Veganism

[Pan]

[...]Which brings me to mizducky's comment.  I've never met a proselytizing carnivore, but several proselytizing vegans.  Please, eat and let eat![...]

←

Amen, but there seem to be a fair number of proselytizing carnivores on these forums. I've never had problems with vegetarians. I have some cousins who are very strong ideological vegetarians, and we've never had an argument about it. I respect their beliefs about nonviolence. And no, I don't think that killing a chimpanzee is the same as killing an alga, for whatever that's worth.

[Mabelline]

Lady Jaymes, I'd like to see some "freely-given" honey from wild bees.

So you don't think those bees are flying pots of honey over to the local Freely Given Shoppe?

←

Nope, but I bet they'll pretend they're delivering sugar---plenty of lumps

[anzu]

Is veganism only for the wealthy? What about the many thousands of vegans in India?

←

Suzysushi,

Indians are not vegans. Most Indian vegetarians will not eat meat or eggs, but they will gladly eat dairy products. Not only are these products acceptable, but if the product originates from a cow, it has the added virtue of having sacred connotations for Hindus. The numerous Indian sweets based on reduced milk, ghee, and so on contain those products in part because milk and its products have such a high status in India.

India does have a significant Jain population, who generally follow stricter dietary guidelines than a Hindu vegetarian would. Most avoid, for example, eating plants which must be killed in order to harvest them (potatoes or carrots would be an example). They are still not vegans. Every Jain person I know, and I know quite a few, happily eats dairy products. Quite a few will wear leather footware or use other leather items and choose to ignore the fact that this item involved the death of a cow (or, quite likely, a water buffalo rather than a cow).

Also, maybe the term 'wealthy' should be considered. People tend to think of India in terms of many individuals being poor, but one can also approach the issue of eating styles and wealth from another angle.

It was a long time ago, and so I can't remember either the author or the book, but I remember reading a history of India in which it was put forward that vegetarianism was able to become so widespread in India due to India's wealth.

This is referring to a wealth of resources rather than wealth in monetary terms. The climate is such that people can easily grow a wide variety of lentils and beans, not to mention a huge range of vegetables, and therefore one is able to follow a vegetarian diet without any nutritional lack. The same would hardly be true of countries with less hospitable climates.

[Jaymes]

This is referring to a wealth of resources rather than wealth in monetary terms. The climate is such that people can easily grow a wide variety of lentils and beans, not to mention a huge range of vegetables, and therefore one is able to follow a vegetarian diet without any nutritional lack. The same would hardly be true of countries with less hospitable climates.

Well, that's certainly true. Having lived in Alaska for several years, I can tell you that I didn't run across any Vegan/Vegetarian Inuit, Inupiat, Eskimos.

[*Deborah*]

I have a vegan friend, and when he comes to parties I make sure there are several things he can eat. I won't have an entirely vegan menu, but I don't make him sit in the corner eating corn chips. I try to make sure there are lots of things for him to eat something approaching a balanced meal, without making him feel like he's under a microscope...he doesn't proselytize, and the group of us respect each others' food choices (meaning they don't get on my case for eating foie gras, although I doubt any of them would; and the meat eaters don't ridicule the non-meat-eaters or vice-versa). It's a challenge that I'm up to, although I don't know if I would feel that way if I had to feed him every day.

My vegan friend takes vitamins to keep up the things he has a hard time getting in his diet, and coincidentally was, until his recent promotion, one of the poorest friends I have. He may be intellectually elite, but that's about as far as I'd take that. So it must be possible to eat vegan on a pretty low budget.

[Milagai]

well, to respond to the original question,

here (in north carolina) our average weekly

grocery bill is ~ 100$.

family of 4 (2 are kids)

and we're dairy (and rarely egg) eating vegetarians.

the expensive items are:

milk

fruit

i try and buy only in-season veggies to get the best prices

and they're not too expensive.

the beans/dals/tofu are not expensive and a little goes a long way.

e.g. 1 kg of chicken may form one skimpy meal for a family

of 4; but 1 kg of dal will feed us all for a week very well;

and costs way less in the first place.

so other than for the fruit, i think a veg*an diet may be cheaper.

and i shop in a regular chain grocery store;

only occasionally go to whole foods;

get my spices and dals from the indian store.

the super-cheap meat may be cheap but no idea what garbage is in it.

whereas with dal or beans, what you see is what you get

(other than i have no idea if they are GMO or Monsanto-profiting-

from-starving-third-world-farmers etc.)

milagai

[Chocoholic]

I know a couple of vegans and both have to take expensive vitamin supplements to remain healthy.

