Authored by: MarkS on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:36

I thoroughly enjoy the ripping and tearing of animal flesh with my incisors. It tastes good.

I must say Bill, you were the last person I ever thought would become a vegetarian.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Spine on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:59

Wow. Soymilk just flew out my nose.

Congratulations! Leave it to the blogosphere to sway you on this one.

Vegetarianism is most certainly not just for hippies anymore.

Of course, giving up bacon and burgers leads to a heightened awareness of the morality and politics of food that in turn leads to other questions: Wild salmon or farmed? What about dairy, an industry that has plenty of suffering and environmental damage associated with it? Or is organic dairy OK? What about eggs? What does "free range" really mean? And: Am I really healthier if I give up meat in favor of heavily processed, denatured soy products? If not, what are my alternatives? (Hint: check the bulk bins at City Market.)

Personally, I like having to constantly evaluate and re-evaluate these issues. The right way to eat is mindfully. I think it's kind of weird, actually, how far we've strayed from that principle.

---
Palabra Jot

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: casey on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:38

Go team veg! And excellent points, Spine.

---
"I'll show you the life of the mind!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Therem on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:11

Wow! That is big news! Congratulations on making a reasoned change of such magnitude in your lives. Better than I've done. (I haven't eaten mammal flesh for about 15 years, but I feel I ought to swear off poultry as well and haven't had the gumption to do it yet.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:59

Damnit, Spine, I said "baby steps." And anyway, living in Vermont, it's fortunately not too difficult to find relatively cruelty-free dairy. Giving up dairy would be teh suck. I think human babies would have to explode every time I eat a piece of cheese for me to consider giving it up.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: arthur on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:21

Well holy shit, I'm'a have to read that Dvorsky post! You kids with
internet are really gonna change things!

Nina says, "Bill and Emily, thank you for restoring my faith in humanity!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Pam on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 07:23

I started out with "The Voluptuous Vegan" which helped - relatively long recipes - but scrumptious - and any really good vegetarian cookbook gets you more attune to different herbs, vinegars, and other cool stuff.:) Fun fun!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: smoothie on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 07:30

I think human babies would have to explode every time I eat a piece of cheese for me to consider giving it up.

Bill, you are so in the pocket of the Velveeta lobby.

For the record, Emily and I are allowing ourselves one fresh, Vermont farm-raised, free range turkey each Thanksgiving. And fish.

For the record that's OK: fish are just plants with eyes, and chicken are just fish with wings.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: evening on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:30

Get ready to cook a lot more...you can't rely as much on already prepared, or fast meals (as in little prep), anymore. It is easier now then 10 years ago when I was a veg, but you'll still have that problem (at least to eat well enough to get all your nutrients). That's why I stopped...I was feeling like crap too consistently for a long time, probably because I wasn't getting enough protein (too much pasta, not enough of anything else).

Good luck! And I have some old veg cookbooks if you're interested.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: evening on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:32

Oh, and you're totally a hypocrite for wearing leather.

Unfortunately, so am I. It is just too damned hard to go w/o (for shoes).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Spine on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:21

Yeah, I have some leather shoes I dearly love, in spite of the fact that I'm nearly vegan otherwise. But check out Moo Shoes...vegetarian footwear options abound.

---
Palabra Jot

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Therem on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:22

Just read the Dvorsky blog post. Despite the confrontational tone, I think it's a great teaching tool. I've heard every one of those arguments for eating meat, and he does a great job of countering them. Much of the comments thread is disgusting, though. He obviously pissed a lot of people off. I can only hope there's a (mostly) silent majority like Bill and Emily who were swayed in the intended direction.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: casey on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 11:04

I was a vegan for 3 or four years, and a vegetarian for a longtime
before that. My reason for veganism was simple logic — it's nearly
impossible to separate the waste of the cattle industry from that of
the dairy industry, therefore, milk and cheese are a no go.

Brooke and I sidestepped this for a while by only purchasing local,
small-farm cheese. This was a slippery slope, however; we're now
eating dairy left and right. Do I feel good about it? No. Will I make
my way back to veganism? Eventually.

Bear in mind that if this were an agrarian society in which day-to-day
existence included hunting, fishing and the dressing of kills, I'd be
totally "game."

---
"I'll show you the life of the mind!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 11:49

I will never be vegetarian, and I don't much care to trouble myself with the "cruelty to animals" side of the equation (because, all too often, this pits animal rights activists against wildlife biologists and environmentalists, who have forgotten more about biodiversity and animal populations than animal rights activists will ever know), but I have to admit the meat industry is indeed downright frightening.

Forgive any numbers or dates I get wrong here, because I'm about to paraphrase a NY Times article I read awhile back that a vegetarian friend emailed me. Anyway, about a century ago, it took 5 years to mature beef cattle to slaughter size. Then by about 1950, breeding and feeding techniques improved that 5 year timeline to about 3 years. And then antibiotics entered the picture, possibly by mistake or chance, and things really changed. When cattle industry people started pumping cows full of antibiotics, they brought the slaughter maturation time down from 5 years to FOURTEEN MONTHS. And, still, no one really knows why antibiotics have this money-making effect. And, of course, no one really knows how this impacts the health of people consuming this beef.

Here's what concerns my vegetarian friend, who also happens to be a microbiologist. In the past 30 or 40 years, we have produced maybe 3 new antibiotics. Add to that the fact that drug-resistant strains of bacteria are popping up left and right, and then think about how we are FLOODING THE ENVIRONMENT with antibiotics from animal urine and feces against which germs can practice gaining immunity. It's a really, really, really BAD idea. But, personally, I don't see vegetarianism as the answer. Eating less mass-produced beef, and turning to pricier alternatives like free range cattle is a more reasonable response.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 03:58

Just read the Dvorsky blog post, and, frankly, if your view on eating flesh is going to be THAT militaristic, there are several other things you HAVE to change in your life, too. Such vehemence can countenance nothing less.

#1) Stop driving your car. If you haven't already, you WILL cruelly kill several animals in your driving career as you rush to the supermarket to buy black beans and rice. Also, global warming and acid rain and other environmental impacts, which you are contributing to by driving your car, destroy countless millions of acres of animal habitat every year. Same goes for mass transit usage.

#2) Move out of your house, and go live lightly in a tree or tent. Animal habitat loss from home construction is less cruel than eating flesh? Puh-lease. Watch them starve to death, or die of thirst, or get buried by a bulldozer, and try to tell me this.

#3) Never ever under any circumstances turn on a light or appliance, especially the computer you use to blog, for global warming reasons previously stated.

#4) Don't ever leave your new tent-home or tree-home, unless you plan on watching every step with the utmost caution. What, insects, amphibians, and other smaller forms of life are not as valuable as a cow? It's not cruel to step on and crush them?

