Current Events > I'm not a vegetarian or vegan but those seem like morally superior options

(+) Yeah! (+)

Right. That isn't incompatible with the fact that 70% of soybean production in the US is for feed and only 15% is for human consumption. They aren't talking about the same thing.

---

I can't find direct info on how brazilian soybeans are consumed, but a Forbes article says that they have a higher protein content than US soybeans which makes them more attractive for people who buy it as animal feed -- as your link notes, soy bean meal is high in protein, which is why it is used for that purpose

---

here we go:

https://news.mongabay.com/2019/01/brazilian-hunger-for-meat-fattened-on-soy-is-deforesting-the-cerrado-report/

In 2017, Brazil produced 16.3 million tons of soymeal for its domestic market, and more than 90 percent of that became animal feed, with 50 percent used as chicken feed, 25 percent as pig feed, and 12 percent for beef and dairy cattle feed.


---

it's actually more used for feed than us soy beans are...

---

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-soybean/chinese-traders-play-down-impact-of-new-animal-feed-guidelines-on-soy-demand-idUSKCN1N30GO

seems like china mainly uses it for feed too

I wouldn't expect there to be too much variation in how soy is consumed across countries, but it's good to look into I suppose

---

Interesting. I wonder what the percentages of the specific areas of the meat industry consume the most soy feed, like between poultry and cattle, or even the dairy industry.

The question becomes then, if the meat/dairy industry were abolished, would the Soy industry also decrease, or would it fill the void and contribute negatively to the environment because of an increase in demand.

Phewfus posted...

Interesting. I wonder what the percentages of the specific areas of the meat industry consume the most soy feed, like between poultry and cattle, or even the dairy industry.

The question becomes then, if the meat/dairy industry were abolished, would the Soy industry also decrease, or would it fill the void and contribute negatively to the environment because of an increase in demand.

soy would absolutely be one of the things filling the void left by the meat and dairy industries -- it's a good source of protein and is already available in a form similar to milk. but it would not be the only thing filling that void. it would not even be the only thing filling both voids

however, given the numbers brought up in this topic, I think there would still be a large drop in soybean production. likely 50% or more, even with a spike in human consumption of soy
---

Have you tried any of the new(er) faux meat products? I was sort of ignorant to how well they allegedly had progressed but my family was talking positively of some they had tried.
---

This is honestly something I go back and forth on a lot. And I dont even eat much meat. I really only like chicken (LOVE chicken lol ) and Ill occasionally have bacon (usually on pizza but sometimes as a side) but thats it.

It is kind of fucked up when you think about it. And how would I feel if someone just decided I wasnt worth living for some other reason than to be food.

If they ever make vegetarian chicken that tastes just like regular chicken, Id make the switch no problem.
---

Yeah but animals taste so good tho
---

Vegetarians seem to have an arbitrary definition of life. Plants are living organisms. It basically comes down to empathy. People have an easier time empathizing with animals because they are themselves animals. In the end, eating animals is not really any different than eating plants. Either way you are consuming biological matter for sustenance.

And no, the argument that animals have feelings or a desire to live is irrelevant. Plants have the same functions. All life is programmed for survival. If you injure a plant, it attempts to repair the damage the same way an animal heals from wounds. The only difference is we have to take a bigger leap to identify with plant life because it is different from us.
---

Oreos are vegan
---

@rexcrk gardein crispy tenders

Few years ago we had real indian food cooked by an indian grandmother. All Vegan. If Vegan food tasted that good all the time we wouldn't go back to meat. Problem is, most of the spices she used were from India, so they aren't exactly easy to obtain.

I don't think any of this justifies calling vegetarianism morally superior.

When I lived in Seattle I was vegan, and in Japan I try to follow that the best I can, but basically everything had fish and/or dairy in it so I just try to minimize the harm I do. I would never eat actual mammal meat though.
---

ImmatureContent posted...

And no, the argument that animals have feelings or a desire to live is irrelevant. Plants have the same functions.

