The Vegetarian Myth

[Esote]

Sun-Gazing doesn't partake 'in the killing in one form or another'. Unless it is the Sun-Gazers themselves may be ?
How come vegans don't 'know this better than anyone' ?

Eos, I don't understand this train of thought - could you please elaborate? What does "Sun-Gazing" have to do with killing animals for sustenance or farming?

Thanks!

Hi nicklebleu,
This was just some kind of humor, relating to the fact that if you really don't want to kill anything for living, the only solution IMHO isn't veganism but sun-gazing, where you are supposed to feed only on sun, air and prana.
Hope it makes sense for you and everybody...

 

[H-KQGE]

If that is the case, lets start killing our children, our babies, our neighbours and start a big barbeque. Meat is meat. Ya... lets evolve.

I was reminded last night of something the C's said, which may explain Cat's POV.
It's worth reading the entire thing, but here is the essence of it.
- snip -

Thank you RedFox - I had the same thought after reading Cat's comment, but didn't remember the session. There really seems to be an extremely strong identification with the animal kingdom, which ironically means an orientation "downward", despite all the lofty "spiritual feeling" associated with veganism/vegetarianism.

I think the kind of love for animals that LQB just talked about in the ketogenic diet thread, which I also witnessed in many small scale farmers and hunters, is a "real" love, based on deep knowledge about the animals ("love is knowledge"), whereas this blind identification with animals many vegan extremists show is really a childish love based on ignorance - it doesn't seem to amount to more than "oh, look how sweet he is!" imho. I mean, how can you be so identified with the animal kingdom and yet outright deny that nature is based on living beings consuming living beings? I mean, ever watched your lovely cat (sic) hunt?

And this brings me to another thought: On the other side of the spectrum, we know that there are "human predators" (psychopaths, schizoids, authoritarian followers etc.) who seem to identify with the animal kingdom as well - but they think we live in a "dog eat dog" world where anything goes, and that is supposed to be human nature. So maybe they identify with the "predator archetype" of the animal kingdom. The extremist vegans/vegetarians on the other hand seem to identify with the animal kingdom as well, yet seem to think by pretending there are no predators, everything's great in lala-land - maybe they identify with the "sheep archetype"? So maybe these are just two sides of the same coin - both groups ignore large parts of reality and look "down", evolutionary speaking, with their ignorance of human potential and idealization of the animal world.

Both groups seem unable to see that there may be a path "up" as well, which means using all our distinctively human capabilities (intelligence, self-reflection etc.) not to deny reality, but to learn more about it, especially about ourselves - which includes acknowledging the predator in us, without idealizing it, and outsmarting/outgrowing it instead of denying its existence and thus being governed even more strongly by "it". Anyway, just some thoughts.

I immediately thought of that session too, (thanks RedFox) but I'm no good with finding them like others do. I specifically thought about the OP part. The exchange between the participants of this thread & Cat is another of those priceless examples for both new & old members, one that can be quickly referred to. The rudeness, the paramoralisms, the refusal to just read what has been suggested.... how can you go on a research forum & start asking sarcastically, "anyone ever research that?!" As if there isn't a database of thousands & thousands of information from all around the world, with people from all sorts of backgrounds discussing complex issues all day, everyday? Just because you felt offended about an opposing stance that is proven to be based on objective facts? I'm highly suspicious of anyone who simply refuses to read something, especially when most of the work researching & collecting & adding to it has gone on & continues to go on.

I definitely agree with the bolded part btw (just about caught myself getting side-tracked there!) it's pleasing to read that these people actually exist & aren't as small in number as I thought. Oh yeah, I'm nodding my head at the "sheep-predator" archetype idea, for sure. :(

 

[Alana]

If that is the case, lets start killing our children, our babies, our neighbours and start a big barbeque. Meat is meat. Ya... lets evolve.

Cat, your posts are now under moderation. If you are willing to do the reading and have an adult conversation instead of accusing the members here of being proponents of murder and torture and having a lizzie agenda then those posts will be approved.

 

[patty2292]

WOW, I'll gleen what I can but I stand alone. If you people think that murder is the way....

All that diatribe on psychopaths, how they start out by torturing animals, their lack of empathy and their murderous ways and you can't see the parallel. What is wrong with you!!!

I'd like to think we can all agree that torturing animals is some what different to consuming them as food for energy the way nature intended.

If that is the case, lets start killing our children, our babies, our neighbours and start a big barbeque. Meat is meat. Ya... lets evolve.

And again, i would like to think that the people who participate on this forum do not see ''Meat as meat''. I would personally not consume alot of animals for energy; cats, dogs, tigers etc.

Animals who feed on, for the main part, a plant based diet seem to be for me, the animals that are 'acceptable' to consume in a vague sense. We as a species, along with alot of other predators high up the food chain that cannot digest or utilize to the fullest potential a 100% plant based diet. We are designed as nature intended, for us to digest and run off fat. So these animals can easily and purposefully convert their food into fat, as a form of filtration system so that we can then digest the nutrients from what they originally consumed.

It would be a good idea, as others have suggested, to read the suggested material. NOT because anyone is forcing, or trying to convert you... But because we all deserve to know the truth. Whether we can accept it, well that's a different matter.

 

[SeekinTruth]

A very interesting article in connection with recent discussions on SOTT I read this morning:
http://www.sott.net/article/298572-Plants-react-to-the-sound-of-being-eaten-alive

This has some fascinating details about plants not wanting to be eaten, and it's only talking about protecting the leaves from being eaten, whereas plants' defenses are generally MUCH more aggressive when it comes to protecting their seeds/future generations.

