ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 19th December 2018, 01:35 PM   #241
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,199
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Getting rid of land fills, sewage systems, etc and letting people dispose of their waste anywhere would be cheaper but it wouldn’t really cost less. Costs would just be pushed costs onto someone else but they would still be there.

If you are selling something where you don’t need to pay for all the costs involved it may lower the cost but it isn’t cheaper. Including these costs instead of having someone else subsidise them, will increase the price but doesn’t make them more expensive. Just the opposite in fact. If all costs need to be included in the piecing the free market can kick in an optimize the costs for you, the subsidised version will invariably be less efficient and more expensive in the long run.
The problem isn't merely that containing externalities increases the cost, it's that scarcity will increase the price. Ecologically marginal land, much of which shouldn't be grazed because it's ecologically marginal, doesn't tend to be terribly productive. The largest cattle ranch in the world has something like 150,000 head of cattle on six million acres. Total worldwide cattle population is around 1.4 billion. We're also already using almost all the marginal land we can.

I don't personally consider that a bad thing, but I wonder if the grass-fed beef crowd recognizes the degree to which their choice is subsidized by grain-fed beef.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 01:47 PM   #242
wobs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hull
Posts: 1,823
Originally Posted by Retrograde View Post
And that's the best thing we can do long term. The population of the planet has tripled in my lifetime, and doesn't look likely to stop any time soon. Cutting back X% on one-use plastics, etc helps, reducing meat consumption helps, as does everything else you mentioned, but we need to stop the population from growing exponentially.
It isn't growing exponentially anymore. In fact its set to level off to about 12bn (ish). Population is a non-issue compared with economic growth, fossil fuels and food production.
__________________
"To vowels. They stop consonants sticking together like boiled sweets in a paper bag."
wobs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 01:56 PM   #243
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,840
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Lower yield increases the land use footprint, and land use changes are the second biggest contributor to global warming after fossil fuel use.

FWIW a lot of the CO2 footprint associated with meat is a result of using fossil fuels to intensify plant production, which is then fed to animals instead of consumed directly. Using different production methods like raising free-range animals on marginal or difficult to farm land would probably remove a lot of the CO2. There would still be land use changes though.
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Wouldn't that also reduce food production and increase food costs?
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
The problem isn't merely that containing externalities increases the cost, it's that scarcity will increase the price. Ecologically marginal land, much of which shouldn't be grazed because it's ecologically marginal, doesn't tend to be terribly productive. The largest cattle ranch in the world has something like 150,000 head of cattle on six million acres. Total worldwide cattle population is around 1.4 billion. We're also already using almost all the marginal land we can.

I don't personally consider that a bad thing, but I wonder if the grass-fed beef crowd recognizes the degree to which their choice is subsidized by grain-fed beef.
I think even then, much of the grass fed beef out there is grazed on some very nice, very good habitat. Beef taken from animals grazing really marginal habitat will be tough and bitter, and the taste would not be uniform. The meat gets the gamey taste from the plants the cows eat, the sagebrush and rabbitbrush and bitterbrush and such. Part of the purpose of feedlots is to get the diet uniform for all animals long enough for that gamey taste to go away.

If we would be willing to tolerate meat that is a bit tougher and more bitter than we are used to, in which the steak we bought from Safeway today tastes different than the same cut of meat purchased from Safeway two months ago, then we would have something.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 03:36 PM   #244
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,363
Originally Posted by Retrograde View Post
Yeah, I'd like to find a decent vegan cookbook that focuses on the food itself rather loudly proclaiming why veganism is so great. I just want to make some vegetable dishes because I like vegetables, OK? And if it tells me how to make a bean/barley/pecan burger as good as the one I had in Ithaca, that's a plus.
I wade through food blogs to get to the recipes, it is very annoying at times


Thug Kitchen is an interesting cookbook, I tend read a lot on the interwebs
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 04:19 PM   #245
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,995
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Lower yield increases the land use footprint, and land use changes are the second biggest contributor to global warming after fossil fuel use.

