Can a vegan have a relationship with a meat eater?

105 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Tue, 2008-05-20 05:31

ElizaQ

Here's just another thought to throw into the mix.
Human's have been living/working with/using had a relationship with domesticatic animals for likely thousands of years.
There are/have been a diversity of different breeds of things like Chickens, sheep, ducks, cattle, swine etc etc.
If people all gave up meat and became vegan..no animal products many if not most of these would simply become extinct. In fact right now many breeds are at extinction level with in some cases only several hundred animals in existence.
This mostly because of the development of the the types of chickens and breeds used in factory farming. The similar sort of homogenization of our food systems that's happened with veggies and the loss of upwards of 80% of the vareties that were available 100 years ago.

Just wondering how people feel about actual extinction of types of these animals that humans have had a relationship with for eons.
I don't mean it to be an uber provocative question that's suggesting anything one way or another about people's different food choices. I myself was veggie at one time and aimed to be vegan. Changed though for a number of reasons.
I'm just interested in pondering the ethics and some of the questions behind the mere existence of these animals in the first place. There's talk about sentience and responsibility. Do we have a responsibility to ensure them living in the first place? Especially considered that there mere existence is because of the relationship that humans have with them for eons. Or is it okay to simply let them die out of existence because they are no longer necessary. If say we moved to a point where we simply conserved for the sake of their own life itself, like say pets is that viable in a ecological sense?
I'm not saying I have the answers either, ethically speaking. Some of these questions I've been pondering myself.

For instance Micheal brought up this point in reference to Farmpunks comments about organic farming.

quote:

Finally, regarding your comment about organic farms and cow dung: how much of the food we're producing, and the manure required to grow this food, is devoted to maintaining livestock? How much food could we raise if we decided to make better use of, for example, human waste, or the waste from animals we chose not to slaughter (and treated with greater consideration)?

Many of these comments are actually things I considered myself in my own life in setting up a small sustainable homestead within the framework of permaculture and creating the circular and ecological system of waste to food to waste to food and so on. What I learned though when I got into the nuts and bolts of ecologically and basic biological principles of the not only human but the lifecyle of the animals themselves is that it is not so easy to just say..no killing..just use the waste. In order to perpetuate the very existence of the animals over the long term in both health and welfare both physical and psychological it's not necessarily a good option to say leave and let be.

For instance, ever seen a flock of chickens with a over abundance of roosters? It can get really nasty. Like lots of death and carnage type nasty. The roosters will fight and kill each other for dominance and breeding rights. There is nothing unatural about this either. Feral and wild chickens act the same way. So in relation to humans, if we leave and let be do we just let it happen or do we integrate in with the natural tenedecies that happen anyway and create a relationship that can provide benefits for both us and the animals.
In the case of roosters a small flock owner generally will cull the males for food when they are big enough.
Now in factory farming systems it's another story, the male chicks as soon as they are able to be sexed are pretty much killed and thrown out in the garbage.

I actually seriously considered the possibility of having a chicken flock that could provide the waste for the overall system as well other things like weeding and pest control and not introduce killing into the cycle. I also wanted to be a part of trying to conserve some of the breeds that are facing extinction. That was before I understood the life cycle and nature of the animals themselves in terms of their own birth and death cycles as well as health and welfare. Genetics, in terms of breeding and inbreeding is also important..that plays into the overall health of the animals as well as the potential to keep having babies and existing perpetually. Short term no killing would work, but long term, the sustainability of the animals themselves is another question entirely.

I'm not that knowledgeable about other domesticatic animals but I expect the patterns are similar.

I also want to make it clear that I'm speaking about the existence of animals in a non-factory or industrial type operation.

Tue, 2008-05-20 05:38

#53

Kaspar Hauser

quote:

Originally posted by wage zombie:
[b]
I agree with much of what you're saying and i don't eat meat myself. But this is where you lose people. I think there is a natural inclination to view eating other humans as different than eating other animals. I can understand what you're saying, that humans are conditioned to "other" non-human animals. But this becomes a comparison, eating meat vs cannibalism. Would you say that they are morally equivalent?[/b]

You know, given the role I try to give to sentience and empathy in my ethical economy, I have a hard time finding a morally relevant difference. This is difficult to say, because of course I've eaten meat and, to my shame, I continue to consume non-meat animal products.