That's a really weird take, because most people don't consider pain inherently wrong. It's suffering we have an issue with. If you enjoy pain most people don't consider that wrong, it's if someone makes you suffer that people get upset. So if you remove the emotions, such as in a plant, of course people won't have empathy, plants can't suffer.
---

Phewfus posted...

Interesting. I wonder what the percentages of the specific areas of the meat industry consume the most soy feed, like between poultry and cattle, or even the dairy industry.

The question becomes then, if the meat/dairy industry were abolished, would the Soy industry also decrease, or would it fill the void and contribute negatively to the environment because of an increase in demand.

There is always a very large loss of energy anytime you go from one source to another. So it necessarily loses more calories going from soy to animal to human, than from soy to human. And that's ignoring all the energy used on transportation, etc. Just talking calorie loss here.
---

ssjevot posted...

ImmatureContent posted...

And no, the argument that animals have feelings or a desire to live is irrelevant. Plants have the same functions.

That's a really weird take, because most people don't consider pain inherently wrong. It's suffering we have an issue with. If you enjoy pain most people don't consider that wrong, it's if someone makes you suffer that people get upset. So if you remove the emotions, such as in a plant, of course people won't have empathy, plants can't suffer.

How exactly do you gauge suffering for organisms when you have no way of communicating with them? Suffering is not a quantifiable phenomenon. How do you know when an animal is suffering? How do you know a plant is not experiencing something equivalent?
---

I don't see how morals plays into higher lifeforms using lesser lifeforms for their needs. I find it silly to apply human morals to nonhumans. Unless you are literally getting off to the idea of suffering and intentionally focusing on it, it's just the food chain. We're just lucky there isn't a higher form of life around to use us the same way.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

I don't think any of this justifies calling vegetarianism morally superior.

Why not?

---

ImmatureContent posted...

Vegetarians seem to have an arbitrary definition of life. Plants are living organisms. It basically comes down to empathy. People have an easier time empathizing with animals because they are themselves animals. In the end, eating animals is not really any different than eating plants. Either way you are consuming biological matter for sustenance.

And no, the argument that animals have feelings or a desire to live is irrelevant. Plants have the same functions. All life is programmed for survival. If you injure a plant, it attempts to repair the damage the same way an animal heals from wounds. The only difference is we have to take a bigger leap to identify with plant life because it is different from us.

Yeah maybe, so the only reason not to kill and eat other humans is that same ability to empathize right? What's less arbitrary about not eating humans?

---

hockeybub89 posted...

I don't see how morals plays into higher lifeforms using lesser lifeforms for their needs. I find it silly to apply human morals to nonhumans. Unless you are literally getting off to the idea of suffering and intentionally focusing on it, it's just the food chain. We're just lucky there isn't a higher form of life around to use us the same way.

Well there are other reasons that have been discussed ITT. But I do think morals apply to other beings too tbf

---

@Questionmarktarius

---

ImmatureContent posted...

ssjevot posted...

ImmatureContent posted...

And no, the argument that animals have feelings or a desire to live is irrelevant. Plants have the same functions.

That's a really weird take, because most people don't consider pain inherently wrong. It's suffering we have an issue with. If you enjoy pain most people don't consider that wrong, it's if someone makes you suffer that people get upset. So if you remove the emotions, such as in a plant, of course people won't have empathy, plants can't suffer.

How exactly do you gauge suffering for organisms when you have no way of communicating with them? Suffering is not a quantifiable phenomenon. How do you know when an animal is suffering? How do you know a plant is not experiencing something equivalent?

You wouldn't, but we know mammals at a minimum have the same brain structures that allow us to feel emotion, and are therefore likely capable of the same suffering. It's the same reason most countries made animal cruelty a crime. You can talk about how you can't measure suffering all day, but most people still want someone who beats their dog to be punished because they perceive the dog as suffering.

And obviously plants don't suffer. They have no nervous system and therefore cannot experience emotions. Even many animals lack the structures needed to feel basic emotions.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I don't think any of this justifies calling vegetarianism morally superior.

Why not?