FWIW a lot of the CO2 footprint associated with meat is a result of using fossil fuels to intensify plant production, which is then fed to animals instead of consumed directly. Using different production methods like raising free-range animals on marginal or difficult to farm land would probably remove a lot of the CO2. There would still be land use changes though.
The impact of grazing animals obviously varies a lot due to conditions, but they on the whole produce much more GHGs than they could possibly sequester (in particular, they produce more methane than feedlot animals), and there wouldn't be nearly enough to significantly support a fraction of current or future diet patterns.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 04:25 PM   #246
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,995
Originally Posted by wobs View Post
It isn't growing exponentially anymore. In fact its set to level off to about 12bn (ish). Population is a non-issue compared with economic growth, fossil fuels and food production.
I'm not sure how population is a non-issue and yet food production is, given the level necessary for the latter depends on the former.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 06:32 AM   #247
SuburbanTurkey
Muse
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 954
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Thanks. By the way, I could have addressed that to many posts/posters, I didn't mean to pick you out. I did that because you impress me as reasonable. Yes, veganism, and health/diet in general, has its fair share of woo.

Whether it comes to vegans, feminists -- any group for that matter -- we should all be careful not to judge the entire group (which you didn't do) by the extreme examples that are sometimes cited in threads.

When I read "the vegans I see don't look healthy..." I wonder how many vegans the poster has seen, how they know they are vegans, etc. I suspect these comments might be based on scant observations, meanwhile not noticing healthy looking vegans.
I will admit that I am too quick to judge on this subject. I absolutely hate these "lifestyle blogs" that seem to accompany every recipe on the internet and it makes a bit too cranky


No, Karen, I don't care that warm pumpkin pie reminds you of your youth in Maine, and it's just not the same unless you grow your own produce using your own crap as compost, just give me the damn recipe.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 11:28 AM   #248
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,481
Originally Posted by wobs View Post
It isn't growing exponentially anymore. In fact its set to level off to about 12bn (ish). Population is a non-issue compared with economic growth, fossil fuels and food production.
I don’t think we can feed 12bn people without heavy fossil fuel usage. Economic growth isn’t a problem by itself either, the issue is the number of people with high standard of living. Ultimately either we can support a high population or a high standard of living, not both.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 11:45 AM   #249
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,481
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I think even then, much of the grass fed beef out there is grazed on some very nice, very good habitat. Beef taken from animals grazing really marginal habitat will be tough and bitter, and the taste would not be uniform. The meat gets the gamey taste from the plants the cows eat, the sagebrush and rabbitbrush and bitterbrush and such. Part of the purpose of feedlots is to get the diet uniform for all animals long enough for that gamey taste to go away.

If we would be willing to tolerate meat that is a bit tougher and more bitter than we are used to, in which the steak we bought from Safeway today tastes different than the same cut of meat purchased from Safeway two months ago, then we would have something.
There is a lot of land out there that really isn’t suitable for growing much more than grass or hay without (or even with) heavy fossil fuel use. This can be due to terrain, soil, moisture, etc. You can’t really grow a lot of human edible food there without significant energy inputs, but you could still raise animals.

A big part of the problem is that we are stacking 2 problems on land like this. We use a lot of energy to produce fertilizer and pump water for irrigation so that it can grow more food and better food, so we already release a large amount of CO2 just with that alone. Instead of feeding this to people we turn around and feed it to animals to raise meat and end up with as little as 1/10 of the human food.

If we just stuck to the plants that would grow there naturally, and used animals to turn them into food for humans we’d be a lot better off. Not necessarily fine, because changing forest to grazing land is bad in it’s own right, but could still feed a substantial number of people.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 12:00 PM   #250
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,969
Changing forest to grazing land isn't bad in its own right, though.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 12:27 PM   #251
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,655
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Instead of feeding this to people we turn around and feed it to animals to raise meat and end up with as little as 1/10 of the human food.
One of the benefits of meat is precisely that it creates excess capacity in the system. This means that if some catastrophe strikes which cuts our capacity to produce food, we can switch that capacity from producing meat to feeding people directly. It's a safety reserve.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 12:31 PM   #252
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,481
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
The impact of grazing animals obviously varies a lot due to conditions, but they on the whole produce much more GHGs than they could possibly sequester
Flawed. Greenhouse gasses “emitted” from grazing animals is a red herring. Grazing on natural grassland or even land that has been deforested for centuries can be done without reducing soil CO2 making it, for the most part, carbon neutral. The plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere, the animals eat the plants, change the fats/sugars back into CO2. As long as you take some care not to damage the soil in the process the Carbon absorbed and released balance out.

