not a plant though. Maybe it is just because they have a different system then I and I can't recognize their thoughts/feelings...but I doubt it.

[adam10312]

Quote by: Matt In general, I do question common sense alot...but in this case, I don't. From no where, just some more common sense I guess... Actually, no. I'm a aquarium fish hobbyist, I have two tanks and am extremely into many species of fish. I do know some species of fish, like Oscars, can be as smart as a cat or even more intelligent. I keep invertebrates in my tanks too. I take care of them. I am a rock gardener and I'm a aqua-gardener too. I respect the plants, and try to get them to grow and be healthy. I am also into butterfly 'catching' too and love IDing species (I don't kill them...I let them go). As you can see, I've spent alot of time with bugs, plants, fish, and invertebrates. I know what they are like through personal experience and I can gage their intellect to a certain extent. Fish I can tell have the most thoughts/feelings, followed by invertebrates and bugs (depends on the species), then plants. I would feel bad killing a fish, a bug, or a invertebrate, not a plant though. Maybe it is just because they have a different system then I and I can't recognize their thoughts/feelings...but I doubt it.

Then you are saying it is better to kill a child than an adult? Or a mentally ill or developmentally disabled person than a highly intelligent and emotional person?

You are making a scale here where the level of intelligence and amount of thoughts directly relate to the worth of the life.

[Matt]

Quote by: adam10312 Then you are saying it is better to kill a child than an adult? Or a mentally ill or developmentally disabled person than a highly intelligent and emotional person? You are making a scale here where the level of intelligence and amount of thoughts directly relate to the worth of the life.

Child has more to live for (most cases)...so adult....intelligent person has more to live for (most cases) then mentally disabled person....so disabled person. Animals have more the live for then plants....so plants.

I would like to ask you a question...would you rather kill a disabled person that you didn't know if they are in a 'vegetable' state or not.....or someone you knew was an intelligent human?

I realize some meat-eaters will go after vegetarians for still killing things (plants), to ease the guilt they have with eating meat.

Humans and most animals (chimps, warblers, cichlids, ect.) have the same basic nervous system we do. We then know they can feel pain. Most of us aren't convinced plants can feel pain. Since it hasn't really been proven they have, its better to avoid animals (which have been proven to have thoughts and feelings) then plants (which we still do not have much evidence that they do have feelings or thoughts).

[Anmon]

Myself I love animal blood and fats dripping from the corners of my mouth as I eat, so I guess I'm no vegetarian.
One of my cousins is vegetarian, and has been for over twenty years, as a little joke I played on her once at tea, I cooked a vegisteak, she hadn't had it before, and I assured her it wasn't real meat, after eating it, she said it was delicious, I then started laughing and told her it was real meat, the look on her face was priceless and she nearly went for me with a fork, so I had to show her the vegimeat packaging I was going to show anyway.