or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › "Death by Veganism" NYT opinion piece
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Death by Veganism" NYT opinion piece - Page 12

post #221 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by newcastlemama View Post
So, if parts of old science are proved wrong does that mean it is all wrong? No, there will be many parts that cans till be right. We can still learn from it.
Ok, you were trying to prove that WAP's research was OK even though it was old because Einstien's research was still valid. Jumping on to your (shaky) analogy, I pointed out that some of Einstein's theories have been debunked by modern research, as has much of WAP's theories. Your analogy, not mine.

Quote:
Many people do not eat their dairy animals. They breed the dairy cow every year for milk and eat the steers.
What do you think happens to a dairy cow whose milk production falls off (at about 8 years old or so)? They get pastured until they die of old age and then are given a decent burial?

Quote:
Plus with my own personal experince in this body of mine:

low fat veg=tired, depression
higher fat veg=tired
higher fat omni=enegertic, more stable
Right, but you admit you have abnormal absorbtion issues? Epileptics do best on a high saturated fat diet. That doesn't mean it is safe for the rest of us. Celiacs can't eat gluten. That doesn't mean that the rest of us can't.

Aven, See, I, personally, don't have a problem with someone eating a steak once in a while. I acknowledge, unlike many non-vegan veggies, that someone's gotta have a steak once in a while if I'm gonna eat my beloved cheese (grassfed, local, lowfat organic jack from the farmer's market, and oh man is it yum). I don't *like* meat, anyway. I don't think for someone to have meat a couple of times a month is a huge problem, unless, like me, they have a really profound family history of colon cancer, which not eating meat can REALLY reduce your risk for. My brother is a flexitarian- eats organic grassfed beef on his birthday and at the winter solstice, and that's it. I think that's cool. I can't do that. One month off meat, and I start getting sick when I eat it.
post #222 of 275
I must say that I don't see anything wrong with eating an animal that is going to die from old age. Why waste it? When my hens die, they wont be too tasty, but they won't be bad stewed for a day in the crock pot.

I am not saying that flippantly. I honestly do not see a problem with utilizing an entire animal, and sending a word of thanks to the heavens. If a person dies in the woods and nobody hears him die, the bears will eat it. I don't have a problem with that.

Why waste something perfectly useable?
post #223 of 275
I have been reading this thread for 12 pages and here is where I get stuck. I was an ethical veg'n for 16 years (vegan for part of that). I am now a TF omni for all the health reasons that have been discussed before (I should point out that the depression, fatigue, and mineral deficiencies did not show up until after more than a decade of being veg'n, and 6 years of pregnancy and nursing)

I hear the environmental argument about the sustainability of meat consumption all the time. But, I do not live in the lovely temperate climate of California. I can easily be veg'n during the summer months, but in order to get the nutrients my body clearly needs on a veg'n diet (and I am not sure that is even possible for me personally), I would need to consume very large amounts of fruits, veg, nuts and seeds that are just not locally available for much of the year. As I walk around Whole Foods, I think quite a bit about the environmental impact of consuming large amounts of foods shipped in from California and South America for seven or more months of the year.

In other words, isn't it more environmentally sustainable for my family to eat locally? We consume less than one cow, about half a pig and perhaps 20 chickens over the course of the year. These animals are all raised locally and sustainably. We preserve plant foods all summer long, canning and freezing for the winter, but we would be hard pressed to maintain a healthy diet on only these foods during the winter months.

Another thing that always strikes me about WP's work is how simple so many of the apparently healthy traditional diets were. I remember a thread a few months back about how it was optimal to eat at least 35 or so different foods a day. That, to me, seems only possible with the globalization of food distribution. Isn't it more environmentally sustainable to eat a simple diet appropriate to the region in which you live? So veganism may be great if you live in California, but it is not quite so easy in the middle of a New England winter.
post #224 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by catnip View Post
Yes, pastured meat/dairy is better, but no one has told me how exactly we're supposed to replace the meat consumption of 300 million Americans (less the about 3-5% of us that don't eat meat, as opposed to nearly 20% in Europe) with sustainable, organic pastured meat?
As I said earlier in this thread, I don't think the mountains of meat produced by the factory farm system could be entirely replaced by only pastured meat products. As a society, I think our relationship with food needs to change in order to be sustainable, which IMO would probably include less volume of meat consumption for most people, and less waste on the consumer's end (which would require more respect for the food and its source). It probably isn't possible to simply switch out the same volume of pastured animal food consumption for the current level of the factory-farmed versions.

