Vegetarians - why?

inagaddadavegan

As much as I hate to even post on this trainwreck of a thread, I have to point out that is is completely untrue. How could you think that beef cows somehow create calories out of nothing? You put a lot of calories into them and only a certain proportion goes into making meat, they have to use the rest for other things. Don't have a lot of time right now so I'll have to quote Wikipedia:

"In comparison with grazing, intensive livestock production requires large quantities of harvested feed. The growing of cereals for feed in turn requires substantial areas of land. However, where grain is fed, less feed is required for meat production. This is due not only to the higher concentration of metabolizable energy in grain than in roughages, but also to the higher ratio of net energy of gain to net energy of maintenance where metabolizable energy intake is higher.[1] A pound of beef (live weight) requires about seven pounds of feed, compared to more than three pound for a pound of pork and less than two pounds for a pound of chicken.[2] However, assumptions about feed quality are implicit in such generalizations. For example, production of a pound of beef cattle live weight may require between 4 and 5 pounds of feed high in protein and metabolizable energy content, or more than 20 pounds of feed of much lower quality.[1]"

Exactly. Animals convert plant proteins in a very inefficient way. Add in the amount of water and fossil fuels required to raise livestock vs. raising plant proteins... well it's a no-brainer which one is the better choice for a planet with 7 Billion humans on it.

TheFitFireman

How does it not make sense? Just because something is happening and I can't stop it doesn't mean I should join in. Kid killing is a perfect example. Children die all the time all over the world. Apparently because I can't stop children dying, I should help cause their death.

Comparing humans to animals makes no sense, they're not comparable.

_VoV

I am posting my answers again. Not that anyone will notice. People LOVE drama.

---

I have a few reasons.

First, I'll give you a bit of background: For the majority of my life, until I was 25, I ate anything and everything, and that meant a LOT of McD's, Dairy Queen, Taco Bell, Wendy's, etc. etc., and yes a lot of cheeseburgers. Then, I became vegan, actually, first raw-foodist, then a vegan, and with this diet change, I lost around 40-50 pounds. (I never weighed myself, but I got down to about 115-120 and I can guess now how much I must have lost.) Anyway, suffice it to say: I got very slender. People thought I was perhaps becoming too skinny. I knew I was just shedding the pounds from many years of fast food- and fats-eating.

But after a few years, I started eating dairy - cheese on salads, is how it began. Then one year, I started eating eggs. Then, while on vacation 2 years ago, in Hawaii, I began eating fish. But that is where I will stop.

I don't have what everyone would consider a "logical" reason for this decision, but I do know when I look at my cats (my pets) and my friends' dogs (their pets) and see the same kind of 'being' that I see when I look at a cow, or a chicken, or even a pig (some people's pets) I couldn't eat those mammals. Not unless I was seriously starving, and it was either me - or that animal. Then I may consider it.

Since you asked, here are my 'reasons':

**Reason #1: As I described above, for me, being a mostly-vegetarian is more about having a sensitivity about other living things. Yes, I still eat a little fish, seafood, here and there but I feel like the way seafood is 'caught' is quite different than the way poultry, beef, pork, etc. is 'raised and processed.' (Many of us have seen the very inhumane ways this food is raised.) When I watch a documentary on how cows are slaughtered, for instance, it's very hard for me to think of EVER eating a cow, especially if I don't have to.

**Reason #2: There are so many other sources of protein that I can eat - I really don't NEED to eat the mass-produced, over-grown, mistreated cows, chickens, pigs.

**Sub-Reason #2.2: Humans do not NEED as much meat as they typically consume. The amount of meat and meat by-products that are produced and sold to the public , and which are consumed by the average person in the U.S., is likely way out of proportion to the need. Here is a quote from Livestrong.com

"Typical Protein Requirements: Average men who are sedentary or who get little exercise need approximately 0.36 g of protein for every pound of body weight, according to the University of Arizona. If you're a 200-lb. man who doesn't work out frequently or vigorously, those guidelines mean you should consume about 72 g of protein each day. If you consume one chicken breast and 5 oz. of lean beef in a day, you've eaten enough protein." - Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/425810-how-much-protein-does-the-average-man-need/#ixzz1yZckIhwX

**Reason #3: The total impact 'meat' has on our environment. This is something many do not fully consider. Just think of all the water used, and possibly chemicals, and all the other land-use practices that are applied to grow the feed for the cattle and livestock (all that grain, corn, etc) to provide what is really an OVERABUNDANCE of the meat we eat far too much of. Then think of how much methane all that livestock put into our air, gassing up our planet. It makes a real impact.