There are, of course, some pragmatic differences between cannibalism and meat-eating that can have serious ethical consequences: the moment we allow human cannibalism (with the caveat that we're NOT talking about survival-based, non-murderous, emergency cannibalism), we ruthlessly reinforce our own social hierarchies, because (if history is any guide) inevitably the people cannibalized would be the powerless, and the people cannibalizing would be the powerful. This would make things worse for us, but also for animals.

I think it's very likely that while, from an ethical perspective, animals are just as deserving of our empathy as human beings, from the perspective of evolutionary psychology we're better primed to empathize with other humans. If, as I've suggested, the cauterization of our capacity to empathize with animals has negative consequences for our capacity to empathize with human beings, then the cauterization of our capacity to empathize with human beings must have catastrophic consequences for our capacity to empathize with animals. As an extreme example of the cauterization of empathy, human cannibalism must be seen as an evil that transcends species boundaries.

Tue, 2008-05-20 05:45

#54

Boom Boom

I eat meat, but in minimum amounts. I get grossed out by others 'pigging out' on meat like there's no tomorrow, or eating meat that is anything but well cooked. I don't know how anyone can eat rare roast beef. And, I especially don't know how anyone can eat those triple decker or one pound hamburgers and live. Depending on how I feel, I sometimes pull the meat out of sandwiches or hamburgers and just eat the bread with veggies and condiments. I think we'd all be a lot healthier if we simply cut down on amounts of red meat consumed, not necessarily avoiding meat altogether, or maybe eating minimum amounts of fish or chicken instead.

Tue, 2008-05-20 06:45

#55

Caissa

oh Boom Boom, I feel a schism coming on. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] I love red roast beef and am more of a carnivore than omnivore. And to think, it's theology that separates most Anglicans....

Tue, 2008-05-20 07:10

#56

Stargazer

quote:

'm just interested in pondering the ethics and some of the questions behind the mere existence of these animals in the first place. There's talk about sentience and responsibility. Do we have a responsibility to ensure them living in the first place? Especially considered that there mere existence is because of the relationship that humans have with them for eons.

What? Humans are responsible for destroying our animal population, not helping it. As an FN person, we have a responsibility to treat our equals with respect, and animals are our equals. The way you are talking is foreign to me as a human and as a caretaker of the land.

They are in a "mere existence" because of our relationship with them? Seriously, read the list of endangered species, read what pollution, urban sprawl etc is doing to our animal friends, then get back to me on this totally man vs nature theory it seems you have. No offense against you but to me, this line of thinking is repulsive.

Tue, 2008-05-20 07:19

#57

Michelle

quote:

Originally posted by mahmud:
[b]But, Michelle, you talked about your reaction to yourself eating meat, which is fine. You did not give your view as whether it is possible for a vegan and a meat-eater to sustain a healthy relationship.[/b]

Sure I did. Right from the first post:

quote:

When I was vegan, I had no problem being friends with or having relationships with meat eaters, as long as they were respectful of my choices. But then, I had no problem with people joking around with me, and I think I had a higher tolerance for that sort of thing than other vegans I've read about who get really sick, really quickly, of people making jokes or asking questions they consider offensive. It just never bothered me.

I mean, I can't speak for ALL vegans (especially not now!) and ALL meat-eaters, clearly, as we've got a meat-eater in this thread who says she couldn't live with a vegan, and there are vegetarians/vegans who say they couldn't have relationships with meat-eaters. I can only speak for myself. When I was vegan, I didn't have any problem with dating meat-eaters. Now that I'm not, I would have no problem with dating a vegan.

[ 20 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Tue, 2008-05-20 08:21

#58

Boom Boom

quote:

Originally posted by Caissa:
[b]oh Boom Boom, I feel a schism coming on. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] I love red roast beef and am more of a carnivore than omnivore. And to think, it's theology that separates most Anglicans....[/b]

I lived in residence at Trinity College (Toronto's main Anglican seminary) for a year in the 1970s. Every Saturday was roast beef evening, with blood dripping from the meat interior. I had to have a small piece of meat carved from the outside of the roast as I would get sick from just looking at the red (pink, actually) portions. I wasn't the only one, apparently, as many students simply left the red/pink portions on their plates when finished eating. A few of the Trinity women simply bypassed the meat altogether and feasted on the veggies (including roasted potatoes).

Tue, 2008-05-20 08:50

#59

Farmpunk

Like I said, organic, biodynamic, or eco-farming (the last two of which likely fall into the "permaculture" framework) cannot realistically exist without manipulating domesticated animals.