 

[arpaxad]

I would like to stress the importance of INDIVIDUAL APPROACH and not black-or-white thinking when it comes to questions like vegetarianism. This approach is well exemplified in the following quote from the article "Vegetarian Myths" on Dr. Mercola's website:

The Value of Vegetarianism
As a cleansing diet, vegetarianism is a good choice. Several health conditions (e.g., gout) can often be ameliorated by a temporary reduction in animal products with an increase of plant foods. But such measures must not be continuous throughout life: there are vital nutrients found only in animal products that we must ingest for optimal health. Furthermore, there is no one diet that will work for every person. Some vegetarians and vegans, in their zeal to get converts, are blind to this biochemical fact.

I think the latter can be equally applied to ketogenic diet promoters with an absolutist approach.

Further on, the doctor says:

"Biochemical individuality" is a subject worth clarifying. Coined by biochemist Roger Williams, PhD, the term refers to the fact that different people require different nutrients based on their unique genetic make-up.

Now, this concept of "biochemical individuality" is very important. It may have been coined by Roger Williams, PhD, but the people who brought this concept into the light and greatly expounded on it and developed it were Dr. Linus Pauling (I believe, still the only person who has been awarded 2 (TWO) Nobel Prizes, and also the promoter of the Vitamin C use for anything, from colds to prostate cancer, although he died from the latter) and orthomolecular physicians. See orthomolecular.org website and also the ground-breaking article by Dr. Linus Pauling, "Orthomolecular psychiatry."

A diet that works for one may not work as well for someone else. As a practitioner, I've seen several patients following a low-fat, low-protein, high-carbohydrate diet with severe health problems: obesity, candidiasis, hypothyroidism, leaky gut syndrome, anemia and generalized fatigue.

Most of these people have been vegetarians. Because of the widespread rhetoric that a vegetarian diet is "always healthier" than a diet that includes meat or animal products, these people see no reason to change their diet, even though that is the cause of their problems. What these people actually need for optimal health is more animal foods and fewer carbohydrates!

This is a very common nowadays view of vegetarian diet as being low-fat, low-protein, and high-carbohydrate. However, I would argue that it is possible to have a high-fat, relatively high-protein, and low-carbohydrate vegetarian diet. The question is, are the critiques of the vegetarian diet still applicable to such a diet, which addresses the concerns regarding high carbohydrate and low protein consumption? Yes, there are additional micronutrients that come, perhaps, exclusively, from animal sources, such as bioavailable iron; zinc; certain vitamins & amino acids, etc.
However, does this mean that loads of animal food have to be eaten every day to address these deficiencies? Perhaps, one egg a week will suffice? [An extreme example is given for irony's sake, although I have known a vegetarian who, if I remember correctly, after having started experiencing health problems due to life-long adherence to a vegetarian diet, claimed that one egg a week was sufficient to restore his B12 levels; also, I believe, he was eating sardines.]

Conversely, some people do very well on little or no meat and remain healthy as lacto-vegetarians or lacto-ovo-vegetarians. The reason for this is because these diets are healthier for those people, not because they're healthier in general.

Same applies to the ketogenic diet, doesn't it?

However, a total absence of animal products, whether meat, fish, insects, eggs, butter or dairy, is to be avoided. Though it may take years, problems will eventually ensue for these people.

Yes, it does seem so. However, how much of animal foods is really needed by an individual is still an open question.

When it comes to good nutrition, it's best to stick with the tried and true, rather than the untested and new. Humanity has been consuming animal products and saturated fats for thousands of years as part of its diet. Today's health-conscious person needs to follow humanity's historical example and make ample room for all of the gifts of life provided to us by our animal friends.

I think that's, perhaps, the best notion expressed in the article. I hope that everybody finds, after their experimentation is over, that a traditional diet, without any extremes, adjusted to the individual needs, is the best approach to diet.

 

[nicklebleu]

arpaxad,

We have several members on the forum, for which the ketogenic diet didn't work. A vegetarian diet is generally superior to a Standard Western Diet, because most vegetarians/ vegans don't eat processed food.

A few general remarks about optimal nutrition can be made though:
- Gluten is most likely detrimental to human health. Alessio Fasano, a Harvard immunologist says, that EVERYONE has SOME problem with eating gluten.
- Caseine is probably detrimental to many people as well, but it's not as bad as gluten.
- Processed food is bad
- Saturated fats are good, monounsaterated fats are good, provided they aren't heated up too much, polyunsaturated and transfats are bad (with the exception of a few natural ones like vaccinic acid in butter).
- Care must be taken to minimise intake of heavy metals (mercury in predatory fish), pesticides (leaning towards organic farming) andmother stuff as much as possible.

I haven't worked on this list very long - one of my projects on the backburner - so it's still incomplete, but you get my drift.

The KD is good,for people with cancer and with neurologic disease and - if well tolerated, is a good,way to loose weight.

Hope that helps!

 

[T.C.]

I would like to stress the importance of INDIVIDUAL APPROACH and not black-or-white thinking when it comes to questions like vegetarianism. This approach is well exemplified in the following quote from the article "Vegetarian Myths" on Dr. Mercola's website:

The Value of Vegetarianism
As a cleansing diet, vegetarianism is a good choice. Several health conditions (e.g., gout) can often be ameliorated by a temporary reduction in animal products with an increase of plant foods. But such measures must not be continuous throughout life: there are vital nutrients found only in animal products that we must ingest for optimal health. Furthermore, there is no one diet that will work for every person. Some vegetarians and vegans, in their zeal to get converts, are blind to this biochemical fact.

