Veganism

I was a vegetarian till I found Weston Price. I simply cannot overstate how profoundly his work and those teeth pictures affected me. It spilled over into things other than nutrition and food and prompted me for the first time in my life to become much more sympathetic to traditional ways and mindsets that had before appeared ignorant and backwards.

Same here! I found his work very early on and it has had a major influence. His work on nutrition, behavior, and morality was way ahead of his time, and his definition of health was also unique because it wasn't just an absence of pathogenesis. I credit his work for my being 30 and still not a single cavity and not ending up needing glasses like everyone else in my family.
 
Same here! I found his work very early on and it has had a major influence. His work on nutrition, behavior, and morality was way ahead of his time, and his definition of health was also unique because it wasn't just an absence of pathogenesis. I credit his work for my being 30 and still not a single cavity and not ending up needing glasses like everyone else in my family.
I'd say I jeopardized my health due to vegetarianism but luckily, though painfully, figured out what I was doing wrong after much, much reading. Still, I'm 40, have never had a mainstream doctor - granted I only see my company doctor once a year for mandatory exam/blood work - think I need any medication, and I'm consistently mistaken for being 5-7 years younger than I am. I feel good.

This subject has come up here before and so I've told this story, but concerning the morality of eating meat, there's the case of our highly conscious dog, Frieda. She was a Jack Russell and had heart problems and was considerably overweight. She ended up dying, certainly prematurely, from the heart problem. At the time, I wasn't savvy to evolutionary eating, so we were feeding Frieda vegetarian, grain based "dog food" rather than something even loosely resembling a dog's natural 90% meat based diet. Assuming one agrees that radically altering an organisms diet is likely to make it sick or kill it, is it moral or immoral to feed a meat eating animal a strictly completely grain based diet?

Also, as far as veganism goes, I strongly suggest this article to those who choose that route: http://rawfoodsos.com/for-vegans/
 
This subject has come up here before and so I've told this story, but concerning the morality of eating meat, there's the case of our highly conscious dog, Frieda. She was a Jack Russell and had heart problems and was considerably overweight. She ended up dying, certainly prematurely, from the heart problem. At the time, I wasn't savvy to evolutionary eating, so we were feeding Frieda vegetarian, grain based "dog food" rather than something even loosely resembling a dog's natural 90% meat based diet. Assuming one agrees that radically altering an organisms diet is likely to make it sick or kill it, is it moral or immoral to feed a meat eating animal a strictly completely grain based diet?

Yes, this is a good point. I would call it immoral to do that, and even bordering on animal abuse in my opinion. This is kind of along the lines of my thoughts with respect to humans and a vegan diet, since it is an unnatural diet for us. I think it is unethical to feed a child a vegan diet for this reason.
 
My partner is vegetarian, so I went along with that at home, but in recent years she decided to relax a bit and we now eat fish as well.

Vegetarianism is tricky when you are away from home, and being a vegan would be very hard I think.

For many years people have assumed that the saturated fat in many meats was unhealthy. Incredibly (and this is part of my general criticism of modern science) it now turns out that it is probably good for you - particularly as consuming it displaces some carbohydrates, which break down into sugars in the stomach. It seems that being a vegetarian possibly was not as healthy as we were lead to believe!

Another aspect of this is that cats do require food of animal origin. We have a cat, and he is the only 'person' in the house to eat meat!

The morality of the whole business is impossible to resolve satisfactorily.

David
 
The morality of the whole business is impossible to resolve satisfactorily.

David

My views on this are heavily influenced by Native Americans, where we are part of nature and the cycle of life, and there is nothing wrong with killing for food so long as there is respect and gratitude for it all. I just can't view nature as immoral.
 
I'd say I jeopardized my health due to vegetarianism but luckily, though painfully, figured out what I was doing wrong after much, much reading. Still, I'm 40, have never had a mainstream doctor - granted I only see my company doctor once a year for mandatory exam/blood work - think I need any medication, and I'm consistently mistaken for being 5-7 years younger than I am. I feel good.

This subject has come up here before and so I've told this story, but concerning the morality of eating meat, there's the case of our highly conscious dog, Frieda. She was a Jack Russell and had heart problems and was considerably overweight. She ended up dying, certainly prematurely, from the heart problem. At the time, I wasn't savvy to evolutionary eating, so we were feeding Frieda vegetarian, grain based "dog food" rather than something even loosely resembling a dog's natural 90% meat based diet. Assuming one agrees that radically altering an organisms diet is likely to make it sick or kill it, is it moral or immoral to feed a meat eating animal a strictly completely grain based diet?

Also, as far as veganism goes, I strongly suggest this article to those who choose that route: http://rawfoodsos.com/for-vegans/

Are you saying you're a dog?
 
In response to the carnist apologism in this thread.