A non-meat eater can have all ethics nailed down but where will their food come from? Gathering nuts? I can imagine a non-meat, non-exploitative food system, but that's about as far as I get - imagining.

If we're going to create sustainable food systems that aren't reliant on fossil fuels (or at least less reliant), they must include animals.

Now, that's where I usually start to have trouble with vegans-vegetarians of the opposite sex. For one, not too many of them have ever been on a farm, much less attempted to grow food for themselves or other people. So I get a little pissy and defensive after being told I'm a freakish redneck conservative killer a couple times, even if in jest.

Michelle, maybe I should start a Flirting With Vegans thread, where I can anonymously try out some techniques and have my attempts critiqued.

Tue, 2008-05-20 08:53

#60

ElizaQ

quote:

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]
What? Humans are responsible for destroying our animal population, not helping it. As an FN person, we have a responsibility to treat our equals with respect, and animals are our equals. The way you are talking is foreign to me as a human and as a caretaker of the land.
They are in a "mere existence" because of our relationship with them? Seriously, read the list of endangered species, read what pollution, urban sprawl etc is doing to our animal friends, then get back to me on this totally man vs nature theory it seems you have. No offense against you but to me, this line of thinking is repulsive.[/b]

I think you're misunderstanding what animals I'm speaking about here. I actually agree entirely with what you're saying. I'm talking specifically about domesticated breeds and not the wider animal population of which I totally one hundred percent agree that humans are responsible for destroying and not helping.
Over time in various regions there has been the development of a diverse amount of types of domesticated animals, like chickens that are suited to the various climates and other environmental factors. They all came from the wild at one time, but over time have developed into specific breeds unto themselves because of the relationships between humans and them. That's what I'm speaking about. For instance right now there are numerous types of chickens, all with different attributes, here in Canada there are specific ones that do well in cold climates, or ones that are better foragers. They all at one point came from wild. The same way that pets such as dogs and cats all came from the wilds at one point.
Because of the homogenization and industrialization of the food systems many of these are now threatened. The chickens that you find in a chicken factory have actually been breed on purpose to produce more eggs or more meat and thats it. In many cases they have been breed to the point where the mothers won't even go broody and raise their own young. That instinct isn't necessary in this type of system so it's thrown out. I find this incredibly repulsive because it goes against the very nature of the chicken and would never happen without human manipulation. That is an example of man vs. nature and something I find utterly abhorrent.

Other non-industrial chickens, who actually can and do raise their young and function closer to what a wild chicken does, are actually severely threatened with extinction. This situation is connected with humans and I do actually feel responsibility for this situation because of all the reasons you state.

The same goes for sheeps, cattle, goats, swine and pretty much any other animal that has been a part of subsistence farming all over the globe.
As specific types they do exist because of the relationship between humans and animals that has been occuring since the dawn of agriculture.

I'm actually looking at this question from the perspective of caretaking and looking at it from a position of responsibility because it's a relationship that does exist now and not something that would likely have occured without human contact. This isn't man vs. nature, it's man with, alongside, a part of and trying to figure out how to live with, integrate with etc etc.

I don't consider the animals that live with me as things, but as part of the whole. I'm not above them, nor is it a competition. The same goes with wild animals. My own food system actually takes wild animals into account and they are part of it and not something that I have to fight against.
For instance we have a lot of deer around. In the terms of a garden deer can be problem from my perspective because they eat the food I'm trying to grow. From the deers perspective they are just being deer and there's no way I can get angry at that. We also live on a deer path that goes from one lake to another so they come through all the time.
From a man vs nature mentality an option would be to set up a fence and just block them out of the property. Nope ain't going to do that. So I spent the time to observe the paths that they've chosen and am building around that. A cardinal rule in our household is no blocking animal paths. Along the paths I've planted or just left the plants they already eat. Instead of a fence I've planted a barrier of shrubs and other plants that they like and behind those and between the actual veggie garden, plants that they don't like. So they have their space and I have mine and so far it seems to be working out just fine. Some of the other people around here think I'm friggin nuts because yes I'll admit it publicly I actually talk to them and make the request.
I did the same with rabbits at another place I lived. I purposely left a patch of lawn with all of the plants they like between where they lived and the garden and made a request. No problems for the two years I was there. So what happened when my mom moved in the next year? She mowed it all down and boom, rabbits all over her garden. She was all prepared to start fencing and blocking until I told her and the next year she did what I did previously and there hasn't been a problem since. No fighting is needed.
Again a public admission that for many will cast us as nuts but I don't really care. My husband is actually FN's and he speaks and works with the animals around us all of the time. We had an issue with coyotes coming and bugging our dogs, so he went for a walk, had a conversation and we haven't had a problem since. We see them all of the time on the edges of the marsh but they stay there now. We don't bug them and they don't bug us.

