Caring for the welfare of animals is one thing, maybe increasing the plant component a bit can help, but stopping meat completely - there is no chance
More and more widespread is the push for a vegetarian or vegan way of life. One of the steps in the direction is one day a week without meat.
The vegetarians (or vegans) justify their way with three main claims:
- Vegetarianism is a healthier and more correct way of life for man
- Vegetarianism prevents animal abuse
- Vegetarianism is one of the ways to prevent greenhouse gas emissions
As for the first section, there are "expert" claims and opinions in both directions and those who try to include vegetarianism on wide populations in the entire world will have to take into account typical meat-eating populations who have no possibility or access to other food sources. Such were, until recently, two populations that lived in different and opposite climate zones: the nomadic shepherds in East Africa and in deserts around the world, and on the other hand, the inhabitants of the far north. These too depended mainly on animal food and made a living from it. When testing their health against societies where vegetarianism is widespread and accepted, it is difficult to identify or determine who has health benefits.
The second section becomes more significant because of the increasingly accepted approach that "animals in the wild as well as farm animals feel sorrow, pain, anger and other emotions that until today were commonly thought to be unique to humans.
The third section is correct! And later it will become clear how significant it is, but again it's hard to see how large populations abandon a traditional menu at a moment's notice.
The debate for and against meat consumption also involves economic stakeholders on both sides and reaches national and international levels. The question arises: is there a middle way and how effective and meaningful will the middle way be?
Hundreds of millions of people subsist from raising domestic animals (farm) and billions of others consume products from the subsistence and consumption interface that satisfy the most basic needs in rural and primary societies and less necessary needs in societies in the developing world in general and in the West in particular. Therefore, the call for vegetarianism or veganism for the entire world population is not practical and in many cases is also not moral.
And yet it is possible to reduce the harm to farm animals without harming traditional populations, farmers and animal food producers, provided they adapt their activities to the new (moral) requirements.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations publishes recommendations for methods of raising farm animals. in the organization's report
There are recommendations that will be practical when the consumption of animal food is reduced. One of the methods to reduce consumption is a "day without meat". How will one day of the week without meat affect the state of emissions and how will it affect public health?
One day a week without meat will allow raising farm animals under "welfare" conditions that harm the animals less. According to a new study published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: "Expanding the use of existing methods in raising domestic (farm) animals will contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture by about 30%."
According to the researchers' data: the "contribution" to the emissions of about 70 billion domestic animals is estimated at about 7 gigatons of carbon dioxide. A "contribution" that makes up about 14% of all emissions. The main source of emissions is food production and processing (45%). In addition to this: emissions created during digestion (39%), emissions from the decomposition of manure (10%) and the balance emitted during the processing and transportation of the produce from the animal interface. Cattle breeding "contributes" about 65% of all emissions from the livestock sector.
The researchers say that "a significant reduction in emissions as a result of raising animals ... is possible", by adopting existing methods of feeding, veterinary treatments, livestock management and proper handling of manure. In addition to this, use of existing technology of operating biogas generators and saving energy. According to the researchers, it is possible to save about 30% of emissions and at the same time be more efficient and economical in the use of energy, and while saving produce more food.
Among other things, the researchers claim that "a slight and simple change in the weekly menu can help reduce emissions." The researchers found that "in livestock there is a strong connection between the efficient use of food and energy and the reduction of emissions."
These findings show that it is possible to improve the performance of livestock in such a way that the environment is not harmed, "in order to implement the methods, political will and cooperation are needed."
The published report has an appendix with practical suggestions for optimizing the breeding of cattle, poultry and pigs. According to the researchers: "Cattle farming, which "contributes" about 65% of all emissions from the livestock sector, also has an excellent opportunity to reduce emissions."
The need to improve breeding methods while reducing emissions increases because of the rising demand for animal products as a result of population growth as well as the rising standard of living in developing countries. The forecast is that by the year 2050 there will be a 70% increase in the demand for milk and a 60% increase in the demand for meat. In the entire world, industrial farms provide about two thirds of all eggs and poultry meat and about half of the pork.
In the industrial farms there are hundreds of thousands of animals and their secretions. The animals are kept in narrow, crowded and naked cages, and are kept without the ability to move and without the ability to "practice" naturally. The researchers recommend improving the breeding and keeping conditions of farm animals and say that "it is important to support farmers who give their animals adequate living conditions and care", especially in light of the latest findings that show that "animals have the ability to sense, grieve and pain".
As for the call for a meat-free day: according to a study conducted in 2008 in the USA: "Avoidance of eating red meat one day a week and eating vegetables and fruits will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by values equal to a 1600 km trip in a family car." There are those who suggest the three R's: reducing (reducing) animal food, replacing (replacing) animal food with plant food, "refining" or preferring to choose animal food that comes from farms where the animals are raised in proper conditions. One of the ways to do this is with the trend that is spreading throughout the world of "Meatless Monday".
If I started with the general tendency towards vegetarianism, then it is correct to balance and point out that huge herds of cattle graze in areas that were until recently rain forest... and the damage is clear, but it is appropriate that tofu consumers be aware of the fact that in order to grow soybeans (in South America) forests are cleared on a scale that is not much smaller than the areas that are cleared for herds of cattle. It is also appropriate that anyone who replaces animal fat with vegetable fat should know that the origin of the vegetable fat in most products is from the fruit of the oil palm, for which vast areas of forest are cleared in Africa and Southeast Asia. So in both cases, eating proteins from animals or plants may seriously damage the natural environment.
Therefore the right direction is the environmental calculation (environmental thinking or sustainable thinking). Considering the environment and growing food sustainably will give the right answer to the three sections I opened with.
It has already been said that the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment!
The argument with vegans
The editor of the site adds: In my debate with vegans, they forget a very important fact: raising animals for meat and plants for human consumption are not only resource competitors but to a large extent complementary. Man (who, despite the unfounded claims, is not a vegetarian animal but an omnivore, like monkeys and other apes) does not digest cellulose and therefore in most cases, a significant percentage of the plant (90% or more) is not suitable for human consumption. The cows, on the other hand, digest the cellulose and enjoy it, thus actually avoiding waste, without which the agricultural areas would have to be multiplied many times over (also because some of those people are against genetic engineering) and there is nowhere to go.
In addition, the animals emit what they emit after the meal and create fertilizer which in turn helps the rapid growth of plants (would vegans prefer synthetic fertilizer? Without fertilizer there is no chance of sustaining the current world population). In addition, the growth rate of animals is tens of times faster than that of any edible plant. The meaning of a hen that lays one egg every day is an increase in the amount of food several times more than in a plant that grows slowly for months and then the grains are taken out of it and everything else is supposed to be thrown away. And last but not least, to create space for growing fields, millions of rodents and insects are destroyed. Do vegans think that what is far from the eye is also far from the heart?
100 תגובות
Okay, there is a lot of misinformation here and I have so much to say about it, but unfortunately it's not worth my time, I'll just say that for every claim I can make two claims that veganism is the right thing for humans, and for the planet, without a shadow of a doubt .
It is important to know that biologically humans are closer to herbivores than omnivores.
I have a question for you: when you see an animal run over on the road, do you want to stop the car and devour the dead animal? If not, you are probably not omnivores, you are not carnivores!
And if you don't fantasize about going to a cow and starting to injure it with your "cruel" teeth and nails, and tear the living minister from it and the blood in your mouth.. then again you are probably herbivorous rabbis.
And here are the facts…
1) Our small intestine is 2 times longer than omnivores/carnivores, (just like herbivores).
And this is so that we can digest the food and get most of the vitamins from it.
2) We don't have claws like carnivores/omnivores.
3) The jaw of herbivores and humans moves from side to side (to chew and grind the food) and up and down, for the carnivore omnivorous nation that only moves up and down.
4) Our digestive acids are much weaker than carnivores, because carnivores have to digest meat and kill the bacteria on it, we don't, and that's why omnivores have a higher chance of getting colon cancer. (Proven).
5) Herbivores and humans have an enzyme in their saliva to break down carbohydrates, omnivores and carnivores do not.