Thanks for letting me share my thoughts. (Yes, I am a peaceful person, and I am not going to fight with you about what you EAT.)

Excellent reasons. I agree with all of them. Very nicely stated.

inagaddadavegan

no, a Roomba does not exercise self preservation like a plant does. Or some of the more sophisticated AI that is being developed.

If you're worried about the well-being of plants, the best way to minimize harming plants is to eat them directly, rather than raising crops to feed livestock then eating livestock. You could feed the whole world on the plant foods fed to livestock alone. And then your body will still require plants for the nutrients that meat, eggs, and dairy don't provide. But aside from B-12 (and there is a debate about this but I do supplement), there is nothing you get from eating animals and their secretions that you can't get from plants.

Veganism is the most efficient, least harmful, most environmental way to eat, plain and simple.

Disagree. You would need more crops available at any given time, as they won't be 'stored' in livestock and thus more land would need to be cleared than is at present.

In laymans terms, you can get more calories and protein in a cow than you can grow where it's standing.

As much as I hate to even post on this trainwreck of a thread, I have to point out that is is completely untrue. How could you think that beef cows somehow create calories out of nothing? You put a lot of calories into them and only a certain proportion goes into making meat, they have to use the rest for other things. Don't have a lot of time right now so I'll have to quote Wikipedia:

"In comparison with grazing, intensive livestock production requires large quantities of harvested feed. The growing of cereals for feed in turn requires substantial areas of land. However, where grain is fed, less feed is required for meat production. This is due not only to the higher concentration of metabolizable energy in grain than in roughages, but also to the higher ratio of net energy of gain to net energy of maintenance where metabolizable energy intake is higher.[1] A pound of beef (live weight) requires about seven pounds of feed, compared to more than three pound for a pound of pork and less than two pounds for a pound of chicken.[2] However, assumptions about feed quality are implicit in such generalizations. For example, production of a pound of beef cattle live weight may require between 4 and 5 pounds of feed high in protein and metabolizable energy content, or more than 20 pounds of feed of much lower quality.[1]"

As much as I appreciate the even-tone of your reply, my point is that you can grow their food where their food was before they eat it. I'm not saying it won't take more to make it into meat, but that any given time, a reliance on crops completely would require more space.

You have an erroneous opinion that is not founded in fact. I respect it's your opinion but it's still... factually wrong.

Jflowwers

FitFireMan: "If you have no medical reason to not eat meat and you actually like the taste of meat but choose not to eat it, then that person is probably someone who doesn't eat meat because they can't handle thinking about a cow being killed or any other animal. Which in that case, it's a ridiculous reason to not eat meat."

Ridiculous [def]: Deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd.

Yeah, it's absurd to not eat meat if you have no medical reasoning and you enjoy the taste of it. Animals are going to die regardless, so not eating meat because they die is absurd. So cool story once again, but you didn't prove anything in your favor.

Remember 5 minutes ago when you asked me when you said that you didnt respect someone elses food choices? This statement is not the epitome of respect BUDDY. Have a great weekend!!

I have no respect for that woman, she doesn't deserve any because she doesn't show any for me or others that eat meat. On another forum all her and her husband did was belittle people, on here she called me "arrogant and superior", you expect me to show respect to her when she's disrespectful to me? That again is you being unrealistic.

no, I meant for people food choices in general. When you make blanket staements such as "Yeah, it's absurd to not eat meat if you have no medical reasoning and you enjoy the taste of it. Animals are going to die regardless, so not eating meat because they die is absurd". People with said food choices, are going to deem that as not very respecful. Just sayin..

TheFunBun

Funny you look at it that way. I like animals, and at one point wanted to be a vet and later a marine biologist. I am neither now, but I do keep tropical marine fish. It doesn't stop me nomming some tuna or salmon, but I wouldn't eat a clownfish. Animals that are in abundance I have no problem eating; this applies to livestock as well. I'm perfectly happy eating cow, pig and chicken, but would never try crocodile, shark or chimpanzee meat. I would also never eat my dog or my girlfriend's cat, because they're companions; members of the family and she would probably kill me.

I don't understand the concept of liking something and causing it's death. Just seems kind of weird to me. I definitely couldn't go out, eat another dog, then come home to my dog with dog on my breath and look him in the eye. He'd know I ate his brother, I'd know I ate his brother.. our relationship? Ruined.

