I have to laugh whenever vegans claim they don't eat living things. Since when are plants and vegetables not living things? They aren't conscious in the same way people are but they do "live," digest, respirate, and reproduce, and some of them have elaborate networks of roots that they use to send chemical signals to each other.
Anyway, not to knock vegans, some of my friends and family are and they seem to be doing great. Just, whenever I'm eating good chicken wings, or ribs, or any meat with a bone in it, I certainly feel glad to have that "carnivorous" side.
I really can’t tell if you’re being serious or not. Poe’s law I guess. But just in case - every fucking cause or belief or whatever will have idiots doing it for illogical, pseudoscientific, ignorant, etc. reasons. I assure you majority of vegans aren’t downright stupid and ignorant. Though some confuse animals with sentience.
I am serious, in every discussion I've had about it some one always says, "but plants aren't living things." ?? Since when!
I don't mean to imply that vegans are stupid or ignorant, they have their valid reasons for being vegans. And I'm on the same wavelength with them about sentience in animals - I think they very much are sentient beings, and the way they are harvested for meat is cruel and extreme.
I also think plants have a degree of sentience - in that they can breathe and communicate (via chemicals) to other plants, the way trees "warn" each other of pests through their root systems.
But we're omnivores, and there's no way I can excuse any of it, it's just what we are. We all eat living things. It's human nature. Even mushrooms contain living larva - most canned mushrooms, for example, have some maggots since they are where flies like to lay their eggs. It's just something we learn to live with even it it's gross and/or unpleasant.
Okay now you’re the one getting into pseudoscience. What is sentience in your book? People disagree on what sentience is exactly but I think at a basic level it’s the ability to experience feelings or sensations. The process of touch is associated with our sensory organs and nervous system. First our peripheral nervous system or sensory nerves activate to stimuli and send signals to our cns or brain where we process those signals. Of course that’s a basic explanation but “consciousness” or “sentience” requires a complex nervous system to process that information and generate awareness.
As far as we know plants lack that ability to process information. Of course plants react to stimuli as they’re living as you said. For photosynthesis, it does not require any decision making or sentience. This communication you see are non-sentient responses relying on things such as gene expression. So anyways, I don’t understand the purpose of your generalizations on vegans. I’ll say it again, they are ignorant people in every community and in no way does that reflect the whole community.
For your last argument, veganism isn’t about whether or not we’re omnivores and we don’t rely on your opinion on whether or not veganism is unnatural.
I have a more "dictionary" definition of sentience, as meaning the capacity to feel, and have a degree of consciousness. Even Michael Crichton (in his book, Jurassic Park) argued that the lowest kind of plant, say a potato, has a mean degree of sentience.
And there have been many documentaries about the organization of plant communication around their root systems - many of them. So it's not really considered pseudo-science, it may just be an idea that is beginning to be understood.
And according to those very same documentaries, plants do possess the ability to process information. In human brains, which are much like a tangled root system, chemical processes are what create what we call "thoughts." It's the same in plant systems, chemical processes exist that enable plants to let nearby plants know if pests are chewing on them, if fire is near, and/or when they are ready to reproduce.
So I'm not really proposing anything that is unscientific here. And when did I EVER state that "veganism is unnatural?" You said that, I didn't. I said we're "omnivores," which means were are physiologically designed to eat and grind up meat AND plant materials, both.
Based on our understanding of biology, a prerequisite for sentience is a central nervous system. Plants have really amazing abilities to pass chemical signals, but they lack any mechanics that would allow them to internalize the signals they receive. For example, I wouldn’t say that my doorbell is sentient just because it can warn me when someone is at my door. Importantly, animals are different from plants in their ability to internalize pain, fear, sadness, etc. This is why animal ethics and welfare are considered important discussions, and why it’s damaging to invoke plant sentience to distract from that discussion.
You’re saying “vegans” as if we’re a monolith. I’m sure there are vegans who aren’t aware that plants are considered living, but I’m sure there’s about the same percentage of meat eaters who aren’t either. If every vegan you’ve ever talked to (or some, since you’ve made both claims) has this misconception, I’m willing to bet your sample size is extremely small, or you’re being intentionally dishonest to support your initial claim.
