Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on February 22, 2023, 02:29:55 PM
-
Ah well...
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/feb/21/cambridge-university-students-vote-for-completely-vegan-menus
-
That's outrageous! By all means have vegan options, but this is going much too far. I can't see it lasting - there'll be objections from omnivores.
-
Great move.
-
Great move.
You don't see it as overly intolerant?
-
You don't see it as overly intolerant?
No, if the reason is, as stated in the motion, in response to "climate and biodiversity crises”. Transitioning to a vegan diet is better for the environment. That's not about intolerance of other's choices.
-
Classic case of the headline not quite equating to what is in the article.
Sure there has been a vote - but the choice of menu is determined by and negotiated by the University, not the students union. Also this only applies to university eating outlets, not those run by the various colleges.
So it is completely non binding on the people actual making the decisions and wouldn't apply to many outlets.
But it was ever thus - for decades students unions have always pushed the envelope - coming out with suggestions that at the time were thought bonkers. In many cases they were and vanished as quickly as they arose. But I suspect there are plenty of examples where student unions were actually ahead of the curve, being leaders in initiatives that are now considered standard, e.g. on equality etc.
-
It's a thin end of the wedge on a slippery slope now. I mean what would happen if a young black man with a disadvantage background, wanted to be a,...,....a,... professor...?
I mean, come on,...
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/feb/23/jason-arday-to-become-youngest-ever-black-professor-at-cambridge (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/feb/23/jason-arday-to-become-youngest-ever-black-professor-at-cambridge)
[/snark].
-
It's a thin end of the wedge on a slippery slope now. I mean what would happen if a young black man with a disadvantage background, wanted to be a,...,....a,... professor...?
I mean, come on,...
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/feb/23/jason-arday-to-become-youngest-ever-black-professor-at-cambridge (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/feb/23/jason-arday-to-become-youngest-ever-black-professor-at-cambridge)
[/snark].
Eh - don't see the connection with students voting for vegan food.
-
Eh - don't see the connection with students voting for vegan food.
The only connection is they're both in Cambridge (University).
Beyond that, it could be sort of war of the wokes, but not much.
-
That's outrageous! By all means have vegan options, but this is going much too far. I can't see it lasting - there'll be objections from omnivores.
I think the reason they are doing this is because cattle produce a lot of methane which is very bad for climate change. Also, if you put fish on the menu it has an effect on biodiversity in the oceans. The reasoning behind the vegan diet seems pretty solid, at least at first glance.
-
I think the reason they are doing this is because cattle produce a lot of methane which is very bad for climate change. Also, if you put fish on the menu it has an effect on biodiversity in the oceans. The reasoning behind the vegan diet seems pretty solid, at least at first glance.
I dare say it is, but it should still be a matter of choice. try to persuade people to go veggie or vegan, but don't force them.
-
No, if the reason is, as stated in the motion, in response to "climate and biodiversity crises”. Transitioning to a vegan diet is better for the environment. That's not about intolerance of other's choices.
My wife and I were on a cycling holiday in the Loire region of France two years ago. We cycled past field after field of dried up crops. We asked the locals about it, and they said the fields had been used for grazing cattle and sheep, but they had recently been ploughed up in order to plant crops. The problem was that the crops needed much more water than grass.
-
My wife and I were on a cycling holiday in the Loire region of France two years ago. We cycled past field after field of dried up crops. We asked the locals about it, and they said the fields had been used for grazing cattle and sheep, but they had recently been ploughed up in order to plant crops. The problem was that the crops needed much more water than grass.
One anecdote doesn't counter that there is a great deal of evidence that a vegan diet benefits the environment. It's not a panacea and may not be as good as some people suggest but overall the consensus is that it would benefit the environment.
This website shows info on the water footprint of crops and animals
https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ (https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/)
'When we look at the water requirements for protein, it has been found that the water footprint per gram of protein for milk, eggs and chicken meat is about 1.5 times larger than for pulses. For beef, the water footprint per gram of protein is 6 times larger than for pulses.'
-
My wife and I were on a cycling holiday in the Loire region of France two years ago. We cycled past field after field of dried up crops. We asked the locals about it, and they said the fields had been used for grazing cattle and sheep, but they had recently been ploughed up in order to plant crops. The problem was that the crops needed much more water than grass.
Rather missing the point AB. A field of crops will provide far more food than can be provided by a field of grass supporting livestock which are themselves the source of food for humans.
-
Rather missing the point AB. A field of crops will provide far more food than can be provided by a field of grass supporting livestock which are themselves the source of food for humans.
