If you're not vegan, what prevents you from being one?

[Downdraft]

What about the other 18%?
They might "recover" after the study window. Their conditions might also not have been related to their diet, at all.

The most typical timeframes
for improvement were: within 2–6 days (20%), within 1–3 weeks (33%), and within 1–3 months (22%).

20 + 33 + 22 = 75%. Note that the mentioned total of recovered people is 82%, it only says those are the most usual ones but not that they're all. This means the cases you talk about are counted, but not highlighted.

82% total - 75% common cases = ±7%

This is even worse than you think because now there's a full extra 7% who could take more than that time to recover.

But let's say I was wrong anyway. Honestly, does it matter that much that they could recover after such long time? Is this a diet you should be really defending? Three months is a large enough time frame that even if they recovered those problems are long-term.

Health issues ARE related to veganism here, in other studies, and has been researched extensively. You can rely on "what ifs" all you want, the reality is I have evidence to back up that bad diet often causes all of that. I showed mine my proof, what one do you have to prove their diet didn't cause it? In enough numbers to counter the studies, anyway.

What I said is a diet that can endanger you like this isn't worth risking, but you decided to ignore all of that to defend a diet you don't even follow. Why?

Also, there are many cases and testimonials of people who never recovered. A balanced omnivore diet cannot cause that.

 

[illvoid]

The meat in the grocery store will be there whether you buy it or not, choosing not to eat meat doesn't do anything.

 

[Hvergelmir]

What I said is a diet that can endanger you like this isn't worth risking, but you decided to ignore all of that to defend a diet you don't even follow. Why?

I think the meat industry should be minimized, and I've seen veganism being increasingly viable as my own country adapt to demand, continuously providing cheaper and healthier plat-based alternatives. The fact that my own diet is a compromise, does not go against the overarching intent of it - to reduce animal suffering and encouraging a societal development in that direction.

Helping in interpreting the study you cite, is a separate agenda. I like to favor an accurate understanding. I'm equally critical towards vegan propaganda. Facts first, moral implications are second.

Former vegetarians/vegans were asked if they began to experience any of the following when they were eating a vegetarian/vegan diet: depression/anxiety, digestive problems, food allergies, low cholesterol, an eating disorder, thyroid problems, protein deficiency, B12 deficiency, calcium deficiency, iron deficiency, iodine deficiency, vitamin A deficiency, vitamin D deficiency, zinc deficiency.
The findings show that:

• 71% of former vegetarians/vegans experienced none of the above. It is quite noteworthy that such a small proportion of individuals experienced ill health.
• All of the conditions were experienced by some participants, though only rarely. In each case, less than 10% of lapsed vegetarians/vegans experienced one of these issues, except iron deficiency (experienced by 11%).
• Respondents who indicated they began to experience at least one of the conditions were asked if it improved after they started eating meat. 82% of these respondents indicated that some or all of the conditions improved when they reintroduced meat. The most typical timeframes for improvement were: within 2–6 days (20%), within 1–3 weeks (33%), and within 1–3 months (22%).

The first point clearly states that 29 % of correspondents did experienced some symptom (71% did not).
Even with your estimate of 20% being unable to recover, that is a total of 5.8 %.

Most of the symptoms are easily recovered from, or prevented with a better diet, or supplements.
The tricker ones are:
Depression/anxiety, digestive problems, food allergies, an eating disorder, thyroid problems.

Assuming that any of those symptoms could develop independently, alongside but unrelated to the dietary change, the number becomes < 5.8 %.
This number ought to be compared to the number of issues with a meat diet, but I don't have that data readily available.

The meat in the grocery store will be there whether you buy it or not, choosing not to eat meat doesn't do anything.

Production scales with demand. You ought to support things you find want more of and avoid things you don't.

 

[Downdraft]

I think the meat industry should be minimized, and I've seen veganism being increasingly viable as my own country adapt to demand, continuously providing cheaper and healthier plat-based alternatives. The fact that my own diet is a compromise, does not go against the overarching intent of it - to reduce animal suffering and encouraging a societal development in that direction.

Look, I think welfarism is important, but if something can't be, it's better to not hammer it more. I talked about this, crops need animal output and will always be raised regardless.