I guess that beats the price argument. Perhaps they haven't read the vegan handbook but I think any diet that forces you to take supplements is a bit wonky...

I am a big carnivore but do try to get free range eggs, organic chicken, ranch-grown buffalo, etc. It's been a long time since I bought a water logged chicken breast in a styrofoam container.

This thread reminds me of my two crazy friends who went on a 'caveman diet'. Only eat raw things you can forage yourself. Nuts, fruit, raw vegetables. One of them lasted a week, the other just one day.

[Tess]

I can only speak for myself, but my ire is arisen by the general argument that killing X is immoral, but killing Y is perfectly fine.

Why is that a problem? Many people are seemingly inconsistent even in their views of whether or not it's all right to kill people. People draw lines in different places. It's not necessarily *logically* inconsistent although it may seem arbitrary to some.

Edited June 19, 2005 by Tess (log)

[ErinB]

Well, I'm a former vegan turned full on meat-eater.

First, it's definitely cheaper to be vegan. 1. I didn't go out to eat much when I was vegan. 2. I ate a lot of beans and vegetables.

Now, I try to eat organic food, locally grown produce, and meat in which animals are raised in decent living conditions. And, that is pretty expensive, unless you have good local farms year round. I end up doing a lot of my shopping for meat at Whole Foods which is pretty expensive.

I know plenty of vegans who have a "I''m better than everyone else" attitude, but i know plenty who don't. Everyone, vegans, vegetarians, etc. have different rules about what they can eat.

Not to be preachy here, because I eat meat now, but generally, americans overconsume , don't eat locally grown economically sustainable food, and that leads to mass production of animals and meat in bad conditions.

My brother is a "freegan" which basically means, for one thing, that he goes and dumpsters for food that can still be eaten, but is thrown out in dumpsters. Like at grocery stores (fruits with bruises, day old bread, etc. etc.).

From my experience, being vegan and freegan, is an extreme reaction to what's going on in the world today.

When I was vegan, I felt physically better than I ever have in my life. I was eating tons of vegetables, and experimenting with things I never would have before. You do not need to take any supplements, if you eat a balanced diet while vegan.

I also began to appreciate food in a way that I never had before. That was the beginning of my love affair with food.

Edited June 19, 2005 by ErinB (log)

[ronnie_suburban]

I think that veganism and vegetarianism can both be considered "luxuries of the affluent" in certain contexts. As Bourdain has written/said, there are plenty of places on this planet where folks are happy to eat whatever little food is available to them. Compare this notion to that of a vegan who avoids locally-produced meat or dairy in favor of out-of-season produce which has been transported from afar into the vegan's town. While the vegan who purchases that produce may not be wealthy, its very availability is a function of an affluent society. In such cases, the dietary choice does require a certain level of societal wealth. Societal wealth makes what may be absolutely unattainable for some, instantly accessible for others. It transforms what could otherwise be an issue of survival into nothing more than a simple choice at the supermarket (or restaurant) . . . thus, the perception of luxury.

=R=

[maggiethecat]

I refer you to Anthony Bourdain in "Cook's Tour" for the most passionate, reasoned denunciation of veganism I've ever read. He makes the economic point too: In Viet Nam a chicken can literally be the difference between life and death for a family. They're supposed to hunt out all-organic nuts and berries?

[Mallet]

I can only speak for myself, but my ire is arisen by the general argument that killing X is immoral, but killing Y is perfectly fine.

Why is that a problem? Many people are seemingly inconsistent even in their views of whether or not it's all right to kill people. People draw lines in different places. It's not necessarily *logically* inconsistent although it may seem arbitrary to some.

←

It is obviously a truism that "people draw lines in different places", and it is not grounds for justification of a particular moral system; which should have a component of rationality (as mentionned earlier my ire upthread was directed towards veganism as a ethical philosophy, not simply a dietary one). My opinion is simply that we should strive to treat all forms of life with as much care and respect as reasonable, and that it is not particularly logical to single out a extremely minor segment of life of earth as somehow being more deserving of existance.

If you want to argue that something like veganism (again, as an moral framework apart from any nutritional benefits, which I grant may exist) is arbitrary then that's fine and I totally agree, but to me that is the same as saying that it is unjustifiable and thus has no real value as ethical system.

With respect to the original question, the consensus opinion seems to be that veganism is an economically accessible lifestyle in most cases (i.e: where the climate permits); although you may require a bit more creativity in your food choice to maintain a balanced diet but then again I think we all do!