Sorry this is a bit a tangent to the topic but I really want to illustrate that my questions about the relationship with domesticated animals is not coming from a man vs nature place. If anything it's the exact opposite place.

Tue, 2008-05-20 09:29

#61

Stargazer

Eliza Q, what an amazing post! You are 100 percent correct of course, in your analysis IMO. The steroids we inject into animals, the way our food is genetically modified. All nasty and apparently now we will be eating Genetically modified meat with no warning.

BTW, I talk to my animals all the time, including my turtle Pepper. I know they understand. I guess we are both the "crazy cat ladies".

Tue, 2008-05-20 09:44

#62

ElizaQ

quote:

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Eliza Q, what an amazing post! You are 100 percent correct of course, in your analysis IMO. The steroids we inject into animals, the way our food is genetically modified. All nasty and apparently now we will be eating Genetically modified meat with no warning.
BTW, I talk to my animals all the time, including my turtle Pepper. I know they understand. I guess we are both the "crazy cat ladies".[/b]

Oh good. I'm glad that cleared up what I was trying to say when you first posted your comments I was like crap crap, that's not what I mean't it to sound like. That's so not where I'm coming from.

And yeah good to know that there's other 'crazy cat ladies' out there too. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Wed, 2008-05-21 20:03

#63

mahmud

quote:

Originally posted my Michelle:
Sure I did. Right from the first post...

You sure did, my oversight. Thank you ! I have an interest in experiences re: compatibility of meat-eaters with people of alternative gastronomical orientations. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Wed, 2008-05-21 20:12

#64

500_Apples

quote:

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Eliza Q, what an amazing post! You are 100 percent correct of course, in your analysis IMO. The steroids we inject into animals, the way our food is genetically modified. All nasty and apparently now we will be eating Genetically modified meat with no warning.
BTW, I talk to my animals all the time, including my turtle Pepper. I know they understand. I guess we are both the "crazy cat ladies".[/b]

That was an interesting post, I didn't know turtles could be pets, So a couple questions,

1) You have a turtle? cool. What can they do?

2) What song or band was called pepper? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] .Right now the only pepper I can think of are the bad doctor and the female assistant to Tony Starks in Ironman (played by Gwyneth Paltrow in the new movie).

3) You come off as a "sane turtle woman" to me [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img] You should get that as a tshirt.

An estimated summary of stargazer's current life:

[img]http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/data/567Centrata_Carapace.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.paghat.com/images/stargazer-august.jpg[/img]
[img]http://media.skyandtelescope.com/images/woman_Horizon_Comet_m.jpg[/img]

Note: The flowers above are "stargazer lillies".

[ 21 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

Thu, 2008-05-22 03:42

#65

Stargazer

That's sweet, Apples [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

I know, I usually name my animals after a song but Pepper is short for Peppermint and this time, no song. Turtles don't actually do a lot but Pepper is allowed out of her home to wander around the couch, at which point she turns into Evil Knievel and starts trying to run toward the edge of the couch. I haven't quite figured out if she is really smart or really silly.

My new kitty's name is Hannah - again no song but a gorgeous name I always associate with strength and kindness.

The Stargazer Lillies are absolutely beautiful. I'll have to see if I can find them somewhere.

Thu, 2008-05-22 08:40

#66

jas

Yes, "pepper" is the [i]first[/i] thing that comes to mind when I think of turtles [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

especially [i]Evil Knievel[/i] turtles...

[ 22 May 2008: Message edited by: jas ]

Thu, 2008-05-22 09:13

#67

jrose

If all meat was [url=http://ca.news.yahoo.com/photo/20052008/6/photo/photos-n-odds-175-hambur... expensive[/url] we would all be vegans (or at least vegetarians)!

Thu, 2008-05-22 09:32

#68

Catchfire

Pfft. Pocket change compared to my [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0753679220071107?sp=true]$25000 sundae.[/url]

Thu, 2008-05-22 11:25

#69

Farmpunk

Snapping turtles taste good. Not the most ideal pets, however.

Thu, 2008-05-22 13:27

#70

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

quote:

What song or band was called pepper?