Largely because I don't think abstaining from consumption is a morally superior position in general. I understand that the argument is companies wouldn't have need to do what they do without customers to buy product, but that also won't eliminate unethical practices. At best, it will only lead to the next unethical practice to he boycotted. I would prefer something more active. Seeking better regulation of industry, making certain practices criminal offenses, etc. Trying to make the problem go away through active efforts against negative practices is, to me, closer to moral superiority than boycotting or lifestyle choices.

RoadsterUFO posted...

Bluharvest posted...

Yeah but animals taste so good tho

Animals also provide humans with proteins, fats, and other nutrients that we need. People need to stop letting vegans shove their bullshit narrative that theyre healthier, a good majority of them confuse loss of muscle from being malnourished with loss of fat. Never mind the countless unhealthy ultra processed carb and sugar heavy garbage like crackers or cookies that get vegan approved, as if that makes them healthy.

Plants also provide humans with proteins, fats, and other nutrients that we need. I've been powerlifting for 10 years and vegan for 3 years. No change in gains trajectory.

And I don't think anyone would argue that an oreo diet is healthy because it's vegan. Across the studies, vegans have the lowest rates of disease, cancer, etc. Maybe you have another metric to go by for health? Number of alpha brain pills consumed?
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Largely because I don't think abstaining from consumption is a morally superior position in general. I understand that the argument is companies wouldn't have need to do what they do without customers to buy product, but that also won't eliminate unethical practices. At best, it will only lead to the next unethical practice to he boycotted. I would prefer something more active. Seeking better regulation of industry, making certain practices criminal offenses, etc. Trying to make the problem go away through active efforts against negative practices is, to me, closer to moral superiority than boycotting or lifestyle choices.

I can sort of understand that, but I'm not sure I agree with it. For one thing, you can do both things. But even setting that aside, I feel like not participating in immoral practices is itself a virtue aside from actually taking action to stop immoral practices from occurring. Like not owning slaves or killing people is good and moral even if you aren't doing anything else to stop slavery or murder, at least to me.

---

Chickens are people too
---

Balrog0 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Largely because I don't think abstaining from consumption is a morally superior position in general. I understand that the argument is companies wouldn't have need to do what they do without customers to buy product, but that also won't eliminate unethical practices. At best, it will only lead to the next unethical practice to he boycotted. I would prefer something more active. Seeking better regulation of industry, making certain practices criminal offenses, etc. Trying to make the problem go away through active efforts against negative practices is, to me, closer to moral superiority than boycotting or lifestyle choices.

I can sort of understand that, but I'm not sure I agree with it. For one thing, you can do both things. But even setting that aside, I feel like not participating in immoral practices is itself a virtue aside from actually taking action to stop immoral practices from occurring. Like not owning slaves or killing people is good and moral even if you aren't doing anything else to stop slavery or murder, at least to me.

I agree that abstaining from explicitly immoral behavior is moral, but I don't think that's the case here unless you consider eating meat in-and-of-itself to be immoral like murder or owning slaves.

Dragonblade01 posted...

I agree that abstaining from explicitly immoral behavior is moral, but I don't think that's the case here unless you consider eating meat in-and-of-itself to be immoral like murder or owning slaves.

I think that's odd, are you sure you're not using motivated reasoning here? You're directly contributing to explicitly immoral behavior. Would you say it's okay to captain a slave ship or run a slave auction? What about being the wheels for someone else to commit murder?

---

s0nicfan posted...

Honestly, any feelings of guilt behind eating meat is just the remnants of being raised in society shaped by religious ideals. Absent a God, we are just animals, and evolved over tens of thousands of years to be omnivores. Humans eating meat is no more immoral than any other animal that eats another animal.

You can make arguments about sport hunting, or animal cruelty, and there is some validity to that because we have the capacity to mitigate suffering. But there's no actual moral basis on simply being against eating meat unless you invoke God in some way to declare that we are special or animals have souls.

Its not remotely religious.

Christianity states that animals are here for us to use and consume and used to involve sacrifices.