#5) Grow your own food in a cruelty-free garden that you walk to with the utmost care watching every step always. Mass agriculture, whether it produces flesh or vegetables, is a fucking habitat-loss nightmare.

#6) Read #5 once more, and fucking forget about enjoying a beer or Vodka Gimlet, or whatever alcohol you enjoy ever again.

#7) "Hey, at least I'm trying." Bullshit. People who walk everywhere, don't drink, grow their own food, live like the Unibomber, etc. are trying. YOU are doing something convenient, and saying you're trying with utmost arrogance and being an intolerable snob on top of it.

Sorry, but you have no right to look down your snobbish Dvorsky nose at me while I enjoy a good hot dog at a Yankee game, if you have no intention of doing these things and many, many more I haven't thought of before writing this as well.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 05:15

Jimo, just because a certain line of reasoning is on a slope that when followed leads to absurd conclusions doesn't mean the slope is a slippery one. For example, I'll bet that there are certain small things you yourself do in your every day life that you do because you know it's good for you/the environment/other people. Do you recycle for any reason other than you're required to by law? When given a choice between paper products that are made from recycled materials and not, do you choose the recycled ones? Do you make any attempt to eat locally? Do you support political candidates who give more than lip service to environmental issues? If so, then by the same reasoning you employ when making those choices, you should also follow your ridiculous list.

Not eating meat is a no-brainer. It's very easy to do and when lots of people do it, it makes a big difference. Not only is it possible to not contribute to the scandalously horrid and patently wasteful meat industry, it's actually personally beneficial for us to avoid it. Your point that lots of things result in suffering and environmental waste if you connect enough dots isn't wrong, it's just irrelevant. Every time you make any decision in your life that is not completely selfish, you are engaging in identical reasoning.

And your not-so-slippery slope goes the other way too. If you reject my argument because it's futile to attempt to make the world (and my self) better by becoming a vegetarian, then you might as well buy an SUV and throw your garbage out on the street and leave your lights on all the time and do any other thing that pops into your head that might give you some personal gratification without a thought to the effects such actions would have on others.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 05:19

If you reject my argument because it's futile to attempt to make the world (and my self) better by becoming a vegetarian, then you might as well buy an SUV and throw your garbage out on the street and leave your lights on all the time and do any other thing that pops into your head that might give you some personal gratification without a thought to the effects such actions would have on others.

But of course you don't do those things because you're not a selfish asshole. Dvorsky's point is that by eating meat, you're being a selfish asshole.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 05:57

I'll bet that there are certain small things you yourself do in your every day life that you do because you know it's good for you/the environment/other people. Do you recycle for any reason other than you're required to by law? When given a choice between paper products that are made from recycled materials and not, do you choose the recycled ones? Do you make any attempt to eat locally? Do you support political candidates who give more than lip service to environmental issues? If so, then by the same reasoning you employ when making those choices, you should also follow your ridiculous list.

You would be right if I were the one looking down my nose at others, posting vehemently as if there is no argument that they are deluded, there's no excuse for their actions, etc. I have a million things to improve before cajoling or criticizing others, who probably do things I haven't considered. And so do vegetarians. One achievement does not a hero make, especially when said achievement walks the fine line of being nothing more than a "moral" choice like religious belief. Saving animals from cruelty may turn out to be about as important as believing in gods or God and following their "righteous" guidance, when all is said and done, and there are probably larger issues out there you could concern yourself with, such as biodiversity, global warming, overpopulation, etc. It's probably not a cause worthy of breaking out the trumpets and grandstanding to humiliate the infidels into converting.

Not only is it possible to not contribute to the scandalously horrid and patently wasteful meat industry, it's actually personally beneficial for us to avoid it.

You can avoid patronizing the dark side of the meat industry, and still eat meat. There are many independent farms out there you can patronize. Eating flesh really does not matter one way or the other, if bringing down Big Beef is the ends we wish to achieve. And at the risk of sounding like a Sam Elliot ad, meat consumption in moderation is pretty good for us.

If you reject my argument because it's futile to attempt to make the world (and my self) better by becoming a vegetarian, then you might as well buy an SUV and throw your garbage out on the street and leave your lights on all the time and do any other thing that pops into your head that might give you some personal gratification without a thought to the effects such actions would have on others.

Equating vegetarianism with these other actions doesn't wash with me, because any environmental benefits achieved by avoiding meat altogether could be achieved by choosing the right meat vender.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 06:08

Dvorsky's point is that by eating meat, you're being a selfish asshole.

Totally disagree with him, but my point is, if you believe this as passionately as he seems to believe, then you HAVE to believe that by NOT walking everywhere, stopping drinking, growing your own food, living like the Unibomber, etc., you are being every bit as much of a selfish asshole.

You can choose whatever way pleases you to make whatever size global footprint you're comfortable with, but what you can't do (without getting torched) is choose one of your newly found lifestyle changes and rub it in someone's face, and mock them for not adopting this behavior, when you continue to engage in other selfish and harmful activities. ESPECIALLY when arguments can be made that this lifestyle change is unnecessary to achieve the desired ends.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 06:35

There are many independent farms out there you can patronize. Eating flesh really does not matter one way or the other, if bringing down Big Beef is the ends we wish to achieve.

Certainly eating meat from local, independent farms is better than patronizing big beef/chicken. But there are still some pretty big problems with this strategy: independent farms can't slaughter their own cattle without installing multi-million $ facilities, meaning that most indy farmers (in Vermont anyway) still have to send their animals through the big industrial slaughter factories, negating many of the economic and moral benefits that are gained by eating local, independently raised beef. And even if the slaughter process is kept humane and local, there is still the issue of physics. It takes a hell of a lot more energy/land/resources to raise a cow for slaughter than it takes to grow food to feed the same number of people. It's not dogma, its math.

any environmental benefits achieved by avoiding meat altogether could be achieved by choosing the right meat vender.

Wrong. See above.

if you believe this as passionately as he seems to believe, then you HAVE to believe that by NOT walking everywhere, stopping drinking, growing your own food, living like the Unibomber, etc., you are being every bit as much of a selfish asshole.

Please show how this is true. Avoiding meat is simple and solves a bunch of obvious problems (if selfish assholes would be a little less selfish). If I stop eating meat, I lose nothing and I'm probably healthier for it. If I stop driving, I can't get to work and then I can't eat anything and I die. If you throw your gum on the ground instead of walking three steps to a garbage can, you're a selfish asshole. Not eating meat is easy like walking three steps is easy. Not driving my car is a hardship if I work many miles from home and I live in a society filled with selfish assholes who don't prioritize public transit systems.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Emily on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 06:40

I think what Dvorsky is saying is that the act of eating meat is no longer necessary for our survival. Human beings can and do thrive on a vegetarian diet. Therefore, meat eating is a luxury (like wearing fur, for instance), and therein lies the selfishness of the decision. For a lot of people, driving a car is a necessary part of their lives, and for the vast majority of people, living in a building is even more important.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 07:21

And even if the slaughter process is kept humane and local...

