Veganism - to save the world?

I sense an inner feeling of insecurity at least from some people on this thread, why is that you continue to charge vegans (or those who have similar views)with having a holier than thou attitude? It seems that some of the omnivores on here have taken that role imo, on frikin attack mode.

Go on then, name an animal that is naturally cannibalistic?

Marcus

But one can also find quotes in the Bible suggesting the opposite.

There are quite a few animals that are cannibalistic at some point in their lives, however I think this discussion is irrelevant in this thread. The point the OP was trying to make is that farming is the problem (using lots of land and basically being inefficient), and since wild, carnivorous animals such as lions don't farm their food then forcing them into a vegan diet would be pointless.

There are quite a few animals that are cannibalistic at some point in their lives, however I think this discussion is irrelevant in this thread. The point the OP was trying to make is that farming is the problem (using lots of land and basically being inefficient), and since wild, carnivorous animals such as lions don't farm their food then forcing them into a vegan diet would be pointless.

And there goes my analogy, just because generations of humans have done something doesn't make it right.

Yes, many vegans do disagree with the lifestyles of omnivores, but there's a difference between civil disagreement and attacking. In that post I wasn't speaking to anyone directly and was merely replying to the OP and stating MY views, not trying to condescend to a particular poster.

I'm sure if you put two lions in together and didn't feed them, one would end up eating the other, is that what you mean?

Humans have domesticated animals for thousands of years. I suppose we should revert back to our hunter-gatherer instinct too, so I'll get my spear and my knife and go and kill something to eat? I suppose that's less cruel than the slaughterhouse isn't it?

Marcus

We're eating food in the same way we have been doing for generations. If that isn't the "right diet", who are you to come along and tell us otherwise?

Who decides what is right then? I think you'll find that maybe 1 or 2 people in 100 are vegetarian and maybe 5 out of every hundred of those are vegan. Stop trying to force your views on the rest of us.

Marcus

No, I meant specific species (some arachnids and insects) which eat their mate after copulating. Or other species (chimpanzees and pigs for example) who sometimes eat their young, and there are other examples too.
The OP isn't suggesting reverting back to our hunter-gatherer instinct, they are suggesting a vegan diet.

i agree and disagree because take Buddhism and many Hindu's for example.. those religions have been around for yonks and true buddhists have always been veggie/vegan and survived and so have may hindus. i think that the supplements have actuallymade veganism more available/easier for the population.

I think they mean the "morally right diet". Like the slavery analogy they used, one could say "We've been using slaves for generations, so what's wrong with it? Nearly all of us have slaves so it must be right." I'm not saying I agree, I'm just trying to make it more clear.

There is no "right" or "wrong" diet, but you could argue that about anything...and have pure anarchy or no sense of societal morality.

And though human's have been eating meat for many generations, the methods and land needed for continuing this lifestyle have completely revolutionized and industrialized on a massive scale. With the ever rising population comes the ever rising demand for meat, and,inherently, grazing land for this cattle, leading to both deforestation and the destruction of biodiversity, but global warming as well (reduced trees = increased CO2). If you don't consider the future of our planet a worthy cause or don't think attempting to finding alternative or less damaging practices to prevent the destruction of our planet is "right" or justifiable...well I don't know what to tell you, let's just say I hope there are less people like you in the world then.

I see your point, but in the grant scheme of evolution, human societies, even relatively primitive ones such as those which gave birth to Buddhism / Hinduism are barely more than a second ago.
Living in societies allows us, to some extent, to overcome or change the rules of natural selection - it no longer becomes about who can reach more food etc.

My point was more concerned with the long-term evolution of humans before these 'advanced' societies were created, and even before we evolved as a species.

So where do you think we get soya from then?

Marcus

That's not a good argument. The argument for omnivorism is based on the scientific basis that we have been eating an omnivorous diet for generations, and the scientific basis that we need nutrients from meat and dairy, and the scientific basis that people who do not get these nutrients are malnourished.

What is your scientific basis for that? It is more suited to the vegetarian/vegan argument on the basis that "because we can be vegan/use slaves, we do"

Marcus