Why are more people becoming Vegetarian?

Scroll to see replies

You most likely didn't understand my first post on this thread due to its simplicity, that's why your response was a bit flawed. You said "I wasn't aware anyone needed to be excused". What does that even imply? I need an excuse to become a vegetarian? If so, read my response again.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Ok so, you started with:

"Is that your excuse not to become a vegetarian?"

To which I asked, not unreasonably, why an excuse was needed.

This you seemed to be unable to explain. and indeed your replies since then have made absolutely no sense. If you think an excuse is necessary, please explain why.

Reply 101

Absent Agent

Original post by Rinsed

Exactly, that's why I said the the other poster seems to have needed an excuse by saying that vegetarians are dumber/more attention seekers. This definitely indicates that the poster decides not to be a vegetarian solely on those grounds, which is an excuse.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 102

DiddyDec01

Original post by Mehrdad jafari

It makes no sense because you don't want to refer back to the other post.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I did refer back to your previous post, that is why I included "with context".

Reply 103

MindTheGaps

Original post by Mehrdad jafari

I cannot speak for him, but it sounded like an observation rather than an excuse.

I'm interested why you think he would be vegetarian if it weren't for his perception of a vegetarian's intelligence, because to me this seems an unreasonable conclusion.

Simply out of personal experience, I would say a lot of vegetarians whom I know are otherwise attention-seekers, although of course I would not dream of extending this to their dietary choices.

Reply 104

Absent Agent

Original post by Rinsed

It wouldn't be an excuse if he'd said vegetarians are intelligent/not attention seekers, because that would at least partially explain why people would choose to become vegetarians.

Well, I don't know, that's why his response was just an excuse for not becoming a vegetarian because it would contradict with the idea of people becoming vegetarians.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 105

xDave-

I've been a vegetarian since I was 6. I'm 24 now. I found out what meat was back then and thought it was disgusting. Now, I still think it's nasty so wouldn't go near it, but I'm also aware of the environmental consequences of our insatiable appetite.

I suppose the knowledge of the process of putting meat on your plate and the consequences of livestock farming are much more readily available today, so many more people are aware of it. Alternative food is also much easier to obtain than it was a few generations ago, so becoming a vegetarian or even vegan is an actual possibility.

Worth mentioning that being a vegetarian doesn't really solve much of the moral or environmental issues as dairy farming is just as bad as livestock farming. That said, it is still a step in the right direction.

Reply 106

MindTheGaps

Original post by Mehrdad jafari

I would genuinely like to know what this means.

Edit: I think I understand, any idea which contradicts the basic premises of vegetarianism is an excuse, or something. I feel that this is pushing the definition of 'excuse' to its limit. I could very well say you believing that eating meat is wrong is merely your 'excuse' for not eating meat.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 107

Absent Agent

Original post by Rinsed

Becoming a vegetarian is not an easy thing that's why some people tend to have excuses for not becoming one. I can easily get one with my daily life eating whatever I want from chicken wings to turkey, I don't need to have an excuse for refusing to stay non-vegetarian.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 108

DiddyDec01

Shall I take that as a yes, or are you dodging the question?

Reply 109

viddy9

Original post by ChickenMadness

Not fallacious at all. I'm not talking about 'sentience.' I'm saying eating any living thing is "wrong."

Why is it wrong?

Reply 110

viddy9

Original post by Rinsed

You must accept that this would inevitably be a human goal chosen by humans. How then can it not be 'speciesist'?

A human goal chosen by humans to equally consider the interests of all sentient beings is not speciesist.

Original post by Rinsed

This is genuinely amusing. 1 in 33 mice is quite a lot. Can you imagine if we killed 3% of people? And the idea that they just moved into forests! As if no animals previously lived there, or they were underpopulated!

You still ignore the fact that mice deaths are not necessary in plant-based agriculture: as I stated, different technologies would kill even fewer mice, and veganic farming and backyard farming would kill none.

You also ignore the fact that, to acquire the same amount of calories and protein from grass-fed beef and sheep as we do from, say, soya and corn, we require substantially more land. The animal scientist Steven Davis estimates that, on average, 7.5 wild animals per hectare per year are killed on grass-fed systems. Yet, in the Tew and MacDonald study, only 1 animal in 1.32 hectares was killed by a combine harvester, meaning that 0.76 animals per hectare per year are killed in plant-based agriculture. Even if we include the wild-animal on wild-animal suffering, when you factor in the fact that we require far fewer hectares of land to grow plant-based products, then veganism still comes out as the diet that causes the least suffering.

Furthermore, your comparison to people is fallacious: mice are neither rational nor self-aware, therefore they have no interest in continuing to live. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the meat produced in Britain - and the world - is responsible for deaths in plant-based agriculture too.

Original post by Rinsed

Now, as for the expansion of pasture, it depends very much where you are. Cutting down rainforest to rear cows is obviously bad. Rearing sheep on grassland land where nothing else would grow (as I mentioned, the North York Moors) is very much less so.

Again, raising sheep in the North York Moors isn't going to feed everyone - in fact, it'll barely feed anyone! And, there are plenty of wild animals even there who would regularly have to be culled, and there would invariably be deaths from expanding the pasture too. On top of this, it's still substantially worse for the environment than growing most plant-based foods.

Original post by Rinsed

I might say it's unlikely any non-human animals can suffer. Many scientists may disagree, although not all, but this is why it comes down to a line-setting exercise. Some may suffer and some not. If you say a cow suffer but an insect not, where is the line? A rabbit? A mouse? At least those of us who say we should care about humans alone are logically consistent.