I practice the saying "Be the change you wish to see in the world" by the way I feed my family.
post #225 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessicaSAR View Post
I have been reading this thread for 12 pages and here is where I get stuck. I was an ethical veg'n for 16 years (vegan for part of that). I am now a TF omni for all the health reasons that have been discussed before (I should point out that the depression, fatigue, and mineral deficiencies did not show up until after more than a decade of being veg'n, and 6 years of pregnancy and nursing)

I hear the environmental argument about the sustainability of meat consumption all the time. But, I do not live in the lovely temperate climate of California. I can easily be veg'n during the summer months, but in order to get the nutrients my body clearly needs on a veg'n diet (and I am not sure that is even possible for me personally), I would need to consume very large amounts of fruits, veg, nuts and seeds that are just not locally available for much of the year. As I walk around Whole Foods, I think quite a bit about the environmental impact of consuming large amounts of foods shipped in from California and South America for seven or more months of the year.

In other words, isn't it more environmentally sustainable for my family to eat locally? We consume less than one cow, about half a pig and perhaps 20 chickens over the course of the year. These animals are all raised locally and sustainably. We preserve plant foods all summer long, canning and freezing for the winter, but we would be hard pressed to maintain a healthy diet on only these foods during the winter months.

Another thing that always strikes me about WP's work is how simple so many of the apparently healthy traditional diets were. I remember a thread a few months back about how it was optimal to eat at least 35 or so different foods a day. That, to me, seems only possible with the globalization of food distribution. Isn't it more environmentally sustainable to eat a simple diet appropriate to the region in which you live? So veganism may be great if you live in California, but it is not quite so easy in the middle of a New England winter.
I am supposed to be gardening, but I am beat and sitting here drinking a class of wine (from RI, and I live in MA, so I don't feel guilty). I have a lot of thoughts like this on a near daily basis. I totally get what you are asking... and would love to talk more about this!

It makes so little sense for me to be buying lettuce shipped from CA, or Kiwi from New Zealand when I live in MA. I remember that thread on 35 different foods and I do not buy it at all. We can't sustain that sort of thing for all people all over the world. Maybe in August, but perhpas not in February in cold climates. I do not think we need all the food we think we need.

I don't see this as a simple issue. Vegan lifestyle - Sustainable, Omni lifestyle, Unsustainable. There are too many factors which come into play. If I have to have so much food shipped to me 52 weeks of the year, is that a good use of resources? Or tofu packaged in layers of plastic...is that good for the environment? Isn't buying local food (veg or omni) from sustainable people (an ever growing market) better? We need to rely less on supermarkets, even Whole Foods (which honesly, doesn't have the politics it used to have, so I feel no need whatsoever to support them over my local markets), and more on ourselves. People can grow food in pots on balconies--and I know someone in Manhattan with 3 laying hens that live on a NYC rooftop, fi).

I need to go, and I hope I don't have more than the usual number of typos, but this is a very important topic and I wanted to start talking about it.
post #226 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by UUMom View Post
I don't see this as a simple issue. Vegan lifestyle - Sustainable, Omni lifestyle, Unsustainable. There are too many factors which come into play.
I completely agree. I often see the argument that omnis care first about health, but that veganism is an ethical position. Veganism assumes a particular ethical stance on the treatment of animals, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the most environmentally sustainable position. And, that animal rights perspective makes it hard to reconcile veganism with a more regional or local approach to eating (how can ethical vegans support the consumption of fish or seal in native Alaskan societies if their philosophy is based on animal rights)

While some of Nina Plankk's article is a bit of a stretch, the basic point, that a vegan society has not existed, may have to do with the availability of foods and the nutritional needs of most persons. I do think it is quite a stretch to meet the nutritional needs of most persons on a vegan diet, especially with increasing nutritional needs due to soil depletion and environmental toxins and stess, and to do so would require food to be shipped for most of the year. So if most persons cannot maintain adequate health on a vegan diet, how is advocating such a diet worldwide a sustainable ethical position.