I think the latter can be equally applied to ketogenic diet promoters with an absolutist approach.

Thing is, the percentage of people on a Keto diet who would take such an approach would be in the minority. Among other reasons, because they don't have the righteous ethical stance, and they'd be less likely to fall into black and white extremist views because their brain chemistry is functioning properly, unlike vegetarians.

Further on, the doctor says:

"Biochemical individuality" is a subject worth clarifying. Coined by biochemist Roger Williams, PhD, the term refers to the fact that different people require different nutrients based on their unique genetic make-up.

Now, this concept of "biochemical individuality" is very important. It may have been coined by Roger Williams, PhD, but the people who brought this concept into the light and greatly expounded on it and developed it were Dr. Linus Pauling (I believe, still the only person who has been awarded 2 (TWO) Nobel Prizes, and also the promoter of the Vitamin C use for anything, from colds to prostate cancer, although he died from the latter) and orthomolecular physicians. See orthomolecular.org website and also the ground-breaking article by Dr. Linus Pauling, "Orthomolecular psychiatry."

Yes - here on this forum, we can't emphasise enough the fact that everyones physiology, genetics, epi-genetics, etc. is different and an individual approach always needs to be taken.

Having said that, as nicklebleu points out, there are many, many 'foods' and substances that are toxic and harmful to our species as a whole.

A diet that works for one may not work as well for someone else. As a practitioner, I've seen several patients following a low-fat, low-protein, high-carbohydrate diet with severe health problems: obesity, candidiasis, hypothyroidism, leaky gut syndrome, anemia and generalized fatigue.

Most of these people have been vegetarians. Because of the widespread rhetoric that a vegetarian diet is "always healthier" than a diet that includes meat or animal products, these people see no reason to change their diet, even though that is the cause of their problems. What these people actually need for optimal health is more animal foods and fewer carbohydrates!

This is a very common nowadays view of vegetarian diet as being low-fat, low-protein, and high-carbohydrate. However, I would argue that it is possible to have a high-fat, relatively high-protein, and low-carbohydrate vegetarian diet.

Why would you need to ingest high amounts of protein?

The question is, are the critiques of the vegetarian diet still applicable to such a diet, which addresses the concerns regarding high carbohydrate and low protein consumption? Yes, there are additional micronutrients that come, perhaps, exclusively, from animal sources, such as bioavailable iron; zinc; certain vitamins & amino acids, etc.
However, does this mean that loads of animal food have to be eaten every day to address these deficiencies?

You don't need to eat 'loads of animal food every day' for any reason at all.

Perhaps, one egg a week will suffice? [An extreme example is given for irony's sake, although I have known a vegetarian who, if I remember correctly, after having started experiencing health problems due to life-long adherence to a vegetarian diet, claimed that one egg a week was sufficient to restore his B12 levels; also, I believe, he was eating sardines.]

Or perhaps it won't.

Conversely, some people do very well on little or no meat and remain healthy as lacto-vegetarians or lacto-ovo-vegetarians. The reason for this is because these diets are healthier for those people, not because they're healthier in general.

I'd say the people who do very well on such diets are in the minority.

However, a total absence of animal products, whether meat, fish, insects, eggs, butter or dairy, is to be avoided. Though it may take years, problems will eventually ensue for these people.

Yes, it does seem so. However, how much of animal foods is really needed by an individual is still an open question.

Well, it isn't really an open question. You need as much fat as you need to fuel your energy system and as much protein as you need to meet your body's maintenance and synthesis requirements.

When it comes to good nutrition, it's best to stick with the tried and true, rather than the untested and new. Humanity has been consuming animal products and saturated fats for thousands of years as part of its diet. Today's health-conscious person needs to follow humanity's historical example and make ample room for all of the gifts of life provided to us by our animal friends.

I think that's, perhaps, the best notion expressed in the article. I hope that everybody finds, after their experimentation is over, that a traditional diet, without any extremes, adjusted to the individual needs, is the best approach to diet.

Why do you hope that?

I think the best book you could read to address a lot of your issues is The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living. They cover this idea of going to extremes (which is relative), as well as giving a figure for how many people can tolerate a high-carb diet, on top of all the physiological mechanisms linked to fat, protein and carbohydrate consumption.

 

[PERLOU]

Voici un lien pour de la viande d'animaux nourris à l'herbe, tué proprement une par une et non à la chaine...
http://www.leboeufdherbe.fr/content/6-concept
D’un produit d’exception issu d’animaux nourris et engraissés à l’herbe
Dans des conditions d’élevage véritablement respectueuses de l’animal et de l’environnement
Pour un goût et des qualités nutritionnelles supérieures
Garanti par un cahier des charges strict de l’élevage au produit fini
Que vous recevez chez vous, sous forme d’un colis varié et gourmand
Nous sommes des éleveurs regroupés pour proposer un modèle alternatif et équitable pour tous de distribution d’une viande d’exception.
Notre conviction : on ne saurait vendre à autrui ce qu’on ne consommerait pas soi-même.
Notre volonté est de rétablir le lien primordial de confiance producteur-consommateur. Aussi, nous garantissons la transparence du mode de production par un engagement écrit, du champ jusque à votre assiette.


