Vegetarianism lol

[wolfpac444]

Speaking of soy (and rainforests), almost all of the soy produced is used for animal feed or vegetable oil. According to http://www.springerlink.com/content/072h0622336rv93h/ , only 3% of the soy produced is used in human food. If I were to take a random guess, I would guess that the amount of soy need to maintain a meat-eating diet probably is a lot more than that for a vegetarian/vegan diet.

On another note, there are quite a few people who believe that if you either had to give up meat or eggs and dairy, it would be better to give up the eggs and dairy. At least with meat, the animals live their lives (even if the quality may be questionable) and are killed. With the dairy and egg industries, the animals are kept in lets just say less than ideal conditions for their entire lives.

Amongst many other reasons, if you buy into Singer's utilitarian approach to vegetarianism/veganism, the point is to reduce the amount of _unneeded_ suffering in the world. If you believe that animals have the capacity to suffer and realize that its not that difficult to give up animals products (it's really easy), then it seems like the logical thing to do.

[Jeremy]

Speaking of soy (and rainforests), almost all of the soy produced is used for animal feed or vegetable oil. According to http://www.springerlink.com/content/072h0622336rv93h/ , only 3% of the soy produced is used in human food. If I were to take a random guess, I would guess that the amount of soy need to maintain a meat-eating diet probably is a lot more than that for a vegetarian/vegan diet.

Sure, but only a small percentage of people are vegetarians; predominately only middle class people from affluent countries, and some religious people. If the whole world went vegetarian, we'd need a lot more tofu...

[wolfpac444]

If I were to take a random guess, I would guess that the amount of soy need to maintain a meat-eating diet probably is a lot more than that for a vegetarian/vegan diet.

Sure, but only a small percentage of people are vegetarians; predominately only middle class people from affluent countries, and some religious people. If the whole world went vegetarian, we'd need a lot more tofu...

I'm not sure how removing an incredibly inefficient link in the protein/energy chain is going to result in a net protein decrease.

I think it makes sense that predominately middle class people from affluent countries are vegetarian/vegan since it is quite easy for them to do so. If it would be a true burden on someone to switch their diet, then they probably shouldn't. On the other hand, excuses like "I need my bacon" sound about like "I need my bottled water from Fiji."

[Blue_turnip]

If I were to take a random guess, I would guess that the amount of soy need to maintain a meat-eating diet probably is a lot more than that for a vegetarian/vegan diet.

Sure, but only a small percentage of people are vegetarians; predominately only middle class people from affluent countries, and some religious people. If the whole world went vegetarian, we'd need a lot more tofu...

I'm not sure how removing an incredibly inefficient link in the protein/energy chain is going to result in a net protein decrease.

I think it makes sense that predominately middle class people from affluent countries are vegetarian/vegan since it is quite easy for them to do so. If it would be a true burden on someone to switch their diet, then they probably shouldn't. On the other hand, excuses like "I need my bacon" sound about like "I need my bottled water from Fiji."

Either I'm really missing your point, or you're really missing the point. Could you please clarify?

[wolfpac444]

1) Jeremy was trying to argue that if more people stopped eating meat, then the amount of soy consumed (by humans _and_ animals) will increase. I thought that that would be unlikely as the majority of soy (protein) is used for animal feed. At each step in the food chain, there is a loss of energy/protein/etc. Thus, removing a step (the animals) would lead to requiring less resources in contrast to Jeremy's position that more would be required.

2) Jeremy brought the socioeconomic status of many vegetarian/vegans, pointing out that many are in a position of privilege (which is presumably what enables them to have a vegetarian/vegan diet). I was agreeing that this may be the case and stated that people for which adopting such a diet would truly be a burden should probably not do so. On the other hand, I wanted to point out that I don't believe it would really be a burden on most middle class people from affluent countries, and that most of the excuses I hear are just that.

[Sporatical_Distractions]

Although I rarely eat meat, I try to avoid Soy.

"there is abundant evidence that some of the isoflavones found in soy, including genistein and equol, a metabolize of daidzen, demonstrate toxicity in estrogen sensitive tissues and in the thyroid. This is true for a number of species, including humans.

Soy's Thyroid Dangers

[Blue_turnip]

1) Jeremy was trying to argue that if more people stopped eating meat, then the amount of soy consumed (by humans _and_ animals) will increase. I thought that that would be unlikely as the majority of soy (protein) is used for animal feed. At each step in the food chain, there is a loss of energy/protein/etc. Thus, removing a step (the animals) would lead to requiring less resources in contrast to Jeremy's position that more would be required.

2) Jeremy brought the socioeconomic status of many vegetarian/vegans, pointing out that many are in a position of privilege (which is presumably what enables them to have a vegetarian/vegan diet). I was agreeing that this may be the case and stated that people for which adopting such a diet would truly be a burden should probably not do so. On the other hand, I wanted to point out that I don't believe it would really be a burden on most middle class people from affluent countries, and that most of the excuses I hear are just that.

Okay, ty.

