Why do people choose to be vegans?

[Rosa moschata]

Our species may have always eaten meat, but it is no longer necessary -- so those who choose not to do it can make choices. Same goes for a plethora of other things "humans have always done" but now we don't have to. Are you unable to understand women who don't breast-feed? What about people who circumcise their sons? That's relatively new for our species. The nuclear household (married couple with kids, grandparents and others living elsewhere) is also counter to how humans have always lived, until the last couple hundred years. There are religions which ban the eating of certain foods -- would you argue to the believers that you don't understand those choices, or is it ok to not eat something because they say their god says so, but not ok if they decide on their own?

Your post seemed to start out about not understanding, but evolved into arguing that they're wrong for doing what they do, because it goes against what other people used to do. Ironically, that's similar to why I don't eat much meat -- because the way conventional industrial meat is raised today is SO DIFFERENT from how it's always been raised, from the first farmer up until the mid-20th Century. Maybe I should start a thread titled "I don't understand people who eat factory-farm meat."

 

[Bullitt]

Again, black/white thinking. You're making a comparison as though it was about meat-eaters versus vegans, and this is incorrect. The amount of meat in the diet of those farmboys was less than in typical American fare today -- and the French were ALSO eating meat. I already responded further about how the first wave of American soldiers were the biggest and best we had -- from a big country, founded by people from beyond just France. And while the French remarked at the size of the Americans, it was about their height. The Americans, themselves, were amazed at how strong the shorter but stocky French soldiers were -- and those French soldiers were also farmboys. So if the "farmboy" argument is for why the Americans were so tall, why didn't it apply to the French? Couldn't possibly be due to genetics, or perhaps that we sent them our tallest in the first wave, to be met up with their average guys?

I am not arguing it is black and white. Of course disease and other factors come into play. But to deny that regular access to things like milk, eggs, and meat results in taller people than those who do not have access to animal products is just ignoring facts.

"The amount of meat in the diet of those farmboys was less than in typical American fare today .."

I'd like to see a study on that. Also, it is not just meat. We are talking animal products. People who live on farms have regular access to eggs, milk, and meat. That makes them bigger than people in cities who did not have regular access to animal products. But there was also more of these products being made available to all Americans because of the healthy farm production in the United States.

By the way, Americans were the tallest people in the world at that time. No matter which "wave" of Americans were sent, on average Americans would have been taller than men of any other country.

Now that other countries have better access to animal products, they are getting taller. I read that the Dutch are now the tallest people in the world on average.

http://www.dutchdailynews.com/dutch-people-are-getting-taller-and-heavier/
"The average size of Dutch men and women in 2011 was 1.81 m and 1.68 m respectively. Compared to 1991, men are on average 2.1 cm taller, women 0.6 cm."

They are also getting fatter. So there is that danger. I think increased availability of animal products and increased wealth allowed the Dutch to buy more dairy and meat products on average.

How would you explain the change in the last two decades?

 

[Bullitt]

Our species may have always eaten meat, but it is no longer necessary -- so those who choose not to do it can make choices. Same goes for a plethora of other things "humans have always done" but now we don't have to. Are you unable to understand women who don't breast-feed? What about people who circumcise their sons? That's relatively new for our species. The nuclear household (married couple with kids, grandparents and others living elsewhere) is also counter to how humans have always lived, until the last couple hundred years. Your post seemed to start out about not understanding, but evolved into arguing that they're wrong for doing what they do, because it goes against what other people used to do. That's probably why the word "offended" popped up.

I have not said any person is wrong for their diet choices. Please do not put words in my mouth. Find a quote where I said a person was wrong about their diet choices.

I did point out the flawed logic of not eating honey but eating the fruit pollinated by honeybees. But people are free to eat what they like. It's not my body.

"Our species may have always eaten meat, but it is no longer necessary -- so those who choose not to do it can make choices."

Yes, everyone is free to make their own choices. I have not argued otherwise. And I never will.

Meat is not necessary to sustain human life. That is true. I could also say the same thing about fruits. I could just eat vegetables and nuts and live. Or I could say vegetables are not necessary and just eat fruits and nuts. Milk is not necessary. As you pointed out, some mothers do not breast feed. A child can live on milk formula.

Saying that humans have always eaten meat is just to point out that not eating meat is the new development.

The point is, animal products, including meat, are beneficial to humans. The protein and iron make people grow and be strong.

But people are not being forced to consume or use animal products.

 

[Rosa moschata]

I am not arguing it is black and white. Of course disease and other factors come into play. But to deny that regular access to things like milk, eggs, and meat results in taller people than those who do not have access to animal products is just ignoring facts.

"The amount of meat in the diet of those farmboys was less than in typical American fare today .."

I'd like to see a study on that. Also, it is not just meat. We are talking animal products. People who live on farms have regular access to eggs, milk, and meat. That makes them bigger than people in cities who did not have regular access to animal products. But there was also more of these products being made available to all Americans because of the healthy farm production in the United States.

By the way, Americans were the tallest people in the world at that time. No matter which "wave" of Americans were sent, on average Americans would have been taller than men of any other country.