[Pan]

[...]It is obviously a truism that "people draw lines in different places", and it is not  grounds for justification of a particular moral system; which should have a component of rationality (as mentionned earlier my ire upthread was directed towards veganism as a ethical philosophy, not simply a dietary one). My opinion is simply that we should strive to treat all forms of life with as much care and respect as reasonable, and that it is not particularly logical to single out a extremely minor segment of life of earth as somehow being more deserving of existance.[...]

←

I think there's a dispute precisely about how much respect is reasonable. And I think that most human beings single out human beings (or, God forbid, only a certain segment thereof) as "more deserving of existence." Given that we constitute only one species and are therefore a "minor segment of life" in that respect, is it unreasonable for people to consider human beings as more deserving of existence than, say, cockroaches, or even ladybugs? And if it isn't reason that's causing most of us to make that distinction, does that make the opinion invalid? I think there's a danger in making a logic of extremes (don't kill anything vs. kill everything) the enemy of pragmatic rationalizations we can live by.

Apologies if anything in this post comes across as a caricature of your position; my intention is just to take the points you seem to be advancing to what seems to me to be their logical extremes, for the sake of argument.

[Grub]

I know two vegetarians: one a proselytizing, eating-meat-is-like-eating-excrement because there's a chemical reaction going on in dead meat that's exactly like what happens in poop-kinda guy. The other had no good explanation at all (other than possibly, hippy chicks), and quit after a couple of years.

I also know one dude who objects to any meal that does not include meat. I mean, I'm doing Aloo Gobi, but fear not -- I've got a couple of fucking Slim Jims for ya to nibble on, so you don't turn into a hippy or nuthen. I don't think either of 'em makes any sense. What's that saying, you like your friends for their good qualities, but love em for their faults.

[Mallet]

I think there's a dispute precisely about how much respect is reasonable. And I think that most human beings single out human beings (or, God forbid, only a certain segment thereof) as "more deserving of existence." Given that we constitute only one species and are therefore a "minor segment of life" in that respect, is it unreasonable for people to consider human beings as more deserving of existence than, say, cockroaches, or even ladybugs? And if it isn't reason that's causing most of us to make that distinction, does that make the opinion invalid? I think there's a danger in making a logic of extremes (don't kill anything vs. kill everything) the enemy of pragmatic rationalizations we can live by.

Apologies if anything in this post comes across as a caricature of your position; my intention is just to take the points you seem to be advancing to what seems to me to be their logical extremes, for the sake of argument.

←

No need for apologies. That post simply argued that there should be some rational underpinning in a moral/ethical system, in response to a previous comment. I think we can all agree on a number of rational reasons why killing humans is not ok (like, oh I don't know, the end of civilization? ). So yes, I think it is extremely unreasonable (and unproductive) to contend that a human is no more deserving of life than a cockroach. I don't really think that you took my position to it's logical extreme, because neither killing everything nor killing nothing is logical!

I'm all for disputing "precisely about how much respect is reasonable", indeed I think such a discussion could be very illuminating (but perhaps belongs in another thread?).

Ronnie, I think your point about veganism being considered "luxuries of the affluent" in certain contexts is brilliant. I had never really thought about it in that way (affluent society as opposed to individual).

By the way, can anyone tell me how to quote from multiple posts? I usually just plush the "reply" button when I want to quote someone, but I can't do it if I want to quote from more than one post.

[ronnie_suburban]

Ronnie, I think your point about veganism being considered "luxuries of the affluent" in certain contexts is brilliant. I had never really thought about it in that way (affluent society as opposed to individual).

←

Well, it's really Bourdain's point (from A Cook's Tour, IIRC). I just applied my personal spin to it.

=R=

[creepygirl]

I think that veganism and vegetarianism can both be considered "luxuries of the affluent" in certain contexts.  As Bourdain has written/said, there are plenty of places on this planet where folks are happy to eat whatever little food is available to them.  Compare this notion to that of a vegan who avoids locally-produced meat or dairy in favor of out-of-season produce which has been transported from afar into the vegan's town.  While the vegan who purchases that produce may not be wealthy, its very availability is a function of an affluent society.  In such cases, the dietary choice does require a certain level of societal wealth.  Societal wealth makes what may be absolutely unattainable for some, instantly accessible for others.  It transforms what could otherwise be an issue of survival into nothing more than a simple choice at the supermarket (or restaurant) . . . thus, the perception of luxury.

←

Yabbut . . . I would be shocked if 10% of omnivores in America buy local meat and dairy or care whether their produce is locally grown. I can't see how buying meat and dairy transported from afar IN ADDITION to buying out of season produce from is any less of a choice that requires a certain level of societal wealth.