So I guess what I am saying with all this rambling is that there are a variety of what could be considered important ethical positions in this debate. I do think health is important, as well as humane treatment of animals, respect for the natural and animal worlds (and this includes respect for the real nutritional needs of growing human infants), environmental sustainability etc...And, I think a strict vegan philosophy does not allow for the balancing of these ethical principles. The couple in the article clearly suffered from a complete ignorance about the nutritional needs of an infant, but the philosophy of veganism may also have set them up to fail in this particular fashion because it told them that the ethical principle of not consuming animal products trumps all other ethical concerns (ie, meeting the nutritional needs of their infant). In that sense, I don't think veganism is a flexible enough philosophy to be healthy or sustainable in the long term.
post #227 of 275
the ramifications of eating meat in this world is too great to me. forget the health issues. we'll just put those aside for a minute and the Animal Rights reasons (which i, personally, am not driven by). i understand what is being said here. the whole shipping produce and grain argument does factor in and make a lot of sense. however- it is worse to eat meat and animal products to me and this is why...
the resources we use to breed and maintain animals are great. with what we are using to feed these animals alone could feed thousands of people world wide. the cost of feeding, breeding, and maintaining these animals could aid the less fortunate people's of the world. i know we can debate the ethics when it comes to animals but i can't when it comes to human beings. having a pear shipped to you from across the country is the lesser of two evils, IMO. a veg*n diet is a safe, healthy, nutritious diet that is sustainable. you could feed thousands more on a veg*n diet then you could on an omni. society realizing this and going veg would be great! but even just cutting down drastically on meat- which we don't need in our diets to live full lives or even for optimal health and i haven't seen any convincing up to date (wouldn't be convinced by a veg leaning one that old either) study that debunks this as of yet. still waiting- could go a long way too. i'd like to see people around the world being fed rather than a cow fattened up to produce gallons of milk and then be run off to the slaughter house to make me that yummy Big Mac. just think of the cost for that one cow and how many people that mama could feed if she wasn't bred in the first place. it's worth it to me. having to watch what my family eats and double up on fruits and veggies and grains etc to make sure our diets are balanced and we're getting enough nutrients is way worth it to me. the added benefit of a healthier life is just extra.
post #228 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by magstphil View Post
the resources we use to breed and maintain animals are great. with what we are using to feed these animals alone could feed thousands of people world wide. the cost of feeding, breeding, and maintaining these animals could aid the less fortunate people's of the world. i know we can debate the ethics when it comes to animals but i can't when it comes to human beings. having a pear shipped to you from across the country is the lesser of two evils, IMO. a veg*n diet is a safe, healthy, nutritious diet that is sustainable. you could feed thousands more on a veg*n diet then you could on an omni. society realizing this and going veg would be great! but even just cutting down drastically on meat- which we don't need in our diets to live full lives or even for optimal health and i haven't seen any convincing up to date (wouldn't be convinced by a veg leaning one that old either) study that debunks this as of yet. still waiting- could go a long way too. i'd like to see people around the world being fed rather than a cow fattened up to produce gallons of milk and then be run off to the slaughter house to make me that yummy Big Mac. just think of the cost for that one cow and how many people that mama could feed if she wasn't bred in the first place. it's worth it to me. having to watch what my family eats and double up on fruits and veggies and grains etc to make sure our diets are balanced and we're getting enough nutrients is way worth it to me. the added benefit of a healthier life is just extra.
I think there is a great deal of common ground here. Not to speak for anyone else, but I think virtually all of the TF omnis would agree with much of what you say here. The SAD (mass milk and beef production, Big Mac etc) is unhealthy and unsustainable. We can drastically reduce our meat consumption (with the expection of those who have special nutritional needs such as pregnant women, infants and recovering vegans : ) Don't flame me, just a little humor.

There are other farming models besides the feedlot model that supports the massive corn industry in the USA (smaller scale biodynamic farming for example). There have got to be other ways of thinking about the problem. I don't think is it sustainable to think about the US shipping grain all over the world to feed starving persons. The political/social/economic issues in food production and distribution go way beyond the obscene use of resources in feedlot beef production. IMO, ideally, Africans should be primarily eating food from Africa, Asians from Asia, etc... The poverty in many areas stems from disruptions to traditional systems of food production and distribution that are extremely complicated (industrialization, colonialism, exploitation etc, etc...).

I guess my primary point is that the main issue is not just about eating or not eating meat (unless you are philosophically vegan, and this is why I don't think philosophical veganism is a sustainable philosophy), but rather it is about finding realistic economies of scale that can provide reasonably healthy, predominately local diets for persons across the globe. And that solution will, no doubt, require some meat consumption, but in a fashion that is very different from the current SAD model.
post #229 of 275
Exactly! We need to stop thinking that anyone here is talking about factory farming or the SAD -- I think all of the omnis here are talking about local food production. To depend 100% on markets for my food, with all the packaging and fossil fuel waste, not to mention the abuse of our soil with corn farming & cattle feedlots is not what I am about. We are talking about a sustainable, mostly local, and not meat-based, omni diet. I can tell you that my hens, (just as a small example) waste nothing, and pollute nothing. In return for the pleasure of caring for them, we get a daily sorce of fresh, sustainable protein that our bodies can utilize well.