We will have to assume this is the case, or, again, we are just talking about the Big, Bad Beef Industry and its awful tactics, which can be avoided without giving up meat entirely.

...there is still the issue of physics. It takes a hell of a lot more energy/land/resources to raise a cow for slaughter than it takes to grow food to feed the same number of people.

Unless I'm missing something, if it is truly free range beef, there is no grain brought in from elsewhere, and the animal is fed from grass growing on the range. Could this land be seized and used to grow wheat for people? Sure, but now we're getting into some REALLY tricky ethical territory. And at that point, sorry, I'm gonna be picking up a gun to fight for the range owner.

any environmental benefits achieved by avoiding meat altogether could be achieved by choosing the right meat vender.

Wrong. See above.

Actually, right, see below. The problem of energy imbalance really arises from the hyper-accelerated, mass production. Allowed to mature on its own at a normal rate of growth on a range, the cattle is no more harmful than the presence of the range itself. And, again, if we want to change the fact that the range exists, well, you ain't ever gonna win me over with that one.

If I stop eating meat, I lose nothing and I'm probably healthier for it.

True, can't argue, and I'm actually NOT trying to bring you back to the dark side. Although, the first bacon melt to pass under your nose after about 6 months or so of this diet is gonna be in BIG trouble, Simmon. Kidding, just kidding. My problem is not with the choice. It's the missionary-style arrogance I will not stand by and tolerate without return fire. Sorry, but if humans were going make a list of what they need to do to soften their ecological impact, foregoing meat probably wouldn't make the top ten items. I mean, let's cut the bullshit. Native Americans might have had a higher percentage of meat in their diet than your average present-day White Man, and eskimos DEFINITELY do today. And both cultures pretty much left or leave a light tiptoe as their global footprint. Eating meat ain't the problem.

If I stop driving, I can't get to work and then I can't eat anything and I die.

There's no housing within walking or biking distance of work?

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Spine on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 07:22

there are probably larger issues out there you could concern yourself with, such as biodiversity, global warming, overpopulation, etc. It's probably not a cause worthy of breaking out the trumpets and grandstanding to humiliate the infidels into converting.

Vast tracts of rainforest in Central and South America are being cleared as we speak to make room for cattle, leading to erosion, loss of biodiversity, and a host of other concerns. So yes, I do think vegetarianism is much more than a trivial, self-congratulatory lifestyle choice. If the majority of this continent's population could switch to a vegetarian or mostly vegetarian diet (not holding my breath), the results would be epic.

It seems, JIMO, that like many commenters on Dvorsky's blog you take umbrage at his high-and-mighty tone. Which is perfectly understandable. He does come off as a shrill asshole -- at least in this post; I'm not familiar with him otherwise -- but quite self-consciously so, it would seem. I think it was a shrewd rhetorical decision on his part. Who's going to remember a polite, gently worded manifesto for any cause? Like PETA with its over-the-top PR events and protests, Dvorsky may repel many if not most of his readers but will drive the issue further into the mainstream just the same. And any meat-eater unlucky enough to read his whole post will probably remember it the next time dinner is served.

any environmental benefits achieved by avoiding meat altogether could be achieved by choosing the right meat vender.

Free-range, grass-fed meat is certainly a better choice than the industrial stuff. But those healthy cows take up a great deal of space that could be put to much more productive use growing plant foods. (I've read that an acre of land can feed 20 times as many people with plant foods as it can with meat.) So the high-quality stuff is a luxury, basically, for the people who can afford it. There's no way we can transition the entire population to it, at the current levels of meat consumption, even if the general public began clamoring for it. (A new NYT article explores a variation on this problem: the shortage of "cage-free" eggs now that they've become all the rage.)

Not eating meat is a much more elegant solution to the massive problems created by meat consumption than any other solution I've heard.

---
Palabra Jot

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 07:29

Emily, if people were to drive cars only when absolutely unavoidable, and in such emergencies, choose the vehicle with the smallest, most economical engines possible, I would agree. Problem is, they do no such thing. Not even close. If we have a problem with meat consumption in this country, our love affair with the automobile matches or overshadows it. Almost all of us makes a selfish decision every morning when we drive to work. Even people who have forsworn meat.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Spine on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 07:33

Native Americans might have had a higher percentage of meat in their diet than your average present-day White Man, and eskimos DEFINITELY do today. And both cultures pretty much left or leave a light tiptoe as their global footprint.

Sure, but that conveniently overlooks the fact that there are a huge number of "present-day White Men," and they're not exactly known for modeling the lifestyles of the other two groups you mentioned. In other words, the fact that Indians hunted meat -- noble savages that they were -- doesn't justify meat consumption in our society today. Times change. We need to change with them. To deny this truth as it relates to the way we eat is to rely on the "appeal to nature" fallacy or the other rationalizations that Dvorsky mentioned.

---
Palabra Jot

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 07:48

Vast tracts of rainforest in Central and South America are being cleared as we speak to make room for cattle, leading to erosion, loss of biodiversity, and a host of other concerns.

Unfortunately, Spine, the same can be said for soy bean production these days. But, again, I think we are all in agreement that Big Beef (and really Big Agri-business) is a problem. What we disagree on is the proposed solution: not eating meat.

He does come off as a shrill asshole -- at least in this post; I'm not familiar with him otherwise -- but quite self-consciously so, it would seem. I think it was a shrewd rhetorical decision on his part.

Shrewd or not, the problem with this approach is you have to have all of your skeletons cleaned up and removed from every closet before you attempt it, or you're gonna get torched. Maybe Dvorsky does, and if so he is THE ONE, and I'll shut up. You can't look down your nose, unless you have a right. However, I'll bet everything I own he does not.

Who's going to remember a polite, gently worded manifesto for any cause?

Agreed, but the flame that burns brightest, burns shortest. Unless it's got some serious fuel behind it. Sorry, Dvorsky doesn't. He is trying to make a well-intentioned personal choice into the savior of mankind, and he hasn't got a prayer.

Free-range, grass-fed meat is certainly a better choice than the industrial stuff. But those healthy cows take up a great deal of space that could be put to much more productive use growing plant foods.

Are we suggesting seizing range lands now, or convincing the range owners, somehow, to change careers? I'm not trying to be snippy, I'm just generally interested in what the point here is. If the range is self-sufficient, why bother?