[url=http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Pop_Encyclopedia/P/Pepper_Tree.html]Does Pepper Tree count?[/url]

Thu, 2008-05-22 19:18

#71

al-Qa'bong

quote:

If we're going to create sustainable food systems that aren't reliant on fossil fuels (or at least less reliant), they must include animals.

You've got us there. Just the other day I saw cowboys herding their cattle down 11th Street towards the slaughterhouse.

Oh wait, those were diesel-burning transport trucks.

Fri, 2008-05-23 09:31

#72

Farmpunk

Huh?

Mind you, coming out the other end of the slaughterhouse is blood and bone - ie, blood and bonemeal fertilizers.

Or maybe you want your NPK to come from petroleum.

Fri, 2008-05-23 22:42

#73

al-Qa'bong

"Huh?" back at you.

Your said that an all-plant diet would depend on fossil fuels, which presupposes that meat-eating somehow doesn't. I was merely pointing out a flaw in your argument through which you could drive a haybine.

Sat, 2008-05-24 04:05

#74

Farmpunk

To grow the plants without utilizing animals would require more fossil fuels than with using them in some capacity.

I'm not sure that agriculture can get by without using fossil fuels at this time, and I've said this in other threads. The idea is to only use them when necessary until a legitmate sustitute can be found. Not in fertilizers, in other words.

Haybine? What am I, a hayseed? Hehe.

Sat, 2008-05-24 06:16

#75

Bookish Agrarian

Hey Farmpunk
I've never driven my haybine, I usually attempt to drive the tractor instead.

Just to back you up from an organic farmer perspective. Growing food takes resources out of the soil. You have to replenish them or you land becomes increasingly less fertile for food production and way more fertile ground for weeds, insects and disease, which of course also reduces yield.
You must put something back. Green manures (like buckwheat) just don't cut it over the long term, although obviously they help. So it has to be either commercial fertilizer (which has a huge petroleum and natural gas component) or animal manure- unless of course you want to spread sewage or paper sludge.
There is just no other way to do it. Then there is the issue of the amount of fuel it takes to plant a field and crop it vs taking off a forage crop or just pasturing the animals. Life is just not as simple as we might like it to be.
Happy eating everyone whatever it is you like to make. It all ends up in the same place anyway.

Sat, 2008-05-24 07:05

#76

Papal Bull

quote:

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
[b]Snapping turtles taste good. Not the most ideal pets, however.[/b]

They are fun to handle! When you get them upside down and they're going nutty trying to get at your fingers it is a little worrying, but they're such cool animals!

I have a bad habit of trying to pick up anything and everything cold-blooded. Tarantulas, scorpions, monitor lizards, a whole variety of snakes, the odd politician...

Sat, 2008-05-24 07:57

#77

al-Qa'bong

quote:

I've never driven my haybine, I usually attempt to drive the tractor instead.

Yeah, yeah; if I'd have written "tractor" my point would have been lost.

I suppose I could have written "bale wagon," but nobody around here uses them any more, although [url=http://www.ridzonfarms.com/]these guys[/url] have made a whole business out of selling them.

Sun, 2008-05-25 08:38

#78

Farmpunk

I think everyone should listen to the Bookish Agrarian. He's a much more knowlegable and calmer farmer than I.

But to give one last kick at the Qa'Bong - I suppose veggies walk themselves to market? It's quite a hike from Mexico, ain't it?

That's half a joke, Bong. I think animals must be part of food production. As for the transportation and procesing of food... fuck... I have enough trouble convincing people that what comes out of the ground must be returned, as per the ages old wisdom of BA's statements. Figuring out how to get food from field to plate seems to me more of an urban planning\transportation issue. Maybe a green thumbed Jane Jacobs will come along someday and enlighten us all. I'm hopeful.

