Why is it that Vegans feel guilt free about their diets?!
That basically says they are contributing to the deaths of millions of animals anyhow, so what is the big deal? Please read before you respond
Answers: http://web.archive.org/web/2004110708452...
That basically says they are contributing to the deaths of millions of animals anyhow, so what is the big deal? Please read before you respond
Those animals who are killed by farm machinery were not living in deplorable conditions before they died, there are things much worse than death as I am sure you know. I really wish I did not have to eat at all, but that is unrealistic. As humans progress so do the ways in which we do things. Vegetarians and vegans are interested in exploring ways that are less violent and cruel for all aspects of life. I should think this would be the goal of most mature persons. There is really no such thing as guilt free, it's just a marketing term.
I am vegan for health reasons, not for any noble "save the animals" sentiments. And yes, I'm quite aware that animals die every day to support me (and everyone else on the planet). Saving animals is not why I chose vegan (and I'm sure there are a lot of others that chose vegan for other reasons as well).
first of all vegans are responsable for way less death then the others
Also, they don't kill these animals, farmers do. They don't eat or encourage in anyway those killings
Most of all, they probably are not even aware of that situation
At last, what should they eat to be 100% sure not to kill an animal?
Interesting. The article does point out, though, that veganism is still morally superior to pork, poultry and lamb production, all of which depend heavily on feed. Harvesting feed kills voles, mice as well. So does dairy, and to a lesser extent, beef, especially in areas of high production like Wisconsin. Pastures are more common in places like Texas, North Dakota and states which have the space.
The article basically suggests eliminating all meat except pasture-beef and pasture-dairy. This is even more ridiculous than veganism because we don't have enough pasture to support the current levels of meat and dairy consumption.
Although pasture is very healthy for the animal, it does not have the concentrated nutrition of corn and barley feed. So you need a lot of land area for that.
Riverrat,
It's demand for meat that causes the constant methane production.
"Even if less grain was produced due to not farming animals, then humans would eat more grain anyway"
Frederick,
Uhhh...I highly doubt humans are suddenly going to start consuming an extra 10 lbs of grain per person, every day. Our stomachs are only so big.
I don't know if anyone anywhere feels particularly guilt free about their diets or lifestyles.
All we can do is try our best to do what we feel sits most comfortably with our own beliefs.
People who eat meat still contribute to the deaths of the "animals of the field". They still eat crops too. At least vegans save as many innocent lives as possible.
Also, noone is actually setting out to try and kill those animals. They just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And at least they're not subjected to the kind of living conditions that animals in slaughterhouses are.
Maybe vegan diets aren't totally guilt-free, but they are certainly not responsible for anywhere near as many deaths as anyone who does eat meat.
For the record, I'm not a vegan myself. I'm a vegetarian. :)
One point that isn't addressed - if we didn't eat cows, for example, how much LESS grain would have to be planted and harvested, thus saving THAT many more happy little mice and snakes?
It kind of makes the round-about point for a morally-superior vegan (whom I understand to be quite delicious when roasted).
Why, hello, Mr. Troll. Let me guess: you think that because animals are killed when plants are harvested, we may as well say forget it and just eat animals. Right? Well, in case you didn't realize it, those animals you eat have to eat something, right? And it takes a lot of grain to produce a pound of meat, did you know that? So you're not only killing the animal that makes your cowburger or your pigs' ribs or your chicken wings, you're killing all the animals during the harvesting of the grain to feed that animal. And I'm pretty sure you eat vegetables, as well, so YOU'RE killing them, too.
And don't tell me you care about these animals because I'm pretty sure you don't. You just want a reason to justify your meat eating.
I read the liberal nutcase article I think its COW FARTS destroying the ozone layer.... I will do my best to eat as many burgers and steaks as possible!
Nothing is guilt-free. It's all about minimizing. It is inevitable that some animals will get killed in farming, but by being vegan, you are not part of the supply and demand of meat, hence not contributing to the misery of the animal that are raised and killed for meat, which is a vanity. You must also remember that animals raised for meat consume a lot more food than humans so meat eaters contribute to the killing discussed in the article many times over than vegetarians.