Very few religions frown on eating meat whatsoever. Also the rise in veganism hs occurred in a time where people are less religious than ever so...
---

Balrog0 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I agree that abstaining from explicitly immoral behavior is moral, but I don't think that's the case here unless you consider eating meat in-and-of-itself to be immoral like murder or owning slaves.

I think that's odd, are you sure you're not using motivated reasoning here? You're directly contributing to explicitly immoral behavior. Would you say it's okay to captain a slave ship or run a slave auction? What about being the wheels for someone else to commit murder?

I don't think all "contribution" is the same. For example, I generally wouldn't have a problem with someone captaining a slave ship, while I do have a problem with the person who runs a slave auction.

even if plants had emotions and sentience and could feel pain the way animals do, it would still be morally superior to eat plants because if you eat animals then you're having more plants getting eaten due to the animals you're eating having to eat extra plants that you could have just eaten in the first place
---

Of course they aren't all equal, but what's the basis of the moral vs immoral distinction you're making there?

---

Also I'm not sure I'd say I 'have a problem' with people who eat meat like myself. I don't hate everyone who does immoral things, if I did I'd hate everyone

---

Balrog0 posted...

Of course they aren't all equal, but what's the basis of the moral vs immoral distinction you're making there?

I typically use a cause-and-effect standard for determining moral behavior, but with consideration to the degree of separation between said cause and effect. Without that, you could arguably call everything immoral and/or moral if you make the causal chain long enough.

Dragonblade01 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I agree that abstaining from explicitly immoral behavior is moral, but I don't think that's the case here unless you consider eating meat in-and-of-itself to be immoral like murder or owning slaves.

I think that's odd, are you sure you're not using motivated reasoning here? You're directly contributing to explicitly immoral behavior. Would you say it's okay to captain a slave ship or run a slave auction? What about being the wheels for someone else to commit murder?

I don't think all "contribution" is the same. For example, I generally wouldn't have a problem with someone captaining a slave ship, while I do have a problem with the person who runs a slave auction.

Im curious about the distinction between those two honestly
---

CanuckCowboy posted...

Very few religions frown on eating meat whatsoever. Also the rise in veganism hs occurred in a time where people are less religious than ever so...

Two of the most popular religions in the world (Hinduism, most sects, Buddhism, many sects) frown on eating meat. Some Christian sects (7th Day Adventist) also do, along with restrictions in Islam and Judaism on certain animals. Not to mention many smaller religions. Just seems very Westerncentric to say that. The vast majority of vegetarians/vegans are religious people in India and the surrounding areas, not liberals in California.
---

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Im curious about the distinction between those two honestly

Sure. In terms of explicit action, I would say that captaining a ship with slaves on it is not immoral, whereas organizing the sale of people is. If we're talking contribution to slavery, I would say there's a wider degree of separation between captaining a ship with slaves on it and the practice of slavery, and a narrower degree between the sale of people and the practice of slavery.

RoadsterUFO posted...

There are zero studies that provide credible hard evidence that those with a heavy plant based diet (such as vegans) live longer. If this was the case, countries like India wouldnt be having shorter life spans with how far less meat they consume while places like Hong Kong that eat the most meat per capita live way longer than India. India also has way more disease related to diet than Hong Kong does.

In a world where meat consumption is the only factor in life expectancy.
---

Congrats, TC.
In my decade+ of browsing CE this is the 1st topic where I've actually seen people civilly discuss the matter. You still get your average "vegan therefore better than you" and meat trolls, but I've never seen so many people trying to approach it on this level here.
It's inspiring and a joy to read.
---

is rice not a carb now
---

I had the impossible whopper today

Baby steps
---

The conditions of people living in India are not the same as Japan or China.

You discredit studies and literature consensus about diet and vegans for who knows why, but compare health and lifespans with countries of completely different wealth and healthcare systems to make definitive statements about diet?

Bonus: much of India has either westernized their diet, already consumed tons of dairy paneer, and/or drinks coconut oil like its water.
---