I recently did a post exposing the false claims of the ecological benefits of the vegan diet versus a meat-based diet. I did this, not because I want people to stop being vegans, but because I want vegans to stop trying to manipulate me into changing my life. Their claims that veganism is better for the environment are demonstrably false. I included plenty of links showing the amount of resources it takes to produce grains and other “earth-friendly” crops for human consumption. But even if they acknowledge that veganism is no better for the environment they still refuse to let me enjoy my steak in peace.
There was a claim made during a recent debate which absolutely astonished me. It was so devoid of reason and any basis in empirical fact that I cannot believe it was uttered by a sentient being. The claim was that meat is a luxury. The supporting evidence was that millions of people live without meat. The implication being that since millions do it, it must be safe, healthy, and proper. Of course, millions of people take drugs too. That does not make taking drugs safe, healthy, or proper. In the realm of formal logic this is known as “argumentum ad populum”, or appeal to the masses, or appeal to belief. It is a fallacy. The fact any group does something has nothing to do with the morality or efficacy of the act in question.
The implication of the claim that meat is a luxury is that we should do without meat because we don't need luxuries and the world would be better off if we only produced necessities. This is a hypocritical statement coming from a person who is using a computer to get online and pontificate. I guarantee his computer consumed more resources than any meal I have ever eaten. And billions of people exist quite happily without computers.
I could even turn his logic to support my own “alternative” lifestyle. I live barefoot. Given my choice I would not own a pair of shoes. Shoes are a luxury. Millions of people live their entire lives without shoes. Shoes consume vast amounts of resources that could be used for more essential things. This is the same logic as the anti-meat stance. I wonder if my opponent in this instance would acknowledge the validity of my claim and decide to quit wearing shoes? I doubt it. Because the only reason he claimed meat was a luxury was because he could live without it. His claim was solely to justify his worldview. I can guarantee that when faced with his own logic being used to defend an idea he doesn't like he would find some other way of rationalizing his worldview.
Returning to the world of food, there are many items which could certainly be considered luxuries. Coffee, tea, soda, and alcohol are four that come to mind right away. None of these items are essential to human survival. In fact, they each have detrimental effects. How many acres of land could we reclaim by banning the production of these “foods”? How many resources would be saved for use on the essential items we really need? Would my opponent call for these to be eliminated?
But what about the actual substance of his claim? Is there any validity to the idea that meat is a luxury? No. True, there are millions of people who live without meat. But these people all have one thing in common. They all live in advanced societies where it is possible to acquire a broad range of foods and supplemental nutrients. There has never been a vegetarian culture. Because at the subsistence level, meat is essential to survival. Alone in the wilderness, humans need meat of some sort to provide essential nutrients. You can't go out to the garden in the dead of winter and pluck the spectrum of fruits and vegetables necessary to sustain you. But you can carry a spear into the forest and kill a pig. Take away the vast technology that allows people the *luxury* of avoiding meat and they would have no choice but to kill to survive.
The idea that meat is a luxury has another serious flaw. Humans evolved as omnivores. Our arboreal origin still influences our diet. In the canopy millions of years ago we lived on leaves, shoots, eggs, nuts, fruit, berries, insects, and most likely some birds or other small animals. This is the typical menu of any arboreal creature even though some are more selective than others. This is the diet our bodies are adapted to. This is what we have the enzymes to digest. Also, biologists and anthropologists agree that it was increased consumption of meat that gave us the protein we needed to grow our brains and become human. When vegans point out that other primates are mostly vegan, they seem to ignore the fact that veganism is precisely why those other primates are still “other” primates.
Further refuting the idea that meat is a luxury is the growing amount of hard data showing that many of the staples of the vegan lifestyle are detrimental to human health. Grains which are high in fiber cause physical damage to the digestive system. Grains and legumes also contain phytic acid which blocks the absorption of various nutrients. Soy is especially problematic. Aside from the phytic acid mentioned above it also contains trypsin inhibitors, which is important because trypsin is one of the enzymes that breaks proteins into amino acids that can be absorbed and used by the body. Ironically, soy is touted as as a viable source of protein in a vegan diet despite containing compounds that block protein absorption. Soy also contains lectin, which can cause serious problems when consumed in large quantities over a period of time. There is also concern over the phytoestrogens and potential carcinogenic properties of soy.