And it shows that we need to eat carbohydrates that 99 percent of them come from plants.
6) Our teeth are known to grind food and are much closer to herbivores like a horse for example, unlike omnivores whose teeth cut to tear meat and swallow without chewing much, and their strong stomach acids will break down the meat.
7) For omnivores and carnivores there is no clogging of arteries, because their body removes the meat quickly and that way it does not sink into the walls of the arteries, to verify this for herbivores and humans it exists, and you can call it an epidemic (the cause of heart diseases, strokes, etc..)
I can go on a lot more if you want, just dig deeper and see the truth behind this lie that humans need meat... and the opposite is true, animal protein is what causes most of the diseases we know (heart disease, stroke, diabetes, osteoporosis...)
And again, everything is scientifically proven.
There are countless reliable studies and worth reading, than this article that tries to make you feel okay about the fact that you eat meat.. but deep down we all know that we don't want to see the truth about it, because it will make us not eat these products anymore.
I recommend you do a better job next time
And go vegan to save yourself and the animals and the world.
Enough of the violence and abuse.
Esi, your argument is a religious argument that shoots the arrow and then marks a target around it.
There are many studies that show that it is impossible to stop eating meat. Those who can afford to be vegan and consume dozens of types of nuts to get all the proteins (which are found in meat in one place) are those who live in the western world. You condemn everything else to starvation.
What a disappointment. How did you let an ignorant person write such a topic.
After all, there are no studies that come out against the health benefits of switching to veganism.
There is not a single population in the world that will suffer from a transition to veganism, everyone will benefit from it since most of the agricultural produce in the western world goes to farm animals, in other words, veganism can solve the problem of world hunger and a transition to veganism will flood the market with crazy amounts of food. In the third world, most of the food is created from free grazing, which accounts for 80 percent of the deforestation in the world. Which leads to the third part.
Not only is the animal products industry responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all the industries in the world combined, it is also the main source of water and the main responsible for deforestation in the world - the green pastures... making the animal products industry nature's cigarette.
Not for nothing, the huge report that Um recently did came to the conclusion that without a transition to a vegan life we are destined for an inevitable economic and environmental catastrophe.
Please, do your homework and demand that your reporters understand more about the subject than nature guides and ecologists who studied 3 hours of nutrition that embarrass themselves
Anonymous (unidentified) user
I'll say it again. Kosher slaughter is a terrible act.
The fact that you tell all kinds of stories about "choking blood" does not change the fact that an animal continues to live for a very long time after its throat is cut.
I know it hurts to hear the truth….
Nissim, Sweet, "And you are aware that the human brain is more sensitive than the brain of an animal and therefore will be damaged more quickly?" - If this is true, then it only strengthens my words.
And again I remind you that Camila and I were talking about kosher animals and not about humans. It is not clear why you continue to talk irrelevantly.
Also, stop running your mouth. There are religious people who have won a Nobel Prize, and you curse them.
(Personally, people like you scare me more than those who care about the health of their people).
Anonymous (unidentified) user
And are you aware that the human brain is more sensitive than the brain of an animal and will therefore be damaged more quickly?
I think it is much more important to stop with kosher slaughtering than with eating meat. Kosher slaughter is a terrible thing.
Do not confuse the brain that it is "reflexes". It is very rude to say such a thing. Religious people are a shocking thing - what they most believe in is a collection of lies designed to prevent them from thinking.
Death in seconds because of cutting the neck... Who told you this nonsense????
Miracles
Camila and I talked about kosher animals. Not on humans.
Do you realize now that you are the idiot?
Happy holiday, and good luck in the new year. I hope you will understand.
withering
I'm glad you responded again.
Anonymous (unidentified) user
You have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't know how it is in other animals, but the human brain can go 3 minutes without blood flow before damage is done.
Is it true that you feel like a fool now??
The fur and the skin and the sinews and the other things that are cut it goes without saying. Obviously there was no need for you to elaborate on that.
The question is, does the animal die immediately or does it suffer?
According to my understanding: the animal loses consciousness almost immediately. That's why she doesn't suffer either.
The fact that the body continues to flutter is because of the reflexes. Like the rooster can keep running after its head has been chopped off.
Kosher slaughter may also cut off the jugular arteries, but it does several other things at the same time (I mentioned some of them, and there are others that I didn't list but Nissim mentioned in his response) that produce unnecessary suffering for the animal. Suffering that can be prevented.
Miracles
I prefer to have a discussion with someone who understands what he is talking about.
But, if you are already pushing yourself to the discussion, then you should know a few things:
First of all, it's good that you understood that kosher slaughter is not suffocating. Because as such she was invalid.
Kosher slaughter, as I wrote, is carried out in such a way that a process takes place in it - as Camilla called it - of blood suffocation.
(You probably didn't think she meant that the butcher would strangle the animal with his hands, did you?)
Proper slaughtering is one in which the trachea and esophagus are cut quickly, so that the animal dies (within a few seconds) not as a result of suffocation but as a result of a loss of oxygen that stops reaching the brain and at the same time the blood that is spilled from the brain and the blood that leaves the body is not enough to reach to the brain That is, a cut that causes the blood flow to the brain to stop immediately.
Anonymous (unidentified) user
Kosher slaughter is not suffocation - cutting the neck through nerves, windpipe and human organs causes excruciating pain. It is not for nothing that there are enlightened countries that prohibit this slaughter.
There is no shortage of anesthetics that do not have a harmful effect. Halothane for example, dinitrogen oxygen for example. Rest assured that anesthetics in medicine are quite safe today.
withering
(How good that you returned to comment on the site. I really hope you will continue to participate in the discussions).
In my experience, it takes about 10 seconds for a person to lose consciousness as a result of suffocation.
Blood suffocation - as far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, Kosher slaughtering does exactly that.
Regarding blurring/anesthetic substances - what substances exist that do not cause poisoning of the body. That is, so that the meat can be eaten without fear of poisoning?
Define for me what is good in this context...
If you think it is necessary to kill a cow (and it doesn't matter at the moment if it is for nutrition or for research purposes, these are always appropriate questions with sides here and there) and all this under the humane concept of preventing unnecessary suffering for that animal, then there are many options of blurring and even full anesthesia before reaching the killing stage . But even without the use of obfuscating/anesthetizing substances there is much room for improvement, for example a feeling of suffocation is terrible, while blocking blood to the marrow alone almost does not cause negative reactions until the loss of consciousness. If you have friends who specialize in martial arts, ask them for a demonstration of air suffocation and blood suffocation (caution! Do this only with a qualified instructor who knows what they are doing, otherwise it is very, very dangerous), a two-second suffocation is enough for you to fully understand how Air suffocation is terrible. It is a fact that it is possible to cooperate with blood suffocation until fainting (after that you cannot say that you are cooperating...) but you cannot cooperate with air suffocation, try and see for yourself. The fact that the animal destined to be killed is stressed before slaughter only intensifies its suffering from suffocation.
If it were up to me, I would like to do it like this:
1) Blurring of anesthesia through the food/drink (of course you need to make sure that this is a substance that does not endanger the users later)
2) Blood suffocation without air suffocation (a few minutes are enough to ensure death).
The method guarantees a very low degree of suffering, certainly much less than conventional methods and certainly less than the very unnecessary suffering that exists in kosher slaughter.
withering
What is the best way to kill a cow?
hobbit,
Do you really think that what you see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vuBha3aI18&t=8m50s
Is this the most humane way you can think of? Take a good look at the video, not at the people standing around but at that sheep with its feet tied on the floor, who are holding her throat and stepping on her knees so she doesn't move and pulling her head back in an unnatural position. Have you ever been held like this? Can you imagine the feeling of stress and anxiety of that animal? And then comes the (humane?) climax of the Kashrah slaughter, where the neck, meat, tendons, blood vessels and trachea are added. Do you really think that that unfortunate animal that continues to flutter there with its trachea open and its blood splattering in all directions also considers itself lucky that it was slaughtered in a kosher slaughter?