I live on a stretch of coastal land that many people (gentlemen farmers with day jobs) are using in the most thoughtful way. The CSA peeps are down the street. It's exciting be around people thinking this way. Its not a matter of SAD Vs Vegan. I understand not wanting to eat animals, so I know this model doesn't work for vegans, but there is a pretty big middle ground of earth-minded people trying to think about how to feed a world in ways that are sustainable and ecological.

One of my first steps is growing what I can, buying locally what I can, and saying no as much as I can to a constant supply of food shipped to me (in layers of plastic) from far away. Humans have been importing & exporting for thousands of years-- that sharing is wonderful, but not the way we currently do it- and not the way people want the same fresh tomato 52 weeks out of every year, and whatever else they feel like having, no matter what it takes to get it to them.

Change is happening.

One of my favorite sites is www.slowfood.com
post #230 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by magstphil View Post
the resources we use to breed and maintain animals are great. with what we are using to feed these animals alone could feed thousands of people world wide.
Yet, when organizations seek to help people in many third world countries feed themselves, they bring them goats and chickens, not seeds. Why? Because food crops are delicate. Humans have forcefully evolved them for thousands of years to only subsist in perfect soil and environmental conditions, and they are labor intensive. Further, most don't store easily (except grains and beans, which are calorie rich but far from nutritionally complete and not tolerated by many people; even those can become moldy or infested with insects.)

Most livestock can subsist on marginal land that humans can't farm. Brush that can grow on land that isn't arable for food crops can feed a goat, which can then provide milk, a kid for meat, and gallons of poop to help nourish that marginal land and hopefully make it arable some year in the future. That hardy brush, which is unusable to humans, brings nutrients and water up to the surface through it's roots. That nutrition is then returned to the topsoil in the form of manure. Land sustainably managed on livestock does not suffer erosion. You can maintain an animal like a sheep or a goat with minimal labor, as insurance in case your vegetable food crops fail, and take advantage of that manure thing in the meanwhile. With chickens, you can maintain them and take advantage of their bug-eating abilities, gather a few eggs, and again know that you can slaughter them if your vegetable crops fail or your stores become damaged. The extra advantage of chickens is, they have such a short period of gestation and growth, you can breed your small keeper flock into a larger meat flock in the course of a couple months if needed.

By comparison, foodcropping an equal number of calories in produce involves the clearing of land and it's resultant erosion. The roots of annual foodcrops are not as deep as perennial shrubs and native weeds, so they don't draw up the minerals from deep under the soil. They are heavy users of soil nutrition, so if you don't have livestock to provide manure you have to rely on other sources (petroleum?) No matter how you cut it, they are far more labor intensive per calorie. Finally, most produce is only available during a limited time of the year. The most nutritious fruits and vegetables do not store reliably for winter without energy intensive preservation techniques (canning or freezing). You can sun dry, but that's risky - you risk mold, insect infestation, rotting. You risk a solid week of rain the day you set up to dehydrate your tomatoes. Fermentation is a possibility, but it involves a lot of salt which isn't always readily available far from the ocean. And again, you risk the ferment becoming contaminated.

When I participated in the 30 day raw challenge recently, what bothered me the most was how difficult it was to eat primarily locally. In late April and early May here in Pennsylvania, the only local foods raw foods that are available are meat and milk, a few early greens, and if I'd had any storage crops leftover I might have had potatoes and carrots. I ate plenty of local milk during that month, and all the local greens I could buy (greenhouse greens; since we'd had a late cold snap, my own garden greens weren't nearly ready as they'd been at that time last year.) I had some local strawberries left in the freezer from last year, which provided for my smoothies. But by and large, I had to rely on imported foods. And I do think the imported food issue is key. The ability to import these foods is not sustainable. It is not going to be an option in a decade or so. We need to learn to eat locally produced foods, and for much of the country, that means meat and milk. Again, reliable food preservation techniques are also energy intensive. That's just not sustainable. There's a reason why the few vegetarian cultures that exist are in equatorial regions where produce is available year round. Folks in Europe just couldn't sustain that kind of a diet historically.
post #231 of 275
but if you are unable to sustain enough foods (not meat) for yourself you're not going to be able to sustain enough for the animals, at least not as many animals as would be needed.
post #232 of 275
UUMom and Jessica, i see where you both are coming from and i agree for the most part. this debate has gone on and on so i'll just leave it at agreeing for once.
post #233 of 275
redundant post. lol Sorry about that!
post #234 of 275
I think the statement "vegan = sustainable, omni = unsustainable" is not accurate. I think "vegan = sustainable, modern SAD omni = unsustainable" is accurate.