[QuantumBalance]

What do some of the vegetarians on here think about eating meat if it would otherwise be wasted. Or say someone cooks you a meal and offers you some? Now that I imagine someone offering me a hamburger though... YUCK! Gimme a phatty garden burger with lettuce, tomato, pickles, ranch, ketsup, some good mustard, and a sesame seed bun.

Fuck you Oliver, you bitch! Lol.

[Blue_turnip]

Fuck you Oliver, you bitch! Lol. Twisted Evil

I second that movement.

[wolfpac444]

Although I rarely eat meat, I try to avoid Soy.

"there is abundant evidence that some of the isoflavones found in soy, including genistein and equol, a metabolize of daidzen, demonstrate toxicity in estrogen sensitive tissues and in the thyroid. This is true for a number of species, including humans.

Soy's Thyroid Dangers

Unless you have pre-existing thyroid problems or don't have enough iodine in your diet, I don't think there is too much to worry about.

[Sporatical_Distractions]

Unless you have pre-existing thyroid problems or don't have enough iodine in your diet, I don't think there is too much to worry about.

Genetically I do

[wolfpac444]

What do some of the vegetarians on here think about eating meat if it would otherwise be wasted. Or say someone cooks you a meal and offers you some? Now that I imagine someone offering me a hamburger though... YUCK! Gimme a phatty garden burger with lettuce, tomato, pickles, ranch, ketsup, some good mustard, and a sesame seed bun.

I think if it is food that would otherwise be wasted, go for it.

[wolfpac444]

Unless you have pre-existing thyroid problems or don't have enough iodine in your diet, I don't think there is too much to worry about.

Genetically I do

That sucks, but it's good that you're knowledgeable and disciplined about it. See you at Worlds!

[Tsiangkun]

Yeah, I think if it is going to be thrown away, then eat it.


I don't really understand all the intricacies of the global food chain.
I just try to get fresh local ingredients, organic where I can, grass grazed
cattle from good environments, sushi grade fish, etc etc etc, and eat healthy.

[wolfpac444]

I agree that making an effort to eat locally is a good idea.

[ted]

1) Jeremy was trying to argue that if more people stopped eating meat, then the amount of soy consumed (by humans _and_ animals) will increase. I thought that that would be unlikely as the majority of soy (protein) is used for animal feed. At each step in the food chain, there is a loss of energy/protein/etc. Thus, removing a step (the animals) would lead to requiring less resources in contrast to Jeremy's position that more would be required.

Agreed. On the subject is an excellent book by Michael Pollan, The Omnivore's Dilemma, which is a fascinating examination of the inefficiency of monoculture, fossil fuel costs associated with eating non-local foods, and energy loss through trophic levels. He cites *something like* a net loss of >80% of primary productivity when an acre of land is used to raise beef for human consumption compared to soy.

I also find the 'hidden' costs of meat production alarming; significant methane production, huge amounts of energy-intensive fertilizers for producing animal feed, and fossil fuels used for processing and shipping all begin to add up. So yeah, eat your local meats and produce.

That said, I recently rescinded my vegetarianism after 4 years because of health concerns.

[Jeremy]

I think Mike's maths is bogus.

While most of the soy currently consumed is consumed by animals, most of the feed consumed by animals is not soy.

Therefore, if we suddenly stopped eating meat, and replaced meat with soy, since we eat so much more meat than soy, and since the meat we eat doesn't predominately eat soy, the production of soy would need to increase.

Anyway this is a rather frivolousness argument, since that's never going to happen. The point was that mass produced soy is also bad for the environment.

Over consumption of soy can definitely create health problems in healthy people as well. Noticeably it can create changes in levels of oestrogen, which can change women's menstrual cycles, and can also lead to babies masturbating (not sure if that's a health problem, but I'm certainly not going my babies soy )

[ObArA'BaRs]

wait.....there's estrogen in soy?

[wolfpac444]

While most of the soy currently consumed is consumed by animals, most of the feed consumed by animals is not soy.

The primary grains used for animal feed are corn and soy. I do not know the percentages of each, but they are both significant. Coming from the state which is the largest producer of corn and soybeans in the largest corn and soybean producing country in the world, I can tell you that the two crops are quite closely linked. Here in Iowa, every field alternates between growing corn and growing soy. Why? The corn depletes the field of nitrogen while the soy fixes it. I'm sure I don't need to tell you about nitrogen-based fertilizers. Or, one can look at the staples in the diets of countries that are less well off than either yours or mine to see which foods require less resources. I personally find your position on the issuerather untenable.

Anyway this is a rather frivolousness argument, since that's never going to happen.

Especially if intelligent people like yourself keep looking to make excuses.

The point was that mass produced soy is also bad for the environment.

Agreed. That's why we should be thinking about minimizing the resources required to feed ourselves.

[Jeremy]

Surprisingly, the US is not the only country in the world.

Australia produces around $9 billion US worth of meat every year, but doesn't produce any (significant) amount of soy at all. Virtually none of that meat eats soy, or corn for that matter.