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Spine on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 08:01

Unfortunately, Spine, the same can be said for soy bean production these days.

And who's eating that soy?

The sprawling state of Mato Grosso, in central west Brazil, could be thought a paradise of sorts, at least from a distance. . . .

The landscape, however, is rapidly being altered as vast fields of soybeans and cattle ranches replace grasslands and forests. Soy rules Mato Grosso and it's not the soy that much of the world associates with the ostensibly eco-friendly, vegetarian diet, either. . . .

The governor of the state of Matos Grosso is Blairo Maggi, the owner of the Maggi group, who is also known as the rei da soja -- the Soybean King. In fact, the Maggi Group is the largest private soy producer in the world. The company grossed $600 million in sales this year, primarily managing the production, trade and processing of over 2 million tons of soy, most of it destined for livestock in Europe and Asia.

Are we suggesting seizing range lands now, or convincing the range owners, somehow, to change careers? I'm not trying to be snippy, I'm just generally interested in what the point here is.

No land seizures necessary! Just make more vegetarians, and the market will adjust accordingly.

---
Palabra Jot

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 08:02

Sure, but that conveniently overlooks the fact that there are a huge number of "present-day White Men," and they're not exactly known for modeling the lifestyles of the other two groups you mentioned.

True, but it is proof that eating flesh in and of itself is not the issue.

In other words, the fact that Indians hunted meat -- noble savages that they were -- doesn't justify meat consumption in our society today.

It's not the consumption necessarily, but consumption of products from harmful practices. And seemingly innocuous things like soy beans are also a problem for the same reason. Focusing on meat consumption is, for all intents and purposes, useless, and conveniently overlooks many other problems.

Times change. We need to change with them.

Agreed. We need to put an end to the way big agri-business steamrolls the planet. But eating meat is neither here nor there in that struggle.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Spine on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 08:10

We need to put an end to the way big agri-business steamrolls the planet. But eating meat is neither here nor there in that struggle.

I can't see how meat is irrelevant here, when so much of agribusiness activity is centered on producing meat or producing the plants that feed meat animals.

---
Palabra Jot

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 08:19

The company grossed $600 million in sales this year, primarily managing the production, trade and processing of over 2 million tons of soy, most of it destined for livestock in Europe and Asia.

Still, it's not all for livestock. I'm sure the human-use crop leaves its mark on the rainforest. And, again, I am in agreement that agri-business practices need to change.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 08:24

I can't see how meat is irrelevant here, when so much of agribusiness activity is centered on producing meat or producing the plants that feed meat animals.

The basic act of consuming meat is not the problem. Consuming meat raised by typical, harmful agri-business practices is the problem.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Spine on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 08:38

The basic act of consuming meat is not the problem. Consuming meat raised by typical, harmful agri-business practices is the problem.

But what other practices are really feasible for our growing population, at its current levels of meat consumption?

Man, I need a drink. This statistics-driven side of the debate doesn't really get to the heart of vegetarianism's most compelling argument for me personally. I don't eat meat (with very occasional exceptions) because I'm healthier without it and I get off on being well-nourished without having to kill anything. Ultimately it's a very personal decision, though I do find Dvorsky's point about the need for human beings to go beyond their accustomed Darwinian, "me first" mode of existence to be valid and worth pressing upon others.

---
Palabra Jot

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 08:48

The basic act of consuming meat is not the problem. Consuming meat raised by typical, harmful agri-business practices is the problem.

You're going in circles, Jimo. Spine has already addressed this...

There's no way we can transition the entire population to [a diet of local, grass-fed, humanely slaughtered meat products], at the current levels of meat consumption, even if the general public began clamoring for it. (A new NYT article explores a variation on this problem: the shortage of "cage-free" eggs now that they've become all the rage.)

Not eating meat is a much more elegant solution to the massive problems created by meat consumption than any other solution I've heard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Libbylu99 on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 08:53

I think your new diet is technically more 'pescetarian' than 'vegetarian' if there's still seafood in there once in a while, Bill & Emily. If you buy the Wikipedia defintions, anyway;)

I've been doing a diet similar to the one you're describing for 10+ years, and found that for me, diet changes were easier to implement than other "mindful" changes. Bypassing leather was easier than finding cruelty-free products and trying to figure out the best way to (ethically/ healthfully) feed my pets...

Still have far, far to go and many more changes to make, but trying to make more informed choices feels good.

Enjoyed the post and the resultant Dvorsky Candleblog commentary. Good stuff.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 09:15

You're going in circles, Jimo. Spine has already addressed this...There's no way we can transition the entire population to [a diet of local, grass-fed, humanely slaughtered meat products], at the current levels of meat consumption

Who cares about the current levels of consumption? We're talking about whether or not forgoing meat altogether is the answer. If I have 1,000 agri-business steaks annually, or just 1 free-range steak, I am still eating meat either way. The circles are duly noted from this end too.

Not eating meat is a much more elegant solution to the massive problems created by meat consumption than any other solution I've heard.

Elegance? We're going to argue elegance? C'mon now.

Now DanZ (and JIMO) can tell me what a hypocrite I am

Heh. Nice update.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Therem on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 12:06

JIMO, as far as I can tell, you're the only one who's talking about completely forgoing meat. Bill said he and Emily would be eating fish and the yearly turkey. Even Spine said he VERY occasionally will eat meat. So where are you seeing this absolutist frenzy? If your problem is really with Dvorsky, why not tell him so on his own blog?

In terms of numbers, I can't see how you have much of an argument. Eight times as many resources (water consumed, carbon dioxide emitted, etc.) to produce a unit of beef calories as it takes to produce the same amount of vegetable calories. One person making the decision to forgo the meat is going to have an impact for the better. It may not be much, but it IS better than nothing. p.s. I walk to work. And I own a hybrid car for the times when I can't walk somewhere. Your suspicions about the hypocrisy of vegetarians (or in my case, non-mammal eaters) seem bizarre to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 02:05

Holy Crap. I just flew in from Minneapolis and boy are my arms tired! I missed all the fun w/ this thread and tried reading it all. I'd like to throw out a few tidbits that i think will add to the discussion without re-hashing the leftover beef:

* Congratulations to you both. Moderation is good, and due to all your other crimes against nature, cutting yourself some slack and eating meat from time to time won't fuck up your principles. Being mindful of your diet and happy with your choices will always lead to integrity in living.

* I would never call a vegetarian a hypocrite for wearing leather. The two are not necessarily related. I cut back on meat many years ago due to concerns about the quality of the product. I don't care about killing animals for clothing.

