Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I am really torn on this; don't kill me because it's veg. related *ducks and runs*
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It's certainly *possible* for people who desire to be vegetarian to do so but it is not always doable for an individual depending on their life circumstances: money, family members, availability and so on. There are professional athletes that are vegan and vegetarian. So it's doable. Probably much more so when you have millions of dollars to spend and team chefs who provide for you, lol. If it's important to someone, then they should make every attempt to do it, if they can. Or at least make changes in the right direction. You can eat less meat. You can eat meat from sources that are not factory farms. You can simply increase your intake of fresh veggies and you'll notice automatically that you eat less of other things. During garden season I have to work to get enough protein because I eat so much fresh produce!
Veganism = Ahimsa. Everyone should be going there.
Unless you belong to one of the Chinese Sanghas that insist on vegetarianism.
Fact.
I'm going to point out again that -- at least according to the vast majority of Theravada monks in Thailand -- that eating meat is not a significant issue. They virtually all do. Some here have said it's because the monks don't want to offend the general public who gives them their food. Sheer nonsense. If the Supreme Sangha of Thailand politely told the Thai public that it was issue, the Thai public would easily modify their giving habits. In fact, meat (as compared to fruit and vegetables) in Thailand is so expensive, that the people who donate food to monks would be saving a great deal of money by switching their food donations to non-meat meals for monks. Furthermore, the monkhood in Thailand has had no problem reminding the locals of other rules dealing with the interaction of the public with monks -- for example, that females cannot touch a monk or that (in certain temples) the public may not take photographs. And, monks often preach to the laity and otherwise tell them what to do in one-on-one meetings.
If eating meat is good enough for the monkhood of Thailand...and Buddha...then it's good enough for me.
Having said that, I have reduced my consumption of meat. I rarely eat a meat lunch now, and most weeks have at one meat-free dinner.
In many Tibetan Pujas eating meat in actually mandatory. You would be in breach of samaya ( the contract with your guru ) to refuse it.
Here's a question that may or may not trigger a runaway nuclear reaction...
For those of you who do eat meat, or know people who eat meat, do you/they avoid beef as meat-eating Hindus do? I never knew if the cow thing was an issue in Buddhism. Personally I think (and here goes the firing mechanism) that it's blown out of proportion because it's not the cow (gomata, mother cow) that is slaughtered for human consumption, but steers.
As I've mentioned before, I also support people who try and get their meat from cruelty-free sources. Although I do not take advantage of it, one benefit to living in the Detroit-metro area is that we have halal meat options everywhere, even in some malls. I often wonder why more Buddhists don't try to take advantage of halal meat, if possible, as one of the requirements of halal is that it's cruelty-free. Of course there is always the chance of deception in labels, but it's a good place to start. From the website I linked, I also learned that even non-food products must be certified cruelty-free by not being tested on animals or they aren't considered halal as well. I guess my beliefs align very well with the Muslim teachings, it's not about the meat, it's about the cruelty.
Fact, animal agriculture is the number 1 destroyer of the environment!
Fact, vegetarians are healthier!
Fact, it takes, depending on how the animal was raised, 4,000 to 18,000 gallons of water to make ONE hamburger!
Fact, it takes 100 gallons of water to make ONE potato!
They are many more facts like this!
And people are concerned about saving water by turning off the faucet when brushing their teeth or something like that. Ha!
You have a fringe viewpoint on the topic. Period.
Facts cannot be disputed. Especially the one about vegetarians being healthier. I know PLENTY of vegetarians who have anything but healthy diets. Just not eating meat doesn't make one not healthy. I know many people who eat meat with a well balanced diet who are healthier than vegetarians. There are a lot of ways to measure health. My best friend is vegetarian. She doesn't eat meat. But she drinks a lot of beer, and she smokes.
The average washing machine uses 40-55 gallons to wash ONE LOAD of clothes. So, are you taking your clothes down to the river to wash them with a washboard?