[Milagai]

I refer you to Anthony Bourdain in "Cook's Tour" for the most passionate, reasoned denunciation of veganism I've ever read. He makes the economic point too: In Viet Nam a chicken can literally be the difference between life and death for a family. They're supposed to hunt out all-organic nuts and berries?

←

I haven't read this book, but I think the guy's missing a few points.

There is a strong economic and environmental reason for

eating much more veg food and much less meat:

it takes many more lbs of grain and many gallons of water

to produce 1 lb of meat

1 lb of meat feeds much fewer people than 1 lb of dal + grain.

You cannot sustain a world population of 6+ b people on a meat centered

diet. I read in the media about acres of Amazon rainforest being

cut down to grow soybeans not because the whole world is suddenly

eating tofu, but to create "cheap" cattle feed.

It's one thing to have an occasional meat item, but

highly physically unhealthy and ecologically wasteful to

have a huge meat item every day, every meal, in the center

of your plate.

My weekly grocery bills do reflect that: it would cost much

more if I started buying meat, esp if organic and free range.

And my family doesn't need to take supplements:

we all get regular physical check ups and are shown to

be very healthy. I've been lucky to grow up in a largely

veg culture so I know how to cook a tasty balanced meal....

We do dairy products and eggs occasionally so we are not

vegan, but would be called "lacto ovo veg" I guess.

Re the Vietnam family and chicken vs organic nuts&berries:

that's a very false comparison. I highly doubt if any rational

person is going to ask a peasant family to do that:

that may be the approach to veg*ism adopted by richer

countries with a Whole Foods in every suburb to "forage" in.

This statement seems to be setting up a crazy situation just

to knock it down.

I have been led to believe that a typical Vietnamese

(or other S E Asian )diet

may be an occasional chicken amidst rice, or noodles,

broth, and lots of vegs.

Someone with a Korean background had posted on the

Indian food board a while back that a generation or two ago

in Korea, that's what the meals looked like. Meat was occasional,

not an every meal or every day thing.

With increasing affluence, people are eating more meat.

The data really show around the world that people's

diseases nowadays are being caused by EXCESS nutrition

and not malnutrition (generally speaking, please don't

flame me for not including various famine situations here).

There are several recent studies published in research journals

with reliable data and cross-national comparisons showing

this point.

milagai

[Mallet]

Yabbut . . . I would be shocked if 10% of omnivores in America buy local meat and dairy or care whether their produce is locally grown.  I can't see how buying meat and dairy transported from afar IN ADDITION to buying out of season produce from is any less of a choice that requires a certain level of societal wealth.

←

I don't think this is really true at all, at least where I live. All of our milk is local (i.e: within province), as is most other dairy products. Nearly all of our meat comes from Canada, at a minumum (often within a province or two). But MOST of our produce is shipped internationally (USA/Mexico/South America, Europe, you name it). When was the last time you had a steak from Chile ? Meat is always in season .

[Mallet]

There is a strong economic and environmental reason for eating much more veg food and much less meat: it takes many more lbs of grain and many gallons of water to produce 1 lb of meat 1 lb of meat feeds much fewer people than 1 lb of dal + grain.

You cannot sustain a world population of 6+ b people on a meat centered diet.  I read in the media about acres of Amazon rainforest being cut down to grow soybeans not because the whole world is suddenly eating tofu, but to create "cheap" cattle feed.

It's one thing to have an occasional meat item, but highly physically unhealthy and ecologically wasteful to  have a huge meat item every day, every meal, in the center of your plate.

My weekly grocery bills do reflect that: it would cost much more if I started buying meat, esp if organic and free range. And my family doesn't need to take supplements: we all get regular physical check ups and are shown to be very healthy.

Someone with a Korean background had posted on the Indian food board a while back that a generation or two ago in Korea, that's what the meals looked like.  Meat was occasional, not an every meal or every day thing.

With increasing affluence, people are eating more meat.

The data really show around the world that people's diseases nowadays are being caused by EXCESS nutrition and not malnutrition (generally speaking, please don't

flame me for not including various famine situations here). There are several recent studies published in research journals with reliable data and cross-national comparisons showing this point.

←

Without getting into the details of your post (I really don't want to get into a debate over nutritional benefits of veganism), I think it slightly misses the point. We are not talking about whether we should eat more vegetables, or the benefits of that. We are talking about veganism, which (in its mildest form) is no meat , EVER. I think your points are probably valid, but not particularly appropriate in a discussion of veganism.

[Tess]

No need for apologies. That post simply argued that there should be some rational underpinning in a moral/ethical system, in response to a previous comment. I think we can all agree on a number of rational reasons why killing humans is not ok (like, oh I don't know, the end of civilization?  ).