Firstly, veganism is not so much "a" diet as a broad spectrum of possibilities. Taking meat, eggs and dairy off the menu is barely a drop in the ocean when it comes to limitation of possibilities. You can be a high carb, low fat vegan, but you can also up your fat intake. You can be a raw vegan, but you can also eat cooked foods. You can eat grains, or you can be gluten free. You can base your diet on beans and legumes or you can base it on fruit. You can eat any food you like... so long as it's not based in harm. If you can't find a way to be healthy with all of those possibilities, then you're just not trying hard enough.

Secondly, whatever observations Weston Price may have made about the diets of the people he found are, frankly, irrelevant to the debate about vegan health. The facts are that (1) there are millions of healthy vegans in the world today, (2) the major national membership-based associations of experts in nutrition endorse vegan diets as not only sufficiently healthy for everybody but also offering health benefits, and (3) relative to their numbers in the general population, vegans are perfectly well represented as elite athletes. There is no need for animal products in anybody's diet. Period.

Thirdly, the ethical argument for veganism is irrefutable. Let me make it explicit:

P1. Avoidable harm should be avoided.
P2. Consumption of animal products entails avoidable harm.
C. Consumption of animal products should be avoided.

Bringing Native American culture into the debate in a modern context is disingenuous. Living off the land, with limited options, and relying on seasonal availability, is totally different to living in a modern, agricultural, internationally interconnected world in which there is no limitation whatsoever: where we can get what we want, when we want it. If you're not growing your own food, and you're subsisting off the land, then, yes, you might be forced to rely on hunting to some extent; it might be an unavoidable harm. But to suggest that this applies in any way in the modern context is ridiculous. And to suggest that you "respect" the animals that you have killed for your mere convenience is just disgusting.

Finally, re vegan pets. There certainly are many people whose dogs thrive on a vegan diet, and even many whose cats also thrive. Feeding cats a vegan diet is trickier though, and apparently it doesn't always work out. The problem here though is that the very basis of "keeping pets" is messed up. In most cases, "pets" are really "prisoners". Yes, there are definitely many people who love their companion animals and whose companion animals love them back, but how many companion animals are free to come and go as they please? Most people who keep pets are also working people, and, whilst they are at work, their pets are confined and alone, miserable and bored out of their minds. Companion animals don't get to chose where they live and how much freedom they have. They are in most cases "stuck" and anything but free. This is a paradigm that needs to change.
 
652645.jpg
 
The problem here though is that the very basis of "keeping pets" is messed up. In most cases, "pets" are really "prisoners". Yes, there are definitely many people who love their companion animals and whose companion animals love them back, but how many companion animals are free to come and go as they please? Most people who keep pets are also working people, and, whilst they are at work, their pets are confined and alone, miserable and bored out of their minds. Companion animals don't get to chose where they live and how much freedom they have. They are in most cases "stuck" and anything but free. This is a paradigm that needs to change.

Our cats have always been free to come and go as they please! Maybe this happens more in the UK - I don't know. Our cat has a 'cat flap' and he can pop out whenever he wishes.

I think that a lot of people appreciate animals far more because they keep pets.

David
 
In response to the carnist apologism in this thread.

Firstly, veganism is not so much "a" diet as a broad spectrum of possibilities. Taking meat, eggs and dairy off the menu is barely a drop in the ocean when it comes to limitation of possibilities. You can be a high carb, low fat vegan, but you can also up your fat intake. You can be a raw vegan, but you can also eat cooked foods. You can eat grains, or you can be gluten free. You can base your diet on beans and legumes or you can base it on fruit. You can eat any food you like... so long as it's not based in harm. If you can't find a way to be healthy with all of those possibilities, then you're just not trying hard enough.

Secondly, whatever observations Weston Price may have made about the diets of the people he found are, frankly, irrelevant to the debate about vegan health. The facts are that (1) there are millions of healthy vegans in the world today, (2) the major national membership-based associations of experts in nutrition endorse vegan diets as not only sufficiently healthy for everybody but also offering health benefits, and (3) relative to their numbers in the general population, vegans are perfectly well represented as elite athletes. There is no need for animal products in anybody's diet. Period.

Thirdly, the ethical argument for veganism is irrefutable. Let me make it explicit:

P1. Avoidable harm should be avoided.
P2. Consumption of animal products entails avoidable harm.
C. Consumption of animal products should be avoided.

Bringing Native American culture into the debate in a modern context is disingenuous. Living off the land, with limited options, and relying on seasonal availability, is totally different to living in a modern, agricultural, internationally interconnected world in which there is no limitation whatsoever: where we can get what we want, when we want it. If you're not growing your own food, and you're subsisting off the land, then, yes, you might be forced to rely on hunting to some extent; it might be an unavoidable harm. But to suggest that this applies in any way in the modern context is ridiculous. And to suggest that you "respect" the animals that you have killed for your mere convenience is just disgusting.