* I try not to eat corn-derived products for much less selfish reasons, but as you all well know, that's nearly impossible to do. I really have a problem with the politics and economics of corn. I actually try not to use sugar for similar reasons.

* Eating vegetarian is easy and in spite of what some may say, requires very little recipe-cooking. Eggs, spinach, broccoli, tofu, brussel sprouts, etc. require almost no preparation. Dried beans require only time and lentils don't require much other than salt or other seasonings. Buy/make lots of sauces.

* One of the most important (and least often discussed) aspects of the conversion to vegetarianism is that there is a tastebud & tummy re-training period, as well as a food preparation re-training period. It's short when the change is strongly desired (maybe two weeks) or long if you like easing into things. For example, I used to buy veggie burgers for years. I haven't bought one in three or four years though because they're expensive and require a lot of packaging, but more importantly, i lost my interest in having something that resembles a 'sandwich'.

* Don't fill your diet with bread, pasta or rice. It took me a few years, but I stopped eating pasta (i eat it about 3 times a year). I only eat whole-grain breads and like to bake bread. I buy sandwiches at restaurants so rarely that causes a minor scandal when I do. I went to Subway for the first time about a month ago (I got a veggie sandwich but I won't go back - the bread sucks). I keep nuts, seeds and dried fruit around so i can graze frequently. Wasabi peas and other dried treats are yummy.

* Dairy is a pain but cheese and yogurt are really yummy. Cocoa powder is highly nutritious too (obviously I'm talking about normal, unsweetened stuff) and can be added to smoothies, gravy, etc. I actually consume a tremendous amount of cocoa powder. Believe it or not, what some consider a bitter, unpalatable taste in unsweetened cocoa is really also a matter of retraining. It only took a week or two and now I add a quarter-cup to blended drinks with no sweetener whatsoever. I add malt powder or a banana for a real high-energy treat. I also rarely use milk in smoothies. Some people would rather starve than add cocoa-powder to water, but once you get all the ingredients right things start tasting a lot better quickly.

* Consider buying ground flaxseed meal and adding a spoonful of it to whatever you eat, daily. The high omega-3 fatty acid content is REALLY valuable (keep it refrigerated to avoid spoilage).

* Don't eat large tuna, like albacore. Buy 'light' tuna made from smaller types that don't have time to accumulate mercury.

* Eating less meat may make your poops sink. Floating poop is a sign of a high-fat diet. Sinking poops can clog toilets easier, so be prepared to do more 'courtesy flushes'. Be prepared for other intestinal adjustments.

* I love thanksgiving turkey.

One last point: as you know, i'm an endurance runner and avid hiker all year 'round. I speed-hike non-stop between 10 and 30 miles at a stretch every week. My largely vegetarian diet was necessary to both aid in building endurance and in speeding recovery. It helps enormously, as does avoiding meat the night before (although from time to time I bring sardines, or prosciutto with me for the fat).

Enjoy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Murf on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 02:23

Congrats.

I'm not there yet but I have finally given up chemical-laden foods. It's actually been fairly easy to make the switch except for the cost. Our weekly grocery bill has jumped from about $150 to $210 as we've given up hydrogenated oils, mono sodium glutenate, high fructose corn syrup, nitrates, sulfites, etc. Plus, it now takes us twice the time to do the shopping since we're always reading/deciphering the tiny friggin' labels.

Good luck with it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Murf on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 02:25

Oh, and I agree with Dan about keeping dried foods around and grazing throughout the day. I feel like I'm constantly eating but it's always only about a handful at a time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: e_to_the_m on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 09:02

Here's an interesting interview with Mollie Katzen, author of the Moosewood Cookbook. Here's a good book about eating locally, one about living organic and my fave vegan cooking blog.
Not all of those links are strictly veg but there's useful info I'm sure you can use. Mollie's interview talk about eating meat but trying to do it responsibly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: brooke! on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 09:31

Congrats, Bill and Emily. I've been a vegetarian for 11 years, since I was 16. This post is a good idea, because you're gonna have to get used to defending your vegetarianism. This last weekend, I was at a family reunion, when my aunt asked me "You're still DOING THAT?" Yeah, Aunt Patty. I am. For one simple reason: I don't want to eat meat. My reasons for not wanting to are my own. I don't witness my vegetarianism, I don't try and change other peoples' eating habits. I don't judge what other people eat, all I ask is that they don't judge me, either. I sorta think it's not a very big deal, but some people tend to think it's a defiant gesture aimed directly at them.

For the first five years, I was strictly octo/lacto: I ate dairy and eggs, but nothing with a face or parents. Then I slowly worked fish in, for a variety of health/ease of finding a balanced meal reasons.

For me, it's about doing what I can. I can switch from incandescent light bulbs to CFLs. (which, by the way, are on sale for $.99 at Hill's Hardware on North Ave. They're normally $8.) I never enjoyed meat that much, so cutting it out for me isn't a big deal. I do, however, love cheese with a passion. I can understand how people love meat as much as I love cheese, so I don't consider what I'm doing to be "right" or "correct." It's just what I do.

Bill: how do you guys feel about stock? A lot of places use beef/chicken stock in recipes, especially soups. I don't know if you guys have thought of that, but trust me, deciding whether or not you're morally opposed to meat-juice on an empty stomach is NOT a good idea.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 09:47

Good point about the beef/chicken stock. But the fact that one's food choices attract attention is completely retarded. I guess I don't get that because I'm older and most of my friends, coworkers, etc. are as health conscious. The next time your aunt says that, say to her "Good Lord aunt Martha! Are you really such an ignorant fuck? It's like God replaced your brain with a huge pile of shit after He beat you senseless with an idiot stick!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: evening on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 10:18

I've got a tale for you, that only barely relates to this thread. But it is about animals, and I'm dieing to tell it, so I'm going to share it.

The Tale of the Big Ass Window A/C

The back of our first floor is the family room and kitchen, which are open to each other. The family room is on the SW corner and gets very hot in the afternoon. We tried real hard the first summer to go w/o an A/C, but after a month we broke down. We had to get a big ass unit to cover the space, and is the kind where you install a chassis and slide the unit into that.

The installation and removal of this unit is quite an ordeal. After the first summer we slid it out and realized we had to do a bunch of cleaning as there was a lot of water still in the unit. While going through gobs of paper towels (unfortunately the best thing for the job that I've found so far), we found a frog. Yes, there was a frog living in our window A/C unit! Luckily I was able to capture the frog and put it outside, and hopefully it lived a long happy life and had lots of babies.

Last year, I forget when, we heard a chirping sound coming from the A/C. As soon as we started moving things on the A/C the chirping stopped, and when we slid the unit out far enough to peek we saw movement. Didn't see the frog directly, but there's enough evidence to say we had yet another frog in our A/C. This time, however, it must have gotten out as when we removed the unit there was no frog (nor remains) to be found. Hopefully it went out through the drain hole, lived a long happy life and had lots of babies (maybe this time in our man-made backyard stream!).