Yep. Have added some data about water footprint to my earlier post. As it says
'When we look at the water requirements for protein, it has been found that the water footprint per gram of protein for milk, eggs and chicken meat is about 1.5 times larger than for pulses. For beef, the water footprint per gram of protein is 6 times larger than for pulses.'
Sorry for the repeat but thought my modification might be missed.
-
A little off topic....but I have noticed many times that very staunch Christians (and Muslims too) are rarely supportive of vegetarianism (or veganism I assume). They seem to firmly believe that they are entitled by religious authority to eat meat. I find this somewhat conflicting with spiritual ideals of love and non violence.
Just an aside....
-
A little off topic....but I have noticed many times that very staunch Christians (and Muslims too) are rarely supportive of vegetarianism (or veganism I assume). They seem to firmly believe that they are entitled by religious authority to eat meat. I find this somewhat conflicting with spiritual ideals of love and non violence.
Just an aside....
You'll have to take it up with St Peter and Jesus*, if you see them in the hereafter.
*There is some dispute over the interpretation of the text in Mark's gospel (7:19), but it seems to indicate that Jesus is saying anything edible is okay.
Vegetarianism involving the eating of cheese will certainly result in a degree of violence against male calves eventually, and a hell of a lot of them.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=06fd4a323a820a8dJmltdHM9MTY3NzQ1NjAwMCZpZ3VpZD0wYjQ2MDdiMi02YjgwLTZhNjAtMTJjMC0xNTc3NmE4YzZiMjMmaW5zaWQ9NTQ4MQ&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=0b4607b2-6b80-6a60-12c0-15776a8c6b23&psq=Male+calves+percentage+against+female&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhlZ3VhcmRpYW4uY29tL2Vudmlyb25tZW50LzIwMTgvbWFyLzI2L2RhaXJ5LWRpcnR5LXNlY3JldC1pdHMtc3RpbGwtY2hlYXBlci10by1raWxsLW1hbGUtY2FsdmVzLXRoYW4tdG8tcmVhci10aGVt&ntb=1
-
Rather missing the point AB. A field of crops will provide far more food than can be provided by a field of grass supporting livestock which are themselves the source of food for humans.
The field will only do this if the subsoil supports it. This is why the Somerset Levels still contain huge areas of grassland, and haven't been dug up like my native Norfolk.
-
You'll have to take it up with St Peter and Jesus*, if you see them in the hereafter.
*There is some dispute over the interpretation of the text in Mark's gospel (7:19), but it seems to indicate that Jesus is saying anything edible is okay.
Vegetarianism involving the eating of cheese will certainly result in a degree of violence against male calves eventually, and a hell of a lot of them.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=06fd4a323a820a8dJmltdHM9MTY3NzQ1NjAwMCZpZ3VpZD0wYjQ2MDdiMi02YjgwLTZhNjAtMTJjMC0xNTc3NmE4YzZiMjMmaW5zaWQ9NTQ4MQ&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=0b4607b2-6b80-6a60-12c0-15776a8c6b23&psq=Male+calves+percentage+against+female&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhlZ3VhcmRpYW4uY29tL2Vudmlyb25tZW50LzIwMTgvbWFyLzI2L2RhaXJ5LWRpcnR5LXNlY3JldC1pdHMtc3RpbGwtY2hlYXBlci10by1raWxsLW1hbGUtY2FsdmVzLXRoYW4tdG8tcmVhci10aGVt&ntb=1
This is true. And, given the nature of our economy even the reuse of leather from dead animals contributes to subsidising animal suffering and the meat industry.
All of which indicates that the vegan path is preferable from the pov. animal suffering, let alone climate change.
Of-course at the time vegetarianism began to be adopted (India c.500 BCE, possibly earlier) there was a need and acceptable use for bullocks, but we have cars, lorries and tractors for that now.
-
The field will only do this if the subsoil supports it. This is why the Somerset Levels still contain huge areas of grassland, and haven't been dug up like my native Norfolk.
Yes, of course. There are some places that won't support arable crops but will support some livestock. But I don't think that was the point - AB was implying that where fields could be used for either arable crops or livestock that livestock was better as it used less water. As pointed out this isn't really the relevant issue, which is which is able to support the production of more food and is more sustainable. Certainly when land is equally suited to crops of livestock it is usually much more efficient in terms of the amount of food produced, to use it for crops.
-
You'll have to take it up with St Peter and Jesus*, if you see them in the hereafter.
*There is some dispute over the interpretation of the text in Mark's gospel (7:19), but it seems to indicate that Jesus is saying anything edible is okay.