CoderGal

I'm gonna go kill some kids. 'Cause they're gonna die anyways. May join in. Never liked the buggers.

I'm a pescetarian because I like animals and I don't believe you can actually like animals whilst trying to eat them and their brethren. I don't like fish, so I eat them.

Funny you look at it that way. I like animals, and at one point wanted to be a vet and later a marine biologist. I am neither now, but I do keep tropical marine fish. It doesn't stop me nomming some tuna or salmon, but I wouldn't eat a clownfish. Animals that are in abundance I have no problem eating; this applies to livestock as well. I'm perfectly happy eating cow, pig and chicken, but would never try crocodile, shark or chimpanzee meat. I would also never eat my dog or my girlfriend's cat, because they're companions; members of the family and she would probably kill me.

I also wonder about those who have cats and dogs and will not eat animals because they love them. A vegetarian tried to get me to stop feeding my snake mice once. I do not like my snake or mice to suffer so I feed them killed. Anyhow another vegetarian was around at the time and basically told her off so I didnt have to. She basically said if you cant feed a meat eater meat because it hurts your feelings then you shouldnt own one for the health of the pet. She was feeding her dog tofu sausages. We are omnivores...dogs are not.

_VoV

there is only one thing for certain regarding this issue. no vegan/vegetarian nor any meat eating monster is going to change their ways based on these type discussions. So what's the point?

There isn't a point for this guy. He's just looking for confrontation. I hate I even bothered to give him my reason for not eating meat, because he really didn't want my reason. He just wanted to tell somebody that their beliefs are wrong. Makes him feel better about himself to feel superior. But he really came off as the one who is ridiculous. And I came off as angry and nasty, which I regret. But animal cruelty is a hot button for me. Sorry.

I agree discussions like this are counterproductive.

ironanimal

You have an erroneous opinion that is not founded in fact. I respect it's your opinion but it's still... factually wrong.

I would say the jury is out until someone (very well paid, and very, very clever) does the maths.

TheFitFireman

There isn't a point for this guy. He's just looking for confrontation. I hate I even bothered to give him my reason for not eating meat, because he really didn't want my reason. He just wanted to tell somebody that their beliefs are wrong. Makes him feel better about himself to feel superior. But he really came off as the one who is ridiculous. And I came off as angry and nasty, which I regret. But animal cruelty is a hot button for me. Sorry.

I'm looking for confrontation now? You really are full of s***. YOU commented me, I never said a thing to you, so YOU were the one looking for an argument. I never once told anyone that their beliefs were wrong, not a single time, prove me wrong and show me where I did. I also in no way feel superior for eating meat, that's ridiculous and pathetic statement. All you do is put words in peoples mouths and try to act like you're the mature one while you point the finger and call others arrogant and trying to act superior, I know 10 year old with more maturity than that.

Yes2HealthyAriel

I used to not eat any red meat because I hated the way it tasted. Then when I got pregnant with my first child I started craving it. My body was trying to tell me something. I was extremely anemic at the time. Now I eat pretty much any meat but not often and not very much at a time. If I eat a large portion I have severe stomach cramps and become gassy.

Punkedpoetess

While I am currently a vegetarian, I believe that whether a person is a vegetarian or not is their personal decision. People should quit worrying so much about what others are doing and focus on themselves. I don't care what other people are doing, I simply do what is best for me. Personally, I go to the bathroom better (TMI) when I eat a vegetarian diet. I know for some people, eating meat is best. Both ways can be healthy as long as a person gets enough nutrients, protein, healthy fats, and healthy carbs. Personally I still enjoy dairy products and eggs sometimes, but again if someone else doesn't that is perfectly fine.

TheFitFireman

I agree discussions with such an angry person are counterproductive.

I'm an angry person? You're the one butthurt on every vegetarian/omnivore/carnivore thread, you attack everyone that eats meat, yet I'm angry? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA now that's hilarious.

inagaddadavegan

You have an erroneous opinion that is not founded in fact. I respect it's your opinion but it's still... factually wrong.

I would say the jury is out until someone (very well paid, and very, very clever) does the maths.

I can do the maths for free because it's not very hard. It takes something like 15 pounds of plant protein to produce 1 pound of animal protein (from a cow). Very very inefficient way to feed a world with about a billion humans starving to death.

Court adjourned.