Lastly, the basis of the vegan idea is this: You need to eat to live, but you don't need to eat meat to live. Meat is simply a vanity for which animals suffer in misery.
That was the stupidest article I've read in a while.
You noticed that it is five years old, didn't you?
I almost feel sorry for the fool that wrote it, I'm assuming that he is college-educated but he still sounds this clueless.
It was really funny at the end when they suggested that people eat nothing but beef and dairy from grazing cattle.
First of all, you couldn't feed nearly 400 million people that way and most importantly, that is the unhealthiest diet I can think of.
You know that the average meat-eater is responsible for the death of more field animals than a vegan person, don't you? This is on top of the miserable life that the animals being raised have to suffer before their horrific slaughter. Most animals that are raised for food are fed a grain-based diet and you need far more yield to raise animals than you do to feed people directly.
It takes ~ 20lbs of grain to produce one lb of beef. 20lbs of grain will feed many more people than one lb of beef. So, meat production results in far more farming than plant food production.
Jaffi say nonsense!
Don't believe anyting you read!
V* diet much betta for you mon.
I don't think any of them are guilt-free. No one can be that blind. It's the guilt that drives them.
well.. what YOU don't know.. won't hurt ya..
just deal with it and live your life and eat all the meat you want..
(tee hee hee)
I YOU read the article in it's entirety you would see that professor Davis is working to improve agricultural methods to reduce the number of wildlife killed during harvesting not to try and convince people not to be vegan. Stop trying to manipulate an article to tailor to YOUR point of view. Besides there is a risk to everything but I would much rather eat a food that was harvested without the intent of spilling blood as opposed to one in which bloodshed is the ultimate goal. At least we have a goal in mind to reduce animal suffering. What sort of suffering are YOU trying to reduce or end? Also, you mention the food chain but nothing about biology. You really should study your own human biology before you go ranting off myths.
There is no such thing as guilt free. Even the best things will have a down side, You obviously don't know what goes on in slaughter houses or you wouldn't even bring this up. Meat animals are killed in ways that most people can't handle to know. Some vegan do grow their own food but some live in areas where they are unable to do so. "Because it taste good" is the worst and most over used excuse for eating meat. Who cares if it taste good, is your comfort worth the miserable life that the cow had to live? The animals that are accidentally killed during the proses of any kind of food production are a terrible loss but at least there lives where spent happy and free. I don't think that there is such a thing as 100% vegan. If you are ok with eating meat it is just because you have lied and reasoned with yourself into thinking that its ok. All I'm saying is look at the vegans side, go watch a video or two, then come back and talk about this. Yes the losses are horrible but at least I try.
If you eat meat, then you are not only eating the dead animal's flesh, you are also indirectly eating all the cereals that were needed to feed the animal for it to grow and be nice and fat. So by eating meat, you are eating about 10 times as much cereals as we vegans are. So not only killing the animal you're eating, but also 10 times more mice and other little animals that god killed by accident during harvesting.
So yeah vegans aren't perfect, but we are hell of a lot less cruel and got much less blood on our hands than you have.
Go vegan!
whether vegans are killing animals inadvertently or not, the point is that we are trying the best that we can, and a lot of does do grow our own food so maybe stop being so damn ignorant
I hear ya !!
And I REALLY don't understand why they are always out in the garden WHACKING down the vegetables ... Wouldn't the humane thing to do be leave the vegetables in the garden for the animals to eat? WHY are they always depriving the animals of their vegetables? They should leave the vegetables in the garden for the animals to eat so they can get bigger, and plumper, and yummier !!
Cause they are too sick to feelanything!
That article is excellent!. I personally don't care one way or the other. However, I have always thought that vegeterians that ate fish were so hypocritical. You know, with all the sea creatures that aren't edible that are killed. Obviously, your listed article doesn't touch on that. I never thought about rodents though.
Of course I think of Vegans as women, so killing mice may fit into their "ethics".
Nothing wrong about that if JOB sacrifice an animal to God so "He" sow nothing wrong, easy is to eat meat instead to root
They feel guilt free because they don't comprehend that EVERYTHING needs to be dilivered by truck and that almost everything has some form of animal involved in the processing...
I love the people that say that they only eat Organic because it is better for the earth...