So this year comes, and it is August. No chirping, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that maybe this year there will be no frog living inside our A/C. But then last night, while Steve happened to be talking to Bill on the phone about this very thread, the A/C was on and it sounded like the fan was wonky. Uh-Oh. Steve & Bill were still yakking away, and I can't pull the unit out by myself, so I just removed the cover. Uh-Oh, that's an odd faint smell.

Finally, Steve hangs up the phone and is done telling me about the fascinating conversation with Bill. That's great, honey, but we have a problem. So he helps me pull out the unit enough to take a peek. Um, I can't see real well, but that looks like a frog leg, and that is NOT a good smell. Fearing the worst (including that if we wait until today to remove the unit it'll stink up the house), we remove the unit and move it to the deck. Sure enough, we had yet another frog living in our A/C, but this one wasn't smart enough to avoid the fan. Now we have an ex-frog no longer living in our window A/C unit, that won't live a long happy life and have lots of babies. It is a sad, and disgusting, night.

So sometimes animal cruelty happens in the oddest of ways, and places.

Now, anyone want to come over and help me remove a dead frog and clean the A/C??

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Spine on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 11:48

Lots of good advice from DanZ about diversity of diet. Many are the newly minted vegetarians who subsist on grilled cheese sandwiches and white-flour products. This is understandable in sensitive children who may have been scandalized by the movie "Babe" but don't really care to ensure they get a balanced diet, but grownups have no excuse.

Protein, it's important to remember, comes from many sources besides animal foods and soy. A lot of plant foods are "incomplete" proteins, meaning they have some but not all the amino acids our bodies need. But by combining these foods in a meal, we get a complete protein. Examples of complete proteins:

1. Beans plus brown rice, corn, nuts, seeds, or wheat
2. Brown rice plus beans, nuts, seeds, or wheat

Of course, tofu and tempeh are complete proteins. And my personal secret protein weapon is quinoa. It's a delicious, easily digested grain, and is also a complete protein.

---
Palabra Jot

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 02:53

Ditto, Spine. Quinoa rocks.

Beans, lentils, nuts, seeds, whole grains, fruits, green leafy vegetables, cheese, herbs & spices, peppers, onions, cucumber, brown rice, yogurt ...

mmmm, hungry ...

One more thing: spices/sauces. I buy a variety of curries, seasonings, pepper sauces, etc. (Pataks makes good stuff). Stir some in yogurt and dump on anything from the fridge and it tastes yummy - cold or hot. But the secret ingredient that you will overlook for sure if I don't tell you now, involves your glutamate receptors, triggering the taste of umami. It's hard to find outside of cooked meat unless you use MSG, but it does occur naturally in soy sauce and in the miracle ingredient: nutritional yeast (sometimes erroneously called "brewer's yeast"). Buy it in bulk and use it in soups, stews, salads, sauces, etc. If you sautee tofu in a skillet and at the end add a tsp of brewer's yeast and a little soy sauce or other seasoning, it hits your tongue with that same warm savory sensation that a good beef gravy would give you on mashed potatoes. It's also highly nutritious. I add a tbsp to banana smoothies w/ cocoa and raw rolled oats and crushed ice. The oats thicken the mix and the brewer's yeast enhances the flavors and adds mucho B vitamins and minerals.

See the Wikipedia article and scroll down to "nutritional yeast" or just google it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 03:13

Emily is all about the nutritional yeast. She douses it on her movie popcorn. It looks disturbingly like powdered heroin. Hmmm. Freebased nutritional yeast...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: evening on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 04:27

No volunteers?? Frack!

And isn't using supplements cheating? No wonder I failed at being a veg, I was doing it the "hard" way.

By the way, Misty Knoll has their own slaughterhouse. I don't know how humane it is, but given the care they give to their living poultry I can't imagine it is terrible. I also think supporting the local farms that are doing things the right way is better than not supporting them and them failing. I agree with above that it is the big business farming that is a problem (both animal and crop). [If you really don't want to eat an animal period, that argument is obviously not for you.]

Now...time to plan my attack on the A/C...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Libbylu99 on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 07:00

Maplewindfarm.com (in Huntington) is also worth a look. Omnivorous friends have said wonderful things about the meat, and they talk a bit about the turkeys on the website.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 07:08

If your problem is really with Dvorsky, why not tell him so on his own blog?

Meh, Therem, screw Dvorsky. Bill's velveetatarian blog is much more worthy place for the discussion.

In terms of numbers, I can't see how you have much of an argument. Eight times as many resources (water consumed, carbon dioxide emitted, etc.) to produce a unit of beef calories as it takes to produce the same amount of vegetable calories.

Without a doubt true in the case of mass-produced beef. Wouldn't argue. Free range? The numbers would not be so skewed, and even if they were, it would not matter as the production is sustainable and self-sufficient. There is no net impact to the environment beyond the existence of the range itself.

One person making the decision to forgo the meat is going to have an impact for the better. It may not be much, but it IS better than nothing.

That's fine if you feel that way about your personal choice. I'm not gonna try to sway you back to the dark side. At the same time, I won't sit back and let the the Dvorsky missionary, holier-than-thou approach go unchallenged, because not eating meat is dealing with the symptom rather than the sickness. Many cultures eat or have eaten meat with little or no impact. Therefore it must be our culture's demented way of producing meat (and/or the demented socioeconomic system within which the meat is produced) that is the problem, not the act of eating meat.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Spine on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 08:29

Oh, one more thing, Bill: you should start baking your own whole-meal bread. Check out this YouTube video to see how it's done and what you'll look like in the kitchen.

---
Palabra Jot

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 08:40

Wow, I had no idea becoming a vegetarian would be so sexy!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 08:56

Without a doubt true in the case of mass-produced beef. Wouldn't argue. Free range? The numbers would not be so skewed, and even if they were, it would not matter as the production is sustainable and self-sufficient. There is no net impact to the environment beyond the existence of the range itself.

JIMO, again, as already stated in this thread (and at the risk of badly bruising my head from the repeated banging)...

1. Small, sustainable, free-range farms are great for the tiny minority of meat eaters who go to the trouble of sticking to this kind of meat exclusively (a change nearly as radical as the one Emily and I are undertaking and one which Dvorsky would likely have little argument with, given his particular concerns -- assuming a more-or-less cruelty-free slaughter process). But it doesn't and couldn't work on a mass scale -- economically, or physically. The simplest (most elegant) answer is for a whole lot of people to stop consuming meat, which as we've pointed out, is a luxury on par with wearing fur in this culture because it's so unnecessary and so baldly selfish, given the ugly facts of the meat industry.