Here is a link to meat from animals fed on grass, cleanly killed one by one and not to the chain ...
http://www.leboeufdherbe.fr/content/6-concept
On an exceptional product from animals fed and grass-fed
In farming conditions genuinely respectful of the animal and the environment
For a taste and superior nutritional qualities
Guaranteed by a strict specifications of livestock to the finished product
You get home, as a varied and delicious package
We are breeders together to propose an alternative model for all and equitable distribution of an exceptional meat.
Our belief: it can not sell to others what we do not consume yourself.
Our will is to the original link producer-consumer confidence. Also, we guarantee the transparency of the mode of production by a written undertaking from the field to your plate up.

 

[whitecoast]

I found an interesting open letter to vegetarians, written by a holistic agriculture consultant. It's called Letter to a Vegetarian Nation.

_http://sheldonfrith.com/2015/12/03/letter-to-a-vegetarian-nation-or-we-should-eat-meat/

Overview Of This Article: [list type=decimal]
[*]Basic values: [list type=decimal]
[*]Improving the environment is good.
[*]Reducing animal suffering as much as possible is good.
[*]Developing a sustainable civilization is good.
[/list]
[*]Agriculture is quickly transitioning to sustainable models
[*]It is not possible to produce food sustainably without large numbers of livestock.
[*]It is not possible to produce any food in Brittle Environments without even more livestock
[*]Therefore a sustainable civilization must include large numbers of livestock on all agricultural land and all Brittle land.
[*]These livestock will die.
[*]We should probably kill most of them.
[*]We should probably eat their meat afterwords.
[*]The ethics of lost potential.
[*]Climate Change
[*]Conclusion
[*]Resources
[/list] I have put much of the supporting information for these statements in separate articles to keep this article at a manageable length. I encourage you to read those supporting articles as you come to them. Especially if you want an in-depth understanding of the reasoning behind each of these statements.




1. Basic Values These are the values I hold, and the values that I believe most people (especially Vegans and Vegetarians) hold. I am not going to argue for or against these basic values in this article because they have all been discussed in great detail elsewhere.

• The dietary choices we make have ethical consequences, they influence the environment, animal well-being, and the economic structure of our society. We should chose our food consciously.​
• The environment supports all life on Earth, including us, and so we should make sure that we are not damaging it. If we damage our life support system we are really damaging ourselves.​
• The suffering of animals should be reduced as much as possible. Factory farms probably represent the worst suffering large numbers of animals have ever had to endure. Factory farming should be stopped as soon as possible.​
• Our civilization should transition away from reliance on non-renewable resources. We need to be sustainable, by definition, or our civilization will fail eventually. (I am making no statements about how quickly or slowly this must happen)

Hopefully you agree with most, or all of those statements. If not, let me know in the comment section.
Factory Farming is awful and needs to stop.
I have tremendous respect for Vegans and Vegetarians because you truly understand that what you eat has a huge impact on our world. Not only do you care, but you actually put your ideals into practice. It takes a rare kind of person to actually change how they live their daily lives solely for the benefit of the environment, and animals. Those admirable traits are the reason I have addressed this article to Vegans and Vegetarians. Everyone needs to hear this message, but Im starting with vegetarians because you are at the cutting edge of food activism. You are more likely to care about the facts I present, and act upon them.
I encourage you to read with an open mind. But I also hope that you will not accept my arguments unless they are logical, and ethically sound.
If you stick with me through this article I guarantee you will learn lots that you did not know before. If you read the supporting articles you will also leave with an excellent understanding of sustainable agriculture, proper livestock management, desert restoration, and more.
2. The Current Revolution In Agriculture

Full article: The Future Of Agriculture Is Regenerative​

Over the past several decades new food production techniques have been developed which allow us to produce food while simultaneously regenerating the environment and local ecosystems.​

Contrary to the mainstream narrative it is possible to “feed the world” sustainably, without destroying our soils, biodiversity, water quality, or health.​

These techniques are spreading like wildfire. Sustainable agriculture requires livestock (which I will explain later) and so the fact that sustainable agriculture is quickly becoming dominant has major implications for the ethics of eating meat (also discussed later in this article).​

Are you somewhere in North America, Europe, or Australia right now? If so, there is almost definitely a sustainable farmer within an hours drive of wherever you are.​

There is no central database containing all the sustainable farmers in the world, unfortunately, so they can be hard to find. But I have created this list to help people find regenerative farmers nearby.​

Mark Shepard’s Regenerative Farm in Wisconsin.

Why Is Sustainable Agriculture Taking Over?​

The primary reason sustainable agriculture is gaining so much momentum is that sustainable farming is generally more profitable than conventional farming.​

Why are sustainable techniques more profitable? (profit = revenue – expenses)​

[list type=decimal]
[*]

Because they are just as productive, in terms of total calories, as conventional grain production. And because farmers can usually charge more for their products (equal or greater revenue).​

Because sustainable production requires little, if any, external inputs. Inputs (along with machinery and land) are the major cost on most conventional farms. Fertilizers are replaced by the soil food web. Herbicides are replace by mulch, healthy soil, and intelligent crop planning. Insecticides are replaced by birds, biodiversity, healthy soil. Fungicides are replaced by healthy soil biology. Additionally the healthy soil on sustainable farms are able to hold more water and more effectively use the rain that does fall. This means the farmer doesn’t have to spend as much money on irrigation and doesn’t lose as much income during droughts (lower expenses).​

[/list] Note: If you have any doubts about the claims I am making about sustainable agriculture please refer to my post “Evidence For Regenerative Agriculture”.
So, sustainable farming produces equal, or better, revenues while significantly reducing costs. This means more profit for the farmer.

A no-till veggie farm in California making $100,000/acre.