It may be that at one time kosher slaughtering was indeed a better way than most of the other ways in which animals died in the human economy, let's say we accept that for a moment. There is also no doubt that even today there are still worse ways than the one shown in the video, and still, you really can't think of a better way than this? If so why do you think it is so difficult for religious people to admit this? And if you think there is no better way than this, all I can say is that people like you scare me, but really!
We didn't evolve to eat cucumber either. The cucumber is a pod for the plant's seeds to create the next generation.
Avi,
I'm sorry, but veganism is neither a religion nor a sect, it is a very rational value choice. Every ideological movement has prominent speakers and common messages, this does not make them a cult. According to this logic, secularism and atheism can also be considered sects, which is of course absurd. And that you label Gary Yurofsky as a guru just shows how much you are fed by the media and not by direct familiarity with the subject.
There is no connection between the ability to digest cellulose and eating meat (or animal products), and there is no point at all in looking at evolution here because it is a topic that is, to say the least, quite controversial (did we evolve to consume cow's milk?). In the bottom line, our body can get everything it needs from a plant-based diet, so the question is not biological but only a value one.
There is no balance that the animal food industry maintains, it is strange to me at all that you claim such a thing. Abolishing this industry will only do good for the environment and the planet, including reducing agricultural areas, most of which are used to grow food for farm animals, reducing groundwater and ocean pollution, reducing fuel consumption, reducing the massive use of antibiotics and other drugs, and more.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but the animals in the egg and dairy industry go through unimaginable generations of hell, including outright death (what do you think they do with a hen that stops laying eggs?). There is no moral difference between eating meat and drinking milk, and whoever thinks there is then I'm sorry, but he is deluding himself.
Miracles
Can you elaborate on the slaughter? Isn't she relatively humane? Is there a better method?
interesting.
Besides, Momo the cow should die right away, right? At once the blood flow to the brain stops. Like one big blackout.
Yoni, no one in the network told me how to react, I simply know cults from my many years of dealing as an alerter at the gate and I know how to recognize a cult when I see one. There is a guru, there are messages that everyone recites, suddenly everyone loses their sense and tries hard to fight evolution - if man were a vegetarian animal and could not digest cellulose which is the main component of the plant. Until then we are forced to let the cows and chickens do it for us. Cows and chickens are not protected animals
There is also a synergy between animal crops and plant crops and if we break the balance we will need 3 earth globes to grow all the vegetables so that we have enough calories, and we will have to create the forests of the tree for the rare animals in them.
There are enough vegetarians who do not abstain from products such as eggs, milk and honey, these are people who think logically, and receive the calories that the cows and chickens (and bees) produced from the plant in a different way without killing the animals, but at Jurofsky and Co. they are also punished.
Asaf:
1. There is no connection between veganism and organic food. I am vegan and buy regular vegetables at the supermarket. On the other hand, there is also organic chicken.
2. If they were animals in the wild, cows would mate by choice and not by coercion as is done in the food industry.
3. It is really very considerate on the part of the chicken breeders to cut off their beaks so that they do not injure each other. It would have been better if they hadn't brought them to a situation where it was a problem in the first place.
The history of exploiting animals for the benefit of humans is well known, the problem is that even if we domesticated certain animals we did not eliminate their feelings of suffering, their will to live and their parenting instinct. In other words, the fact that the injustice has been done for a long time is not a reason to continue it.
Veganism is marketed as a religion by the media for populist reasons. It's really not a religion.
Anonymous (unidentified) user
Kosher slaughter is very far from being humane. Whoever thinks that the animal dies immediately, or does not suffer, simply does not know what he is talking about.
Asaf
Agree with every word.
And it is also important to emphasize that there is no such thing as "humane killing" unless you mean kosher slaughter.
Gentlemen
So much lack of knowledge and understanding is presented in the responses as "axioms",
"Organic food products"... will not supply a growing population,
For example, "the cow is made pregnant every year"... how is it in nature?
Or "plucking the beaks of chickens"... is done to prevent mutual pecking.
All debaters should know that:
- Before the ancient homosexual learned to hunt, he would eat the carcasses of animals that were devoured by super-carnivores,
The hunting skill came later and at the same time the chimpanzees (our relative) also developed hunting skills.
Even today there is eating of carcasses in primitive societies - Maasai, Inuit and others,
After man learned to hunt came the skill of domesticating animals for different (and different) needs,
Pets, animals for travel, and also animals that will be used as food,
As time goes by, farm animals are further away from their origin in nature,
That is, today most of the farm animals are "developments" that are distant and different from the original,
so far that they can be considered "industrial development" equal to the development of vegetables or fruits,
That's why no one will make a comparison between uprooting (wild) forests and cutting down pine trees
which were planted for an industrial purpose, so it is also not correct to compare the need to protect wild animals
For breeding farm animals - provided that the breeding and treatment are "humane"...
That's why the "attack" on meat eaters on the grounds of "no necessity or cruelty"
is not correct and not practical,
The "attack" should focus on the environmental aspect and that too with the understanding that
There are populations/societies where eating meat or consuming animal products is a necessity
whereas in other places eating meat in excessive amounts is an unnecessary and harmful "luxury",
The animal food industry must be "humane" and sustainable
Just like the plant food industry or any other industry,
Vegetarianism, as positive as it is, must not be marketed as... a religion.
Starvation ... yuk!
Ref.
ZA Anonymous.
Can you lower the level further?
Trauma is called Israel Shapira. He didn't stop scratching until he drove my brain crazy.
I let go.
smell
What trauma did you go through to be anonymous again?
Does not matter. When you decide to say something instead of sulking, know me.
Or say the last word, and let go.
Israel, our friend
I already wrote.
you know us
Says: I missed it.
Read again, don't be lazy.
Until next time, I'll stay in the shade.
Anonymous, Oriyata man,
Maybe enough with the regret?
Now write the point,
Oh, be honored and go home.
(Anonymous Elk..)
Israel
Don't know how you always, miraculously, miss the point.
Maybe you're standing still and the point goes over your head at speed C?
we
Grandfather, peace be upon him, forbade me to be offended by anonymous commenters.
Maybe you'll get to the point already?
Israel
No.
Only you are allowed to live in Israel or the USA?
So you want animals killed humanely, and I call you a hypocrite. What is the problem? Are you offended by that?
we,
Why don't you move to Korea? Families there go on a nice picnic in the great outdoors, father, mother, Kim, Kom, and the family dog Common.
As their kindness in wine, they slaughter the puppy and make a barbecue out of it.
As a matter of fact: I do not intend to demonstrate against the meat industry, eggs, furs, etc.
Just let them do it in the most humane way possible to cause minimal suffering to the animals.
Do you not agree?
Israel
Successfully.
(The uncle's 100-year-old grandmother also assured us that she would stop eating meat. She doesn't want to be portrayed as a hypocrite after reading many articles and finding out that heaven awaits her after she dies).
יוני
You pretty much convinced me.
Which is not difficult: in my eyes, most animals are superior to most humans. An animal is allowed from a person.
Just so you understand how unaware we are, I worked for years in a dairy farm on a kibbutz and also a bit in a chicken coop, and I never thought seriously about the injustice we cause the animals. Only recently, due to the many articles on the subject, did I understand the full severity of the animal holocaust.
Will I stop eating meat? I will try. I will continue to eat fish.
Keep up the fight, so alive, literally.
יוני
Wow.
At first, I didn't realize that you were also more moral than us.
"You don't see a problem with killing and slave labor in general" - of course we do. It's just that you close your eyes to this fact to serve your own agenda.
I am not in favor of killing. I'm in favor of eating meat.
I'm not in favor of killing people either. But I'm in favor of "get up for your slaying, your back for slaying".
In general, life is not as you would like. They are a little more complex than that.
And if a Thai needs to kill a scorpion to provide himself with food, then this is acceptable in his opinion (and in my opinion). Because otherwise there won't be the same Thai but there will probably be more scorpions.
For those who have enough money to provide themselves with vegetarian meals all day - on the contrary. The problem is that most people in the world don't have much or even enough money to live on a vegetarian diet. They also need meat to provide the amount of calories and substances necessary for the body to maintain normal health.