There will be very few, if at all, vegan farmers because they know exactly how it works. For fertilizer to be done solely of vegetals is titanic. You need so much more resources it's not viable at a national scale. Theoretically it could only be done at a small garden scale, and at that point, if you live on a zone where you have plenty of natural land, why not just eat hunted meat?

I elaborated on my first posts, but I recommend asking real farmers somewhere, and basically all will agree how unviable is to not use animals in the process.

BTW: there isn't enough fertile land in the planet to sustain a vegan Earth, so animals will always be used. Veganism doesn't do anything because even if you went plant-based, animals will be involved. There's no way around it.

So instead, calling for better conditions in farms is possible, and abolishing or even reducing them is not. Possible ways are the only ones that will work.

Helping in interpreting the study you cite, is a separate agenda. I like to favor an accurate understanding. I'm equally critical towards vegan propaganda. Facts first, moral implications are second.

I haven't said anything false (purposefully).

The first point clearly states that 29 % of correspondents did experienced some symptom (71% did not).
Even with your estimate of 20% being unable to recover, that is a total of 5.8 %.

Imagine you had a chance to give ±6% of people on Earth diseases. Would you do it because it seems like such a small number?

I'm well aware of the proportion of people who can't be cured and I still chose this point. There are millions of vegans and a 5-6% of millions is still a lot. Even if less than a 1% were not curable, I'd still go against veganism. It's not how "low" the chance seems, it's that any chance is unacceptable. We are talking about potentially ruining lifes, for nothing.

Most of the symptoms are easily recovered from, or prevented with a better diet, or supplements.
The tricker ones are:
Depression/anxiety, digestive problems, food allergies, an eating disorder, thyroid problems.

Still, why goind through this problem if it just doesn't help anyone?

Assuming that any of those symptoms could develop independently, alongside but unrelated to the dietary change, the number becomes < 5.8 %.
This number ought to be compared to the number of issues with a meat diet, but I don't have that data readily available.

There aren't. A balanced diet cannot make you ill. And even if animal stuff had such a thing that you had to cut it off, the lack of it is also dangerous. At that point you are choosing which risk you want.

And besides, there are none. Bad diets, over-eating fats, misusing animal food, sure. But a balanced diet, by definition, cannot be unhealthy. Unless you were allergic to all of said foods, which is way less common that in 6% of people.

Production scales with demand. You ought to support things you find want more of and avoid things you don't.

I agree for the majority of products, but food is a rare case that can't change. It usually works for products you can live without, like electronics, not the very foundation of life.

 

[Lost in a Dream]

As someone who was vegan, I will explain my number one reason for why I'm not anymore. Animals aren't these helpless, innocent little beings that must be protected. In reality, they are monsters, the same as humans. Chickens for example have a pecking order, which means they will peck each other to death for being weaker, the same way human bullies would push around someone who is weaker than them. Using deer as another example, the Bucks will actually rape the Does in the wild, which puts venison on the menu for me. If you would like evidence of this, I can find the video I discovered from a deer hunter who documented this very thing. I guarantee you if the roles were reversed, the animals you refuse to eat would factory farm humans given the intelligence necessary to do so.

The second reason is it's too exhausting to care about it anymore. I am fully aware that it is possible to eat healthy while being vegan by using beans and tofu for protein, soy milk and oat milk for calcium and other nutrients, etc. I just don't care anymore because it sucked the life out of me by being surrounded on all sides by people who didn't.

 

[Hvergelmir]

...asking real farmers somewhere

I grew up among "real" farmers. They tend to be very traditional, repeating what previous generation did. They don't tend to think much about alternatives.
Much like any other industry (slavery, tobacco, casinos, whatever you find morally questionable), they tend to just want to keep earning their livelihood, in the same way they have always done. Questioning it, is not met with serious consideration.

there isn't enough fertile land in the planet to sustain a vegan Earth

This is an argument I don't understand. Energy conservation dictates that there is a loss of energy between each step in the food chain.
We can't get nutrients from cattle feed directly though, which admittedly makes it more complicated. Still the data seem clear to me: meat production requires more land.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
I found one article from 2007, which argue that low quality farmland unfit for growing crops, could make meat production more land efficient in those locations.
Diet With A Little Meat Uses Less Land Than Many Vegetarian Diets

Still, why goind through this problem if it just doesn't help anyone?