So sustainable farming is the way of the future. It will take over because it is more profitable for the farmer. And it will take over because it has to (fossil fuels, the bedrock of conventional agriculture, will not last forever).​

*Note: For ease of understanding I use the word “sustainable agriculture” throughout this article. But what I am specifically talking about can be better defined as “regenerative agriculture”. Some techniques often labelled as “sustainable” (like Organic farming) are not actually sustainable. Everything that falls under the label of “regenerative agriculture”, on the other hand, is sustainable, that is where the distinction lies.​

Full Article: Organic Agriculture In Comparison To Regenerative Agriculture​

So in this new world of sustainable agriculture, should we eat meat? Lets take a look at that issue…​

3. It Is Not Possible To Produce Food Sustainably Without Large Numbers Of Livestock Full Article: Why Livestock Are Necessary For Food Production To Be Sustainable
A summary of the full article:
[list type=decimal]
[*]A healthy soil food web is necessary for sustainable food production.
[*]Livestock are necessary to maintain the health of the soil food web.
[/list]

To replace fertilizers we must feed the soil food web. This sustainable corn field is about to be grazed by livestock.

1) A Healthy Soil Food Web Is Necessary For Sustainable Food Production​

Supporting Article: The Foundation Of Everything: The Soil Food Web
In brief, the health of the soil food web determines:

• the total amount of land needed for food production
• the nutritional content of food
• the amount of water needed for irrigation and the effect of droughts
• the amount of pesticides needed for agriculture
• the price of food

If the soil food web falls below a certain threshold of health it is actually impossible to sustainably produce enough food for humans on the Earth. Livestock are necessary for keeping the soil food web above this minimum threshold over the long term.2) Livestock Are Necessary To Maintain The Health Of The Soil Food Web Livestock maintain the soil food web through trampling and through grazing.
[list type=decimal]
[*]Trampling covers the surface of the soil, protecting soil microorganisms, preventing evaporation, moderating temperature, providing food for the soil food web, and preventing erosion.
[*]Grazing causes plants to send out a lot of energy into the soil food web while they are regrowing. Every time this happens the soil food web becomes stronger and more soil is created.
[/list] Wild animals, or technology, cannot replace the trampling and grazing action of livestock.
Livestock are also necessary for sustainable food production because plants require the increased nutrient availability provided by animal manure. Wild animals can no longer fill this role, and technology cannot replicate it on the scale required for global food production.
Livestock are also necessary for moving nutrients from lowlands to highlands. A cow eats a plant from a valley, walks up hill (or is moved uphill by a human), and then deposits those nutrients on the hill when it defecates. If this ecosystem function is not provided all nutrients eventually move to the ocean. Wild animals can no longer provide this technology, livestock provide this service reliably and controllably.


The trampling action of properly managed livestock.
The more livestock present, the more we will receive the benefits mentioned above (lower food costs, less land, less water, better nutrition, etc). So there are good reasons to maximize the number of livestock on our landscapes.
But, as vegetarians, you are probably wondering “what is the bare minimum number of livestock needed for sustainable food production?” The truthful answer is we don’t know for sure because no one has done the required research. However, if we look at the evolutionary principles that influence our ecosystems we can infer that we will need quite a lot of livestock. I have estimated a minimum of around 22 million cattle are needed on a permanent basis to maintain the basic productivity of the current cropland in the US and Canada in the absence of fertilizers. This is excluding the millions of cattle needed to restore the brittle landscapes in North America and the millions which are currently on grasslands and need to stay there.
Properly Managed Livestock: Livestock must be managed properly or they will degrade ecosystems instead of being essential for their basic health. Read What Are Properly Managed Livestock to find out what this means.
Climate Change: Some of you may be concerned about livestock causing climate change. Please read this article entitled Properly Managed Livestock Are The Key To Stopping Climate Change.
4. It Is not possible to produce any food in Brittle Environments without predominantly livestock-based farms.

The effect of properly managed livestock on a Brittle Environment in South Africa.
Brittle Environments are simply areas of the world where humidity is not distributed evenly throughout the year. Please refer to The Climate Brittleness Scale info-graphic for a better understanding of what exactly a Brittle Environment is and why it matters.
Full Article: Why Properly Managed Livestock Are Necessary In Brittle Environments
Have you watched Allan Savory’s TED talk yet? It is probably the best way to get a quick understanding of why livestock are necessary in Brittle Environments (for more in-depth information please read the full article)…
It is especially important for livestock to be properly managed in Brittle Environments. Read What Are Properly Managed Livestock to find out what this means.
Just in case you are concerned about Climate Change and missed the previous link to this article, here it is again: Properly Managed Livestock Are The Key To Stopping Climate Change.
5. Therefore Sustainability Requires Large Numbers Of Livestock On All Farmland And All Brittle Land
Brittle regions of the world circled in red.


A map of global agricultural land.
Food production in Brittle Environments requires large numbers of livestock to be sustainable. Plant food production must necessarily be a small proportion of food production in these areas compared to livestock production. On all other productive land we also need large numbers of livestock, but probably not as many as in Brittle Environments.