I am no fear-mongerer. I realize that eating various beans, seeds, and grains in small amounts as part of a natural diet is unlikely to cause serious problems. The body can handle small amounts of toxins regularly and even larger amounts periodically without damage. This is why pipe and cigar smokers are less prone to cancer than cigarette smokers. Their dosage of carcinogenic compounds is smaller and less frequent. Similarly, an omnivorous human who places meat, fruits, and greens at the center of their diet can afford the occasional adventure with grains and legumes. But the vegan diet is heavily based on legumes and grains. This means chronic exposure to the above-mentioned anti-nutrients. That cannot be healthy in the long term.
Yet health is precisely the reason many vegans chose their path. They pontificate ad nauseum on the virtues of their lifestyle. Feel free to believe that if you wish. But do not try swaying me with the tired comparison of the perfect vegan diet with the typical Western diet. As somebody who knows firsthand, I can attest to the fact that it is the attention paid to the diet that makes the difference. People are not fat because they eat meat. People are fat because they eat everything in sight. And there is more science coming out almost daily which shows meat, and hence fat, is not the culprit in the obesity epidemic. Instead, it is the insulin spikes caused by our overly grain-based diet which causes the problem. This is why Westerners continue to get fatter even though the “low-fat” craze has been going on for more than a generation now. It isn't the bacon and eggs. It's that slice of toast covered in jelly which causes an insulin spike that triggers the body to burn the glucose and store the fat for later. Get rid of the glucose rush and the protein and fat in the bacon and eggs will go to build cells, repair cells, fuel cells, or be excreted as excess.
The essential benefits of meat also impact the brain. The brain actually runs better on ketones than on glucose. Ketones are produced when the body burns fat for fuel instead of glucose. This happens in a low-carb, high-protein diet. Ketones are also shown to help maintain a healthy brain and even reduce seizures in epileptic children. Your body burns fat, your brain runs better, how is this a luxury? How is this a bad thing?
I am not trying to sway anybody from their chosen path. As I have said many times in many forums, your life is yours to live. I post this because I am tired of the arrogance displayed by many vegans and vegetarians. They assume I am just an ignorant neanderthal who needs to be shown the light. They are wrong. I have done plenty of research on nutrition over the past thirty years due to my involvement with strength training. I have experimented with many types of diet. There is no empirical evidence showing meat to be anything other than an essential component of a healthy human diet. There is a huge amount of hard data from many studies over many years showing that meat and fat consumption are essential to peak human health. I am not about to dismiss all that simply because a handful of people insist I am wasting resources on a luxury I could easily do without. I cannot do without meat. I will not even entertain the idea. There is no rational reason to sacrifice my health.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
My beef
My entire philosophy can be summed up in the quote, “live and let live”. It's an ancient quote. It's often cited as the most profoundly noble ideal humans can strive for. Yet it is also the last thing most people even bother reaching for. The one thing in this world that still angers me is when people try to manipulate me into following their path. Often, this manipulation takes the form of physical force via the proxy of govt. But just as often these days it comes in the form of people claiming their way is the righteous way and trying to shame me into joining their cult. They can't simply enjoy their life and accept that I enjoy life differently.
Although they have not yet resorted to the violent brutality of the Inquisition, there are groups today who steadfastly claim the moral high ground and use almost every underhanded tactic they can to prove they are better than you. It started with environmentalists. They have succeeded in using pseudo-science, shame, ridicule, outright lies, and propaganda to sway much of the modern world to their beliefs. But the group I want to direct my tirade towards today is vegans.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people choosing to live the vegan lifestyle. It's their life, their choice. And I harbor no ill will towards those who view it that way. But recently I have begun to encounter militant vegans. These are people who are so convinced their choice is the right one that they have become evangelical about it. They say veganism is the only moral way to live. That is where they cross the line. The instant you claim you are righteous and I am evil for disagreeing, you have ceased to be a worthy human being.