What causes climate change is the introducing of previously sequestered Carbon into this cycle. The primary source of this “new” Carbon is humans burning fossil fuels. The second biggest source is humans cutting down forests. Since forests sequester more carbon than the grasslands than replace them, deforestation emits CO2, but in the long run it’s a distant second to fossil Carbon in terms of how big a problem it is.


Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
(in particular, they produce more methane than feedlot animals), and there wouldn't be nearly enough to significantly support a fraction of current or future diet patterns.
Methane is not nearly as big a problem as presented. It breaks down to regular old CO2 within about a decade, so unless you get a massive release very quickly it’s not something that impacts climate over the long term.


The REAL issue is fossil CO2, everything else is just tinkering around the edges in the larger scheme of things.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 12:56 PM   #253
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,481
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
One of the benefits of meat is precisely that it creates excess capacity in the system. This means that if some catastrophe strikes which cuts our capacity to produce food, we can switch that capacity from producing meat to feeding people directly. It's a safety reserve.
No really. Globally food production doesn’t change that much and the backbone from a calorie perspective are grains that can be stored for years. Even a hit to a major production area corrects quickly because prices rise and everyone else immediacy plants more to take advantage of the high prices.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 04:14 PM   #254
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,995
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Flawed. Greenhouse gasses “emitted” from grazing animals is a red herring. Grazing on natural grassland or even land that has been deforested for centuries can be done without reducing soil CO2 making it, for the most part, carbon neutral. The plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere, the animals eat the plants, change the fats/sugars back into CO2. As long as you take some care not to damage the soil in the process the Carbon absorbed and released balance out.

What causes climate change is the introducing of previously sequestered Carbon into this cycle. The primary source of this “new” Carbon is humans burning fossil fuels. The second biggest source is humans cutting down forests. Since forests sequester more carbon than the grasslands than replace them, deforestation emits CO2, but in the long run it’s a distant second to fossil Carbon in terms of how big a problem it is.




Methane is not nearly as big a problem as presented. It breaks down to regular old CO2 within about a decade, so unless you get a massive release very quickly it’s not something that impacts climate over the long term.


The REAL issue is fossil CO2, everything else is just tinkering around the edges in the larger scheme of things.
If you read the report they cover all of this with cited research. From the conclusion:

Quote:
That said, our report has focused narrowly on the question of carbon. It finds that
well-managed grazing systems can aid the process of soil carbon sequestration.
Indeed, in some regions, quite high levels of sequestration are possible for a few years
or decades – giving rise to some fairly extravagant claims when extrapolated over
continents and indefinite time-frames. But the potential is highly context-specific.
Critical variables include climate, terrain, soil quality, grass species composition, past
land use and management and more, as well as the present management approach.
Sequestration is not possible everywhere and gains in one season can also be reversed
in another.

...

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. But while it has a stronger immediate warming
effect than CO2, it has a shorter atmospheric life span. The effect of a given pulse of
methane is temporary, unless replaced by another pulse. In contrast CO2’s warming
effects are weak, but since they are de facto permanent, the next pulse of CO2 emitted
adds to the warming effects of what was emitted before. So, because of their differing
lifespans, a constant emission of CH4 is therefore equivalent to one-off release of CO2.
Nevertheless, while methane may have a short atmospheric lifetime, its effects are
not ephemeral provided the source of the methane continues to exist. For as long as
livestock continue to be farmed, methane continues to exert a warming effect upon
the climate. As such the argument that since methane’s impacts are temporary, they
do not matter, is wrong. Its effects will in practice be permanent, unless ruminant
production is halted. Methane emissions also increase the risk of us ‘overshooting’ the
1.5°C/2°C target, potentially tipping us into unknown climatic territory, with possibly
devastating effects on agriculture, wildlife’s ability to adapt, heat stress in humans and
animals, and more.