One of the things that changed my mind about meat consumption was from Michael Pollan's book. Here's a paraphrase of his description of one farm (but it was a couple of months ago that I read it, so I apologize in advance if I'm not relaying it correctly):

There is a farm that grows grapes and turkeys. The grapes attract all the bugs that the turkeys like best, and the turkeys eat the bugs so there's no need for pesticides. The turkeys scratch around at the base of the grape vines, keeping the ground somewhat aerated. Apparently turkeys and grapes are a great combination. While it's true that you grow less grapes per acre when you have to fit turkeys in there too, and you raise fewer turkeys per acre when you have to fit the grapes in too... but it's only about 25% less/fewer, not 50% less, so you end up with more food altogether in the end. (If you raise 75% of the turkeys and grow 75% of the grapes, all on the original number of acres, you end up with 50% more food than if you had just grown turkeys or just grown grapes.) Quite sustainable, and efficient, I'd say.

When I find a farm that I believe is growing its produce and raising its animals in a sustainable way, then I like to support that farm.

WE ALL AGREE THAT FACTORY FARMING IS A DISASTER.

I was a vegetarian for 15 years, because everything I had ever read about food discussed what a disaster eating meat is. When I realized that everything I had ever read was discussing factory farms, and not small, local, sustainable farms, I changed my mind. I found a grassfed beef farm close to me, and we now eat meat 2 times per month. I feel healthier, and I feel that it is sustainable.

Aven
post #235 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by tboroson View Post
Yet, when organizations seek to help people in many third world countries feed themselves, they bring them goats and chickens, not seeds. Why? Because food crops are delicate. Humans have forcefully evolved them for thousands of years to only subsist in perfect soil and environmental conditions, and they are labor intensive. Further, most don't store easily (except grains and beans, which are calorie rich but far from nutritionally complete and not tolerated by many people; even those can become moldy or infested with insects.)

Most livestock can subsist on marginal land that humans can't farm. Brush that can grow on land that isn't arable for food crops can feed a goat, which can then provide milk, a kid for meat, and gallons of poop to help nourish that marginal land and hopefully make it arable some year in the future. That hardy brush, which is unusable to humans, brings nutrients and water up to the surface through it's roots. That nutrition is then returned to the topsoil in the form of manure. Land sustainably managed on livestock does not suffer erosion. You can maintain an animal like a sheep or a goat with minimal labor, as insurance in case your vegetable food crops fail, and take advantage of that manure thing in the meanwhile. With chickens, you can maintain them and take advantage of their bug-eating abilities, gather a few eggs, and again know that you can slaughter them if your vegetable crops fail or your stores become damaged. The extra advantage of chickens is, they have such a short period of gestation and growth, you can breed your small keeper flock into a larger meat flock in the course of a couple months if needed.

By comparison, foodcropping an equal number of calories in produce involves the clearing of land and it's resultant erosion. The roots of annual foodcrops are not as deep as perennial shrubs and native weeds, so they don't draw up the minerals from deep under the soil. They are heavy users of soil nutrition, so if you don't have livestock to provide manure you have to rely on other sources (petroleum?) No matter how you cut it, they are far more labor intensive per calorie. Finally, most produce is only available during a limited time of the year. The most nutritious fruits and vegetables do not store reliably for winter without energy intensive preservation techniques (canning or freezing). You can sun dry, but that's risky - you risk mold, insect infestation, rotting. You risk a solid week of rain the day you set up to dehydrate your tomatoes. Fermentation is a possibility, but it involves a lot of salt which isn't always readily available far from the ocean. And again, you risk the ferment becoming contaminated.

