Cambridge University students vote for completely vegan menus

[Sriram]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[jeremyp]

'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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[Udayana]

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.
 

[SteveH]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?!?!?!

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Sebastian Toe]

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!

[Udayana]

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?

 

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[Udayana]

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.
 

[Dicky Underpants]

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.