Sometimes the debate about intensive confined production versus extensive grassfed
systems is framed as one of fossil fuel engendered CO2 versus ‘natural’ CH4. This is
unhelpful because it is inaccurate. Notwithstanding wide variation in their energy
intensity, almost all livestock systems – apart from those that are totally disconnected
from markets – rely on fossil fuels, including grazing systems. Scaling grazing systems
up to produce a level of output that could substitute for the outputs of intensive
confined systems so as to meet the projected demands of a growing population would
have very damaging consequences for land use change and associated CO2 release.
Reductions in GHGs of all types are urgently needed. We are not in a position to be
selective.
Linky.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 05:14 PM   #255
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,655
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
No really. Globally food production doesn’t change that much and the backbone from a calorie perspective are grains that can be stored for years. Even a hit to a major production area corrects quickly because prices rise and everyone else immediacy plants more to take advantage of the high prices.
You're assuming that the problems we might face in the future are the same as the problems we have faced in the recent past. This is not a safe assumption. There are catastrophes that could occur which modern humanity has never faced before, and which could indeed severely affect global food production, and for extended periods of time.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 05:34 PM   #256
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Lower yield increases the land use footprint, and land use changes are the second biggest contributor to global warming after fossil fuel use.

FWIW a lot of the CO2 footprint associated with meat is a result of using fossil fuels to intensify plant production, which is then fed to animals instead of consumed directly. Using different production methods like raising free-range animals on marginal or difficult to farm land would probably remove a lot of the CO2. There would still be land use changes though.
But in the real, capitalist world, we are already grazing all we can on all the grazable land. You know that if there was room for one more cow, a rancher would have that cow there.

And the pounds of feed per pound of beef isn't pertinent either, that grass on the grazing land is not edible by humans. I suspect grazers are a cheap source of calories because without using them as a factory to turn silage into food, the substitute food would take even more costly methods. People of the world need X many calories to live. How many calories is the meat side, and are there enough veggie calories to make it up?

I'm saying I suspect that the way to grow the most calories of food is to use all available sources. You can't grow sugar cane in Wyoming, you can raise cattle there.

eta: Diet discussions use a macro-nutrient balance, one is 1/3 of calories from "protein" , meaning meat. Cut out the meat, is there a farm capacity for 50% more veggie production?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

Last edited by casebro; 20th December 2018 at 05:38 PM.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 08:46 AM   #257
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,481
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
If you read the report they cover all of this with cited research. From the conclusion:



Linky.
I did read it, that’s why I’m critical of it. Changes in land use can increase Methane concentrations, but Atmospheric Methane does not continually build up in the atmosphere the way CO2 does. Because it doesn’t build up in the atmosphere like CO2 does Methane is on track to become a negligible component of radiative forcing. All the really bad global warming scenarios are driven by digging up fossil carbon, livestock grazing in the absence of fossil energy use or land use change is negligible in the big picture.


__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 09:14 AM   #258
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,481
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
But in the real, capitalist world, we are already grazing all we can on all the grazable land. You know that if there was room for one more cow, a rancher would have that cow there.
Anecdotally small beef producers around here have been shrinking r shutting down because they can’t compete economically with large feedlot operations.
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
And the pounds of feed per pound of beef isn't pertinent either, that grass on the grazing land is not edible by humans. I suspect grazers are a cheap source of calories because without using them as a factory to turn silage into food, the substitute food would take even more costly methods. People of the world need X many calories to live. How many calories is the meat side, and are there enough veggie calories to make it up?
That’s why I say feedlots are the real problem. They are typically suppled by the same farms that produce human edible food like grain, oilseeds, corn, etc. (I didn’t include soy because that mostly goes to industrial use not food). These farms could be producing human food but are producing animal feed instead, and emitting a lot of fossil CO2 in the process.

Semi-related is the topic of aquifer depletion. A lot of land that may be best suited for managed grazing is now being irrigated using water from aquifers that are rapidly depleting. In the US this is largely used to grow corn for animal feed. Water that took thousands of year to accumulate, Lots of CO2 produced running pumps, lots of CO2 produced running farm equipment, and lots of CO2 released from the soil itself all to produce animal feed.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2018, 04:08 PM   #259
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Moderator
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
While I have little doubt that there are people who self-identify as vegetarians who eat fish, they and you are absurd.
This one has prompted a little bit of thought on my part, so I've done a bit of digging.