Um... That "Organic" mango from south america had to be shipped using more gas then you can imagine!!
A great article to read (and great site to visit) is off of Live Science:
16 Organic Apples and a Gallon of Gas
By Christopher Wanjek, LiveScience’s Bad Medicine Columnist
posted: 27 June 2006 08:40 am ET
Do you like the taste of juicy organic apples from Washington? They're not bad, but they could taste sweeter if each one didn't involve a cup of gasoline.
In your quest to eat healthier food and do better by the environment, you might want to place more value on local food products than on organic foods.
It might seem sacrilegious to pooh-pooh organic food—that is, food grown in pooh-pooh as opposed to synthesized fertilizers and pesticides. But as revealed in the June issue of Sierra magazine, the environmental price for organic foods is sometimes hidden.
Simply put, one must consider transportation costs. Apples grown in the state of Washington are trucked, on average, more than 1,700 miles. That adds up to a cup of gasoline used to ship each apple. California grapes require up to 4 cups of gasoline per bunch when shipped across the country. And so on.
These calculations were originally published in 2004 in a book chapter in "Environment Development and Sustainability 6," by David Pimentel of Cornell University and his colleagues.
Go local
Also, mass-produced foods, either grown by organic or conventional methods, are usually picked well before ripening to prevent rotting during shipping. They are less tasty and contain fewer vitamins and minerals compared to local varieties. In fact, this summer is a good time to visit a local farmers' market and talk to the sellers about these issues.
I'm not anti-organic. I need to state that up front considering the angry email I received after I suggested that visiting untrained, unlicensed naturopaths practicing medicine based on medieval superstition could harm your health. I am, after all, reading Sierra, the pro-environmental magazine of the Sierra Club.
I merely hope to point out that blindly buying organically can be foolhardy.
Consider that unless you are eating rocks, all food is organic. Technically, organic refers to anything with a chain of hydrogen and carbon atoms. All living organisms are organic. So is gasoline. So is dry-cleaning fluid, which I now see advertised as "organic" by unscrupulous merchants capitalizing on the public perception that "organic" equals "safe."
What's in a word
The word "organic" has come to mean plant-based food grown without synthetic fertilizers, as well as animals fed organic food during the few months to few years they were alive. It doesn't inherently mean healthy or fair.
Organic manure could contain lead and cadmium, naturally. Organic junk foods can be just as unhealthy as conventional junk food, albeit with organic fat and sugar. The organic label says nothing about the rights of Central American workers growing organic bananas in squalid conditions, nor is it concerned with the similarly disgusting conditions in which organic meat, eggs and dairy products are often manufactured.
After all, organic is big business these days—nearly $14 billion in 2005, according to the Organic Trade Association—and big business is often business as usual.
Not so with local farming.
Local almost always means small-scale and thus more environmentally benign, fresher, healthier and cruelty-free. Talk to the farmer at the farmers' market. He might use a little pesticide but likely not much because the food product is well-suited to the environment.
Less gas
The apples I buy at a farmers' market in Baltimore are grown less than 50 miles away, and each apple "consumes" less than a teaspoon of gas on its journey to the market. Unlike the strangely happy cow on a carton of Horizon organic milk, the cows producing the (non-organic but hormone-free) milk sold locally walk freely and feed on grass and hay; they're not pen-raised and fed organic grains they cannot digest, as can be the case with some organic milks. [Related story: Even the Cows are Unhappy]
With support of local farms, fewer farms get turned into asphalt-covered shopping malls and housing complexes, which in turn means fewer natural wetlands, forests and deserts are turned into mass-commercial farms. Supporting local farms, organic or not, also fights our perverse global food market in which $20 million in U.S.-grown lettuce is exported to Mexico while $20 million Mexican-grown lettuce is imported to the United States each year, as reported in the May-June issue of Mother Jones.
Some of the food at my farmers' market is organic; other food is not. I don't worry so much, as long as it is local. I can trust the food because I'm buying it from the person who produced it.
Christopher Wanjek is the author of the books “Bad Medicine” and “Food At Work.” Got a question about Bad Medicine? Email Wanjek. If it’s really bad, he just might answer it in a future column. Bad Medicine appears each Tuesday on LIveScience.