And I'm not trying to say vegans are dumb or ignorant about that. Just that I've had the experience of some of them seeming surprised and disagreeing that plants are living things.
Cool Fact: Vegans consume a total of less plants than omnivores. Animals eat plants, so if you eat them, you’re eating an animal plus everything it ate to grow up.
I mean, obviously you won’t get 100% of the energy back because most of it is spent on heating you up and moving and also heating you up, but yeah, I feel like God could’ve really done with some optimization techniques.
It’s even less. The Antilope converts 10% of grass to meat, the lion converts 10% of Antilope meat to lion meat. So it’s 10% of 10% bringing us back to the root problem of everything… The 1%!!!
Only a matter of time before plant-based alternatives fully take over from meat. Meat farming is not sustainable, as you mention all the land used to farm food for animals could be used to just farm more food for us directly.
We just have to get rid of the stigma around plant-based "meat".
At this point it isn’t so much the stigma as it is the price for a lot of us. If it was the same or cheaper than regular meat prices in my area I would buy it instead.
Huh. Now that you mention it, even where I live i actually didn’t hear any comments after soy shit fell. I didn’t notice. Still ain’t buyin substitute cu I love meat but it’s no longer due to hearing how bad it tastes - in fact I did hear some good comments lately.
It is worth mentioning that the types of plants that people and animals eat are different. Humans can’t digest cellulose and hemicellulose where herbivores can.
I can’t digest soy, soy is actually one of the most common allergies. I am actually finding that as I get older all legumes are getting a little hard for me to digest (not sure what that is about). I am someone who would have not lived though childhood with out the ability to have both the protein and calories I got from eating meat. (I couldn’t do dairy as a child either)
I get what is being said about gain finishing. A practice that is really more of a result of corporate agriculture than anything else. I just find these black and white statements about how non ag people think ag should work. Fail to take into account pastoralism or dry land grazing, while also glossing over petrochemical fertilizer uses. All the best studies I have read on the climate affects of any type of agriculture come to the conclusion that it is near impossible to tell, due to the vast number of variables. The ones that come to some strong conclusion tend to throw out a lot of data because it is too hard to use.
I have nothing against reducing meat intake nor will I ever say that vegetation diets are “bad” I just find that people are often unwilling to understand the systems they want to change.
I am someone who would have not lived though childhood with out the ability to have both the protein and calories I got from eating meat. (I couldn’t do dairy as a child either)
A soy allergy isn’t a death sentence. Eggs exist, and so do tons and tons of other sources of protein.
Cannabis seeds, for one, are great source of protein and contain all the essential aminoacids.
I was unaware of the term “grain finished”, so I looked it up.
When beef is grain-finished, cattle are free to eat a balanced diet of grain, local feed ingredients, like potato hulls or sugar beets, and hay or forage at the feedyard.
You’re not seriously suggesting that most cattle enjoy such conditions?
If you just plain do the math of the area needed for grazing versus the average consumption of beef per capita you can see that most cattle is definitely not just “grain finished”.
So for me soy was a death sentence. As a child I would get an anaphylactic reaction to soy. So yeah I had to be very careful.
I did eat eggs, lots of eggs. The thing is a large egg has about 70 calories. In my teens and 20s I had a maintenance diet of over 3000 calories a day. I could easily eat a meal of over 1000 calories and be hungry in a few hours. That is 30+ eggs a day.
I assume you mean hemp seeds? Right? It’s great that food sources like that exist. Having said that, I don’t really think they were available during the Reagan administration…
No I don’t think Grain finishing is a good thing. As I said it is a thing that exists because of commercial ag. I personally think. That JBS, national, Tyson, and Cargile are destroying the meat industry for their own gain. No one except their shareholders benefit. That is why I always advocate for people to buy their meat from the rancher. It is much better for the animals, Grass finished tastes better, and it supports independent producers.
If you just plain do the math of the area needed for grazing versus the average consumption of beef per capita you can see that most cattle is definitely not just “grain finished”.