What I've found is that the class of people called "vegetarians" contains many sub classes, which include:

Vegans (those who consume no animal products)
Fruitarians (those who only consume fruit)
Ovo vegetarians (those who also consume eggs)
lacto vegetarians (those who also consume dairy)
piscatarian vegetarians (those who also consume fish)
pollo vegetarians (those who also consume chicken)

These terms are used in combination, for example the ovo lacto vegetarians are so common they are often called "vegetarians".

To my astonishment there is such a thing as an ovo lacto pisco pollo vegetarian.

So yes, I share your view of the absurdity.

I'd like to suggest a new class of vegetarian of which I'm a member:

ovo pisco pollo bovo vegetarian (sadly dairy and I don't mix well)

__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2018, 07:44 PM   #260
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Then I am a Bovo Vegetarian- Beef and potatoes, it's what's for dinner.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2018, 06:29 AM   #261
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,969
I'm a vegetarian for the salad course.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2018, 06:50 AM   #262
SusanB-M1
Incurable Optimist
 
SusanB-M1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,569
I refer to ProBonoShil's up-thread post about banning things, and return to my point about supplements. I wonder what, and how many, resources of all sorts are used to produce the multiple supplements that, generally, vegans take. I bet there are hidden problems there, but am not going to look them up myself; I do not take any.

Last edited by SusanB-M1; 24th December 2018 at 06:52 AM.
SusanB-M1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2018, 08:04 AM   #263
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by SusanB-M1 View Post
I refer to ProBonoShil's up-thread post about banning things, and return to my point about supplements. I wonder what, and how many, resources of all sorts are used to produce the multiple supplements that, generally, vegans take. I bet there are hidden problems there, but am not going to look them up myself; I do not take any.
The insights some of you have into the behaviors of vegans continues to surprise me. How do you know these things? I strongly suspect that the way you know these things is by cherry-picking anecdotes.

What's especially silly is that after posting this speculation, you use it to launch another challenge ... but you're not going to look it up. This is so weak it makes weak tea seem like toxic sludge.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2018, 09:01 AM   #264
Olmstead
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by SusanB-M1 View Post
I refer to ProBonoShil's up-thread post about banning things, and return to my point about supplements. I wonder what, and how many, resources of all sorts are used to produce the multiple supplements that, generally, vegans take. I bet there are hidden problems there, but am not going to look them up myself; I do not take any.
B12 ... that's it; and from my understanding, its production is trivial (relatively speaking).

A plant based diet can provide everything else with little effort.

Last edited by Olmstead; 24th December 2018 at 09:04 AM.
Olmstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2018, 03:25 PM   #265
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by novaphile View Post
This one has prompted a little bit of thought on my part, so I've done a bit of digging.

What I've found is that the class of people called "vegetarians" contains many sub classes, which include:

Vegans (those who consume no animal products)
Fruitarians (those who only consume fruit)
Ovo vegetarians (those who also consume eggs)
lacto vegetarians (those who also consume dairy)
piscatarian vegetarians (those who also consume fish)
pollo vegetarians (those who also consume chicken)

These terms are used in combination, for example the ovo lacto vegetarians are so common they are often called "vegetarians".

To my astonishment there is such a thing as an ovo lacto pisco pollo vegetarian.

So yes, I share your view of the absurdity.

I'd like to suggest a new class of vegetarian of which I'm a member:

ovo pisco pollo bovo vegetarian (sadly dairy and I don't mix well)

Whereas I can point out self-identified skeptics who deny global warming and who deny the moon landing. Not only are they not skeptics, but it would be misguided to pin their foolishness on actual, sensible skeptics.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2018, 12:17 PM   #266
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
I thought I would try to debunk the studies upthread about vegetarians being as healthy as omnivores, but I didn't find them in a quick scan.

A few years ago most such studies were sponsored by "The Mahajareeshi Mahatmas School of Eastern Mysticism and Vegatarianism", bias was easy to spot. Then the author of "China Study" turned out to be an animal rights activist whose paid position is with PETA. His book was easy to debunk too. Now they are trying to rationalize their morality as "good for the environment".

So when it comes to proof of vegetariansism's health benefit studies, I ask "Where's the beef ? "
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2018, 03:11 PM   #267
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
I thought I would try to debunk the studies upthread about vegetarians being as healthy as omnivores, but I didn't find them in a quick scan.
No surprise. The health benefits of a vegetarian diet are well established.