The average toilet uses about 30 gallons of water a day. So, do you let your waste just sit in the toilet in order to avoid flushing it more often?
Do you water the lawn or garden? Take baths? Wash your car? Let the water run to get cold when you want a drink? Let it run when you brush your teeth? Shave in the shower?
There are A LOT of things we all do every day that waste water. Again, I'm not excusing the waste and other problems associated with our factory farming, which is why I support it as little as absolutely possible. I'm just saying, that the things you listed aren't necessarily fact, and it doesn't suddenly make vegetarians perfect. Often I have seen that while they feel they excel in the dietary area, they fall short in other areas. Just like the rest of us. There are areas every single one of us can improve on. Better to spend time doing that than to tell everyone else why they are doing it wrong.
I read the whole thing previously.
I only chose to respond to one point since I have posted my thoughts (and yours) before.
I can provide evidence that vegetarians, as a group, are healthier if you really want me to. Tons of it! You really can't use individuals, AKA people I know or have met, as a comparison because that would amount to "anecdotal evidence" which is not a very scientifically sound method. It's completely unreliable actually which is why research scientists consider it irrelevant. You need large samples to get accurate data on the issue. This one here is just one example. There are many others which come to the same conclusions.
Animal agriculture being the number 1 destroyer of the environment can be supported with tons of factual evidence as well.
The first one. Well, that has the same amount of evidence as the comment I replied to.
Of course not because that is not reasonable. However, having a veggie burrito for lunch instead of a beef burrito, is quite reasonable! Why do people always try to cite some extremely unreasonable example to try and imply some kind of counter argument? I personally think it's because they simply can't make a reasonable counter argument. I'm not saying that you are being unreasonable. I'm just saying that the idea about washing clothes in a river, is quite unreasonable! There is no river by my house!
True! The question now is "How much?". Some people actually do consume WAY more than others, exponentially more.
True! The question now is "How much?". Some people actually do consume WAY more than others.
3.2% of the American population is vegetarian. Therefore, 96.8% of the population is not vegetarian. Therefore, vegetarianism is a fringe lifestyle. It's not bad, but it is not mainstream.
Is any of your electricity from nuclear power plants? If so, do you stop using electricity because of its high water consumption?
Any liquid in any bottle in your house is mostly water. Which have you discontinued because of their water consumption?
Do you ride in motorized vehicles? How much water is used in the production of those vehicles, those tires, that gasoline?
Even doing ALL of the above, vegetarians still consume WAY less then your average meat eater because they also do all of the above.
Vegetarianism is a fine life style for those who desire it. It doesn't mean we need vegetarian-bible-thumping for the rest of us.
As far as vegetarians being more healthy, the same can actually be said about people who still do eat meat but limit how much, what type and still fill their diet with plenty of healthy grains, fruits and veggies. Your blanket statement of "vegetarians are healthier" doesn't apply. Some vegetarians are healthier. The average vegetarian is probably leagues healthier than the typical person who eats a standard American diet. But there are a lot of people who fall in between that can be either healthier than a vegetarian, or less healthy than the average American.
It's not any individual item I actually have a problem with. It's your insinuation that there IS only one way to do it, and those who aren't doing it your way, are doing it wrong. Without any considering for why they do it their way. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't envision Buddha coming to my home and saying "well, despite the cost of groceries, the health issues in your family, and the availability of the items where you live, you STILL need to find a way to be vegetarian/vegan no matter what. because it is the only way." As I recall, middle way is the way. Not "Only this way."
Wheat consumes about 790 billion cubic meters of water annually, which constitutes 12 % of the global water use for crop production.