Vegetarianism involving the eating of cheese will certainly result in a degree of violence against male calves eventually, and a hell of a lot of them.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=06fd4a323a820a8dJmltdHM9MTY3NzQ1NjAwMCZpZ3VpZD0wYjQ2MDdiMi02YjgwLTZhNjAtMTJjMC0xNTc3NmE4YzZiMjMmaW5zaWQ9NTQ4MQ&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=0b4607b2-6b80-6a60-12c0-15776a8c6b23&psq=Male+calves+percentage+against+female&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhlZ3VhcmRpYW4uY29tL2Vudmlyb25tZW50LzIwMTgvbWFyLzI2L2RhaXJ5LWRpcnR5LXNlY3JldC1pdHMtc3RpbGwtY2hlYXBlci10by1raWxsLW1hbGUtY2FsdmVzLXRoYW4tdG8tcmVhci10aGVt&ntb=1
I can understand Jesus and Peter advocating the eating of anything edible. 1st century Jerusalem probably did not have many vegetarian options in the first place.
But many of today's Christians and Muslims consider it mandatory to eat meat....which is difficult to understand.
I don't think a large part of cheese making involves rennet from butchered calves anymore...
-
I can understand Jesus and Peter advocating the eating of anything edible. 1st century Jerusalem probably did not have many vegetarian options in the first place.
But many of today's Christians and Muslims consider it mandatory to eat meat....which is difficult to understand.
I don't think a large part of cheese making involves rennet from butchered calves anymore...
It's not about rennet - or at least that's a tiny part of it. It's about the simple fact that cows have to be in calf to produce milk, and as with many mammals, the calves will be about 50% female and 50% male. The females can be used to produce more milk. But the males? Unless they are killed for meat, or simply culled to make space, all the grasslands of the earth will be rapidly overpopulated with superfluous male cattle. What would you propose to do with them?
There are experiments with mixing sperm to counteract this problem, but the only way forward, if a vegetarian diet is the default option, is in genetic modification, and that's a long way off.
So, it would have to be absolute veganism all the way. Good luck with persuading the whole world about that.
-
In the wild, perhaps the main role for male animals is to provide prey for carnivores. I recall reading somewhere that the majority of male mammals die virgins.
Another role for animals (in general) is to produce faeces which can add richness to soil - and make it more productive.
-
Fwiw, I'm an omnivore, but I don't eat all that much meat nowadays, and often have vegetarian or vegan meals. I suppose that makes me a flexitarian.
-
Fwiw, I'm an omnivore, but I don't eat all that much meat nowadays, and often have vegetarian or vegan meals. I suppose that makes me a flexitarian.
It's more honest, if you care about animal welfare, than vegetarianism (unless you simply don't like eating meat).
The only honest options for humans are an omnivorous diet, or total veganism.
-
It's not about rennet - or at least that's a tiny part of it. It's about the simple fact that cows have to be in calf to produce milk, and as with many mammals, the calves will be about 50% female and 50% male. The females can be used to produce more milk. But the males? Unless they are killed for meat, or simply culled to make space, all the grasslands of the earth will be rapidly overpopulated with superfluous male cattle. What would you propose to do with them?
There are experiments with mixing sperm to counteract this problem, but the only way forward, if a vegetarian diet is the default option, is in genetic modification, and that's a long way off.
So, it would have to be absolute veganism all the way. Good luck with persuading the whole world about that.
I don't think all the 8 billion people are ever going to be vegans. Not to worry! There is however a definite shift towards vegetarianism (veganism) for various reasons.
-
I don't think all the 8 billion people are ever going to be vegans. Not to worry! There is however a definite shift towards vegetarianism (veganism) for various reasons.
You totally missed the point about my objection to vegetarianism. Vegetarianism and veganism are not the same! I've no qualms about veganism apart from its impracticability.
Go back and read what I wrote.
-
'When we look at the water requirements for protein, it has been found that the water footprint per gram of protein for milk, eggs and chicken meat is about 1.5 times larger than for pulses. For beef, the water footprint per gram of protein is 6 times larger than for pulses.'
That's all very well, but nobody wants to be restricted to eating beans all the time.
Furthermore, there are areas that are not suitable for growing arable crops but can be used for animal farming.
-
Just in case my point is still not getting across, let me state firmly that I believe cheese-eating vegetarians (not vegans) are contributing to animal slaughter just as much as steak-munching redneck louts from Texas.
-
That's all very well, but nobody wants to be restricted to eating beans all the time.
Furthermore, there are areas that are not suitable for growing arable crops but can be used for animal farming.
Some do.