Quote:
A few years ago most such studies were sponsored by "The Mahajareeshi Mahatmas School of Eastern Mysticism and Vegatarianism", bias was easy to spot.
Unable to debunk the legitimate studies posted upthread, you turn to a goofy source to laugh at. How very odd.

Quote:
So when it comes to proof of vegetariansism's health benefit studies, I ask "Where's the beef ? "
Unable to debunk the legitimate studies posted upthread, you now ask for more evidence. How very odd.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

Last edited by varwoche; 25th December 2018 at 03:39 PM.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2018, 07:42 PM   #268
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
No surprise. The health benefits of a vegetarian diet are well established.

Unable to debunk the legitimate studies posted upthread, you turn to a goofy source to laugh at. How very odd.

Unable to debunk the legitimate studies posted upthread, you now ask for more evidence. How very odd.
Tell me the post number of the links please.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 05:07 AM   #269
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,545
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
B12 ... that's it; and from my understanding, its production is trivial (relatively speaking).

A plant based diet can provide everything else with little effort.
What about all the animals killed during harvesting of grain crops?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 07:40 AM   #270
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Tell me the post number of the links please.
Post 211.

Re-reading your post, it's possible i misinterpreted "I didn't find them". I took that to mean you didn't find studies that debunked vegetarian diet. Perhaps you meant you didn't find the links upthread. Anyway, there are lots of studies showing health benefits of vegetarian diet.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25684089
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-nrr053118.php
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23695207
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9566667
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5492032/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16873779

I could go on at great length. My point isn't to debate any particular study, but to demonstrate that the health benefits of a vegetarian diet are well established, and this is old news. These meta articles help make that point:

NIH: "strong body of evidence favoring plant-based diets"

Mayo Clinic: "A well-planned vegetarian diet is a healthy way to meet your nutritional needs"

Harvard Medical School: "Hundreds of studies suggest that eating lots of fruits and vegetables can reduce the risk of developing certain cancers"
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 08:04 AM   #271
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
What about all the animals killed during harvesting of grain crops?
Non sequitur. This is a rebuttal to a moral argument, unless I'm missing something here.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 12:24 PM   #272
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,302
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Non sequitur. This is a rebuttal to a moral argument, unless I'm missing something here.
Is the moral argument:

" You must not kill animals in order to eat them but it is OK to kill animals during the preparation of my food"?
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 12:44 PM   #273
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Post 211.

Re-reading your post, it's possible i misinterpreted "I didn't find them". I took that to mean you didn't find studies that debunked vegetarian diet. Perhaps you meant you didn't find the links upthread. Anyway, there are lots of studies showing health benefits of vegetarian diet.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25684089
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-nrr053118.php
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23695207
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9566667
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5492032/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16873779

I could go on at great length. My point isn't to debate any particular study, but to demonstrate that the health benefits of a vegetarian diet are well established, and this is old news. These meta articles help make that point:

NIH: "strong body of evidence favoring plant-based diets"

Mayo Clinic: "A well-planned vegetarian diet is a healthy way to meet your nutritional needs"

Harvard Medical School: "Hundreds of studies suggest that eating lots of fruits and vegetables can reduce the risk of developing certain cancers"
Yes, you misunderstood.

Okay, so I figured I'd go straight to the top, your NIH study. Lots of weasel words- "may, suggest, etc" and ONE case study. Then many quotes, none of which gave any RR or CR. Strongest one was
Quote:
"In 2009, Wang and Beysoun(15) analyzed the nationally representative data collected in the 1999–2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The aim of their study was to analyze the associations between meat consumption and obesity. Using linear and logistic regression analyses, they showed that there was a positive association between meat consumption and obesity.15
I may follow up on that one, to see a) just how positive the association was, and is it meaningful to us actual humans, and b) did they correct for confounding, like burgers are eaten with fries cooked in HVO with lots of trans fats? (I believe trans fats are the only "poisonous" food)
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 01:00 PM   #274
Olmstead
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Is the moral argument:

" You must not kill animals in order to eat them but it is OK to kill animals during the preparation of my food"?
The proper argument would be: "Strive to cause as little suffering as possible."

The whole point is moot though, because most of the meat produced today doesn't come from grazing animals but from animals that are fed by crops in a process that is horrendously inefficient.