So, that burrito you are eating is just as costly. In fact, the vast majority of water used in crop production is driving water scarcity in most of the world. Wheat, corn, cotton, rice and sugar cane. In the US, yes, our factory farming uses a lot of water. But in the rest of the world, it's the crops that everyone, including vegetarians, eat that is causing water problems. Better get rid of all your cotton clothes! See, to you that seems horribly unreasonable, I'm sure. Yet you could easily wardrobe yourself, and your home (carpet, furniture) with hemp and bamboo products, which are far more friendly to the environment and produce much more per acre than cotton. I could tell you hemp and bamboo clothes are THE only acceptable means of clothing yourself. Heck, we can even buy them in our tiny town! So I bet you have access to them. Best get on changing out the wardrobe.
And remember that sites like that, that are meant to make people think about their water use, are gauged for an average audience education of 8th grade. They are mostly use in science fairs and other school reports. That doesn't mean the information isn't basically valid. But it's not exactly correct, either. I could easily feed a chicken less than 400 gallons to get an egg out of it. Over the lifetime of the chicken's egg laying, sure, maybe 400 gallons. But that comes out to a lot more than 1 egg.
Both the meat-based average American diet and the lactoovovegetarian diet require significant quantities of nonrenewable fossil energy to produce. Thus, both food systems are not sustainable in the long term based on heavy fossil energy requirements. However, the meat-based diet requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet.
So, the veggy burrito cost, but is not just as costly like a meat based food.
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock
Yes, I know meat production takes more. I realize that most grain (though mostly corn, not wheat) goes to agriculture. I'm actually fairly well read on the topic. You are right, I should not have said "just as costly" although if a person made their meat-based burrito with chickens that they keep at home and made the tortilla portion out of rice (which we can collect here in the wild) they would still be quite a bit ahead of the vegetarian burrito option made with store bought items. It's just a matter of perspective. When I talk that way, people think "Oh, she's nuts. That is unreasonable, people don't do that." And yes, they actually do in some areas. I'm not saying everyone CAN do that, obviously. Yet that is what @seeker242 insists on saying when it comes to people being vegetarian/vegan. Perhaps seeker would live to come visit here and enjoy a dinner that is made from not a single thing bought from the store. That is our reality, as much of the year as we can manage it. Nuts, berries, mushrooms, wild rice, fish, grouse, the garden, the farmer's markets, locals who have eggs and such for trade and for sale. Not vegetarian, but not dependent on stores, transportation, or any of the other problematic areas of buying food at the store. Of course, I could insist that if someone REALLY cared they would do those things, find a way to forage for their foods and so on. But of course I realize that my reality is not available to very many people and I wouldn't EXPECT them to adopt it as a result.
I just think that some people (no one in particular) just don't want make an effort. Not only in vegetarianism, also in Buddhism or any other that could threath their morals values. They are comfort with the way things are right now, just don't want to change.
But yes, I agree with you. Not always is possible and I need to understand that.
Second, it is definitely possible to get over 100 g quality vegetarian protein a day easily and without overdoing calories. I keep strict diet logs during cut phases and I can get upwards of 170 g protein @ 2000 calories and 100-120 g carbs. The big hitters are my soy iso/whey iso/casein blend powders and greek yogurts. Cheeses, nuts, legumes, textured vegetable and myco proteins bring up the rear. I don't drink milk. I can post a sample diet log if you wish for details.
If you have lactose issues it may be a little harder but not much. Isolate whey is low in lactose, greek yogurt is low in lactose... some digestive enzymes should be enough to take care of what little there is. Of course soy isolate is lactose free.. and i've seen BV scores for soy iso in the mid 90s, blowing any meat out of the water. Of course there;s no virtually question that whey conc and iso is the most efficient followed by eggs.
Third, dude i'm not rich...that;s an argument I hear a lot, and it's just not true. I actually save money eating veg... it just takes a little while to find vegetarian replacements that you like.
Hey I used to think that my weight training sentenced me to eating meat, but honestly I see very little difference performance and recovery wise from veg diet. And I dont crave meat, and i dont feel deprived, and it was a lot easier than I thought.