Sun, 2008-05-25 09:24

#79

ElizaQ

quote:

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
[b]I think everyone should listen to the Bookish Agrarian. He's a much more knowlegable and calmer farmer than I.
But to give one last kick at the Qa'Bong - I suppose veggies walk themselves to market? It's quite a hike from Mexico, ain't it?
That's half a joke, Bong. I think animals must be part of food production. As for the transportation and processing of food... fuck... I have enough trouble convincing people that what comes out of the ground must be returned, as per the ages old wisdom of BA's statements. Figuring out how to get food from field to plate seems to me more of an urban planning\transportation issue. Maybe a green thumbed Jane Jacobs will come along someday and enlighten us all. I'm hopeful.[/b]

Just to echo you're thinking Farmpunk. I've pretty much come to the conclusion myself though perhaps from a different start point. My background is urban and up and until recently largely theortical and academic in nature. I studied things like ecology, systems theory and recently that gamut of what could be called 'sustainability' studies and coupled all that with observation and experience with nature. I was also veggie for a really long time with leanings towards vegansim. When I came to the point actually practicing and working at designing a small scale food system I came at it with the idea or perhaps the desire is better, to not include animals. As I learned more and went through all of the 'figuring' which takes into account the entire system, both energy in and out that thought slowly eroded. Basic ecology and natural principles, ie nature itself did the overriding.
At one time I thought that indeed it would be possible to do the entire 'put back' part with green manure, like Bookish Agrarian spoke of but when added together with the whole of it which again they spoke of..the energy needed to deal with it it starts to get more complex. It's simply not that easy to say it's either one or the other.

Oh and I think someone upthread spoke about using human waste as a resource. It is possible and I'm aware of people who do use or and/or developing techniques for it's 'safe' use. However because of it's inherent nature namely disease and other microbial nasties it's not an easy to just say, go and dump it. Again it takes some sort of energy and process to allow it's 'safe' use. Input in and input out. In a sustainable system that all has to be taken into account.

Sun, 2008-05-25 16:55

#80

Bookish Agrarian

quote:

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
[b]
Yeah, yeah; if I'd have written "tractor" my point would have been lost.
I suppose I could have written "bale wagon," but nobody around here uses them any more, although [url=http://www.ridzonfarms.com/]these guys[/url] have made a whole business out of selling them.[/b]

Just teasing.
We are even more old fashioned here, and a lot hillier for such a high tech devise. We still use thrower racks for a lot of our hay. High snow area, so sometimes getting a round bale to cattle is a lost cause so we still have to have small squares. Besides I have a collection of round bales I thought I let out on a level spot that gravity slowly took over on and dumped in the bush, the creek, that wet hole, and my pride and joy over the side of a steep bank and into the waiting arms of a big, huge maple and resting about 25 feet off the ground.

And Farmpunk I think that is the first time anyone has called me
[i]calm[/i] [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] Either I am getting old and mellow or is that a 'in comparison' kind of thing.

Sun, 2008-05-25 21:17

#81

al-Qa'bong

quote:

But to give one last kick at the Qa'Bong - I suppose veggies walk themselves to market? It's quite a hike from Mexico, ain't it?

What's your point? You can't seriously claim that livestock production somehow is easier on fossil fuel consumption than grain or other plant production.

One third of the land on the planet is used to feed livestock. Does that make sense to you?

Fri, 2008-05-30 17:13

#82

Farmpunk

Kabong: "What's your point? You can't seriously claim that livestock production somehow is easier on fossil fuel consumption than grain or other plant production.

One third of the land on the planet is used to feed livestock. Does that make sense to you?"

I won't bother to ask for a link to that 1\3 comment.

In fact, what I attempted to illustrate in this thread - poorly, perhaps - is that in term of plants and animals and agriculture, the two cannot and should not be separated. The intelligent use of domesticated "meat" animals in a sustainable system will certainly reduce fossil fuel useage in ag.

What's your point, by the way? Grain and plants aren't fossil fuel intensive?

Anyhow, I've derailed this thread enough. Shall we start a new one in the environmental section? Maybe Bookish-Agrarian will continue to contribute.

Sat, 2008-05-31 06:00

#83

what i ment to say

i am a healthy eater my husband eats crap ie fast foods...wish i didn't take the issue so lightly from the start, now i fall off my healthy eating system on time to time over all i am very dissatisfied with my health.

Mon, 2008-06-23 10:16

#84

jrose

[url=http://thetyee.ca/Books/2008/06/23/EatRealFood/?utm_source=daily&utm_med... and Meat Lovers: Truce?[/url]

quote:

We've all been there. It's a cozy dinner party, the wine is flowing, the guests are happy, when suddenly someone lets it drop. "I love meat." Everyone looks nervously to the vegan, who is already arming a retort. It's as if someone has just said, "I condone unilateral war." The typical argument ensues. Needless to say, the party is over.
But if the new school of vegans and carnivores is any indication, these differences may only be skin-deep. While the ancient debate rages on in dining rooms everywhere, four authors -- two vegan, two carnivore -- are calling on consumers to consider what they eat, and why.
Their central message: whether vegan, vegetarian or carnivore, eat thoughtfully. The once-clear battle lines are beginning to blur.