Since morality is such a fuzzy subject and virtually impossible to debate with any objectivity, I will focus on what has become the standard “proof” vegans use to show they are the righteous ones. They have latched on to the popularity of the eco movement and are trying to claim that veganism is better for the environment than omnivorism. They claim that meat creates more pollution, uses more energy, and wastes more resources than a meat-free diet does.
This is absolute bunk. First of all, grains and vegetables are woefully lacking in important nutrients. Essential fats are missing. Protein is in short supply. And vitamins are scarce. You have to eat a broad range of non-meat products to get the same level of nutrition you can get by eating meat. This is important to note because every vegetable you eat is grown in a separate field. The more types of vegetables you need, the more fields we need to grow those vegetables. Vegans like to claim that forests are razed to make room for cow pastures. But they conveniently ignore that those same forests, more even, would have to be razed to make room for the fields of rutabagas it would take to feed everyone. So they can't claim cows are more damaging because they remove forests. Unless they are going to produce the added veggies by magical means that require no fields.
But they don't stop with the fallacious claim of wasted land. They also insist cows waste water. Because, apparently, you don't have to water crops. This link shows the sort of outright lies these folks will resort to in order to “prove” their point.
According to the author of that article, it takes twelve thousand gallons of water to produce a single pound of beef. If you are curious, a typical cow produces somewhere in excess of 500 pounds of beef. So the author of that article is telling you it takes six million gallons of water to raise a cow for slaughter. I have raised cows. I have filled the water trough. I have never seen a cow drink nearly that much water. But just for kicks, let's do some math.
There are approximately 98 million cows just in the United States. If each of them needed 6 million gallons of water that means the entire US cattle population would consume 588 TRILLION gallons of water. That's 588 with twelve zeroes behind it. To help visualize that, there are 1,101,117,147,428 gallons in a cubic mile. That means cows in the US consume 534 cubic miles of water. Still not getting the scale? That is just under ten percent of the volume of the Great Lakes. And that is just the US cattle. China has over 130 million cattle. That still leaves Europe, Africa, South America, Canada, India, Russia.... By the time you add up all these cattle, where does the water come from to support them?
In reality, cows don't use nearly that much water. A typical cow drinks twenty-five to fifty gallons a day. Assuming you raise the cow for two years before slaughter, that means the cow will have drank, at most, 36,500 gallons of water in it's entire life. Or about seventy-three gallons per pound of beef. That's a far cry from the twelve thousand gallons claimed in the above article. Not to mention the fact that every single drop of water consumed in the production of beef is recycled. It is either excreted by the cow, exhaled as vapor in the cow's breath, or consumed by you as that succulent juice in the steak. Water does not disappear. So even if their figures were close to accurate the whole idea would still be a red herring.
But they will tell you it isn't just about what the cow drinks. The other 11,927 gallons per pound of beef are the result of the process of raising cows. Anti-meat types love to claim meat requires much more resources to produce. Shall we compare?
This is how you prepare a field to grow crops. This is how you prepare a field to grow cattle. Is there any question which method is using more resources and producing more pollution? But we're not done yet.
This is how you plant a field of crops. This is how you plant a cow. Again, the difference in the amount of labor and resources is self-evident.
This is how you fertilize a field of crops. This is how you fertilize a cow pasture. The difference in the level of technology is once again self-evident.
This is how you pesticide a field of crops. That doesn't have an analog in the world of livestock. More resources consumed by crops that would not be used by livestock.
This is how you harvest grain. The grain is then hauled to a silo and stored until it is ready to be reloaded and hauled to a processing facility. This is how you harvest cattle. Again, which process involves the least effort and mechanization? Not to mention how much grain gets wasted in the harvesting process.
I challenge anybody to explain to me how all that machinery using all that fuel and producing all that pollution to plant and harvest vegetables can possibly be more eco-friendly than this.
As blunt as I can be, it's pure bullshit. Grains and vegetables have to be grown on big factory farms. There is no other way to grow enough to feed people. They have to use pesticides and fertilizers to make sure they harvest enough to feed everybody. It is unavoidable. Organic methods will not produce enough food on the available land to sustain the population.