EpiGaiaRepens

I've been a vegetarian for 18 years and was vegan for 11, and had a vegan pregnancy. My son is now vegan and I am a lacto-ovo vegetarian. If anyone really wants to know why, message me.

wild_wild_life

no, a Roomba does not exercise self preservation like a plant does. Or some of the more sophisticated AI that is being developed.

If you're worried about the well-being of plants, the best way to minimize harming plants is to eat them directly, rather than raising crops to feed livestock then eating livestock. You could feed the whole world on the plant foods fed to livestock alone. And then your body will still require plants for the nutrients that meat, eggs, and dairy don't provide. But aside from B-12 (and there is a debate about this but I do supplement), there is nothing you get from eating animals and their secretions that you can't get from plants.

Veganism is the most efficient, least harmful, most environmental way to eat, plain and simple.

Disagree. You would need more crops available at any given time, as they won't be 'stored' in livestock and thus more land would need to be cleared than is at present.

In laymans terms, you can get more calories and protein in a cow than you can grow where it's standing.

As much as I hate to even post on this trainwreck of a thread, I have to point out that is is completely untrue. How could you think that beef cows somehow create calories out of nothing? You put a lot of calories into them and only a certain proportion goes into making meat, they have to use the rest for other things. Don't have a lot of time right now so I'll have to quote Wikipedia:

"In comparison with grazing, intensive livestock production requires large quantities of harvested feed. The growing of cereals for feed in turn requires substantial areas of land. However, where grain is fed, less feed is required for meat production. This is due not only to the higher concentration of metabolizable energy in grain than in roughages, but also to the higher ratio of net energy of gain to net energy of maintenance where metabolizable energy intake is higher.[1] A pound of beef (live weight) requires about seven pounds of feed, compared to more than three pound for a pound of pork and less than two pounds for a pound of chicken.[2] However, assumptions about feed quality are implicit in such generalizations. For example, production of a pound of beef cattle live weight may require between 4 and 5 pounds of feed high in protein and metabolizable energy content, or more than 20 pounds of feed of much lower quality.[1]"

As much as I appreciate the even-tone of your reply, my point is that you can grow their food where their food was before they eat it. I'm not saying it won't take more to make it into meat, but that any given time, a reliance on crops completely would require more space.

I agree you can't grow as many calories of grain in the physical space a cow takes up, but it seems to me that, if you accept the assumption that there is a limited amount of arable land and a large demand for food, using the food in the most efficient way would be best, rather than running it through a cow first. Your point about animals as "storage" forms of energy is interesting but I'm not sure I'm with you on more crop lands being required without food animals. Not sure how to prove it either way.

lisaks

I will be happy to answer. For me it is not an ethical thing. I read a book about the processing of beef and have been unable to get the images out of my mind--that was 15 yrs ago! I have not had beef, chicken, or fish since. I do cook meat for my kids. They can either eat it or have whatever I'm having. I do think it is healthier to have a vegetarian diet however. Everything in moderation though, right?

xxRaven

Animal cruelty for me is the largest of many, many good reasons.
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/09/how-to-win-an-argument-with-a-meat-eater.html

ironanimal

You have an erroneous opinion that is not founded in fact. I respect it's your opinion but it's still... factually wrong.

I would say the jury is out until someone (very well paid, and very, very clever) does the maths.

I can do the maths for free because it's not very hard. It takes something like 15 pounds of plant protein to produce 1 pound of animal protein (from a cow). Very very inefficient way to feed a world with about a billion humans starving to death.

Court adjourned.

And again, you royally miss the point.

I think jsl_mfp understands what I mean.

I'm talking about food availability at THAT MOMENT in time. Vegetables per mass are far lower calorie than meat, generally speaking, no? Thus having the same amount of calories available to your population at that one moment in time would use more land, theoretically. As I said, the maths would need to be done.

And for the record, I simply can't choke down enough plant matter to meet my (above average) protein and calorie needs - meat provides them in a more condensed, easier to swallow form, for ME.

I'm a practical person. If vegetarianism was practical for me, I would be vegetarian.

amuhlou

One potential reason could be an environmental standpoint -

Raising livestock is responsible for a lot of greenhouse gases, more than driving cars. So you could theoretically be vegetarian just because of the environmental issues associated with meat production. I suppose vegan would be the ultimate, as dairy would entail still raising cows and such.

Of course, that rationale only works if you first believe that greenhouse gases are a problem (which I personally do), as that seems to be a divisive topic these days.

I'm not a vegetarian, but I thought I'd offer an alternate reason why someone might choose to be.