Mon, 2008-06-23 15:10

#85

al-Qa'bong

quote:

The once-clear battle lines are beginning to blur.

This writer assumes that there are battle lines.

Believe it or not, many vegetarians would prefer not to have to explain or account for their dietary choice whenever they eat in public with carnivores. It would be a pleasant change to be treated with indifference by the meat-eating community.

Mon, 2008-06-23 20:50

#86

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I don't think there is a "meat-eating community. I wouldn't equate how I eat as having much in common with the average, meat-heavy, prepared food diet of most North Americans even though both are omnivorous. In fact, I find the idea kind of insulting.

I generally do treat vegetarians with indifference unless pontification begins, or, as a host, I need to ask how I can accomodate a guests eating habits or restrictions -- just as I would for a guest who can't tolerate spicy foods or a friend who is diabetic.

Tue, 2008-06-24 07:21

#87

al-Qa'bong

quote:

I don't think there is a "meat-eating community. I wouldn't equate how I eat as having much in common with the average, meat-heavy, prepared food diet of most North Americans even though both are omnivorous. In fact, I find the idea kind of insulting.

So I guess you know how I feel, then.

Tue, 2008-06-24 07:41

#88

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

To some degree, sure. But I still won't comment on somebody who eats processed, mass-produced foods regularly, even though I believe it's crap. The harder part is teaching my kids that commenting on the pizza pops in the lunch room at school is bad manners, but they're catching on.

Tue, 2008-06-24 07:47

#89

ElizaQ

quote:

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
[b]
So I guess you know how I feel, then.[/b]

I do. Though my experience has been both as a meat-eater and a veggie. When I was veggie I got annoyed with having to explain and defend it when all I wanted to do was eat my eggs benny sans ham and replaced with a tomato and when I went back to eating some meat ditto with getting flack from veggie people when I ate it with ham. Maybe it's just the company I keep but I didn't find one way particularly more annoying then the other. The disdain from both, on an individual level was pretty much equal in that regard.

I really don't care what or why people eat the way they do when we are all actually eating. Whether a meatie or a veggie it's annoying as heck to sit through a lecture on how horrible and immoral I/we are or be peppered with question after question when sharing a meal. I really think in that case people, all people just need to respect the others choices. If at a restaurant just save the comments when people order, 'zmgod you're eating that? Ick, eww *insert some devaluing comment about particular way of eating here and maybe a moral judgment for good measure*. It's just rude.
If hosting a dinner party just ask about food preferences and go with it because imo that's what's being hospitable is all about...taking care of your guests.

Conversations about it can happen and I find them quite interesting to debate the pros and cons of it all. There's just a time and place for it.

Tue, 2008-06-24 08:48

#90

As a dedicated omnivore with carnivorous tendencies, I don’t know that it would actually work, without a major adaptation in one of our diets. I’ve dated a few vegetarians and it basically worked when we were never serious, but I don’t know that living together/buying groceries/raising a family would actually work. There has to be compromise, especially if kids are involved. One vegetarian friend even told me that she didn’t care if her husband ate meat, as long as around the house and the kids, he went along with the meal plan.

Even without dietary restrictions, when a couple moves in together, there usually is a general set of recipes that tends to take over. This is usually up to the primary cook, but their need to be agreement. At home, Mom always said Dad was really easy in this regard for day-to-day meals (although our holiday meals the foods tend to be taken from my Dad’s mom’s playbook). Women at work talk a great deal about the foods that there family won’t eat and one always assumes it’s the children who won’t eat the greens but mostly it’s the husbands!

Unless there is some uniformity between the foods people are willing to eat, I foresee problems at least for me. Like anything else food even if you don’t love to cook is a major part of our lives, do you tend to go for fast food? Do you like to eat popcorn at the movie theater? Do you like to bake? Do you drink pop? Water? Have allergies? Spend hours planning your meal? Eat something bland but healthy? How much meat do you consume? A lot? None?