Finally, re vegan pets. There certainly are many people whose dogs thrive on a vegan diet, and even many whose cats also thrive. Feeding cats a vegan diet is trickier though, and apparently it doesn't always work out. The problem here though is that the very basis of "keeping pets" is messed up. In most cases, "pets" are really "prisoners". Yes, there are definitely many people who love their companion animals and whose companion animals love them back, but how many companion animals are free to come and go as they please? Most people who keep pets are also working people, and, whilst they are at work, their pets are confined and alone, miserable and bored out of their minds. Companion animals don't get to chose where they live and how much freedom they have. They are in most cases "stuck" and anything but free. This is a paradigm that needs to change.

Cats and dogs are not herbivores. Feeding them an herbivorous diet is animal abuse.
 
To throw a wrench in things here, what about plant intelligence and studies indicating they too seem to have some kind of sentience.

It wasn't too long ago that most people believed animals were organic automatons, without the ability to feel fear or pain. What if it turns out that in regards to plants, we've had it all wrong? What would vegans/vegetarians do then?


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ant-green-internet?CMP=twt_science*gdnscience
 
Finally, re vegan pets. There certainly are many people whose dogs thrive on a vegan diet, and even many whose cats also thrive. Feeding cats a vegan diet is trickier though, and apparently it doesn't always work out. The problem here though is that the very basis of "keeping pets" is messed up. In most cases, "pets" are really "prisoners". Yes, there are definitely many people who love their companion animals and whose companion animals love them back, but how many companion animals are free to come and go as they please? Most people who keep pets are also working people, and, whilst they are at work, their pets are confined and alone, miserable and bored out of their minds. Companion animals don't get to chose where they live and how much freedom they have. They are in most cases "stuck" and anything but free. This is a paradigm that needs to change.

Ok, I have a problem with this statement here. I've heard it before and to put it politely, it's ignorant.

Most dog breeds have been bred by humans to be what they are over hundreds, even thousands of years. Most dog breeds today couldn't survive on their own. For example, I have two pugs. Pugs are a breed that did not and would not exist in the wild. You can argue until you're blue in the face that humans should never have allowed for such a thing, but that is neither here nor there now. The fact is, they would die without humans. Plain and simple. So, my husband and I, knowing this, do what we can to be good stewards to these animals by providing them with a comfortable home, healthy food and good medical care. We also donate to various pug rescues, who take in stray pugs (who are almost invariably found in horrible shape, malnourished and often with a myriad of health problems/diseases/infestations). We keep a close eye on theTwitter feeds of these organizations and donate what extra we can when they've taken in a pug in particularly bad shape.

And that is just one breed. Cruelty is sending these little guys out there without the instincts or physical traits required to survive in a harsh world. As Niel said, nature is a hell of a bitch.

And the truth of the matter is, as David said above, many people come to be more conscientious of animals and their well being by having pets and interacting with them. It helps us to realize that just because they don't look like us, sound like us or behave like us that they aren't living beings, due love and respect.

My aforementioned pugs have literally changed me. I give them, and my human children most of the credit for becoming and wanting to become a better person. They have changed my perspective in ways that I cannot even describe, and have opened my heart in a major way.

I do not think this is by accident or serendipity. I believe it has been designed this way. We are inextricably linked, all of us, to one another, our environment and all living things we share this reality with. And we as the, apparently, most intelligent of these animals have the ability to choose. We can choose to use these connections to better all of us, including the lives of other living things, or we can abuse them. We can learn from each other, and yes, animals do learn from us too. It's a symbiosis of life. Which is the natural order of things.

And along those lines of symbiosis, life is a balance. We, too are animals. It's ignorant to pretend that there aren't certain harsh realities about this world in which we live. We, as is everything else, are part of a food chain. Sometimes we are on top, sometimes we aren't. All living things need to take in energy to survive. We don't, we die. It's as simple as that.

I personally choose to only eat chicken and turkey. Is that because I think chicken and turkeys don't deserve the same respect as cows or pigs? No. Of course not. But chicken and turkey works best for my system. I wish a vegan lifestyle was an option for me, but I have certain dietary issues that would make that an incredibly unhealthy endeavor for me.

I accept that while I have aspirations for a better world, where all forms of life can live without fear or pain, I also accept that that is not reality. I am a part of this natural world. I accept that at times we are the predator, and at others, we are the prey. I do my best to obtain my animal products from sources where the animal is treated with respect until their time comes. And I always say a little prayer of gratitude to the animals that were sacrificed for me and my family. I don't think that takes away the sacrifice, but I can still honor it nonetheless. Until we figure out a way to live in a world devoid of the need for predator and prey, I do my best to make it as peaceful a process as possible.
 
It seems people are conflating the terms nature and the wild. They are two very different things with very different applications. For example, you are probably part of the former but not the latter.
 
Could you elaborate on the cycle of life and how you see yourself within it?

I see humans as omnivorous animals. We have become apex predators through our technology, but we have also developed more harmonious methods of obtaining our food, such as farming. With our developed minds and technology, I think we are obligated to reduce suffering in the aqusition of our food.

So we are still animals that need animal products, but because of our mental evolution we should work to reduce the suffering typically seen with animals that hunt.
 
Back
Top