To reduce animal suffering! There's also a plethora of environmental and health related benefits, but each one is a complicated subject on its own.

But a balanced diet, by definition, cannot be unhealthy.

Eating a mix of different foods does indeed mitigate risks, by kind of balancing itself. Just eating random foods labeling it "balance", is however not ideal.

There's actually quite a lot of research indicating health benefits of plant-based diets, and there seem to an overwhelming consensus in academia that a big reduction in meat consumption would be beneficial to society at large.

Twin research indicates that a vegan diet improves cardiovascular health

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/vegetarianism.htm

I find the suffering caused to animals horrendous. If people don't care, I'm not in a position to change that.
But for those who do care, but don't believe in the viability of the alternatives I hope to make a difference. For an individual in the west, veganism is a perfectly viable, and low risk endeavor.

 

[Downdraft]

This is an argument I don't understand. Energy conservation dictates that there is a loss of energy between each step in the food chain.
We can't get nutrients from cattle feed directly though, which admittedly makes it more complicated. Still the data seem clear to me: meat production requires more land.

It's counter-intuitive and I was confused at first as well, but makes sense. Most of what animals are fed are the leftovers not good to us: low-quality grains and forage. Stuff we wouldn't be eating anyway, we don't grow crops separately for them.

About nutrient loss, it's not about total conservation, it's that their nutrients are unique and have properties plants don't. There's also bioavailability.

The rest of links you posted don't seem to be about veganism, but about eating meat in moderation. They seem to advocate for some degree of meat eating.

I also think suffering is horrendous but as I said, I don't think veganism helps about that. In fact vegans usually oppose things like hunting and population control that don't make any sense from a welfare perspective, and for many things I consider veganism a burden in the way of welfarism.

In reality, they are monsters, the same as humans. Chickens for example have a pecking order, which means they will peck each other to death for being weaker, the same way human bullies would push around someone who is weaker than them. Using deer as another example, the Bucks will actually rape the Does in the wild, which puts venison on the menu for me. If you would like evidence of this, I can find the video I discovered from a deer hunter who documented this very thing. I guarantee you if the roles were reversed, the animals you refuse to eat would factory farm humans given the intelligence necessary to do so.

Can't agree more. They can't help themselves and they don't deserve to suffer, but I can't but hate this critters.

 

[jar-baby]

Animals aren't these helpless, innocent little beings that must be protected. In reality, they are monsters, the same as humans. Chickens for example have a pecking order, which means they will peck each other to death for being weaker, the same way human bullies would push around someone who is weaker than them. Using deer as another example, the Bucks will actually rape the Does in the wild, which puts venison on the menu for me. If you would like evidence of this, I can find the video I discovered from a deer hunter who documented this very thing. I guarantee you if the roles were reversed, the animals you refuse to eat would factory farm humans given the intelligence necessary to do so.

I don't understand this—to me, the fact that animals are incapable of having higher-order thoughts means that they cannot be morally responsible for hurting each other. Animals can't be evil (or good, for that matter) because their primitive cognition means they are incapable of having a conscience. Unlike humans.

"given the intelligence necessary to do so." is a big claim—there's no reason not to believe that if animals did have human intelligence they'd naturally have a theory of mind that would enable them to act more considerately (than they currently do) towards other creatures.

 

[Lost in a Dream]

I don't understand this—to me, the fact that animals are incapable of having higher-order thoughts means that they cannot be morally responsible for hurting each other. Animals can't be evil (or good, for that matter) because their primitive cognition means they are incapable of having a conscience. Unlike humans.

"given the intelligence necessary to do so." is a big claim—there's no reason not to believe that if animals did have human intelligence they'd naturally have a theory of mind that would enable them to act more considerately (than they currently do) towards other creatures.

It's actually not that big of a claim. Look at how many people with human intelligence care so little for the animals they're eating. Most only care about the taste and that's it. We live on a hell planet where the DNA of humans and animals is coded to be this way. If the roles were reversed you might get a tiny percentage of animals who would be considerate of humans being factory farmed but most would only care about the taste.

The answer is clearly in the DNA of all living things. Life must consume life to exist. Nothing is exempt from that rule.