If everyone was like you - there wouldn't be enough space in the world to provide the amount of food to feed everyone.
"I want you to stop eating meat because you won't want to eat meat" - but you don't do it because you're moral, right?
I want creatures like you to die. This is not how you will preach to us and our child. And that way we will have more food left.
But that's not what's happening in the world, is it? And not because of the 'morality' involved.
"(Yes, I know that emotion is not a popular topic on a scientific website)" - this is because science is not about what Mr. Yoni feels.
"Do you think it's okay (for example) to breed dogs in order to use them as live targets in hunting games? I hope you will agree with me that this is wrong." - Would you agree with me that preaching to others how to live is "wrong"?
And in general, this question has nothing to do with your following claim:
Why is it okay to raise cows to eat them? How is it different? After all, in both cases it is about breeding relatively intelligent animals for the purposes of human entertainment."
- Eating meat is for fun?
You must be thinking that even tens of thousands of years ago when humans hunted and ate the meat of animals - it was for entertainment purposes.
You must be the type of person who would kill a human to save a worm. That's how much you hate humans (yourself).
But that's probably what happens to people who don't eat meat. They become more moral and wiser, right?
To my father and anonymous:
First, I will point out that my response was addressed to Michael, that from the discussion here I got the impression that he and I share a certain moral view, at least in a basic way. It is clear to me that you do not share this moral view, that is, you do not see a problem with killing and slave labor in general, and therefore in particular you do not see a problem with the milk and egg industry.
Abby, as a vegan for over a year, I can assure you that air is absolutely not what I live on. I know that in the reality we live in today it's hard to imagine a varied and satisfying diet that doesn't include animal products, it was hard for me to imagine it at first, too, but if there's anything the last year has taught me, it's that this dissonance is only educational, and only exists in our heads. There really is no shortage of food.
Regarding coercion, this is obviously a loaded topic. Obviously, as a vegan I would love to live in a society where eating meat would be illegal, which in today's simple meaning means coercion on people like you, but believe me coercion is the last thing I'm interested in. I don't want you to stop eating meat because you shouldn't, I want you to stop eating meat because you won't want to eat meat, just as I don't want to eat meat, and my only way to achieve that is to appeal to your emotion (yes, I know emotion is not a popular topic on a science site, But we are still human. Maybe in the end it will seep in, like it happened to me.
Anonymous, I know "soulful" is an insult, but I'll choose to take it as a compliment. It is possible to answer in many ways to the claim that eating beetroot is okay because it is done in nature by predators, I will choose to answer this way: Do you think it is okay (for example) to breed dogs in order to use them as live targets in hunting games? I hope you agree with me that this is wrong. Assuming we agree on that, the question arises, why is it okay to raise cows in order to eat them? How is it different? After all, in both cases we are talking about the breeding of relatively intelligent animals for the purposes of human entertainment. After all, eating a cow is really not a necessity for us (unlike the case of predators in the wild). So what's the difference? I claim that there is no difference, and if we as human beings with developed morals understand that it is wrong to breed dogs for hunting purposes, then we should understand that it is wrong to breed cows for food purposes.
And as for the flies - I'm really not a delicate soul. I don't have a problem killing a fly that gets into my house (even though I don't enjoy it), but the distance between that and what we do to the public in the food industry is great.
יוני
A beautiful soul like you. Maybe you'll start by teaching animals like lions, tigers, rhinoceroses, elephants, sharks, octopuses, ant-eating fish, eagles, cheetahs, whales, penguins, sea lions, manatees, and a starfish that eats poor plankton that has done no harm to anyone - not to eat others... and after you convince them and get them to switch to a different diet - you will preach to humans
A gentle soul like you who doesn't hurt a fly, surely.
Yoni, you are welcome to live off the air as you wish, but you cannot force your faith on others, just as the ultra-Orthodox should not force kosher on those who do not wish it.
Michael, I have no idea how familiar you are with the dairy and egg industries, but what the animals go through in these industries is worse than death (yes, there are things worse than death). Besides, if we accept that it is wrong to kill a chicken to eat it, we have to accept that it is wrong to cut off a chicken's beak and keep it captive for its entire life (among other things) in order to eat its products. By the way, specifically regarding eggs, this is an industry that definitely directly involves death because the male chicks are destroyed in this industry.
I guess I'm not rehashing it for you, with the media exposure of the issue in the last year it's hard to escape the argument of ignorance in these things, but just in case, you're welcome to search for material on this, it's abundant.
Miracles, part of the problem of anemia in women is due to milk consumption, I have personally encountered several women whose anemia disappeared when they switched to a vegan diet.
In general, the issue of iron is much more complex because the body does not know how to get rid of excess iron and it acts as an oxidizing factor.
One of the differences between iron from animals and iron from plants is that the body knows how to regulate absorption of iron from plants.
Iron deficiency is a problem of the general population. There is no evidence that vegans are more iron deficient since they consume a lot of vitamin C which improves the absorption of non-HEM iron.
It is worth noting that HEM type iron originates from hemoglobin and is 40% of the total iron in meat and has a better absorption capacity. In Israel, due to the kosher processes and blood expenses, the percentage of HEM iron is lower
Carnosine is produced by the human body, so it is not clear to me why it should be consumed from another body.
The slave owners in the southern USA said the negro was subhuman - fact! Look how these slaves look and behave! Or in Germany they said that the Jews are subhuman - fact! Look how they look and behave in the ghetto!
The same happens with meat. Get to know these animals unconditionally. So of course they think they are "subhuman" and there is no sympathy for them.
Most people have never been "confirmed" that the source of the meat is a "soul" (living beings) like them. The animals that are labeled as 'meat' obviously do not have the opportunity under these conditions to show you, on the contrary. The Jew looks subhuman in the ghetto and the Negro looks subhuman in a life of slavery. With dogs and cats there is no such dissonance - people know them outside of the ghetto conditions and recognize the similarities between them. Identify the "soul".
Here is an opportunity to see the animals that were labeled as meat and how they behave and look when they were not born and lived in ghetto/extermination camp conditions. Give them a chance to show you:
cow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxquOoG8j9s
Chicken
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfp2jPgcu_4
Goose
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfKJ1DpL0uU
Even a camel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9X7zQ6Cb1A
When the tenderness and heart are recognized, the token falls. At least that's how it happened for me.
The video that made me change my ways was not a brutally bloody video, or any footage from the slaughterhouse. But simply a short video told in the style of a children's story, the story of a calf less than a week old in the ghetto and extermination camp. I recognized myself in him - his tom is my childhood tom. he is no longer 'meat'
https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/-8kdpcFaNsw
Arguments that are considered "anti-vegetarian" to me are not arguments that condemn vegetarianism as unnatural or immoral or unhealthy. But any argument that tries to justify eating meat in a way that is not really true.
It is true that the article speaks in favor of reducing meat eating, but its reservation about vegetarianism is jarring.
The reason I find it jarring is that this is one whose motto on this site is:
"The time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment!"
A motto that I personally find jarring in its own way because it puts something inhuman and not necessarily living above the lives of people - and also talks about controlling people - which worries me as a person who prefers freedom and personal choice.
And yet despite all the desire to protect the environment from humans - and those here who have an opinion similar to his - are not vegetarians - and even defend their choice with (rather weak) arguments - that is - as soon as it is difficult for them - they suddenly oppose personal sacrifices - Despite the climate damage they themselves attribute to the meat industry - which they themselves are very concerned about and yet and despite all this concern - they disapprove of vegetarianism. - Why is that?
I have been a vegetarian for a good (and really - 'good') years. I came to this not because I went through a journey of persuasion at the initiative of some vegetarian/vegan believer, nor because of health considerations (although I found in such considerations sufficient reason to avoid eating from animals), and certainly not because the taste of meat of its kind is not considered by me (on the contrary).