Now that other countries have better access to animal products, they are getting taller. I read that the Dutch are now the tallest people in the world on average.

http://www.dutchdailynews.com/dutch-people-are-getting-taller-and-heavier/
"The average size of Dutch men and women in 2011 was 1.81 m and 1.68 m respectively. Compared to 1991, men are on average 2.1 cm taller, women 0.6 cm."

They are also getting fatter. So there is that danger. I think increased availability of animal products and increased wealth allowed the Dutch to buy more dairy and meat products on average.

How would you explain the change in the last two decades?

OK, then why weren't the French farmboys as tall as the American farmboys, if it all came down to diet? Are you not aware of the concept of non-representative sampling as a possibility to explain why our best boys were taller than their average boys?

I have to pull up studies now? OK....but when I'm grabbing my texts from my room tomorrow, where are your studies to support your claims? Before I start chasing down statistics, do you have any of your own about Americans being the tallest in the world during WWI? I don't want to start going on a wild goose chase looking up information to reference to contradict claims you just thought up in your head because it fits your already established conclusion.

And from a health standpoint, there's really no benefit to being taller -- especially if it follows being fatter, and having other health concerns associated with obesity. So using this as an argument in favor of meat-eating is not really beneficial. And considering your other argument of "we've always been eating meat" but continue getting taller (and especially fatter) lately as we eat even more -- isn't that all the more reason to go back to eating less "like we always have been"?

Until next time....goodnight.

 

[Rosa moschata]

Blast that subscribing icon......

Yes, they can be beneficial -- but they are not exclusive in their benefits. There are benefits found in other foods that are lacking in meat and animal products. It's actually much easier to be a healthy vegan than a healthy total carnivore.

You are assuming that previously, non-farm-people had NO REGULAR ACCESS to animal products, and that's why they were shorter. That is wrong. They had regular access for a very long time. Today, there is overabundant access, to the point of there being an obesity epidemic.

I think you should look up information about how diets have changed in the last 100-200 years. I think you should also read this book, written by a geologist, and heavily referenced. After gathering hard data, put together your own informed opinion, and perhaps you'll nullify your original question.

 

[Bullitt]

OK, then why weren't the French farmboys as tall as the American farmboys, if it all came down to diet? Are you not aware of the concept of non-representative sampling as a possibility to explain why our best boys were taller than their average boys?

I have to pull up studies now? OK....but when I'm grabbing my texts from my room tomorrow, where are your studies to support your claims? Before I start chasing down statistics, do you have any of your own about Americans being the tallest in the world during WWI? I don't want to start going on a wild goose chase looking up information to reference to contradict claims you just thought up in your head because it fits your already established conclusion.

And from a health standpoint, there's really no benefit to being taller -- especially if it follows being fatter, and having other health concerns associated with obesity. So using this as an argument in favor of meat-eating is not really beneficial. And considering your other argument of "we've always been eating meat" but continue getting taller (and especially fatter) lately as we eat even more -- isn't that all the more reason to go back to eating less "like we always have been"?

Until next time....goodnight.

You are confusing two things. Yes, I am saying there are benefits to consuming animal products. But I would agree that in most industrialized countries people are eating too much. Too much of everything. There is also the problem of processed foods making people fatter.

"OK, then why weren't the French farmboys as tall as the American farmboys, if it all came down to diet?"

I do not know the average height of American farm boys and the average height of French farm boys. Do you have those statistics? The French farm boys may have been as tall as American farm boys. I do not know. There could also be a genetic reason for a difference in height, if there is a difference.

I said that Americans were the tallest people on average in the world at the time.

Height is always used as a measure of health. Those eating better are taller than those who do not receive enough nutrition. And, yes, Americans were on average the tallest people in the world for most of its history. I am surprised you are questioning that fact.. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130732488

Is it a well-known fact that Americans today eat more meat than farm boys in the early 1900s? No. That is why I questioned it. I suspect farm boys ate more meat on average than the average American does today. I could be wrong about that, though. I will be surprised if you can find information on that.

Now if you want to say that average Americans at that time ate less meat than average Americans today, I would agree with that.

Why is it so difficult to believe that there are benefits for humans who eat animal products? I thought you earlier agreed that the human brain owed its evolutionary development to meat? Or was that someone else?

 

[Bullitt]

Blast that subscribing icon......

Yes, they can be beneficial -- but they are not exclusive in their benefits. There are benefits found in other foods that are lacking in meat and animal products. It's actually much easier to be a healthy vegan than a healthy total carnivore.

You are assuming that previously, non-farm-people had NO REGULAR ACCESS to animal products, and that's why they were shorter. That is wrong. They had regular access for a very long time. Today, there is overabundant access, to the point of there being an obesity epidemic.

I think you should look up information about how diets have changed in the last 100-200 years. I think you should also read this book, written by a geologist, and heavily referenced. After gathering hard data, put together your own informed opinion, and perhaps you'll nullify your original question.

That was a short night for you.

Of course it is difficult to have a healthy diet with just meat. I am advocating a balanced diet. The Irish lived on mostly potatoes and milk. But I am not saying that is a good diet.

"You are assuming that previously, non-farm-people had NO REGULAR ACCESS to animal products, and that's why they were shorter."