 

[jar-baby]

It's actually not that big of a claim. Look at how many people with human intelligence care so little for the animals they're eating. Most only care about the taste and that's it. We live on a hell planet where the DNA of humans and animals is coded to be this way. If the roles were reversed you might get a tiny percentage of animals who would be considerate of humans being factory farmed but most would only care about the taste.

The answer is clearly in the DNA of all living things. Life must consume life to exist. Nothing is exempt from that rule.

You're right, but I don't see how that constitutes an argument against being vegan; it's one thing to say that most humans and animals follow their primitive instincts and another to say that that means we shouldn't attempt to do the opposite if it means reducing suffering.

 

[Lost in a Dream]

You're right, but I don't see how that constitutes an argument against being vegan; it's one thing to say that most humans and animals follow their primitive instincts and another to say that that means we shouldn't attempt to do the opposite if it means reducing suffering.

It probably is better to reduce suffering if we can. It's just overwhelming to care enough to be vegan when no one else seems to. It's very draining.

 

[AuroraB]

I am vegan since 1998 or 1999. I don't remember the year. Before that, I was completely vegetarian since 1976 so 48 years without any carcass and 25 or 26 years now without any animal excretions (eggs, milk, etc). So now I'm 62-1/2 years old and the vast majority of friends my age who are not veg'n are on multiple medications for high blood pressure, diabetes, etc.--I went veg'n then vegan to prevent animal suffering and the destruction of the planet. I never had kids. I'm on "O.G." LOL ---Although I had a few long time vegan friends who died from gnarly illnesses (cancer, parkinsons, etc), most of my vegan friends are far more healthy than most of my animal-eating friends/family. I won't ever eat animals again. If I'm starving to death, I'll let the animals eat me. If a doctor tells me to eat animals, I'll say no. I'm just wired this way. I just don't consider animal flesh and excretions to be food.

 

[Hvergelmir]

The rest of links you posted don't seem to be about veganism

The twin research study was. Two were about land use.
The last one was simply a list of related research, to show how and where opinions vary even among researchers. I tried to keep it politically neutral. The links posted does not tell you what to eat, or how to live your life.

In fact vegans usually oppose things like hunting and population control that don't make any sense from a welfare perspective

I'm one of those! I'm not going to argue against the occasional culling of a sick population, but I do argue that the overall balance is a rollercoaster started by human, which ought to largely be left alone. It's driven by greed and human needs, with some but way too little concern for other species.

I think Chernobyl demonstrates the effects of just leaving nature to find its own balance. Even with high radiation levels, the animal populations have thrived. The wolf population recovered particularly impressively.
(I'm worried about the long term effects, but it still say a lot about the supposed importance of killing wild animals.)

How Chernobyl has become an unexpected haven for wildlife

If a doctor tells me to eat animals, I'll say no.

Have that happened at any point in those 48 years? If we were to be a bit educational, what challenges did you face over those 48 years?

 

[WhatCouldHaveBeen32]

The only reason I am not vegan or at least vegetarian is because I don't have any money, I eat the cheapest things available and most of them have dairy or sometimes meat/fat in them. I don't have another choice and not that it matters.

Humans and life just just sucks in general tbh. Remember 95-99% of the humans are neutral or worse with animals, if they can get joy from petting them they will if they can get joy from eating them right after they will. Sometimes I wonder if I really want to end my life or just actually want revenge and my anger is wrongfully justified inwards instead of outwards.

 

[soledad.virgen]

being a vegan is morally righteous, but i simply don't have the means nor willpower to adhere to it. subsidies keep chicken and beef cheap so that's what i will stick to for now.

 

[Rudi]

I feel like I may be vegetarian, my whole family assumes that too

 

[BeijaFlor]

idealy, i'do much rather be in a social context akin to totally isolated from society indigenous tribes, where taking an animals life would be as swiftly n painlessly as possible, whilst honoring their passing with a prayer or something, and making full use of all resources, from their meat, fur, scales, feathers, bones etc, trying not to waste anything

in such terms, i wouldnt see much problems with eating meat, as for me its a natural thing

however, the way our society does it, is truly gruesome n cruel

what stops me from being vegan though, is the same thing that stops me from being so many other things in life; society

i've been far too much traumatized, abused n numbed down to care much, unfortunatly... society is sick, n it sickens people all around the world, everyday

 

[Downdraft]

The twin research study was. Two were about land use.
The last one was simply a list of related research, to show how and where opinions vary even among researchers. I tried to keep it politically neutral. The links posted does not tell you what to eat, or how to live your life.