I came to this because I felt that the destruction of life is something that should be avoided as much as possible, of course with the exception of cases where this is necessary for a vital value to human life. The right to life, in my opinion, is something that should be respected even when it does not concern human life. A life is a life is a life, and even though human life is more precious, because it is intelligent and morally potent - one must not show disdain towards them even when it comes to non-human lives. It is forbidden to practice unnecessary violence towards life, it is forbidden to dominate bullying just because you have the arm, it is forbidden to make life promiscuous and it is forbidden to make human reality promiscuous, in this sense as in any other sense. Slaughtering animals for the purpose of the food industry, and eating meat for the pleasure of the palate, were henceforth considered an inferior type of violent barbarism, a huge insult to man and his dignity, also considering the simple fact that plant food is in it to satisfy human needs (this, also considering that food components in which the plant may be too scarce for some people [- such as vitamin B12] can be consumed today too easily by taking food supplements in negligible amounts).
I remember that when I formulated this insight for myself, at one Shabbat meal, I felt enormous disgust at the slaughter of life, and at the meat that was served to me. I also felt shame for those who could not accept my feelings as legitimate, especially for those who held to lofty 'liberal' arguments.
In this context I emphasize 'my feelings' - because I did not try to be a missionary to spread my feelings. And the truth is that the missionary was not required, since in a gradual but overall quite quick process, the members of the household stopped eating meat - simply because I served as a living example for them, and the explanations of my new ways were absorbed naturally over time. It turns out that the 'case' against barbarism speaks for itself.
I believe that in this organic way, vegetarianism will rule humanity in a not long time, in my estimation in the order of a few decades, assuming that humanity is not expected to experience any extraordinary disruption in the course of its political and economic development and functioning. I believe that such and such feelings and insights that I have expressed will become the property of many more and more, because they are a sign and result of a developing human intellectual and moral sense. It is very possible that with the development of technology (similar to the technology for producing 'meat' or new food from plants, using methods of genetic engineering), and with the prevailing ecological considerations and the considerations of economic efficiency that point against raising animals for the purpose of producing food - the temptation to consume meat will finally disappear from humanity, and the phenomenon of an industrial The meat will be remembered as a manifestation of an inferior culture.
This, similar to the historical social processes in which humanity got rid of various primordial distortions - such as the institution of slavery, paganism, human sacrifices, cannibalism, etc. - which today we remember with disgust, even though at the time they were the bread of the cultural, social and economic constitution of entire human civilizations - yes, also Liberality (in the context of the institution of slavery, for example).
In my opinion,
Regardless of the other arguments going on here,
Add the title "opinion" to the last part
Because unlike the rest of the article which is more or less written in a theoretical way. This part is obviously an opinion.
Miracles:
So it turns out that now even health insurance summaries are not qualified enough in your eyes.
There is a lot (a lot!) of iron in plant products.
Read for example here:
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/iron.php
Regarding eating pills - you are welcome to take supplements in the form of cubes. I don't understand how the shape of the supplement is important to you and why you prefer the shape of a corpse to the shape of a ball. In any case, eating corpses is not an existential necessity these days and it doesn't matter how many times you repeat this unfounded claim.
Eating milk and eggs is not the same as killing animals. What does it belong to if it is the same morality? Donating to the poor is also according to the same morality!
In relation to the limits you are aware of, how about the following links?
http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/elephantpainting.asp
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/supplemental/S0960-9822(09)01455-9
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/joshua_klein_on_the_intelligence_of_crows.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E51DyWl_q0c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oVhopPjTNg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38jQPFhISpM
http://new.ba-bamail.co.il/View.aspx?emailid=3613&memberid=742035
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_umYYoqaGl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=uBuPiC3ArL8
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/1,7340,L-3607826,00.html
Avi Blizovsky, the question is not what those who do not have credit cards will do. The question is, what will you do today at the supermarket? And I know the answer - you will pay someone to slit the throats of chickens genetically deformed to a life of misery in cramped cages and after being thrown here and there and transported in trucks for many hours, all because it tastes good to you. Not science, not evolution, not anything other than habit, taste and convenience. You knew you could do without it, you know it's more ecological, but you're comfortable living in dissonance.
Maybe you don't know how simple, delicious and healthy it is to get out of this horrible habit we've all been brought up with, but you, especially as a scientist and skeptic, have the responsibility to check it out.
Hello Michael, do you know that milk has the same cruelty as meat? Because in order to have milk for a year, the cow is made pregnant every year, the calf or the cart is immediately separated and the calf goes to be fattened and slaughtered (or as a "milk calf" which is a cruelty not created by the devil). The cow is milked between two and four years, and then it is also slaughtered for meat. Most of the meat in Israel is from the dairy industry.
What to do that meat is delicious...
This is a female friend... and she has not taken (to date) any "supplements". What she lacks is iron, and there is not much iron in the plant (there is probably enough for a large part of the population, but not for everyone).
Michael - We didn't develop for a specific purpose, of course. Eating cooked meat, and even wearing clothes are the result of evolution. Is evolution moral? probably not. But eating from animals is an existential need (if you are willing to take pills then please, I don't see a problem with that).
Michael - what about milk? eggs? fish? You don't eat any of these? It's the same moral, isn't it?
In general, I have no problem with your arguments. You mentioned the subject of consciousness. In my opinion, everyone puts such a limit of consciousness. I certainly don't eat man, monkey, whale, dog or cat. This is my limit. That's why I say it's not a matter of morality.
On the connection between vegetarianism and health
Miracles:
There is nothing wrong with eating meat if you do not cause suffering to the animal. The problem is that it is impossible.
After all, the same can be said about humans. How about eating a person without causing them suffering?
I do not find anything wrong with eating carcasses and I hereby inform you that if I had survived a plane crash in the Pole I would not have hesitated to eat those who were killed if it would increase my chances of survival.
Your vegetarian friend isn't eating right and it's possible to be vegetarian and incredibly healthy. I have been doing this for over 30 years.
Therefore there is no need to convince him to eat meat. It is enough to convince him to be tested and see what he lacks and then find what he should eat to treat this lack.
Today it is possible to get all the food we need without taking the lives of sentient beings.
Humans have not evolved into anything. To think that humans evolved for some need is to believe in God.
Humans choose their path and in fulfilling it they are constantly fighting what nature has "planned" for them.
Otherwise they would have died at the age of 40.
Therefore, all these considerations of "man's destiny" or "what is natural for man" are not relevant at all.
Razi
I don't do propaganda. I'm telling the truth. You cannot bring an argument of health for veganism, and immediately say that you have to take pills all your life.
You should eat much less meat for many reasons. But it is not true to say that a little meat is not healthy - I know of no evidence for such a claim.
And there are other substances that are missing in the plant (carnosine for example) - this is probably the reason why vegans don't live anymore...
Miracles, we already answered that. Carnivorous women need to take iron and folic acid supplements in certain periods, just like vegan women. It has nothing to do with diet. In my opinion, and maybe I'm wrong, you're just making propaganda for the meat.
So I finish, enjoy and you all enjoy the phenomenon Frank Maderano, a pale and weak man, worth one hundred percent vegan. worth to see.
http://freefromharm.org/health-nutrition/vegan-bodybuilder-displays-superhuman-strength-destroys-misconceptions/
Razi
Really skinny? Is there B12 in the plant? Is there enough iron in the plant? So I'm letting you know that some women don't have enough iron in the plant - and you can ask any doctor (medical doctor...)
We evolved to eat meat. There is no logic that living without meat at all is healthier. Life without meat just seems longer…..
Miracles, assuming you eat a healthy vegan diet based mainly on fruits, vegetables and green leaves. The only supplement that will be included is B12, and it was written above that cows in industrial dairy farms also receive B12 that is produced from bacteria.
Such a diet is much more natural than consuming hamburgers that have been disinfected with ammonia, pasteurized milk, mercury-contaminated fish and meat from cows that have eaten chicken feces.
The original Xi
It is written in this article - specifically - that synthetic supplements are required to live. So let's be more precise next time shall we?
Miracles, there is nothing wrong with eating a carcass you found, provided you were able to cook it very well and remove the pathogens from it.
The only problem is that as soon as there is a demand for carcasses we will reach exactly the carcass industry that exists today. Therefore, when there is so much food around, it is better not to eat carcasses as well.