-
Just in case my point is still not getting across, let me state firmly that I believe cheese-eating vegetarians (not vegans) are contributing to animal slaughter just as much as steak-munching redneck louts from Texas.
That's just silly. It's not only cheese contributing to animal suffering but all (cow) milk consumption by humans. And the number of people who consume beef who also have milk, cheese and butter* vastly outnumber vegetarians.
If steak munching is fine, then consider that India with a large number of vegetarian, milk and ghee/butter consumers - is also the worlds 4th largest beef exporter - not wasting the meat of dead male calves - unlike other producers where the meat from male calves of dairy cows are not considered good enough quality to be worth raising.
ETA: * many of whom also seem happy to eat any number of other species - to extinction if not domestic-able.
-
That's just silly. It's not only cheese contributing to animal suffering but all (cow) milk consumption by humans. And the number of people who consume beef who also have milk, cheese and butter* vastly outnumber vegetarians.
If steak munching is fine, then consider that India with a large number of vegetarian, milk and ghee/butter consumers - is also the worlds 4th largest beef exporter - not wasting the meat of dead male calves - unlike other producers where the meat from male calves of dairy cows are not considered good enough quality to be worth raising.
ETA: * many of whom also seem happy to eat any number of other species - to extinction if not domestic-able.
Of course it's not only cheese; that was just shorthand for all dairy products. My point was against those who are vegetarian and who take the moral highground, thinking that they are not contributing to animal slaughter and suffering.
Your point about India not wasting the meat of dead male calves is well made. The wastage from the meat trade is shameful, and compassion in world farming should always be a priority. But there is no getting away from the fact that if you want cheese or other dairy products there are going to be vast quantities of dead male calves (or goat-kids, whatever) as a by-product.
-
Of course it's not only cheese; that was just shorthand for all dairy products. My point was against those who are vegetarian and who take the moral highground, thinking that they are not contributing to animal slaughter and suffering.
...
But there is no getting away from the fact that if you want cheese or other dairy products there are going to be vast quantities of dead male calves (or goat-kids, whatever) as a by-product.
Indeed, I agree. In fact, there is no moral high ground even for vegans, as we all live in a system that is uncaring, even insane.
The student union vote may not be practical in changing peoples consumption but might at least bring some people to consider the wider effects of their lifestyles.
-
It's more honest, if you care about animal welfare, than vegetarianism (unless you simply don't like eating meat).
The only honest options for humans are an omnivorous diet, or total veganism.
There's nothing dishonest about lacto-vegetarianism. I was one for may years. I freely admitted that veganism was even better from the kindness-to-animals poit of view, but wasn't willing to give up milk, cheese and eggs, and thought- and still think - that giving up meat is a lot better than nothing, albeit a compromise.
-
There's nothing dishonest about lacto-vegetarianism. I was one for may years. I freely admitted that veganism was even better from the kindness-to-animals poit of view, but wasn't willing to give up milk, cheese and eggs, and thought- and still think - that giving up meat is a lot better than nothing, albeit a compromise.
I still think lacto-vegetarians are at best deceiving themselves, if they think that by not eating meat they're being 'moral'. Maybe many of them are just ill-informed about the killing that still must go on to sustain their diet - I've met quite a few who just hadn't realised.
I suppose you could make an argument on the basis of 'levels of sentience' in the animal kingdom, in which eating insects - locusts would make a good start - or shellfish instead would be an option. That to me seems less dishonest than being a lacto-vegetarian. Unless we should be really concerned about the pain threshold and consciousness of cockles.
-
A little off topic....but I have noticed many times that very staunch Christians (and Muslims too) are rarely supportive of vegetarianism (or veganism I assume). They seem to firmly believe that they are entitled by religious authority to eat meat. I find this somewhat conflicting with spiritual ideals of love and non violence.
Just an aside....
I think there is religious authority to share food in times of stress and therefore if it helps to go vegan to that end there is the authority for that........how about Hinduism?
-
I think there is religious authority to share food in times of stress and therefore if it helps to go vegan to that end there is the authority for that........how about Hinduism?
Thou shalt not covet thy heighbour's bacon sarnie but shall instead offer unto them even up to half of your tofu.
-
Thou shalt not covet thy heighbour's bacon sarnie but shall instead offer unto them even up to half of your tofu.
Bacon sarnies in the old testament?!?!?!
-
Bacon sarnies in the old testament?!?!?!
Belshazzer's feast was just a huge buffet of them, sausage rolls (no vegan ones), vol au vents with ham and pineapple, and profiteroles.
-
Thou shalt not covet thy heighbour's bacon sarnie but shall instead offer unto them even up to half of your tofu.