6. These Livestock Will Die Large numbers of livestock all over the world will die no matter what, if we develop a sustainable civilization.
7. We Should Probably Kill These Livestock What is the most ethical and logical way for these livestock to die?
I am going to try to give you all of the information that has ethical consequences, and I will propose what I think the logical choice is. But really, this is an open question, and I encourage you to think it through carefully. It will be a real issue in the near future.
There are a few different ways that the average animal could die in a world filled with sustainable agriculture.
[list type=decimal]
[*][list type=decimal]
[*][list type=decimal]
[*] Death without “intervention” (old age, disease, injury, poisoning, heart attack, etc.)
[*] Death via “natural predators” (coyotes, wolves, lions, bears, snakes, domestic dogs, etc)
[*] Death via “human intervention” (usually accomplished with an air-powered piston to the brain, or slitting the throat, or with a gun, etc.)
[/list]
[/list]
[/list] Let us examine all of these options to see what the most ethical choice might be:

Type Of Death	Pros	Cons
No Intervention (Cancer, Disease, Broken Limb, Starvation, Old Age, Poisoning)	Not as traumatic for the animal as being eaten by a predator. Allowed the longest possible lifespan. There is a possibility of the animal dying quickly and painlessly, but this is rare in nature.	Dying by disease, injury, or other internal physical ailment usually entails a great amount of suffering over a long period of time. Watch an animal die from an injury or disease without medical intervention, and you will have a vivid understanding of how horrible this type of death can be. (reference)
Natural Predation (Wolves, Lions, etc)	Suffering generally only lasts a few minutes to an hour. (Not as long duration as dying via disease, injury, etc.)	Being killed by wild predators is probably the most painful and terrifying death imaginable. (Reference)
Human Predation (air gun, rifle shot to the brain, slitting the throat, electricity, etc)	Suffering only lasts an instant or a few seconds at most. Generally the animal does not know that it is about to die, it is usually not allowed to see other animals being killed. Most abattoirs (slaughterhouses) in developed countries are capable of giving humane deaths to thousands of animals per day. (reference) But small scale abattoirs are probably a better option if you want to guarantee the most humane death possible.(link)	The humane-ness of the death depends on the decency and skill of the executioner. It could accidentally go badly on occasion. Animal may be afraid of the environment or the humans involved before death if it is not done carefully.

Clearly killing these livestock ourselves, with modern and humane methods, is by far the best way for them to die in terms of the amount of suffering involved.
8. We Should Probably Eat Meat From These LivestockThere are only a few things that can happen to the body of an animal after it dies: [list type=decimal]
[*]Passive decomposition. (Decomposed by insects, birds, soil organisms, etc)
[*]Eaten by scavengers or predators. (Coyotes, dogs, wolves, etc)
[*]Buried by humans.
[*]Cremated by humans.
[*]Eaten by humans.
[/list] Lets examine the benefits and drawbacks of each option:

Option	Positive Result	Drawbacks
Passive Decomposition (soil organisms, insects, birds, etc)​	Fertilizes a small piece of ground for several years.	Creates a potentially deadly bio-hazard for humans (multiplied by the millions of livestock which would be dying every year). Can contaminate water sources. Bad smell. There is no economic incentive for the farmer to care for the animals well Takes a long time to decompose Bio-hazard and smell are much worse if all the bodies are transported to a central location Could only be achieved by removing wild predator and scavenger populations from the area Loss of potential meat-income reduces farmer profits which drives up food prices Calories not used to provide for human needs mean that more total land is needed for agriculture (less total land can be devoted to wild ecosystems)
Eaten By Scavengers Or Predators (coyotes, dogs, wolves, ravens, etc)	A little fertilization of the soil. Carcass gone quickly (less smell and bio-hazard). Fuels the activities of the predator/scavengers for a few days	Still some bad smell and bio-hazard There is no economic incentive for the farmer to care for the animals well Loss of potential meat-income reduces farmer profits which drives up food prices Calories not used to provide for human needs mean that more total land is needed for agriculture (less total land can be devoted to wild ecosystems) On a large scale this would cause a huge increase in number of predators and scavengers, which would be dangerous and costly to modern human society.
Buried By Humans	A little fertilization of the ground. No smell	Can pollute groundwater Decomposes slowly, and anaerobically, releasing harmful gasses and chemicals Requires costly machinery, fuel, infrastructure and labour No economic incentive for farmers to give their animals good lives Loss of potential meat income which increases all food prices Loss of calorie production, means more land needed for agriculture and less available for wild ecosystems
Incinerated By Humans	No bio-hazard Takes up less physical space than burial	Pollutes atmosphere Removes nutrients from the ecosystem Requires lots of money, energy, infrastructure and labor to do on a large-enough scale No economic incentive for farmers to give their animals good lives Loss of potential meat income which increases all food prices Loss of calorie production, means more land needed for agriculture and less available for wild ecosystems
Eaten By Humans *	One cow provides all calories for one human for one year, at least. Can potentially provide other products like clothing, fertilizer or tools. Provides a better income for food producers, reducing food prices Additional calories generated from land mean that less total land is needed for human food production, more land is available for wild ecosystems. Provides a strong economic incentive for the farmer to raise healthy and happy animals (healthy and happy animals in this case will make the farmer more money than unhappy and unhealthy animals).	The carcass would have to be fresh and clean, probably requiring the animal to be killed prior to its natural death. Older animals have tougher and stronger tasting meat, providing motivation to kill animals young If some livestock are not reserved for wild predators and scavengers then their populations will fall, which will probably degrade the ecosystems they live in

*Note: If the dead livestock are going to be eaten by humans the animal would need to be butchered and processes quickly after death, in a hygienic way. This would be most easily accomplished by killing the animal at some time before it died naturally (that could mean years or hours, I don’t know), instead of trying to find it after it died. In the worst case scenario only the muscle meat will be eaten which will provide protein and calories for a single human for about 1 year (cow), about 6 months (pig, goat), about 1 month (deer, sheep), about 10 days (turkey), or 3 days (chicken) assuming they are only eating meat and are consuming 2000 calories per day. (reference)
Decide For Yourself
I have tried to provide a complete description of all the options available for the animals which we will need to raise for sustainable food production. I cannot tell you what the “correct” choice is because that will depend on your personal value system.
My Choice
If we are trying to maximize animal welfare, our best choice is to:

• allow the animals to live long lives
• kill them humanely (before they die from disease, injury, etc)
• eat their meat and use the whole animal (leather, bones, fat, etc)
• allow wild animals to eat a certain percentage of the livestock, to maintain their populations and the ecosystems they support

My choice is only different from current sustainable agriculture practices in two ways:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Currently, most livestock are killed at a young age, because they taste better than older animals. So in order to let them live longer lives we would need to learn to like the taste and texture of meat from older animals.
[*]Currently, most of the animal’s carcass is discarded (or not used to its full potential) during butchering. We should learn to eat, or use, the whole animal.
[/list]

9. ETHICS OF LOST POTENTIAL From a Utilitarian perspective:
It is better for a happy animal to exist, than for no animal to exist.
Do we have an ethical duty to allow an animal to exist on a given piece of land if it will be happy and if its existence will not harm the environment or other animals?





The ecosystems of the Earth can support staggering numbers of animals, both large and small. Most of the Earth’s ecosystems are currently underpopulated with animals compared with what they could sustain. (reference) We have advanced enough in our understanding of biology and ecology that if any ecosystem on Earth is not supporting its full potential population of animals it is because we have chosen (either through action or through inaction) this fate for the ecosystem.
The three landscapes on Earth in which this is an especially big issue are cropland, urban areas, and brittle landscapes. Because of our management, these landscapes currently support only a fraction of the biodiversity and animal life they could support.
Doesn’t this have any ethical implications?
Don’t forget that increasing the number of livestock on most of the Earth’s surface will have many benefits for the environment and for people. (see Section 3 and 4 above)
The best way to maximize the number of intelligent animals living happy lives is to support farms with properly managed livestock. The best way to support them is to buy, and eat, their meat. By eating only plants you are reducing the numbers of intelligent animals living happy lives.
I encourage you to examine this issue carefully and figure out what value you place on the potential lives of happy animals.
Note: We should definitely be more concerned about the real suffering of the animals which are really alive in factory farms and inhumane conditions right now. Lets stop that crap! But sometimes our choice will not be between supporting factory farms and not supporting factory farms. Sometimes we will have the choice to support, or not support, the existence of happy livestock. So we should spend at least a little time thinking about this issue.
10. Climate Change Due to the number of people asking about livestock and their relationship to Climate Change I have added this section to address that issue specifically.
Please read the full article here: “Why Properly Managed Livestock Are The Key To Stopping Climate Change”
Yes… I have seen the movie “Cowspiracy”. It does a great job at highlighting the destructive power of conventionally raised livestock and the lack of awareness about that issue. However nothing in that movie counters any of the points I make in this article.
Most of the crazy statistics you see about livestock causing tremendous environmental destruction are true… but these statistics are not talking about properly managed livestock! There is a huge difference!
In brief, properly managed livestock are probably methane neutral (possibly they even sequester methane in soils, research in this area is still hard to find) and are the most powerful and practical method for carbon sequestration known as of the writing of this article.
Conclusion Sustainable farmers must raise livestock, or employ the services of someone else’s livestock, in order to maintain their basic productivity. There must be relatively large numbers of these animals, especially in Brittle Environments. These animals will die eventually. The most humane death for any animal is to be killed by modern human slaughter techniques near the end of their natural life. Most of these dead animals should be eaten by humans to reduce the total land base required for agriculture, to ensure the animals are given happy lives, to reduce the problems associated with not eating them, and because humans can probably use the calories to do more good in the world than a pack of scavengers or soil organisms can. In my opinion the most ethical food choice you can make is to eat both plants and animals from sustainable farms. What do you think, now that you have read this article? Has your opinion changed from what it was when you started? Please comment and let me know.
Resources If you want to learn more about sustainable/regenerative agriculture (including the role of livestock, and the soil food web) please visit this resource page with the links I have personally found most useful.

 

[odyssic]

I am fascinated by the posts on the site. A lot of discernment and interesting considerations!

It is difficult for me to 'spot' a dedicated conspiracy urging people to become vegetarians, especially Americans. I think I read about it in one of Laura's books, and have been scouring the site here for more info, and researching / thinking about it ever since. Fascinating, thank you!

I read Heretic's Feast in probably 2003, which is a book about the history of vegetarianism and how it was persecuted by the Early christian church pretty harshly, and a few early 'gnostic' sects (like Manicheaism, for instance) were wiped out. Has anyone read this book?

Also, vegetarianism is popular in many countries throughout the world. Are we mostly talking about a 'myth' in America or european countries?

I speak both from having been a vegetarian for years (years ago) and finding it challenging. Both culturally and societally. People were always pushing me to consume meat. There was almost a 'panic' signal in my head about suitable protein source when I cut back on protein. And yes, the poor quality of protein replacements (health-wise). They would continually tell me I would be deficient, my bones would become weak, etc.

I realized a lot of the protein fear was programming.

I do agree that Ketogenic type diet is good for some applications. However, clinics that help people heal cancer and other illnesses... (Gerson, Hippocrates) cut back salt, fat, and protein (to 5% or less), and vegan.

Essentially advocating mostly fruits and vegetables, mostly raw, or some grains. And this seems to be effective in resolving cancer.

There is also DR. Morse (youtube) who advocates just fruit to heal most diseases. And he has been running a practice for decades and many case studies.