Your story about the vegetarian person who has health problems due to not eating meat - with all due respect to you and I really respect, the story is not credible. There is no such thing, if a person lacks iron or calcium or anything else that is in meat, it is possible to get it from plants, and no honest nutritionist will tell you the opposite. There is no reference to such a thing in the medical records.
Of course, if there was such a thing and a person had to eat meat to stay alive, I would certainly agree to that too, but there really isn't, these are only myths and fears and superstitions.
Michael
If your consideration is moral, then what's wrong with eating meat provided you don't cause suffering to the animal? What's wrong with eating carcasses for example?
You did not refer to any link (at least not when I responded). And now - I did read the link.
I get, in principle, what you are saying there.
And Michael - speaking of morality - I know a man who is a vegetarian and who, as a result of not eating meat, has serious health problems. I try to dissuade him from eating meat, so he doesn't die. Am I immoral in your eyes? If he dies, and leaves children without a parent, is he moral in your eyes?
Morality should be tested at the edges, not where it is convenient.
I just want to point out that much of what the vegetarians say is true. You can eat much, much less meat. Suffering can be prevented and damage to the environment can be prevented. But humans did not evolve to completely avoid meat. And I think you are just as aware of it as I am.
Father, you wrote:
"And what will those who do not have a credit card do to hunt with it, and with the disappearance of 80% of all food, naturally the price of the remaining food will rise dramatically?"
I don't know if you are asking seriously or not, the basic vegan food is cheaper and you can make anything out of it and eat delicious and healthy.
What is relatively expensive today (everything in Israel is expensive) is the ready-made vegan food, the companies and the marketing chains are extorting money on it because these are supposed to be "health" needs for a niche. But that is changing. At the moment Tnuva has come out with some very successful soy delicacies, the price varies depending on where you buy, between 6.5 NIS for a pair of cups (Rami Levy) and 9 NIS (Shuppersel). Even NIS 6.5 is beyond the realistic price, but not unusual for the milk delicacies in the refrigerator. You should buy it because it's really delicious. And without pus.
Nissim There is no response from you pending or spam comments.
Michael
I wrote you a comment that disappeared...
Miracles:
First of all - when you wrote "animal abuse" you were talking about morality, so why do you suddenly claim that moral considerations are irrelevant?
Now - it seems you didn't even read the link I pointed to because then you would understand that intelligence plays a part in determining our morality and our intelligence (at least most of us) is greater than that of a lion.
Michael
There are several arguments for vegetarianism. Assaf's arguments, such as the damage to the environment, abuse of the stock market and the health aspect - we can certainly talk about them. These are really difficult and important problems.
But - the moral aspect, that killing animals is immoral is, in my opinion, irrelevant. I already wrote above - is a lion immoral?? And what about eating carcasses - what's wrong with that?
And what will those who do not have a credit card to hunt with, and with the disappearance of 80% of all food, naturally the price of the remaining food will rise dramatically?
Father, the poem you brought is the example of the cultural concealment of animal food production atrocities especially in the last century.
Max:
I didn't say that meat eaters kill people but I suggest that you think carefully about the meaning of your words as a whole.
Humans are on an evolutionary continuum to which animals also belong.
Animals too - just like humans - feel and hurt.
At a certain point in your response you mention the subject of intelligence and in fact invite the question of whether you would eat a retarded person (and by definition there are retarded people whose intelligence is less than that of animals).
In general - the definition of "man" is also flexible and there were people who defined man in such a way that blacks or Jews were not included in the definition.
But I really don't want to expand on the matter.
There is, in my opinion, no absolute morality and therefore there is no preaching of any kind to rely on.
I think, however, that it is possible and desirable to define a universal morality (one that all human beings can agree on. It differs from an absolute morality in that there is no external factor dictating it and it is simply the result of agreement and its universality comes from the fact that it is a broad agreement) and I have a feeling that avoiding taking one's life of animals may be part of such a morality.
You are welcome to read Here is a little more about what I call "universal morality".
Father, if you claim that your schnitzel is natural to you, then go throw stones at small animals or shoot arrows and javelins at them, and eat their meat. Of course you don't have milk and dairy products. You don't have any eggs either, you can search the nests and occasionally find an egg. Very quickly you will eliminate the wild animals in your neighborhood and you will also end up in jail. You will collect plant food in the fields that are still around, and from time to time you will eat an embryo. enjoy your meal.
We've been doing it for millions of years, so according to you it's natural.
But you go hunting with your credit card, animals raised in hangars, tens of thousands crammed in cages in piles of manure and smelling of ammonia that you can't enter without a mask, trucked to Zoglovac and someone killed them for you. You "collect" your plant-based food with a credit card at the jade. There is nothing natural about it.
According to you, it is natural to live like a million years ago, but the truth is that it is natural in your eyes only when it concerns eating meat. In all other things, life from a million years ago is no longer so natural in your eyes. Contrary to nature you buy your food at the supermarket because we have agriculture, contrary to nature most children survive after the age of five because we have medicine, contrary to nature you do not rape women or kill children like the chimpanzees because our morals have evolved, contrary to human "nature" you too Don't keep slaves and you are nobody's slave. We simply evolved and none of this was really "natural".
Like quite a few people, you put your finger on "natural" wherever it's convenient for you to justify the desire for meat. Exactly like you plantation owners said that negro slavery was natural. Because they are different, because they are wild, because they are like animals...
The truth is that the only natural thing for man like any other animal is to eat. eat what is available to him and what is enough for him. We have enough plant food without being cruel. It is assumed that you are not cruel to dogs and do not eat them, you only eat from a limited list of animals that are supposedly "moral" in our culture to be cruel to. This is exactly the Kernist ideology. In our carnist ideology dogs do not appear on the list, in the Chinese they do appear. The funny thing is that we despise the Chinese for this. What to do, in their eyes it is natural.
Eating is natural, what has changed over the generations are the methods of obtaining food, which have changed as our tools have developed and as our morals have developed.
Anyone can start an organization. If it was GOV it would be an official American government organization.
Michael, you are a vegetarian, but these religious extremists want us to be vegans and not drink milk and not eat eggs, the following song will be illegal under their rule. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELR2x5RvIKI
Michael, meat eaters don't kill people.
There is a difference between murder, i.e. the killing of a *person* (and I cannot emphasize enough the word person here), and slaughter, which is the termination of the life of an unintelligent food animal, which was raised all its life for one and one purpose only.
Miracles, complete vegetarianism is healthy and even has health benefits over other diets, see a document published by the American Nutrition Organization, which emphasizes that this diet is suitable for all stages of life.
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2009_ADA_position_paper.pdf
Regarding the environmental damage, refer to the UN report dealing with the issue
hftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/A0701E/A0701E00.pdf
Friends:
I have been a vegetarian for years and I admit that I would be happy if everyone did so.
I do not preach vegetarianism, partly because I am afraid of the reactions.
Indeed, here too I have learned (through the flesh of others, in the meantime) that the fear is justified.
After all, what can I answer to a person who tells a vegetarian that he doesn't tell him what to do with his life, so please let the vegetarian respect that and not preach to him what to do?
If he does not see that he is allowing himself - not only to interfere in other people's lives but also to observe them - what basis is there even for an argument?!
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3616280,00.html
Leah
"Murder" is a legal concept. "Insane" is a medical/legal term. Are you calling me an insane murderer? 🙂
If morality applies to animals then is a lion immoral? Is he a murderer? Or maybe he is insane?
You have every right to decide that eating meat is immoral. And I have every right to think otherwise.
Will you respect my rights too, Leah?
Something that every human has done for millions of years is not ideology but nature. And not only do I eat meat, my dog does too. Maybe you want to starve him too in the name of ideology? No ideology that wanted to go against human nature survived (ie communism).
Avi Blizovsky, you wrote "I oppose any extremist ideology whatsoever".
Isn't killing animals and swallowing them an extreme ideology? Just some kind of habit done absent-mindedly?
Eating animals every day and killing them is an insane act. The objectification of animals is not a product of thought.
The vicious habit of harming another person, human, cat, dog or rooster is abhorrent by any moral standard.
What about aquaculture?