In the past in most countries, those who lived on farms on average had better access to animal products, for obvious reasons. I did not say non-farm people had no access to animal products. Animal products have become more widely available around the world. Some developing countries do not have as much access on average to animal products.

I already said there are problems with industrial farming. People can still choose to get animal products in other ways. Like some people on this board. I can understand why a person does not want to participate in supporting industrial farming.

 

[mom'sfolly]

I have to disagree that there are few people who are raised vegetarian, and have never eaten meat. If you had qualified that with a "American" it would have been a true statement. I have quite a few friends from Indian, many of whom have never eaten meat, and never will. Some of their American kids do eat meat, some do not. I often give homemade soap to one of my friends; she finds the idea of using animal fat on her face totally repellant. They do eat eggs and milk products. There are nearly a billion people on the Indian subcontinent, and many of them are and will be vegetarian for their entire lives.

Most of us aren't completely consistent in our dietary choices. In the mid-1800s in American, middle class families often hired a wet nurse for their infants. Most modern Americans would be completely grossed out by the concept. Most of us who eat meat draw the line at certain species, for arbitrary reasons. I couldn't bring myself to horse, dog, cat, whale, dolphin or primate; but others can do so easily.

In the world we live in, we can choose our dietary style. Our ancestors didn't have this luxury. Most people raised in the west who choose to be vegetarian or vegan do so for ethical reasons. While you might not agree with the choices they make, they have probably thought more about what they eat and why than most people do. For me, I don't see the "exploitation" of animals and their products to be a strong enough argument to become vegan. I eat meat because I like it. I try to make what I consider ethical choices in my consumption, but I don't expect other people to understand or make the same choices I do.

I don't like "holier than thou" attitudes about anything. Food has become a new religion, fervently argued over. Paleo, vegan, vegetarian, raw diet, etc; the new converts are the worst at trying to convert the uninitiated. This is followed closely by the ones who feel their current "food religion" is being challenged.

 

[Bullitt]

I have to disagree that there are few people who are raised vegetarian, and have never eaten meat. If you had qualified that with a "American" it would have been a true statement. I have quite a few friends from Indian, many of whom have never eaten meat, and never will. Some of their American kids do eat meat, some do not. I often give homemade soap to one of my friends; she finds the idea of using animal fat on her face totally repellant. They do eat eggs and milk products. There are nearly a billion people on the Indian subcontinent, and many of them are and will be vegetarian for their entire lives.

Most of us aren't completely consistent in our dietary choices. In the mid-1800s in American, middle class families often hired a wet nurse for their infants. Most modern Americans would be completely grossed out by the concept. Most of us who eat meat draw the line at certain species, for arbitrary reasons. I couldn't bring myself to horse, dog, cat, whale, dolphin or primate; but others can do so easily.

In the world we live in, we can choose our dietary style. Our ancestors didn't have this luxury. Most people raised in the west who choose to be vegetarian or vegan do so for ethical reasons. While you might not agree with the choices they make, they have probably thought more about what they eat and why than most people do. For me, I don't see the "exploitation" of animals and their products to be a strong enough argument to become vegan. I eat meat because I like it. I try to make what I consider ethical choices in my consumption, but I don't expect other people to understand or make the same choices I do.

I don't like "holier than thou" attitudes about anything. Food has become a new religion, fervently argued over. Paleo, vegan, vegetarian, raw diet, etc; the new converts are the worst at trying to convert the uninitiated. This is followed closely by the ones who feel their current "food religion" is being challenged.

You wrote, "I have to disagree that there are few people who are raised vegetarian, and have never eaten meat."

But that is not what I said.

I wrote, "I also argue that it is extremely rare for people to live their entire lives without eating animal products."

And you backed up my statement by writing, "They do eat eggs and milk products."

I will say again that it is very rare for people to avoid animal products in their entire life.

 

[Chicks and Hens]

Alright Alright... I have been a vegan before. I'm not saying it is a better way of life, I'm not even saying it's healthier. But the reason I DIDN'T eat those things not because it was against any religion I had ever heard of before but only because, How would you like it if someone came and knocked on your door and said " Hey how bout we kill you for someone else's pleasure and completely stop your own life just for their luxury, you alright with that?" Food wise as of chickens I agree with the 2nd post that a user said. These chickens eggs aren't as fresh as my chickens and the chickens die everyday from a pecking order or human order. Next time you go to the store buy some eggs then come home and crack open some of your chickens eggs. There is a huge color difference in the eggs yolk. Yellow and bright pretty orange. Yellow is when they don't get to move around a ton or have been sick recently. That's the truth. This is just my opinion and I saw that Bullitt wanted an actual vegan to step in and explain. ( I only read first 2 or 3 pages) as of now I have my own eggs and neighbors farm I buy from. Not a vegan nor vegetarian, but if I see my neighbors mistreating the animals I am going to vegan again. If I absolutely had to I would eat store bought meat. Like when my in-laws would visit they always brought a "homemade" meal. If I didn't eat it that would just be rude and disrespectful. And of course my mom has gone on and on of the reasons why people should never be vegans, her not knowing I was one at the time.