Ah, but we kill people in war; we execute people. Some people think that's just fine. I think that's very far from being a category on which we can all agree.

I don't think abandoning moral absolutes or even complete consistency necessarily means that you've cast rational thought aside.

[Milagai]

Without getting into the details of your post (I really don't want to get into a debate over nutritional benefits of veganism), I think it slightly misses the point. We are not talking about whether we should eat more vegetables, or the benefits of that. We are talking about veganism, which (in its mildest form) is no meat , EVER. I think your points are probably valid, but not particularly appropriate in a discussion of veganism.

←

i was responding to previous posts that quoted bourdain

and his example of a vietnamese village and said it would

be absurd to ask them to give up a chicken (life or death) and ask them

to go forage for organic nuts and beans.

bourdain's view hardly represents the idea of a vegan diet either

which is not about starving yourself, but about getting full

nourishment without animal products.

perfectly possible.

so what was the point of *that* in the whole conversation?

people are free to talk about whatever point strikes them,

whether it strikes you or not.

and by the way, vegan does not mean "no meat ever".

vegetarian = no meat (including fish, etc.)

vegan = no animal products that is, no meat etc but also no dairy products,

honey, etc etc.

milagai

[Pan]

No need for apologies. That post simply argued that there should be some rational underpinning in a moral/ethical system, in response to a previous comment. I think we can all agree on a number of rational reasons why killing humans is not ok (like, oh I don't know, the end of civilization?  ).

Ah, but we kill people in war; we execute people. Some people think that's just fine. I think that's very far from being a category on which we can all agree.

I don't think abandoning moral absolutes or even complete consistency necessarily means that you've cast rational thought aside.

←

Agreed. With well over 6 billion people on Earth, it wouldn't end the human race (I'll leave aside "civilization" for now) to sacrifice a certain number of people every year to cannibalism. Though I think we'd have few volunteers for that sacrifice.

I maintain that all of us draw a line somewhere, and I would certainly say that those who don't (the Jeffrey Dahmers, Andrei Chikatilos, and Idi Amins of the world) are much more of a danger than those who do. I'm not a vegetarian, but I not only wouldn't support murdering people for food but also have strong compunctions about the idea of eating certain extremely intelligent animals (such as whales, apes, monkeys, elephants). That has to do with my degree of identification with these potential food sources. Another manifestation of that identification is that, because I had pet guinea pigs when I was a child, I'd prefer not to eat guinea pig. I also love cats (which I find have variable degrees of intelligence but complex and in some ways human-like personalities) and wouldn't want to eat one. Actually, I think that the identification that prevents many people from wanting to eat things we feel are very much like us or that we have an emotional attachment to is probably a highly adaptive non-rational trait (though one given to various forms of coherent rationalization), because it's a brake on large-scale cannibalism-murder and a stimulus for humane behavior.

Edited June 20, 2005 by Pan (log)

[ronnie_suburban]

Yabbut . . . I would be shocked if 10% of omnivores in America buy local meat and dairy or care whether their produce is locally grown.  I can't see how buying meat and dairy transported from afar IN ADDITION to buying out of season produce from is any less of a choice that requires a certain level of societal wealth.

←

No one's questioning omnivores, whose dietary regimens are, by their nature, flexible.

But, the facts remain that wealthy countries import more (diverse) foodstuffs far more heavily than poor nations do and that greater incomes attract a great diversity of goods (and not just foods). Markets always find the money. Those societal advantanges provide a wider abundance of food choices. What individuals in those situations choose is largely irrelevant in this conversation -- we are not discussing the merits of one dietary regimen over another.

My only point is that people who live in wealthier countries -- whether they possess individual wealth or not -- have the advantage of more food choices, regardless of what they specifically choose.

=R=

[Mallet]

i was responding to previous posts that quoted bourdain

and his example of a vietnamese village and said it would

be absurd to ask them to give up a chicken (life or death) and ask them

to go forage for organic nuts and beans.

bourdain's view hardly represents the idea of a vegan diet either

which is not about starving yourself, but about getting full

nourishment without animal products.

perfectly possible. 

so what was the point of *that* in the whole conversation?

people are free to talk about whatever point strikes them,

whether it strikes you or not.

and by the way, vegan does not mean "no meat ever".

vegetarian = no meat (including fish, etc.)

vegan = no animal products that is, no meat etc but also no dairy products,

            honey, etc etc.

milagai

←

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound dismissive of your comments. I was just trying to make the distinction between the argument that we eat too much meat (which is what I thought was the jist of your post) and the discussion about veganism (which, as you pointed out is no animal products at all). I think the point about the chicken example was simply that veganism is not even an option in certain areas.