Neva
calm down a bit You "represent" a small and not serious group. You have no basis to state that the meat industry is collapsing. Distinguish between your heart's desires and the real world.
There are one and a half billion cows in the world. What exactly do you propose to do with them? Release into the wild? prevent them from reproducing? Kill everyone in a "humane" way?
I wrote to you earlier - let's deal with the problems that eating meat creates, and not your personal agenda, okay?
Hi Asaf, the title of your article is "stop meat completely - no chance", right? This is a strong statement against veganism. It is also not true, it is not a fact but a wish. But maybe you didn't write the title.
Yes, I read what you wrote and responded to it, why do you think not? I fixed several things and I hope it is acceptable to you. I have no problem with the ecological claim, it is very true, the animal industry is today the first threat on the planet.
Of course I don't have a problem with mercy, but mercy and reduction do not go together, won't you have mercy on the practices you eat?
Downsizing is also not a solution from a practical point of view, and I wrote about that. The solution is to end our love affair with the animal industry, and that is starting to happen. The animal industry is collapsing under its own weight, and humanity is beginning to look at this industry and no longer accept the cruelty. We are at the end of the animal industry and the beginning of the vegan revolution. A lot of money is invested in the development of the next generation of plant-based food and we will see the products in the coming years, some are already reaching the market. If you feel like continuing to discuss, you are welcome to raise the issue in the vegetarian and vegan forum in Poznan, the owner of the pub here does not fit the spirit of things. Goodbye.
- Anyone who has read the list with even a hint of opposition to vegetarianism... will come back and read the appendices as well.
At the same time, eating animal food is natural, not so is the (religious) call to vegetarianism or veganism.
- Those who claim that humans are vegetarians by nature are simply wrong, like monkeys, pigs and many others
Man is... after all,
"Hunter-gatherers" gather and hunt everything and also eat carcasses, we are their descendants,
Inuit eat carcasses of marine mammals, to this day there are "hunters" in Africa who drive them away
Super-carnivores prey on them and "rob" the meat.
What to do and most of us don't grow vegetable gardens but buy food in supermarkets
I knew that the list would provoke reactions, I did not think that those who would respond would do so without reading,
(or without reading comprehension) because the title and the opening paragraph say it all
For whoever will read the whole It will be seen that there is a call for a reduction in the consumption of animal food
while considering (compassion?) farm animals,
Those who read my previous lists will understand (perhaps) that as far as I'm concerned
The main importance is in environmental thinking,
That's why the "motto" with which I end many lists.
In short, I am against anyone who tells others - in their community or outside it how to behave, what to eat, when to travel, who to marry, etc. And in particular when he allegedly uses science to justify his demands, and science I know.
I don't think I'm rude, I oppose any extreme ideology whatsoever, and that's my right. Just as I oppose Chabad's takeover of Ramat Aviv (sponsored by the rat race) Hari Krishna, and also Scientologists or any other totalitarian faith.
Wow, Avi Bilizovsky is the editor of "Hidan", you are rude.
And unfortunately (of the cows) he is also not well versed in the subject.
thank you for the hospitality
You start talking like the religious people, you know what is good for me, and therefore you have to deny me the freedom of choice so that I can only eat what you see fit. Eat what you want, even develop a line of vegetarian kosher, but don't oblige others, because you can't do anything against nature, look at the failure of Judaism and Islam that limit the food a person can eat. Would you like to reach the situation of Sudan where the representatives of the government break beer bottles so they can see and be seen?
Avi Bilizovsky, I disagree with you with your permission because it is the exact opposite. We don't have a dunam or a half dunam or a quarter dunam to grow animal food. The numbers are at your disposal online, please delve into them, because the picture is simply the other way around.
Once upon a time in a rural society a person could keep a cow and let it graze in a grove near the village, this does not exist today, no, we all eat from the industry, even in the United States only a cow or calf 1 out of 5 graze more or less not all the time, and most of the pastured meat in America is imported from Australia .
Secondly, the nutritional values in meat are a myth of the industrialists. Everything that is in meat is in plants, but really, and in a better form. The only exception is b12 which is produced by bacteria. The cow in the past got it from the land she grazed on, but today the cows don't graze, so they get B12 supplements, the same supplements that humans take. Did you know that most of the b12 in the world is intended for the cattle industry? It's true. (Most of the antibiotics that are produced in the world are also intended for the meat, milk, chicken, egg and fish industry, but you probably know that)
The progivoric or omnivorous debate is not that important. The fact is we don't need anything from animals. Biologically we are progivores, and behaviorally we are omnivores like countless other animals, meaning we eat meat when we have the chance. But we as humans do not have to wait for the remains of prey that some carnivore has left, we know how to hunt with our minds, not with our bodies but with our brains and with the tools we have developed.
The important thing is to make the mental switch and not kill, not enslave, not steal the babies as soon as they are born, not rape, not burn, not castrate, this is a cruel industry like no other, it's just madness, these are things you sit at home and scream when you see them , and yet pays for them, we have reached a point where human morality can no longer accept it.
I really think that those who do not recognize this simply have not been exposed enough to the industry.
It is not an ideology, if it was an ideology it could not be shared by people with such different views as socialism and capitalism, religion and atheism, etc. The fact that you convince yourself with nonsense, some people convince themselves that they can fly, it does not turn humans into birds.
I know the vegan brainwashing sites, and just because others write crap doesn't mean I have to follow them. It is the right of those who do not want to eat animal food (by the way, what do you have against honey?) but not to turn into an ideology and not to close our restaurants like the ultra-Orthodox take care to neutralize the non-kosher restaurants in Israel.
Hello Asaf
First, regarding populations of meat eaters who do not have the option and access to other food sources.
These small populations that still exist here and there on the globe do not manage agriculture and do not manage an animal industry. They are not us, we live off industry, and we have a huge variety and a huge abundance and surplus of agricultural crops of every kind imaginable, and they satisfy all our physical and gastronomic needs. We have no physical or mental need for animal scraps, we have no physical or mental need to kill even one goat, in fact we oppose it. So why do we still kill the Capricorn?
In the second paragraph you agreed with the most important thing that sums up veganism - we cause suffering to animals, we cause them suffering that goes against our whole being, which we would not cause to our dog or cat, nor can we inflict it with our own hands to a lamb or a cow. That's why we pay someone else to do it for us out of sight, so we don't see. (Mostly disenfranchised foreign workers and disadvantaged minorities are the ones who work in this industry and in the slaughterhouses) We live in a huge self-conscious fraud. And try to make excuses for her, as you, if you'll excuse me, do.
Later you wrote that it is necessary and possible to reduce the number of suffering animals - out of pity, out of identification with their suffering. The same pity that brought you to the conclusion that it is not good to abuse two cows, must, in my opinion, as a person honest with himself, bring you to the conclusion that it is not good to abuse one cow as well.
Beyond that, also from a practical point of view, "one day without meat" will not change anything, because the consumption curve is rising steeply, and in a few years we will reach the same situation we are in today, and we will have to switch to "two days without meat". All these solutions are an exercise to cling to the animal food that we are so used to that we really think it is the way of the world and that it is essential to us. This is how we justify the animal industry which is against our conscience.
Carnism is so ingrained in our souls that we think it's a part of us, but no, we're just addicted and veganism is just a mental switch, we don't need meat, chicken, milk, eggs, nothing. It's easier to make this switch than it seems from the outside.
What you wrote about palm oil is demagogic, I apologize, because it has nothing to do with veganism, it is a cheap oil that the industrialists in all the food industries use, it is a very unhealthy oil, and we would be happy if there was a change in this matter.
Bottom line, we need to abandon the Kernist ideology once and for all. The animal industry, which began with the industrial revolution, relies on the dominant carnist ideology, which, like any violent dominant ideology, says that animal food is: "natural, necessary, and normal". Just as the enslavement of Negroes was "natural, necessary and normal", just as the oppression of women is "natural, necessary and normal".