Oh and here's a heads up to fellow weightlifters; due to the varied absorption rates of soy, casein and whey conc. and their complimentary amino acid profiles, the triple blend is beginning to emerge in studies as highly effective muscle builders. What whey lacks amino acid wise, soy has in abundance, arginine for one. http://www.medicaltimesnews.com/archives/1860
I was doing this years ago, because the addition of soy helps with any digestive discomfort of the whey conc. ( now I use Iso whey).
I attached a photo... Im not exactly arnold, but as you can see I'm not wasting away either.
Cheers
That is why you can't use individuals as a comparison. There are individuals who fall in between. However, when you include 70,000 or more people, vegetarians as a group are healthier than people who eat meat as a group. This makes "vegetarians are healthier" a true statement and the science behind this is solid. I find it interesting that you are the one saying this and not me. Please point out where I said "no matter what". You can't because I never said that. It's really better to not put words in people's mouths.
Although, I can not envision any Buddha approving of what goes on at a slaughterhouse...ever. No, it isn't. The science does not support that idea. A veggie burrito does not, and never will equate to 4,000 to 18,000 gallons of water. That is completely true! However, please note the below.
"More than half the U.S. grain and nearly 40 percent of world grain is being fed to livestock rather than being consumed directly by humans," David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, reported at the July 24-26 meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science in Montreal.
So, "that burrito you are eating is just as costly", is simply a false statement. That's a great way to change the subject and not address the points I made. Do you wear no cotton cloths and only hemp clothes? No, you don't. You're just saying that to try to score rhetorical points meanwhile ignoring the fact that meat production consumes WAY more resources than veg food production. This is what's called a "red herring" which is not a reasonable way to discuss something. However, the fact remains that if we both wear cotton clothing and you eat meat and I don't, it is simply a fact that I consume much less water than you do. Try to stay on topic please if you really want to discuss the issue. The issue here is meats compared to veg food. This is the topic of discussion. Meat food is much more resource intensive than veg food regardless of what anyone says about anything else. These are the facts of science. The USGS does not use incorrect information. It is actual water science by professional scientists who actually know what they are doing. However, if you think you have a better source than the USGS, I would be interested in seeing it. But do you? No, you don't. It does not matter what you could do, what matters is what is actually being done.
Can you at least agree with me that it would be nice if we could eat without making animals die? I've slaughtered animals. Have you? If so, was it pretty? Be honest.
I ate fish and fowl for years, feeling it was nutritionally necessary... but I always felt regret about it.
And honestly, the 'everybody else is doing it' argument is pretty surprising coming from you.
just saying.
"Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose."
Although, people who eat the meat "Because it tastes good", when they could easily choose something else, is not a good enough excuse. Especially if you are trying to live a compassionate lifestyle.
I have no guilt about eating animals. Nor do most Theravada monks in Thailand and elsewhere, nor, apparently, did Buddha. I think that's natural for homo sapiens.
Have I personally slaughtered animals for eating? No. But I lived with my grandfather, and he was a hunter and fisherman, and I have seen him involved in the slaughter process of fish, pheasant, duck, deer, elk, and moose from the time I was a little boy. We also raised and slaughtered chickens on our semi-farm property.
You're incorrect to interpret my comments as everyone else is doing it. I'm simply pointing out what the overwhelming norm is.
How much augmentation is required? For example do we require a computer or a fish curry? How many rooms or pair of leather shoes do we need? How much thought about meals? Be a little kinder. A little simpler . . . a little . . . wait a minute . . . I have run out of pickled chillies for my cheese and pickle on toast breakfast . . . Must be time to ponder whether to swap to muesli. Ah the mind . . . what a thing to waste . . . and now back to the meaty stuff . . . :wave:
@seeker242 I cannot have chickens where I am at because it is not possible to fence our yard to the degree needed when we have a whole neighborhood of feral cats and wandering dogs. But we have had chickens in the past and will have them again, and currently we get our chicken and eggs from a friend who raises them on pasture land only. We trade veggies and fruits with them for chicken and eggs.