Half of the world's habitable land is used for agriculture, with most of this used to raise livestock for dairy and meat.

This is not true. The base of this arguments, as I said before, is the false idea that we grow crops specifically for animals.

The Canadian Dairy Cow Diet | Dairy Farmers of Canada

The most common food for dairy cows is grass. Canadian dairy farmers work closely with nutritionists to find diets that work best for their specific cows.

dairyfarmersofcanada.ca

Corn as Cattle Feed vs. Human Food - Oklahoma State University

The comparisons between corn usage in human food, cattle feed and diesel.

extension.okstate.edu

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312201313_Livestock_On_our_plates_or_eating_at_our_table_A_new_analysis_of_the_feedfood_debate

Results estimate that livestock consume 6 billion tonnes of feed (dry matter) annually – including one third of global cereal production – of which 86% is made of materials that are currently not eaten by humans. In addition, soybean cakes, which production can be considered as main driver or land-use, represent 4% of the global livestock feed intake.

While livestock is estimated to use 2.5 billion ha of land, modest improvements in feed use efficiency can reduce further expansion.

57% of the land used is not suited for land production.

Think of terrain too uneven, or soil unusable for crop, Observe rural farmlands: you'll see flat land being used for crops, and hilly land used to raise livestock.

Producing 1 kg of boneless meat requires an average of 2.8 kg human-edible feed in ruminant systems and 3.2 kg in monogastric systems.

HOWEVER, only a 13% of the total animal feed is theoretically edible... it consists of very low quality grains, which make up a third of global cereal (not total crop) production. Stuff still too deficient compared to the commercial harvest to seriously consider taking it.


The alternative to not feed animals is to waste a huge amount of leftovers we can't do anything with.

Acres of crops fail every year. Those are meant for human consumption, but ends up as animal feed. Manure is a very good fertilizer, but vegan defenders don't seem to mention crop failure and the fact animals can recycle that. In a began world crop failures mean no vegan food. However, the reality is that crop failures are feed for ruminants which is nutritive to them and make good fertilizer to regenerate soil.

The majority of animal feed is from farming byproducts that are inedible to us: pulp, failed crops, inedible parts of plants and not just their grain, soybean hulls, wheat germ, etc. All the leftover crop parts that are to be sold for human consumption: what we can't eat. Plant-based diets produce this leftover we can't do anything with. Without animals, those would still exist because we don't eat the whole plants. Hence feeding those to animals in exchange of their fertilizer is highly productive.

Why a farmer with land to grow anything profitable would choose to grow anything but that what yields the most profit?

Feeding the soil with vegetal compost takes too much. Lots of space, absolutely massive amounts of organic material, and then doing it right and not just letting things rot. At a large scale, it would be a logistical nightmare and the work needed makes costs way too high.

You like to underlook farmers, but they are professionals. They don't do that because tradition, but because it's the only way we could've continued. Think of a large civilization that survived thousands of years without animals: exactly, there are none.

The logical conclusion of your study is that farmers are dumb enough to grow crops they don't need solely to operate at an economic loss.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) recognizes the value of animals and don't recommend veganism at all.

It's safe to assume with all of this that veganism is inapplicable to the real world.

This is without counting the health issues.

• Vegan diets are devoid of many nutrients and generally require more supplements than just B12. Some of them (Vitamin K2, EPA/DHA, Vitamin A) can only be obtained because they are converted from other sources, which is inefficient, limited or poor for a large part of the population. EPA+DHA from animal products have an anti-inflammatory effect, but converting it from ALA (plant sourced) does not seem to work the same. Taurine is essential for many people with special needs, while Creatine supplementation improves memory only in those who don't eat meat.
• Restrictive dieting has psychological consequences including aggressive behavior, negative emotionality, loss of libido, concentration difficulties, higher anxiety measures and reduced self-esteem. There is an extremely strong link between meat abstention and mental disorders. While it's unknown what causes what, the vegan diet is low in or devoid of several important brain nutrients.
• A vegan diet alone fulfills the diagnostic criteria of an eating disorder.