Since it is a violent ideology it also relies on a system of myths and concealment techniques. The murder is always done away from the matter, the victims are not seen, because if they are seen we will stop eating meat. Indeed, America already has a law against "terrorism towards the animal industry", and terrorism according to this law is any action or speech that harms the profits of this industry. Several states in the US already have AG GAG, laws that forbid the filming of investigations within the industry such as Red Red and Vasogloback, because as soon as the industry is exposed more people become vegan.
Neva
It is not accurate to say that we eat plants. The closest animal in Utah to us, the chimpanzee eats meat every chance it gets. Our ancestors evolved to hunt and cook. It's part of the evolution process we went through. You can say that our hunting tool is our brain, and it developed to its extreme dimensions thanks to eating cooked meat.
I agree that eating meat causes many environmental problems. I agree that eating a lot of meat is not healthy. And I agree that there is a serious problem of animal cruelty.
But note that the solution is not necessarily vegetarianism, what's more, we know that complete vegetarianism is not healthy.
Hunger results from an unfair distribution of resources, not from a lack of food. In the countries of abundance, food is thrown away in huge quantities.
Again, you are playing with the data. Humans are omnivores and do not eat meat only during Mitzvah. It is a fact that every culture that passes the minimum of economic well-being goes to the meat because today we do not have the possibility to give every inhabitant of the earth a dunam or even half a dunam or a quarter of a dunam for growing plants. Meat has the highest nutritional value. Therefore, very few people eat a kilo of meat in one meal. There are a lot of vitamins and other ingredients that are not found in plant foods, especially if those people abstain from eggs and milk, and of course you completely ignored the synergy in crops.
In addition, meat is a little less sensitive to changes in drought (at least in regulated countries like Israel) than plants that grow outside. At most they will have to bring purchased straw instead of letting the cows roam the Golan Heights and eat the grass that grows there naturally and that year it will be a little more expensive.
to Omar (and others)
I already wrote in the past that "end of response in reading comprehension"...
Nowhere did I write "against veganism" or vegetarianism,
Simply because I have nothing against vegetarianism, veganism in my opinion is an expensive tendency
But whoever wants to... let him be perfumed,
I mentioned that for certain populations vegetarianism is not practical or possible,
The editor added the data on "90 percent" as well as the paragraph on "debating with vegans",
And again, whoever bothered to read the two appendices/links
would "discover" all the "missing" data...
Hello Assaf and hello to the website editor,
Thank you for bringing up this important topic, unfortunately there were quite a few mistakes in what was written and there is a lot to reply to, I would like to first respond to the editor's comments.
The thought of the utilization of cellulose in practice is not correct, because growing a kilogram of animal food requires much more plant resources than growing food from plants, here are some facts on the tip of the fork:
40% of all agricultural crop areas in the world are intended for growing food for the animal industry.
In the same agricultural area where you can feed one person with meat, you can feed 30 people with equivalent plant food. In chicken it is a little less.
Almost 100% of the soy that is grown in the world is used for the animal industry.
Very high percentages of corn, about 80%, a little lower of cereals, are also intended for the livestock industry.
That is, in a rough estimate, if all of humanity does not consume anything from animals tomorrow, we will save about a quarter of all the agricultural fields in the world. This is a figure that is difficult to grasp, because the dimensions of the animal industry are unfathomable.
30% of our planet's surface is dedicated to growing food for animals, and this also includes the pastures that thin the soil and for which the rainforests are now being regenerated. 70% of the rainforest clearing is for pasture.
Bill Gates invests in the development of animal food and believes in a vegan world, Beyond Egg is already on the market and will arrive in Israel soon, hopefully, in his presentation there are data on the terrible waste of the animal industry. These and other data are of course found in many places on the net.
http://www.thegatesnotes.com/features/future-of-food
A note regarding opposition to genetic engineering - this is not a vegan agenda, I personally, for example, am not opposed in principle if it is done with utmost care. In contrast, I know many carnists who are against it, it has nothing to do with veganism.
A note about the fact that we are not vegetarians - we are vegetarians. We cannot digest cellulose like the giraffe and the horse, which have an even more sophisticated digestive system, but our digestive system is built for plant digestion, like the monkeys you mentioned, pigs, and countless other animals.
A creature with a herbivorous digestive system can easily digest animal food as well, since it does not have a wall and is easy to digest. Indeed, many rabbis will also eat animal food if they get the chance - a chicken will eat chicken, a pig will eat meat, a squirrel will eat an insect that happens to come across it, a monkey will eat ants or lizards that come across it, even birds - a raccoon will eat a piece of cheese if it gets the chance. The animals are constantly busy looking for food, and animal food is just as nutritious proteins and fats as plant food.
The important thing is that we are in no way carnivores, firstly because we have no equipment for prey, and secondly because our digestive system is herbivorous, and certainly not designed to digest raw meat.
The fact is that we do not need any animal food for our health and life, everything we need is found in plants, and we eat animal food only because we are used to it and "it tastes good to us". This whole illusory mega-industry, if you'll forgive me, but it's really illusory because we pay for things to be done that we would never do ourselves and we're not even able to look at them, this whole industry is for the sake of gluttony.
And of course, for the profits of the industrialists, who pump up the myths, like the milk myth.
This is about the editor's notes.
Later I will answer Assaf's words, which included some critical mistakes and misconceptions about veganism.
- Even after taking into account what the cow eats and what humans can eat, to produce animal food requires 5 to 20 times larger areas than vegan food. You are welcome to look for the UN report on the subject.
-When over 90% of the world's soy cultivation goes to the animal food industry, it is quite ridiculous to mention soy as a factor in deforestation as an argument against veganism.
-Tradition is not a justification for moral injustice. Certainly not in the 21st century. Furthermore, when you buy a dish of shawarma, it's not because of tradition or some necessity. It's comfort, habit, taste, which tramples compassion, responsibility and forward thinking. Vegans require you to rise above that and remember what this dish means.
-Palm oil is found in processed products. For the sake of your health, it is recommended to reduce/cease from them, in addition to the ecological and moral damage involved. It is not found in tahini, rice, buckwheat, beans, peas, chickpeas, lentils, bulgur, quinoa, soybeans, pulses, peanuts, almonds, nuts, dates, vegetables, fruits and a host of vegan and healthy food products. Therefore it has nothing to do with veganism, and it is simply demagoguery on your part to mention it as an argument against veganism. Margarine is also vegan and no one would say that it is part of a healthy diet. It's about the same as me mentioning eating human flesh as an argument against carnism.
-As a wise woman said, man is a chozivor. He can choose what he eats. And today most people choose evil.
I prefer fertilizer from my own species and not the excrement of another species, just as it is better not to consume milk intended for another species and just as it is better to save resources when you stop growing in the way that this destructive industry operates today.
Hello Dr. Rosenthal,
You present (very) partial data and based on that make far-reaching claims.
I would appreciate it if you could add the following data to the article and add sources and bases for the existing claims.
- You claim that if a person is fed a plant-based diet, 90% of the plant "goes to waste". I think this claim is very inaccurate. Even if it is true that the average person can use 10% of the plant (source?), in most of the plants we eat, we only use the fruit and the whole plant continues to grow or not and then it recycles itself and turns into carbon in the soil and every one fertilizes it and the 90% you talked about does not "Going to waste".
- You did not refer to the data on the amounts of vegetation that are invested to feed the farm animals that humans eat. These data should include information on the amount of vegetation areas used to create food for farm animals, the amount of areas used for the farms themselves, amounts of water and how all these data would change if we were to switch to a diet based on plant food only. These are not just additional marginal data, these are critical data that can turn your claim upside down.
- You are talking about damage to insects and rodents and this brings me back to my previous point - first of all, publish data on the amount of agricultural land that will be needed for humanity that feeds on plant food. Maybe it will turn out that the amount of land in general will be reduced due to the fact that we will not have to feed the farm animals.
- You are very concerned about the well-being of populations that eat meat for traditional reasons or for other reasons, but do not refer to the data on world hunger and the data on mortality from starvation that may result from the extravagance involved in a diet based on animal food (this point can also be addressed only when you publish the data I requested in the previous sections) .
Omar.
It might be advisable to download the linguistic editor's comments before you click on "Publish"...