That's very unshellfish!
-
I still think lacto-vegetarians are at best deceiving themselves, if they think that by not eating meat they're being 'moral'. Maybe many of them are just ill-informed about the killing that still must go on to sustain their diet - I've met quite a few who just hadn't realised.
I suppose you could make an argument on the basis of 'levels of sentience' in the animal kingdom, in which eating insects - locusts would make a good start - or shellfish instead would be an option. That to me seems less dishonest than being a lacto-vegetarian. Unless we should be really concerned about the pain threshold and consciousness of cockles.
As no-one is making that case you just seem to be pointlessly straw-manning?
All life is dependent on organic material, hence directly or indirectly destroying and/or inflicting some level of suffering on other forms of life. Is unnecessarily destroying a winkle any more or less moral than destroying a lettuce, a horse, a herd of cows or the ecosystem of the planet? - Are individuals not able to make up their own minds?
-
As no-one is making that case you just seem to be pointlessly straw-manning?
All life is dependent on organic material, hence directly or indirectly destroying and/or inflicting some level of suffering on other forms of life. Is unnecessarily destroying a winkle any more or less moral than destroying a lettuce, a horse, a herd of cows or the ecosystem of the planet? - Are individuals not able to make up their own minds?
Steve was making just the point I'm opposing, as if vegetarianism was a more moral 'halfway house' between being an omnivore and a vegan. I've also said if people just don't like eating meat, well fine.
The whole argument about suffering animals is posited on there being different levels of sentience in the animal kingdom. If you wish to argue that the whole of organic life is intertwined in an ineluctable struggle, I'd be the first to agree with you. The sentience argument is profoundly flawed; go down that road too far, and you end up being concerned about mushrooms, which are closer to the animal kingdom than plants.
So yes, people are quite free to make up their own minds, but vegetarians do often think they're causing no real suffering to animals, and I'm simply pointing out such people are deluded.
Not straw-manning at all.
-
Steve was making just the point I'm opposing, as if vegetarianism was a more moral 'halfway house' between being an omnivore and a vegan. I've also said if people just don't like eating meat, well fine.
The whole argument about suffering animals is posited on there being different levels of sentience in the animal kingdom. If you wish to argue that the whole of organic life is intertwined in an ineluctable struggle, I'd be the first to agree with you. The sentience argument is profoundly flawed; go down that road too far, and you end up being concerned about mushrooms, which are closer to the animal kingdom than plants.
So yes, people are quite free to make up their own minds, but vegetarians do often think they're causing no real suffering to animals, and I'm simply pointing out such people are deluded.
Not straw-manning at all.
I think Steve's point ultimately boils down to is killing one cow/bovine morally better or worse than killing two or more and so on ... again it comes down to ones own opinion and view of morality. To have an argument you need to have it within a shared framework of how morality works.
-
Steve was making just the point I'm opposing, as if vegetarianism was a more moral 'halfway house' between being an omnivore and a vegan. I've also said if people just don't like eating meat, well fine.
The whole argument about suffering animals is posited on there being different levels of sentience in the animal kingdom. If you wish to argue that the whole of organic life is intertwined in an ineluctable struggle, I'd be the first to agree with you. The sentience argument is profoundly flawed; go down that road too far, and you end up being concerned about mushrooms, which are closer to the animal kingdom than plants.
So yes, people are quite free to make up their own minds, but vegetarians do often think they're causing no real suffering to animals, and I'm simply pointing out such people are deluded.
Not straw-manning at all.
I suppose I'd better add something to that, because some people are going to accuse me of double-think. Of course, sub specie aeternitatis, the idea of gradations in sentience and capacity for suffering in the animal kingdom have no meaning, and I as an atheist of course accept that. The whole universe has no inherent meaning, only that which we ourselves impose upon it (the theists would of course object , and according to their views the idea of gradations of suffering, with humans at the top in their capacity for it, could more easily argue for more compassionate views on what we shovel into our stomachs).
However, in our everyday lives we inevitably apply some kind of anthropocentrism. That original Cambridge student vote depended on it, compassion in world farming depends on it, the whole of law depends on it, the Golden Rule depends on it, the Hindu and Buddhist ideas of karma depend on it. And by extension, unless we have all the sensitivity of a half-brick, we treat the higher animals as if they had capacities for feeling and suffering not unlike our own. And on that basis I say the choice lies between an omnivorous diet, or a completely vegan one, and by all means be a lacto-vegetarian, but don't think you're helping Compassion in World Farming that much.
On the other hand, I do protest too much, methinks.