It doesn't come down to a line-setting exercise. Firstly, the idea that we're the only species can suffer is laughable. The neurophysiological structures that allow us to suffer are also present in most nonhuman animals; they're evolutionarily ancient compared to the structures that allow us to engage in higher reasoning, for instance. To claim that nonhuman animals can't suffer is akin to me claiming that the capacity to suffer only emerged when I was born, and that myself and people who were born after me are the only people who can suffer.

Indeed, it's incredibly self-serving, and the evidence that, say, severely intellectually disabled humans and human infants can suffer is identical to the evidence in favour of nonhuman animal suffering: they have the same neurophysiological structures as we do; their behavioural responses are similar, and so on. The only additional piece of evidence we have when it comes to normal humans is that they can speak the same language as us and so communicate their suffering in this format.

And you're again making a fallacious appeal to undesirable consequences, namely the exercise of having to determine which animals can suffer and which can not. This is not a burdensome exercise: insects lack the neurophysiological structures that allow us to suffer, and they also continue to behave in an identical fashion to before they were subjected to a potential source of pain.

Original post by Rinsed

Then you get quite rambly. Of course humans want to continue to live. There are many ways we might want to ensure our children are able to live (i.e. houses) which may prevent animals from doing the same. How is this any different, morally, from eating meat?

It's surprising that you cannot see the distinction between meeting basic human needs and eating meat. As I said, most humans have an interest in continuing to live, whereas most nonhuman animals do not. Indirectly killing animals to allow humans to continue to live is therefore not morally problematic.

Causing nonhuman animals to suffer unnecessarily to satisfy a base desire for their flesh is morally problematic, particularly when it contributes to a large extent to environmental destruction.

Original post by Rinsed

Yea, because otherwise all those animals would live happily and unimpeded forever, because that's the way the world works.

No, those animals would be phased out and become extinct. In a non-speciesist, vegan world, the remaining animals would likely be kept in sanctuaries (numerous sanctuaries already exist that rescue nonhuman animals from the meat industry) and sterilised.

Releasing them into the wild would not be an option if they would suffer as a result.

Original post by Rinsed

Methane occurs when organic matter is broken down by bacteria. It's actually very prevalent in rice production (a practice which also uses far more water than meat). Which of course is why environmental campaigners are tirelessly campaigning against rice...

For a start, this claim is disputed. The Environmental Working Group, for example, deems rice to be associated with few greenhouse gas emissions. But, even so, a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, citing a number of peer-reviewed studies, found that ruminants were still associated with more methane emissions than rice, and it's worth bearing in mind that rice is not a requirement in a vegetarian diet by any means.

As for water, 1kg of beef requires 15,415 litres of water, compared to a meagre 2,497 litres for 1kg of rice.

This argument is, again, logically fallacious. "Rice is bad too, therefore meat" is not an argument. It suffers even further from the fact meat is still worse than rice.

Original post by Rinsed

OK, but that's still much, much less than the rest of the world! To the extent antibiotic resistance would continue unabated without us.

Antibiotic resistance would still continue even if everyone in my street didn't finish their course of antibiotics and my GP surgery was giving me antibiotics to take en masse.

That doesn't mean that the residents of my street and the GPs aren't being completely irresponsible, because they're increasing the risk of something which could have massive consequences.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 111

RF_PineMarten

Is there any evidence that meat is replaced by dairy and eggs if someone becomes vegetarian, rather than just them continuing to consume the same amounts of milk, eggs, etc after cutting out meat?

Reply 112

Changing Skies

I've been at a farm for a few weeks as part of my degree and it's honestly made me seriously consider being a vegetarian. It really upset me hearing the farmer say which ones are going for slaughter etc, knowing those poor piglets are only there so they can one day be killed for food. For me, it would be a moral thing.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 113

Andy98

Partially because people are getting softer, partially because there is more publicity about how the meat is obtained

Reply 114

EllieC130

I can see why morally people would become vegetarian and it's being gradually more exposed how corrupt the industry is. Personally thinking about it makes me uncomfortable but I just like meat too much. Plus I'm a fussy eater so becoming veggie would limit my options even more. I respect people with the restraint but I don't have it.

However I do agree that a degree of it is a fashion thing. Less for the average joe but among the "social elite" it's definately seen as a status symbol.

Reply 115

Chicken.M.

Original post by viddy9

Why is it wrong?

Ask the vegetarians. Thats why its in quotes

Reply 116

Andy98

Just generally - whether it be what would've been called a minor injury being considered major. Or just going gentler on punishing people. Britain has lost the stiff upper lip stereotype.

Reply 117

viddy9

Original post by ChickenMadness

Ask the vegetarians. Thats why its in quotes

I'm a vegan, and I don't think that eating every living being is wrong.

Has anybody in this discussion stated that eating every living being is wrong, or are you just propping up a convenient strawman argument? Who are you quoting as saying eating any living being is wrong?

The vast majority of vegetarians believe that raising sentient beings for meat is wrong. You stated: "I would because it's just the way of life lol. Lions and other animals eat other animals. Cows also still eat living beings (plants). The only organisms that don't harm innocent living beings are certain micro organisms (even plants end up killing other plants to survive). The rest of us have to kill to survive (including herbivores)."

You were responding to a comment asking meat-eaters whether they would kill an animal for its meat themselves, and you said you would "because it's just the way of life lol". So, you were making a logically fallacious appeal to nature, and you were making the hilarious "lions do it too" argument to support your position.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 118

Silly_Monkey

Original post by SCIENCE :D

An increasing number of people I know seem to be turning to vegetarianism, is it fashionable to become vegetarian now, or are peoples morals changing?

It is declining.

Unless you take India into account where there is a population crises. , they have a billion strong populatin in which Hinduism and Jainism is followed by 65% . They kill anyone who eats meat.