From the first link I posted.

You underlooked the serious health concerns under the excuse of "it's too unlikely" and moving the goalposts every time I counter-argued: first it was that my interpretation was wrong and the real number of affected people was lower: when it was proven false, it went to underlook the numbers I posted as if they weren't a big deal or had risks in other areas. You said the problems are "tricky": not they aren't, they are a huge problem and statistically unavoidable.

Veganism is an unhealthy, unviable, and useless ideology that:

• Possesses risks not present with balancing animal food, regardless of the quantity,
• Cannot be applied due to the unviability of using solely vegetal fertilizer,
• Animals will always exist because it's extremely profitable to use them in crop growth,
• There isn't enough fertile land to renounce animal meat.

List of countries by arable land density - Wikipedia

wikipedia.org

Arable land - Wikipedia

wikipedia.org

If you really want to renounce animals, you'd need more land to fertilize stuff. And I don't know if you're aware, but huge numbers of moles, small mammals, reptiles and insects are killed first to prepare the land, and then in traps and pesticides so it can grow. Do you seriously realize how many animals die in the process of growing crops?

I'm one of those! I'm not going to argue against the occasional culling of a sick population, but I do argue that the overall balance is a rollercoaster started by human, which ought to largely be left alone. It's driven by greed and human needs, with some but way too little concern for other species.

I think Chernobyl demonstrates the effects of just leaving nature to find its own balance. Even with high radiation levels, the animal populations have thrived. The wolf population recovered particularly impressively.
(I'm worried about the long term effects, but it still say a lot about the supposed importance of killing wild animals.)

How Chernobyl has become an unexpected haven for wildlife

A "haven" lmao.

It's literally common knowledge than animals don't have pleasant lives or deaths in nature and most are stuck in constant fight or flight. At least we give them humane deaths, hunters are trained in where to shoot to minimize suffering instead of your model, where animals starve, disease, and get regularly tore up into shreds alive and aware of everything.

There is no welfare in nature. There can't be welfare without human intervention.

 

[coolgal82]

not intending this to come across in a critical way, I know it's hard to convey tone over text. But I am a vegan and I find it hard to understand why others aren't. I know not everyone can eat 100% plant based but for those who can, and can avoid animal products, I'm curious as to why they don't

i've considered it before but

1. theres not much i eat anyway and especially not much that isnt an animal product

2. i dont have the self control lmao

 

[Hvergelmir]

Producing 1 kg of boneless meat requires an average of 2.8 kg human-edible feed...

HOWEVER, only a 13% of the total animal feed is theoretically edible...

1 kg of boneless meat cost 280% human-edible feed.
The other supposed 87% of non-human-edible feed, are irrelevant.
Do we really want to eat the "human-edible feed"? Is it practical/viable/safe? Those are valid concerns.

The alternative to not feed animals is to waste a huge amount of leftovers we can't do anything with.

You can make biofuel, bioplastics, and a bunch of other things from it.
I also don't think there's a big opposition of keeping animals under good care until old age, for their manure. (But that is not what's proposed.)

Why a farmer with land to grow anything profitable would choose to grow anything but that what yields the most profit?
[...]
You like to underlook farmers, but they are professionals.
[...]
The logical conclusion of your study is that farmers are dumb enough to grow crops they don't need solely to operate at an economic loss.

I don't expect farmers to disregard profit. I hope a change in demand can force them to adapt. That's also what I've seen happening gradually over the past 15 years.
I don't deny that farmers have expert knowledge in contemporary farming and related market needs. They are however not top tier researchers. Neither are they unbiased.

If anything, my personal conclusion is that meat is overvalued as a nutritional source - that the market demand for meat is much higher than it ought to be. My conclusion is also that farmers, like any producer, is biased, favoring the benefits of whatever they're currently producing (whether that is meat, tobacco, eco-friendly vegetables, or even nuclear weapons).

A "haven" lmao.
It's literally common knowledge than animals don't have pleasant lives or deaths in nature and most are stuck in constant fight or flight...

I don't think we're in any major disagreement here.
I think biodiversity, big animal populations, and freedom are good things, even with the inherent suffering. As such, I see beauty in free nature.
If we see rampant suffering due to radiation or disease in future, I may very well support culling.
Any differences here, are based purely on philosophical values and highly subjective quantization of suffering and life value. There's nothing laughable about it.
I consider the Chernobyl area and it's wildlife one of the most fascinating places on earth, and hoped the reference would be appreciated.