Thu, 2009-05-14 03:31

#91

Altha

I am vegetarian, and my husband is a carnivore, relying on meat for all his meals. The truce is working great for us, in that it was clear for both from the beginning that we have to respect each other's choices and not necessarily understand them. We have separate cooking utensils and meals, and each of us is mainly cooking for oneself, but we share as much as we can. He is sometimes cooking simultaneously two meals of the same kind, just that he's leaving my pancake meat-free. Living with a carnivore for many years didn't change anything in my diet, I guess same for him, except the fact that he is now eating more veggies (but not less meat). And we are a very close couple, sharing and relishing many of our common beliefs, which aren't few, it just happened not to resonate on this one.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective, I always viewed my vegetarianism as my personal choice and imposing it to others translated for me in disrespect toward their own life choices. My parents are vegan, and my mother is the judgemental type who thrusts her beliefs onto others at all occasion and I dislike that intensely.

Thu, 2009-05-14 06:02

#92

Michelle

Has anyone seen that Burger King commercial, where a couple is out on a date and just getting to know each other (who takes a date out to BURGER KING?), the woman orders a salad (of course), and offers some to the guy, and he says, "No thanks, I'm a meatitarian." She says, "A meatitarian?" The guy says, "Yes, a meatitarian? I eat meat?" Then a pause, and he finishes, "It's a personal choice?"

It's kind of funny, but it's also a mocking thing, clearly meant to make fun of vegetarians, and also, I suspect, women, particularly young women, with the inclusion of the "uptalk" (turning every sentence into a question through tone of voice).

Thu, 2009-05-14 06:32

#93

Slumberjack

This ad will play to those who value their 'freedom' as well. Healthy lifestyles are placed in the same light as 'socialism,' where ones personal choices are infringed upon by the collective group think. It works the same for any progressive situations, healthy lifestyles, health care, worker benefits, an adequate tax base which could provide for a more equitable society, etc.

Thu, 2009-05-14 11:22

#94

Refuge

I saw the Wendy's commercial, along the same lines, but without the date context.

Thu, 2009-05-14 17:01

#95

Sineed

Altha wrote:

...just that he's leaving my pancake meat-free.

Who puts meat in pancakes?

Thu, 2009-05-14 17:14

#96

Snert

Both Japanese and Vietnamese pancakes are commonly made with meat items. In Japan, it's just not a pancake without some octopus!

Thu, 2009-05-14 17:18

#97

Michelle

Refuge, that's the commercial! I thought it was Burger King for some reason. But don't you think that seems like a date? Why wouldn't the woman know this about him if it wasn't a date early on in their relationship? :)

Anyhow, hear how they have him doing the "uptalk" thing?

Thu, 2009-05-14 17:23

#98

Michelle

I guess I got the chains mixed up because I was traumatized by this Burger King commercial from a couple of years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGLHlvb8skQ

The first time I saw this one, I was at my dad's place, and we saw this extended version (they started playing the 30 second version after the first little while). My dad, his wife and I were watching it, and it just seemed to go on forever, each scene more ridiculous than the last.

I admit, I laughed all the way through it because it was so stupid it was funny - they just keep topping each over-the-top expression of "manliness" with an even more outrageous expression, culminating in throwing a mini van over a freeway onto a flatbed tractor trailer pulled by a strong man in a harness trying to get a meat-filled burger. I mean, really!!

Thu, 2009-05-14 20:40

#99

Refuge

Michelle wrote:

Refuge, that's the commercial! I thought it was Burger King for some reason. But don't you think that seems like a date? Why wouldn't the woman know this about him if it wasn't a date early on in their relationship? :)

Anyhow, hear how they have him doing the "uptalk" thing?

I guess I didn't assume it was a date because I have been in many situations where I have been sitting across the table eating, drinking etc with someone (man and woman) that I don't know that much about. I meet new people through activism, some through cycling and other sports events (like volleyball) where I don't know to much about them outside of sports, I go camping with friends going with their friends a lot, and with work I know some people professionally but if I go to an event that is going on in the persons life I usually don't know that much about them outside of work. To go along with the work thing as well their dress also made me think of two coworkers who decided to grab lunch together rather than a date. I am something of a loner so I tend to just show up and see what happens and who I meet when I get there. So I have myself been in a lot of non datey situations where two people are having getting to know eachother conversation.

I not only noticed the uptalking of the guy but also the passive female. If it were me I would have pointed out that he was eating a bun so I guess he wasn't a very good meatatarian who only eats meat, beef and bacon. That would have been after I gave him the "should I take you down to 999 Queen now or did you want to finish your burger first?" look.

Fri, 2009-05-15 07:44

#100

Michelle

That's true, they were dressed in business clothes, so maybe they were just out for lunch. How heteronormative of me! :) Thanks for the reality check. :)