2. Even free-range, sustainable herds poop. Make the herd big enough and that's a real environmental issue to contend with. It's not just the feed that makes eating meat bad, environmentally.

3. You keep harping on Dvorsky's tone. If I agree he's a big asshole who can go sit and spin, will you stop eating meat because the actual reasons to stop (as presented here on Candleblog -- fuck that Dvorsky asshole) are compelling? Or, would you consider seriously restricting your meat intake to small, sustainable, free-range-farm-raised animals exclusively? If not, why?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: smoothie on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 10:02

So, I can't believe people are still commenting on this post!

No land seizures necessary! Just make more vegetarians, and the market will adjust accordingly.

Spine, this is really the key: the make more part, and honestly, unless Bill's motivations are primarily to feel better (physically due to superior health effects of his new diet, and psychologically due to overestimating the effect -- statistically insignificant -- of his and Emiliy's solitary choice on the environment), he will actually have to become annoying and evangelistic about vegetarianism. Bill and other vegetarians who share his goals will have to convert other people to vegetarianism at a rate higer than new meat-eaters are being born, and possibly much higher, in order for any market effect to become noticeable.

Of course, the same can be said about most other environmental action. Slogans like "think globally, act locally" sound nice, but honestly big change comes from collective action, not individual action. So, if changing the world is your goal, best get to work on convincing everyone that a) God told you it was wrong to eat meat, or b) the laws should be changed to coerce people into behaving sustainably.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 12:27

So, I can't believe people are still commenting on this post!

Indeed, we are now exactly one comment away from this post having the most comments of any Candleblog post. I guess people are more interested in the meat/no meat debate than the God/no God one.

I have no intention of evangelizing about vegetarianism. If I'm asked about it, I'll gladly describe and defend my reasons (which include a general opinion that others ought to be doing the same thing), but I'm not on a mission to organize change beyond my own household.

That said, cultural change can happen without the laws changing all that much -- or at least in a bottom-up way. Look at the attitude shift in this country w/r/t smoking as an example. Or look at the popularity of hybrid cars and recycling. The culture can change pretty organically. Look at Emily and me. A blog post got us to take the plunge. Maybe this thread will affect someone else the same way. And they'll tell two people, and so on, and so on...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: smoothie on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 12:50

Or look at the popularity of hybrid cars and recycling.

Yes, look at them indeed. I have no doubt that hybrid cars would be a lot less popular if gas was dirt cheap. Any states with legistlatively mandated recycling in some form or another (bottle bills, etc) recycle MUCH more than all-voluntary states.

The culture can change pretty organically. Look at Emily and me. A blog post got us to take the plunge. Maybe this thread will affect someone else the same way. And they'll tell two people, and so on, and so on...

You might get the kind of exponential growth necessary to affect outcomes if everyone Dvorsky converts blogs about it, and they all convert a bunch of people, who blog about it... But I don't see it happening. Then again, it will come as no surprise to you that I'm skeptical that this number of human beings can live sustainably on this planet ("NO FUTURE, NO FUTURE, NO FUTURE FOR YOU!")

Hooray for record-breaking comments!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: MarkS on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 02:23

Bill, you're going to have to grow your hair out and get it bleached and teased. Emily will think you're Teh Hott. Start working on your gymnastic skillz.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: deCadmus on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 05:55

How interesting... I find the comments here far more interesting and useful than in the article you've cited, Bill, as the tipping point for your decision. (Is that George Dvorsky guy always so abrasive or is this just a nuclear-button issue for him? Mean-spirited rhetoric and spiteful straw-man arguments don't carry a lot of weight with me.) Coincidentally, I've been thinking about my omnivorous ways, too. I'm shocked and outraged as anyone by the turns that industrial livestock farming has taken. More so, maybe, than most. Much of my family are farmers. I grew up with one leg in the pasture and one leg on the boulevard, which, aside from suggesting I have some hyper-extended joints, means that I've got some benefit of perspective. I know, for instance, that it doesn't have to be this way. Raising livestock is not -- in and of itself -- a cruel thing. Nor is its slaughter for food. Being disrespectful of those animals, *is* however. And it's clear that industrial livestock operations have a callous disregard for the welfare of their animals, which is beyond inhumane... it's monstrous. So I've made a choice, too. I've found a family-run farm only just a few miles from where I live... one that's run pretty much like the family farms that I spent much of my time growing up on. Cattle are pastured, and grass fed, not grain fed. And they're butchered just down the road a ways, here in Vermont, at another family farm that also cares about animal welfare -- not some million dollar processor. Compared to the shrink-wrapped stuff at the supermarket it's expensive. By all rights, I think it should be. It's a fair reminder that there are *costs*, and it's not a package of unrecognizable protein but the stuff of another living thing that's been sacrificed. In the end I think that'll help remind me that maybe I don't need so much as I think I do, too. Unless, of course, it's brisket. ;)

---
www.bloggle.com
made in vermont

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: deCadmus on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 05:56

Crap in a hat. Where's my paragraphs? (sigh)

---
www.bloggle.com
made in vermont

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 06:46

Small, sustainable, free-range farms are great for the tiny minority of meat eaters who go to the trouble of sticking to this kind of meat exclusively (a change nearly as radical as the one Emily and I are undertaking and one which Dvorsky would likely have little argument with, given his particular concerns -- assuming a more-or-less cruelty-free slaughter process). But it doesn't and couldn't work on a mass scale -- economically, or physically.

That last sentence would have been better written "But it doesn't and couldn't work at the present, unnecessary rate of consumption in a socioeconomic system based on hyper rates of consumption." If we all cut back to one side of beef a year, one turkey, two chickens, one tenderloin of pork, or whatever the numbers shake out to, due to price and what free range operations will yield, it doesn't matter, we will still be eating meat. And if this is acceptable to Dvorsky, his problem is NOT with eating meat. His problem is with the present socioeconomic system.

Even free-range, sustainable herds poop. Make the herd big enough and that's a real environmental issue to contend with. It's not just the feed that makes eating meat bad, environmentally.

OK, this is a BIG stretch, because, if we are talking about honest free range ranchers, the herds never get "big enough". Free range animals will only crap out mass equal to or less than what they take in from the range, which will in turn fertilize an equal or less mass of new grass crop for the range, which they will then take in and turn to crap, etc. In essence it's the same concept as burning biomass for energy needs. It's a completely sustainable scenario with no net increase of pollution. If this were NOT the case, all the animals that have ever existed in what we see as sustainable balance with their surroundings would have shit the planet into oblivion. If manure is causing trouble, it's a glaring warning sign you are not allowing the animals enough room to roam, and you no longer have a true free range situation.