With that, I think we're strayed way off topic. My intent was never to challenge you or farmers at large, but to challenge the notion that veganism is inherently dangerous.
I think both sides are represented by now, and backed up with more research than anyone is likely to sift through.

 

[HouseofMortok]

Autistic, if they somehow forced the world to go veggie/vegan, I'd starve.

 

[Leiot]

Biologically, we're omnivores. We have flat teeth to eat plants and canines for meat. I think it's great that we have the choice but sometimes vegans equate eating meat with treating animals terribly in factory farms and that sort of thing. There is other meat that doesn't come from those places, plus things like Halal and Kosher that ensure meat is properly sourced and not full of chemicals.

I think if you get meat from a decent source, and realize the food comes from an animal and give thanks & acknowledge the sacrifice of the animal then it's not the same.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Hecubaa]

I was vegan in the past and would like to become one again. I am not vegan at the moment because I find it difficult to motivate myself to cook. I mostly do it when I do it for other people and then I just cook whatever they want. My mental health is really messed up so the extra effort of learning how to cook tasty and healthy feels like more effort than I am capable of. I'm generally a good cook and like my own food often better than that from restaurants but I tend to cook the same few things. When it comes to take out, I sometimes choose vegan options but often they aren't tasty and I already struggle to make myself eat, so I'm likely to only take 1-2 bites and never finish the rest if I'm not really enjoying it.

If I ever recover, I'll likely go vegan again. I am not entirely persuaded that being fully vegan is the most sustainable diet for the earth but I think I'd still do it because, emotionally, I don't feel comfortable with animals being exploited.

 

[G50]

not intending this to come across in a critical way, I know it's hard to convey tone over text. But I am a vegan and I find it hard to understand why others aren't. I know not everyone can eat 100% plant based but for those who can, and can avoid animal products, I'm curious as to why they don't

One can just as easily ask vegans and vegetarians why they are not on the the carnivore diet or Lion diet. These diets have improved the physical health as well as mental health of many people. The health improvement may stem from the ketogenic effects of these diets, or the fact that without carbs, gut bacteria are not feed, so this may improve gut health.

Personally I would not like a diet that is 100% meat, I like a balanced diet; but for people who are ill with a chronic disease or mental health issues, if these can be ameliorated or eliminated by eating nothing but meat, it is worth it.

 

[Enemigo]

Money, in my country the balanced and healthy vegan diet is very expensive.

 

[cryone]

preferences, money, culture, and lack of care lmao.

 

[OnlyOneSolution]

Food is the only thing that gives me pleasure and joy these days and the majority of that isn't vegan. I've also noticed when I deprive myself of it for long, it seriously makes me more suicidal, like seriously, and there isn't much wiggle room for the intensity of my suicidality right now but vegan food does that to me.

Well said. Food is one of the only things I look forward to. Meat 40 times a month and salad twice a month tells me that going vegan won't work for me.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I'm curious about your thoughts regarding this video @wildflowers1996 since it links two important themes here, the themes being veganism and suicide:



Personally I think that the meat eater is correct at least theoretically

 

[derpyderpins]

Not reading this post or all the replies but every time I see it get bumped I text my wife that we should have steak for dinner.

 

[wildflowers1996]

I'm curious about your thoughts regarding this video @wildflowers1996 since it links two important themes here, the themes being veganism and suicide:



Personally I think that the meat eater is correct at least theoretically

hi,

I don't think people have a moral obligation to kill themselves. Even if a person ending their life meant that fewer resources were taken up (debatable I think, since I think suicide actually costs the economy, and by living you may provide more resources, and also ending your life may lead to a lot of pain for others), I don't see why they have to sacrifice their whole life for this - they're not any less worthy than those they are making the sacrifice for.
Vegans aren't expecting people to sacrifice their lives for animals; they are asking that people don't sacrifice the animals' lives and allow them to suffer for the sake of sensory pleasure.

But the point that to reduce suffering entirely would mean ending all life on Earth? Honestly, I have had this thought a lot, that it would be better if no one existed, and there was no pain for anyone.