Feel free to show me the math. Look I am not trying to be mean but that statement is just not true. That is not how cow digestion works. Both steers and nursing/pregnant heifers need to be on a grass diet. If you really want I can give you a much better break down of how exactly it works. It may be through silage or haylage, but they are not a grain diet. Grain is what makes beef marbled, that is why cows are just finished on it. Too much fat in the beef reduces its value.
Look I agree that industrial ag practices are not the right way. And as I said last time it is very important to understand a system to be able to create real change.
Yeah, eating soy with a severe soy allergy can lead to anaphylactix shock, but having a soy allergy doesn’t mean you won’t be able to get protein elsewhere, meaning you just have to not eat soy.
You can easily die of lactose intolerance as well. Diarrhea is historically in like the top 3 causes of death.
I assume you mean hemp seeds? Right?
The plant is called cannabis.
“Hemp” is for people who don’t understand that “hemp” is a political term and that “hemp seeds” are in fact cannabis seeds and that even the most psychoactive cannabis has no psychoactive alkaloids in the seeds.
No I don’t think Grain finishing is a good thing
Not what I asked. I asked if you seriously think most cattle is “grain finished” when literally a vast majority of the world’s cattle is fed solely on feed and never even see grass.
“Feel free to show me, I’m unable to back up anything I said and I think it’s up to you to disprove me instead of me being able to support the things I’m saying.”
And you talk about being annoyed by people who don’t know what they’re talking about?
soy is not a death sentence Even when it was for me and your reply to that seems angry. Well talked about this. I couldn’t eat soy or dairy. I ate eggs , but they are not calorie dense enough. And yes I ate lots of legumes. My mom fed us lots of lentils when I was a kid. And as I as said I literally couldn’t eat enough calories without meat. As I have gotten older I have been able to eat a little less meat which is nice, but there are many people like me who have shit digestion. We live our lives chronically under weight despite eating 4 or 5 meals a day. I literally didn’t have the option. Meat and animal fat were the only foods that were calorie dense enough to keep me alive. Are you saying I should have died?
The plant is called cannabisAgain why the anger? I know what it is call. There is a clear definition between hemp and marijuana. Yes they are both part of the cannabis family but we both know you are not buy marijuana seed at the food co-op as a supplement.
Also you completely failed to respond to them not being available to me as a child.
Not what I asked. I asked if you seriously think most cattle is “grain finished”
That is not what you asked, you asked.
You’re not seriously suggesting that most cattle enjoy such conditions?
Why are you trying to change what you said instead of a good faith effort to reply with counter points. I am always happy to have a good discussion.
I look at your data it says nothing about how cattle many cows are gain finished or not. You completely failed to reply to the fact that cows can’t be on an all grain diet despite your previous statement to that.
You’re alive, dummy. Because you don’t eat soy. If you were allergic to oxygen, that argument might apply.
Again why the anger?
What’s this about anger? You might be projecting. So me noting that hemp is cannabis made you feel stupid, so you feel angry. It’s understandable, dw.
Also you completely failed to respond to them not being available to me as a child.
“My parents didn’t care about my dietary requirements so that means that it literally didn’t exist”
I know what it is call. There is a clear definition between hemp and marijuana. Yes they are both part of the cannabis family but we both know you are not buy marijuana seed at the food co-op as a supplement.
“Marijuana” :DD
“cannabis family”
They’re both the exact same plant; cannabis sativa. “Hemp” just refers to the cannabis that isn’t too strong.
From your comment:
Just so you know cattle are only grain finished, personally I don’t like the practice. More details in my reply to a different comment. lemmy.world/comment/8250179
As if no cattle was fed only on feed. And then you have the audacity to pretend to be angry at people who don’t understand agriculture. “Grain finished” means “mostly grass fed” and that just isn’t fucking true, hahahahaahah
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect an ad hominem argument 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Okay did you just disagree with the definition of ad hominin? Anyway clearly you are trying to make this devolve into name calling. I guess because you don’t have anything else, I don’t know and honestly I don’t really care.
I am going to block you because I can and you have nothing productive left to say.