As usual you don't understand why I brought up the point of the clothes. It's not as a distraction. It was simply to point out that just because someone technically should be able to do something doesn't make it truly doable for them. Our lifestyle, over all, even eating meat, is better for the environment than even the typical vegetarian who shops at a store. It is certainly possible to eat meat and make it a point to have less impact and not support factory farms.
1. If you want to be vegetarian/vegan, that's wonderful and you should make every attempt to try.
2. If you aren't ready to be vegetarian, or can't for whatever reason, this does not make you an animal hater, a bad person or a bad Buddhist. It's ok.
3. As Buddhists we should make whatever attempts we can to lessen harm in the world, including in what we take into our bodies. But what that means is different for everyone. And that's ok.
4. Everyone's bodies, and life circumstances are different. Not everyone can be vegetarian for a variety of reasons, and that's ok. But if it's important to you and you can make it work, then terrific. There most certainly are sources of all the macro and micronutrients available to you in other foods and in supplements. Don't let a fear of a lack of iron, B vitamins, or protein keep you from being vegetarian if that is what you want to do. There are a million resources for veggies online about getting all those sources into your diet.
Its not a question of not being ready, I have no intention of becoming vegetarian.
Plus the fact that one is required to eat meat in many Vajrayana pujas.
Some only eat meat during those pujas.
Me, I agree with Gary Snyder. Its splitting hairs.
Pass the mustard.
Hmm.
:scratch:
Hmm. "
Well, if they engineered lab-grown veggies, cloned from cells of the plants several generations removed from the naturally grown vegetable in (real) soil and sunshine, would you forgo all naturally grown veggies to eat lab-grown veggies instead? Even if it meant you'd be saving the Earth's topsoil reserves and protecting natural reservoirs and ground waters from fertilizers, and drastically cutting down on erosion to do so?
I wouldn't.
I also would not eat lab-grown meat no matter HOW good it tasted or looked. I find the idea of lab-grown genetically engineered meat completely repulsive....
"Food shortages could force world into vegetarianism, warn scientists"
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/aug/26/food-shortages-world-vegetarianism
"Leading water scientists have issued one of the sternest warnings yet about global food supplies, saying that the world's population may have to switch almost completely to a vegetarian diet over the next 40 years to avoid catastrophic shortages."
Although, some people believe the issue is about just lunch. It's much bigger than just lunch. It's about the rape of the natural environment and the billions of animals that suffer and die, for lunch.
Second of all, even the article itself concludes that the answer is finding ways to improve water conservation, greatly reduce waste and pollutions, and distributing water to places without enough so they can too grow food. Unless I missed it, there is NO overwhelming consensus or evidence that a world-wide veggie diet would ease the fresh water issues in the next several generations.
According to the article, it's a matter of "Some scientists believe......" , well how many is some? 2? 6? 10? Out of how many? Hundreds? More?
You really think clearing every square inch of "viable" acreage available on this planet to plant veggies and fruits is the best plan we've got?
And the animals and wildlife already here and thriving in their own diverse natural environments? What about them? Just let them die off and we can rest easy because we don't EAT them anymore? Really??
There is a tremendous waste of food, even in parts of the third world. I hate to think of the tons of veggies and fruits that ends up in the garbage from the street markets in Thailand everyday.
Perhaps seeker would like to level more of the Amazon to grow vegan food.
Any background in hydrology, for example?
You know seeker, by this time I would think you would notice that virtually everyone on our forum has one view or the other. Almost no one is on the fence. So you are preaching for naught.
As I have said repeatedly, for those who are attracted to vegetarianism, that's fine. It's an acceptable lifestyle for a small minority of the population. I'm not trying to get anyone to not be a vegetarian.
I have seen examples where posters who are sympathetic to the veggie cause end up distancing themselves from his presentation of that cause.
Its just nag nag nag.
And we all learn to turn off from that we are about 5. The eyes glaze over. The mind moves into neutral.