Or, would you consider seriously restricting your meat intake to small, sustainable, free-range-farm-raised animals exclusively?

If I eat beef 5 times a year, it's a lot, because I don't like how Big Beef operates. Once I get my grill installed (which should be any year now after I finish all the other things I'm doing to my house), I will more seriously pursue local free range options, and my consumption may increase or decrease. Dunno yet.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: nina on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 07:16

First i'd like to thank and praise all of the omnivores for doing the
good deeds that you do, recycling, conserving water, giving to the
Salvation Army, whatever else. If you wanted to help some more you
could stop eating animal products. Animal products are unecessary for
human health and enjoyment, wasteful and cause a lot of suffering.
Sometimes when you're an adult you need to compromise. So even
though you like meat, since it's not good for anything, you shouldn't
eat it. You're giving up one thing you enjoy, but gaining the wellbeing
of all life on earth! For example, sometimes you don't want to go to
work, but you do anyway, and later you'll have some money, that's
balance.
As for learning from ancient or native cultures, according to Jared
Diamond (the 3rd chimpanzee, 1491), humans have been killing off
animals to extinction, being impractical with food, resources and
relationships since the beginning. Also, Eskimos most often die of
heart disease and colon cancer due to their fatty meat diet. Clearly
what we can learn from this is that we need to continue to evolve in a
compassionate and healthy way, not stay in old patterns that keep us
in a cycle of destruction.
Why are people opposed to NOT killing and causing suffering. What's
wrong with just being nice? As someone who was raised with animals
in the country, I know from experience that all animals have
individual personalities and feel love, pain and fear, including fish,
chickens and cows. We all equally have a desire to live free. What is
wrong with respecting that?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Therem on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 08:44

Smoothie: I have no doubt that hybrid cars would be a lot less popular if gas was dirt cheap. Any states with legistlatively mandated recycling in some form or another (bottle bills, etc) recycle MUCH more than all-voluntary states.

Gas actually IS dirt cheap in the US when you look at how much it costs in many other countries. (See this CNN page for the numbers as of March 2005. The prices aren't current, but the ratios are about right.) Using your logic, you would assume that the number of hybrid cars sold in the EU and other places with high gas prices would be proportionally that much higher than in the US. But it isn't true.

Given my own recent experience of traveling to the Midwest and renting a car to drive back, I think culture is a big part of what drives hybrid sales. NOT fuel prices. In the Chicago area I paid over $3.50/gallon, and the number of hybrids I saw on the road was negligible. As I headed east, gas prices decreased, yet I saw more and more hybrids. One I got back to Vermont it was clear that I was in Prius-land. It was really quite striking. And in Vermont, gas cost $.50 less than in the midwest.

The point of this anecdote is that people are not always motivated by clear self-interest -- at least not the economic kind. (See this article for an explanation of why some people prefer Priuses over Honda Civics or other more ambiguous cars. The short answer: they want people to know that they're "making a statement", particularly now that going green is so fashionable.) Democrats often bemoan how clueless poor Southerners are about what's best for themselves. Otherwise, why would they vote for conservatives who don't give a shit about the poor? There is an alternate answer beyond "they're ignorant": the conservatives are spouting rhetoric that they believe in, AND IDEAS MATTER.

This comment is getting way too long. The whole car discussion is a sideline, really, but what I was trying to say is that no one should ever underestimate the importance of taking a stand for their beliefs.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 10:04

The problem, nina, is that not everyone find compassion a simple policy to implement. Your average Joe Shambala might make a great effort to avoid conflict and the intentional killing of sentient beings, but unless you take the route of the Jains, you won't be able to maintain enough internal consistency to satisfy your soul.

I never kill bees, spiders or annelids, but I kill japanese beetles, wasps when they approach and mice in my house - and I don't make use of their meat or fur - which is a shame - i just add them to the garden. I can kill, and I have killed - and the fact that when I bike I go around wooly-bear catapillars doesn't cleanse me of the filthy crime of killing flies in the horse pasture. The fact that I'm unable to kill a cow barehanded isn't what keeps me from eating meat. It's the fact that I believe the meat to have been cruelly slaughtered and to be unclean and detrimental to my health.

I can thank the earth for its bounty with each tomato plucked from the vine and apologize for each dead fly added to the compost pile, but that's a lot of chatter so instead I just bow east to the rising sun and cleanse my mind in ritual ablution and that has to be enough.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: nina on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 10:53

Does anybody see how ludicrous this entire conversation is? Most people
support torture and murder, and when someone says they're NOT going
to engage in that anymore, it's a big issue! People are actually opposed
to kindeness and compassion! And the only argument supporting the
contention is that most people think that meat tastes good! How many
times do i have to assure people that that desire deminishes completely,
and animal carcasses and breast milk become repulsive when considering
them for food after you have discontinued eating them?!!.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 11:32

I honestly hope that you're right, Nina, but I have a feeling that I'll still crave delicious meaty dishes many years after I have forsworn them for ethical/environmental/health issues. I'm giving up meat because it's a luxury, not a necessity, and like most luxuries, it's pretty pleasant, if pointless and wasteful.

Dan's point is a bit silly, but not irrelevant. We do tend to make pretty arbitrary distinctions between species that are worthy of our compassion (think of someone who cries at Bambie and decries the clubbing of baby seals, but then doesn't think twice about squashing a big bug). Still, w/r/t the cruelty issue, the meat processing systems are more akin to cat-torturing than stomping on an ant. And the pervasiveness of the torture is vast, indeed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 11:39

DeCadmus, sometimes line breaks in comments need <p> breaks added and sometimes they don't -- I think it depends on your browser. One work around is to select "plain old text" from the drop menu and the line breaks will translate fine. I'm working toward a switch to Wordpress. Please bear with me.

So are you also careful abut the meat products in processed foods that you may intake -- stocks and broths and what not? I think most of my meat issues would be satisfied by a strict diet of only local, humanely raised and slaughtered, grass fed animals (the cognitive dissonance of the phrase "humanely slaughtered" notwithstanding). But I'd have to be careful not to just let the stealthy meat products slip by -- they are every bit a part of the problem.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 12:11

Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.

Or rather: "Silly"? Blow me. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You'll know I'm right 12 months from now and you'll take that "silly" comment back. Your internal contradictions and conflicting ethical hypocrisy will bounce around like a peak in your skull unless you develop a Bullet-Proof Acme 5000-Volt Weltanshauung (Now With More Ultra-Freem!). You'll see. Acting on faith under the aegis of the "Good Vs. Evil" argument will only cripple your soul and make it leak out of your ears in a black, greasy putrescence.

[