When I participated in the 30 day raw challenge recently, what bothered me the most was how difficult it was to eat primarily locally. In late April and early May here in Pennsylvania, the only local foods raw foods that are available are meat and milk, a few early greens, and if I'd had any storage crops leftover I might have had potatoes and carrots. I ate plenty of local milk during that month, and all the local greens I could buy (greenhouse greens; since we'd had a late cold snap, my own garden greens weren't nearly ready as they'd been at that time last year.) I had some local strawberries left in the freezer from last year, which provided for my smoothies. But by and large, I had to rely on imported foods. And I do think the imported food issue is key. The ability to import these foods is not sustainable. It is not going to be an option in a decade or so. We need to learn to eat locally produced foods, and for much of the country, that means meat and milk. Again, reliable food preservation techniques are also energy intensive. That's just not sustainable. There's a reason why the few vegetarian cultures that exist are in equatorial regions where produce is available year round. Folks in Europe just couldn't sustain that kind of a diet historically.
Wow, What a detailed, thoughtful post. You kinda rock, you know?
post #236 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by UUMom View Post
redundant post. lol Sorry about that!
yes, i understand all that. and i'm not saying at all that we should just go and plant a crop in the deserts of Africa but raher that instead of wasting our resources on maintaining factory farming we should be outsourcing them to countries in need.
with the post you quoted i was going off of having farms and/or animals in desolate areas that can hardly maintain any life. that's a thread ll within itself having to do with the environment. anyways, it would be very difficult to have farming or animals in areas such as that which is where i feel our shipping of resources would come in at least to give time to heal the land/peoples/governments/etc etc
i'm sorry, i am so flipping tired right now, so i doubt i'm making nay sense. to many thoughts all jumbled up in my mind and i'm having a hard time making heads or tails of it. i just love getting a good 3 hours of sleep. :
i want to clear up that i'm not saying you must be veg in order to be sustainable. a plant based diet is more sustainable but a limited omni diet isn't bad, either. like i have said i'm not a veg*n. i do eat meat a few times a year. i do think it's more than possible to improve things and still have an omni world, i shouldn't have said a veg*n is ideal because i didn't necessarily mean that. in my little world what would be ideal is the meat industry dieing and us living on little meat and animal products based locally, free ranged, organic, etc etc. you know, going to the farmers front door to buy some eggs and chicken.
i do think we're agreeing more than we think. my wording is sucking (sorry ) and i know we come to these threads on the defense because we're so use to a huge drawn out veg vs omni drag out debate. but when you're talking to me, at least, know i'm not really anti omni. i have learned someting from this thread. i came into it with the preconceived notion that all the omni's on it were typical meat for every meal factory farm endorsing omnis. i was wrong. i'm GLAD i was wrong. and i'm even happier we could find some common ground. well, at least i could in my frazzled brain. whether or not you're understanding me or even still reading this butchered post remains to be seen.
post #237 of 275
oh poo on you UUMom! you changed your post right as i quoted it.
post #238 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by magstphil View Post
oh poo on you UUMom! you changed your post right as i quoted it.
Sorry. I just said poorly all of what tboronson said well. I figured my post was not the least bit necessary.

--Ithink the statement "vegan = sustainable, omni = unsustainable" is not accurate. I think "vegan = sustainable, modern SAD omni = unsustainable" is accurate.--
Aven--I am still not sure veganism is sustainable for people everywhere. Plant food is dependant on climate, and in our current state of climate change, we may have to use some animal products some places, for some people. I think it's a hugely complicated issue, can't be be neatly be summed up. If there is a drought, and nothing is growing, or there are floods and everything is washed away, even a rodent is going to look pretty good after a time.
post #239 of 275
it is complicated. but i think we have the resources now (in some countries, of course not all are the same. i'm meaning the US) to be able to maintain a plantbased diet. but you're right. stuff happens. for the most part, though, i think its doable.
post #240 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by UUMom View Post
Aven--I am still not sure veganism is sustainable for people everywhere. Plant food is dependant on climate, and in our current state of climate change, we may have to use some animal products some places, for some people. I think it's a hugely complicated issue, can't be be neatly be summed up. If there is a drought, and nothing is growing, or there are floods and everything is washed away, even a rodent is going to look pretty good after a time.
My point is this: veganism CAN BE sustainable (depending on where you live), and omnivorism CAN BE sustainable (depending on how you raise your animals). Right, it's very possible to do veganism in a 'bad' way, just as many SADers do omnivorism in a 'bad' way. However, many American vegans are closer to living in a sustainable way than many American omnivores are, and I want them to get credit for that.

Aven
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Nutrition and Good Eating
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › "Death by Veganism" NYT opinion piece