Anyway, there should really be a separate thread for the moral aspects.
Olmstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 01:06 PM   #275
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Let me go do some reading:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25684089-0 f a four week study of children with high cholesterol

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-nrr053118.php- link moved

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23695207 18 week weight loss study,not mortality

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9566667 raw vegan diet in rheumatoid arthrits "The positive subjective effect experienced by the patients was not discernible in the more objective measures of disease activity".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5492032/ compares various fats. Starts out with the 'recommendation', a policy , to cut sat fat. Then goes on to look at other fats, all of which are 'non-conlcusive'.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16873779 99 subject total, 22 weeks, comparing "low fat vegan" vs ADA diet. The 49 on the vegan diet lost weight. I tried to find the full article to see about calories, no soap. Starvation in one group will cause weight loss....

If those are the best "proof of the health benefits of the vegan diet" you need to look deeper. No long term longevity study that says so.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

Last edited by casebro; 26th December 2018 at 01:08 PM.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 05:38 AM   #276
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Let me go do some reading ...

If those are the best "proof of the health benefits of the vegan diet" you need to look deeper. No long term longevity study that says so.
First off, I shouldn't have posted those links. I hastily assembled them, and it's unlikely they represent the best. Sorry for exercising you! (That doesn't mean I accept your rebuttals ... I haven't looked deeply enough.)

I should have stuck with the summaries:
strong body of evidence favoring plant-based diets
- NIH

A well-planned vegetarian diet is a healthy way to meet your nutritional needs
- Mayo Clinic
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 06:01 AM   #277
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,545
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
The proper argument would be: "Strive to cause as little suffering as possible."



The whole point is moot though, because most of the meat produced today doesn't come from grazing animals but from animals that are fed by crops in a process that is horrendously inefficient.



Anyway, there should really be a separate thread for the moral aspects.
Why? Doing something about climate change is also a moral argument. For me there is no benefit only costs in trying to help reduce the impact of climate change. There has to be a moral argument to make me want to to take on board the costs.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 06:33 AM   #278
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
First off, I shouldn't have posted those links. I hastily assembled them, and it's unlikely they represent the best. Sorry for exercising you! (That doesn't mean I accept your rebuttals ... I haven't looked deeply enough.)

I should have stuck with the summaries:
strong body of evidence favoring plant-based diets
- NIH

A well-planned vegetarian diet is a healthy way to meet your nutritional needs
- Mayo Clinic
I already looked at the NIH one. It seems to link lower obesity rate to veggyness. But I havn't tried to track down that actaul study for duration and group size.

The Mayo one- even the title says it "meets your needs" NOT "makes you live longer". And isn't that the point? Unless the point is to prevent animal cruelty....
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 07:58 AM   #279
SuburbanTurkey
Muse
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 954
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
I already looked at the NIH one. It seems to link lower obesity rate to veggyness. But I havn't tried to track down that actaul study for duration and group size.

The Mayo one- even the title says it "meets your needs" NOT "makes you live longer". And isn't that the point? Unless the point is to prevent animal cruelty....
Depends on how you define healthy. When most people criticize vegan diets, they claim that a vegan diet cannot provide the required nutrients to keep a person in good health. The stereotype of the sickly, weak vegan is prevalent as an example of someone who lacks the appropriate nutrition (namely, protein) to be healthy

By that definition, the Mayo clinic statement of "meets a person's needs" is equivalent to saying that it is a healthy diet. I don't see why a vegan diet need prove to be a superior diet to a healthy omnivore diet in this context.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 08:02 AM   #280
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Perhaps I'll go look for "The Doctor's Study" and "The Nurse's study", see what they say. They are ongoing studies since the 50s. Named after the participants, but names have changed to "male healthcare workers" etc. They assumed that people in the healthcare industry would answer life style questionnaires more truthfully? And I think they did/do diets.

Because I think the only important quality to measure is longevity, and that means lots of dead subjects to compare. Not a microscopic change on a graph. Not obesity or "HDL went down". Not "you CAN get a healthy diet on veggies alone". I think we all want to know "What diet will allow ME to live longest? "

If vegetarianism was as good for us as PETA members want us to think it is, no studies would be needed, the advantage would be obvious.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

Last edited by casebro; 27th December 2018 at 08:47 AM.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.