These people are often attacked by governmental agencies. Gerson attempted to get funding for cancer research that was diet based, but lobbyists for big Pharma tilted the process toward standard practices as we know them now (radiation, chemo). Gerson did many studies, and found that when he increased protein, even in the form of nuts and seeds, or 'high lignan' linseed oil (the only fat allowed), the tumors would begin to return.

For performance, quite a few ultrarunners are vegan, because they claim to repair better and have better performance. (Ultra running is races of 50 miles or 100 miles or longer). The leading ultrarunner alive is vegan (Scott Jurek).

Also, in reviewing the material by the C's, it seems that they did suggest some people were better suited to vegetarian diets? Is this true? Sometimes, when a questioner was ill, they would suggest working out, less starch, or more fruit. Or a supplement. Etc.

'Cancer', which some purport to be a symptom of acidosis, seems to be healed through a process of alkalizing, which seems to be the opposite of an animal based diet. (I've tried a ketogenic diet for 6 months. My mother has 'MS', and I have similar inflammation tendencies, and they flared during this diet attempt. Though I did get leaner and more muscular.

The 'vegetarian myth' is I think confused by other myths. The 'Protein myth' for one. Vegetarians / vegans who worry about protein, seem to suffer more, probably psychological and also eating more replacements. The ones who are mostly 'grain based' seem deficient. Also, I think I remember reading that the protein 'myth' was started by the rulers in Rome. Red flag!

If the break down of amino acids is accurate by current scientists, Greens and brown rice can supply all of the amino acids the body needs to make protein.

Another concept to add here is the 'powers that be' seem to not want us thriving in terms of health? Do we agree on this?

So...

Sign of the Times: Bill Clinton was vegan for 4 years, and recently. Bill got on for health concerns that sources say were resolved by the diet. When Hillary became a contender for the presidency, it seems that suddenly they did not want a vegan first 'man.' That would spread veganism, one would think. Hillary's doctor put him on a Paleo diet. Having a Paleo presidential couple in the white house will, one would think, spread paleo principles.

So I was thinking ... why would this be so?

Obviously there are lobbyists for the beef and dairy industries, the ones that sued Oprah when she said she stopped eating read meat.

So I'm confused on the idea that there is a conspiracy to get people to become vegetarians. Standard american diet is high protein, one of the highest, and all of the comfort foods are meat products as a main course. Breaking out of the addiction is intensely challenging.

I agree that grains and starches are not ideal. Though people CAN thrive on them (allegedly the world's longest lived people, Okinawans, eat mostly rice and sweet potatoes, with 5-8% protein), I think it is more ideal to get more nutrient dense foods. (Meat, fruit, vegetables).

And what about human physiology matching frugivors almost exactly (Fruit eaters)?

So I'm noticing:

Low protein, low fat, vegan diets seem to enable the body to cure cancer. (Based on field evidence rather than just clinical studies).
Protein and fat seem to exacerbate cancer growth. (Gerson and others came to this idea against all of their own programming by trial and error over many years).
Cancer is very profitable for big pharma. (It's essentially illegal to say you have a natural cure for cancer... the only allowed cures are chemo and radiation... not effective for the most part).
And there's the 'suffering' involved in the above, by animal and human, that could 'feed to STS.'

So the overly high protein / high fat diet COULD lead to... money and energy being funneled to the cattle industry... healthcare costs being funneled to big pharma.

Is ketogenic / paleo sustainable long term?

Fruit and juice fasts seem deeply healing, and water fasts, and I've experienced opening to other heightened states (though I'm not sure I could or would want to be in these states at all times). Is this fruit healing because it is an 'ideal' diet for humans, or simply an ideal 'healing' diet for many humans during certain conditions? (A few old versions of something similar: mono diets in Hindu practices, the Grape cure, etc). Perhaps people evolved to eat fruit when it was in season, and other things when it was not available?

I've read much of what the C's said on some of this.
If I'm missing any, please send it over. Thank you so much.

I'm pretty open as far as beliefs go in this department. I search for healing diets for my parents and for myself; healing for myself and the planet.

PS sorry for such a long post. :)

 

[Renaissance]

If I'm missing any, please send it over. Thank you so much.

I'm pretty open as far as beliefs go in this department. I search for healing diets for my parents and for myself; healing for myself and the planet.

Have you read the book that the thread is based on? Might want to check that out as it addresses much of what you've written.

 

[odyssic]

Thank you. I didn't know it was based on a book. Is this the book called The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith? If so I'll try to read it this week.

 

[curious_richard]

I am wondering about the success in fighting cancer you mentioned above with dietary changes. Could it be that the success is not so much from the fruits and vegetables, but more because the patient is FINALLY giving up the bad foods that helped the cancer grow?

Also, there are good fats and bad fats. If a study makes health claims about fats, it should clearly identify the fats tested. Otherwise, the conclusions are probably useless.

About the groups who historically eat little or no meat, it seems to me that these groups probably enjoy the benefits of "calorie restricted" diets, where well-fed and over-fed Western people suffer from the many effects when the body tries to store all those calories year after year after year.

Too much protein can be a problem. We have discussed this in depth here, and a good search term might be MTOR, the Mamalian Target Of Rapamycin.

I have yet to read any study showing good fats as a cause of cancer, when protein and carb intake is reasonable. I HAVE read much speculation, though, that excess fat and excess carbs can lead to all kinds of problems.

I would think that there are a lot of small truths out there, and we have to carefully put them together if we are to get a big truth.

 

[Foxx]

Thank you. I didn't know it was based on a book. Is this the book called The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith? If so I'll try to read it this week.

Yup, that's the one.