And none of this factors in the wastefulness of grains and vegetables. If you pay close attention towards the end of that video on harvesting corn you will see a great deal of corn being dumped over the side of the truck. That may be an unusual occurance to lose that amount. But some is lost every single time a truck is loaded. More is lost in the processing. Since grains and vegetables have a finite shelf-life they have to be treated with more chemicals to keep them from rotting before you buy them. Even so, grocers routinely have to throw away products that have expired. The amount of waste with grains and vegetables is very high compared to meat. Meat can be kept fresh, alive even, until the day you eat it.
Meat, on the other hand, requires very little machinery to grow. It requires no chemicals. Yes, I realize factory farms are the current practice in meat production as well. But meat doesn't require that technique. You can grow cows, pigs, chickens, whatever in small numbers quite economically. I have personally seen chickens being grown in a coop just twelve miles from Manhattan. And wild game is still plentiful for those who wish to harvest it. You can't get food with less expenditure of resources than that.
And meat can be grown in areas where edible crops cannot be grown. Much of Wyoming does not get enough rainfall to support corn or wheat. But cows, sheep, and buffalo can graze on the grass that grows there. There are also areas which are too hilly to allow for fields to be planted and harvested. But, again, livestock can easily graze on the wild grass that grows there. You can't plant corn on a lake; you can harvest the fish that grow in that lake.
I am not trying to convert anybody. How you choose to live your life is your business. But do not come at me with your nonsense in the attempt to convert me to your ways. Live and let live. I'm not bothering you, don't bother me. And definitely don't try to make me out as morally inferior when all the evidence shows that my lifestyle leaves less of a footprint than yours. Eat all the veggies you want. Just shut up and let me enjoy my steak in peace.
Although they have not yet resorted to the violent brutality of the Inquisition, there are groups today who steadfastly claim the moral high ground and use almost every underhanded tactic they can to prove they are better than you. It started with environmentalists. They have succeeded in using pseudo-science, shame, ridicule, outright lies, and propaganda to sway much of the modern world to their beliefs. But the group I want to direct my tirade towards today is vegans.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people choosing to live the vegan lifestyle. It's their life, their choice. And I harbor no ill will towards those who view it that way. But recently I have begun to encounter militant vegans. These are people who are so convinced their choice is the right one that they have become evangelical about it. They say veganism is the only moral way to live. That is where they cross the line. The instant you claim you are righteous and I am evil for disagreeing, you have ceased to be a worthy human being.
Since morality is such a fuzzy subject and virtually impossible to debate with any objectivity, I will focus on what has become the standard “proof” vegans use to show they are the righteous ones. They have latched on to the popularity of the eco movement and are trying to claim that veganism is better for the environment than omnivorism. They claim that meat creates more pollution, uses more energy, and wastes more resources than a meat-free diet does.
This is absolute bunk. First of all, grains and vegetables are woefully lacking in important nutrients. Essential fats are missing. Protein is in short supply. And vitamins are scarce. You have to eat a broad range of non-meat products to get the same level of nutrition you can get by eating meat. This is important to note because every vegetable you eat is grown in a separate field. The more types of vegetables you need, the more fields we need to grow those vegetables. Vegans like to claim that forests are razed to make room for cow pastures. But they conveniently ignore that those same forests, more even, would have to be razed to make room for the fields of rutabagas it would take to feed everyone. So they can't claim cows are more damaging because they remove forests. Unless they are going to produce the added veggies by magical means that require no fields.
But they don't stop with the fallacious claim of wasted land. They also insist cows waste water. Because, apparently, you don't have to water crops. This link shows the sort of outright lies these folks will resort to in order to “prove” their point.
According to the author of that article, it takes twelve thousand gallons of water to produce a single pound of beef. If you are curious, a typical cow produces somewhere in excess of 500 pounds of beef. So the author of that article is telling you it takes six million gallons of water to raise a cow for slaughter. I have raised cows. I have filled the water trough. I have never seen a cow drink nearly that much water. But just for kicks, let's do some math.