Here’s how it works: if I say “you’re wrong because you’re dumb”, that’s an ad hominem. If I say “you’re wrong, here’s extensive reasoning why, and also, on a sidenote, you’re dumb as shit”, that is not an ad hominem.
The definition is “(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining”.
"Rather than the position they’re maintaining.**
You’re having a hard time with this part because you don’t have a position to maintain. :)
Are you dead? Did having a soy allergy mean that you died? Was it a… death sentence? Am I speaking to the after-life?
Hemp IS cannabis, anyone thinking it’s a different plant is rather brainwashed and illiterate. (It takes like 10 seconds to check that on Google.)
“I’m going to block you because you made me feel bad and I’m not man enough to admit when I say something stupid” yeah I’m not surprised :D
Yeah, instead of using that land to grow monocultured grass, we could use it to grow plants we do eat. It’s not like we would keep growing grass there and say “Darn! We can’t eat this grass!”, we wouldn’t need to plant plants we don’t eat in the first place.
Also many animals are grassed on areas which are unsuitable for farming. And if done in a responsible manner allows for the natural diversity of an area to be maintained.
I totally agree, lawns are a huge waste of space and resources. I’ve torn up every lawn on every property I’ve rented or owned and replaced it with local plants for native pollinators (honeybees are invasive and harm native pollinators).
Yeah, we can’t really eat grass, but thinking that most cattle nowadays actually graze is… inaccurate, to put it mildly.
Factory-farmed cattle are almost always fed grain made of corn and soy, both of which are completely fine for humans to eat, in case someone was unaware.
Producing 1kg of beef takes several kilos of feed.
Just so you know cattle are only grain finished, personally I don’t like the practice. More details in my reply to a different comment. lemmy.world/comment/8250179
Grass fed: small minority of beef cattle, finished on grain after grazing for about a year. Typically slaughtered at 18-24 months of age.
Grass finished: even smaller minority not fed grains and allowed to graze their entire lives. Typically slaughtered around 18-24 months of age.
Normal: majority raised in feedlots on heavy grain-based diets. Typically slaughtered closer to 16 months of age.
All are slaughtered well shy of the 20+ year life expectancy of a cow in a sanctuary.
I have never even heard of a cow calf operation operating as a feed lot. Every single cow calf operation I have ever seen, heard of, ect feeding pasture or grass hay.
And you did we were I said I disagree with feed lots right?
I grew up with an uncle who raised steer and the sheer amount of land it took just to grow the corn and grass they ate was astounding. The animals also needed constant medication to stop them getting each other sick due to diet and proximity. So that’s the regular non organic, non grass fed/finished reality. With human population the way it is that kind of farming is pretty much the only way we can sustain eating meat in the amount we do.
I wonder, realistically, how much land it would take to produce our meat, at the current rate of consumption per capita, to grass feed/finish all those animals.
According to this study, we would have needed an area about three quarters the size of Texas to meet 2010 demand. Who knows what it would be today. www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/2/2/127
This seems like a dubious line of reasoning. It’s like making the claim that if you eat moss your net water consumption is lower than if you eat the leaves off an oak tree because of all the water it takes to grow. I mean I guess it’s sort of true but it’s also sorta weird. The argument is basically eat closer to the bottom of the food chain and the younger the better, but I don’t think you’re going to be happy if people eat more puppies and veal…
So it’s about efficiency. A given organism is going to have a particular conversion ratio in terms of how much mass/calories/nutrients whatever you’re measuring it has to take in to increase it’s own content an equivalent amount.
Since the vast quantity of food consumed by animals goes into energy rather than body mass they’re very inefficient. Particularly larger creatures like cows which “waste” (obviously not from the cow’s perspective) that energy breathing, moving, pumping blood, digesting, feeling and so on.
Infants are probably less efficient, as pregnancy is very stressful biologically.
Yes, sounds awesome! And let’s embed that chamber in a massive near-vacuum, so if you try to leave it, you suffocate. Also, it’s a giant, spinning blob in the middle of nowhere, with a gravity center at its core so you physically can’t even get away from it without a massive propulsion system and then what - go to the next random blob that offers nothing? Haha, I like your idea!
Add comment