There are approximately 98 million cows just in the United States. If each of them needed 6 million gallons of water that means the entire US cattle population would consume 588 TRILLION gallons of water. That's 588 with twelve zeroes behind it. To help visualize that, there are 1,101,117,147,428 gallons in a cubic mile. That means cows in the US consume 534 cubic miles of water. Still not getting the scale? That is just under ten percent of the volume of the Great Lakes. And that is just the US cattle. China has over 130 million cattle. That still leaves Europe, Africa, South America, Canada, India, Russia.... By the time you add up all these cattle, where does the water come from to support them?
In reality, cows don't use nearly that much water. A typical cow drinks twenty-five to fifty gallons a day. Assuming you raise the cow for two years before slaughter, that means the cow will have drank, at most, 36,500 gallons of water in it's entire life. Or about seventy-three gallons per pound of beef. That's a far cry from the twelve thousand gallons claimed in the above article. Not to mention the fact that every single drop of water consumed in the production of beef is recycled. It is either excreted by the cow, exhaled as vapor in the cow's breath, or consumed by you as that succulent juice in the steak. Water does not disappear. So even if their figures were close to accurate the whole idea would still be a red herring.
But they will tell you it isn't just about what the cow drinks. The other 11,927 gallons per pound of beef are the result of the process of raising cows. Anti-meat types love to claim meat requires much more resources to produce. Shall we compare?
This is how you prepare a field to grow crops. This is how you prepare a field to grow cattle. Is there any question which method is using more resources and producing more pollution? But we're not done yet.
This is how you plant a field of crops. This is how you plant a cow. Again, the difference in the amount of labor and resources is self-evident.
This is how you fertilize a field of crops. This is how you fertilize a cow pasture. The difference in the level of technology is once again self-evident.
This is how you pesticide a field of crops. That doesn't have an analog in the world of livestock. More resources consumed by crops that would not be used by livestock.
This is how you harvest grain. The grain is then hauled to a silo and stored until it is ready to be reloaded and hauled to a processing facility. This is how you harvest cattle. Again, which process involves the least effort and mechanization? Not to mention how much grain gets wasted in the harvesting process.
I challenge anybody to explain to me how all that machinery using all that fuel and producing all that pollution to plant and harvest vegetables can possibly be more eco-friendly than this.
As blunt as I can be, it's pure bullshit. Grains and vegetables have to be grown on big factory farms. There is no other way to grow enough to feed people. They have to use pesticides and fertilizers to make sure they harvest enough to feed everybody. It is unavoidable. Organic methods will not produce enough food on the available land to sustain the population.
And none of this factors in the wastefulness of grains and vegetables. If you pay close attention towards the end of that video on harvesting corn you will see a great deal of corn being dumped over the side of the truck. That may be an unusual occurance to lose that amount. But some is lost every single time a truck is loaded. More is lost in the processing. Since grains and vegetables have a finite shelf-life they have to be treated with more chemicals to keep them from rotting before you buy them. Even so, grocers routinely have to throw away products that have expired. The amount of waste with grains and vegetables is very high compared to meat. Meat can be kept fresh, alive even, until the day you eat it.
Meat, on the other hand, requires very little machinery to grow. It requires no chemicals. Yes, I realize factory farms are the current practice in meat production as well. But meat doesn't require that technique. You can grow cows, pigs, chickens, whatever in small numbers quite economically. I have personally seen chickens being grown in a coop just twelve miles from Manhattan. And wild game is still plentiful for those who wish to harvest it. You can't get food with less expenditure of resources than that.
And meat can be grown in areas where edible crops cannot be grown. Much of Wyoming does not get enough rainfall to support corn or wheat. But cows, sheep, and buffalo can graze on the grass that grows there. There are also areas which are too hilly to allow for fields to be planted and harvested. But, again, livestock can easily graze on the wild grass that grows there. You can't plant corn on a lake; you can harvest the fish that grow in that lake.
I am not trying to convert anybody. How you choose to live your life is your business. But do not come at me with your nonsense in the attempt to convert me to your ways. Live and let live. I'm not bothering you, don't bother me. And definitely don't try to make me out as morally inferior when all the evidence shows that my lifestyle leaves less of a footprint than yours. Eat all the veggies you want. Just shut up and let me enjoy my steak in peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)