Slashdot Mirror

Actually, vegan is about not exploiting animals, the term was coined in 1944 with the definition:

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

Source: the Vegan Society.

Far as I've seen, they haven't addressed the lab-grown meat issue; if it's grown in bovine serum (as is often the case so far), then it wouldn't be considered vegan. If they somehow manage to eliminate all animal sources, then it could in theory be considered vegan. I'm not interested in eating it however..

Citation provided - the definition of the Vegan Society, who coined the term in 1944 states:

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

Veganism is better described as a philosophy, or a mindset. If someone is eating vegan food only for health reasons, then they technically aren't vegans but 'strict vegetarians'. You can't be vegan and accept the exploitation of animals. It'd be like calling yourself a feminist but being okay with exploiting women.

Well ... I've met lots of self-proclaimed Christians who seem to have no problem judging and condemning other people for the most trivial of reasons. When confronted about this, they follow the usual pattern of making excuses that amount to "it's okay because I really want to, so clearly I'm a special case". They certainly don't humble themselves, repent, and tell me that really practicing Christianity is truly difficult. Yet I am told that I may not refer to them as non-Christians, because their status as Christian rests solely on their self-declaration.

What makes Vegans and Feminists so different?

Citation provided - the definition of the Vegan Society, who coined the term in 1944 states:

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

Veganism is better described as a philosophy, or a mindset. If someone is eating vegan food only for health reasons, then they technically aren't vegans but 'strict vegetarians'. You can't be vegan and accept the exploitation of animals. It'd be like calling yourself a feminist but being okay with exploiting women.

I know as a girl I was seeing for a bit of time was a vegetarian. She used to take shots of wheat grass juice every on a regular basis as it contained some of the missing B vitamins. Depending on how you're doing the vegetarian thing, you might not be getting sick (e.g. if you are actively eating wheat grass).

But it's not sufficient to simply stop eating meat, you need to make sure your diet covers appropriate vitamins and minerals as well.

And there are citations....

first link on google :

http://www.vegansociety.com/lifestyle/nutrition/b12.aspx

google results :

https://www.google.nl/search?q=b12+supplement+for+vegetarian&oq=b12+supplements+for+ve&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.6627j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8

The ultimate authority on this should be the Vegan Society in the UK. They (well, Donald Watson) coined and defined the term 'vegan' in 1944. Based on their ideas, since this doesn't at all challenge the idea that animals shouldn't be harmed or exploited (there is no ethical foundation in lab meat), it probably wouldn't be considered vegan - even if they could somehow do away with using blood, etc.. It still came from an animal without consent, even if it were just one cell. (Consent being the opposite of exploitative activity, which is why oral sex, breastfeeding babies, etc.. are considered vegan although 'animal products' are being...err....consumed.)

This, however, brings up an interesting question: why not use human tissue for this? To run a parallel question to the above author: would eating lab-grown human 'meat' constitute cannibalism? If the cells were willingly donated, and presumably no vectors for illness, why not?

That the vegan exclusion of insects from their definition of animals was an arbitrary definition to allow them to enjoy things like honey and cupcakes with cochineal-coloured icing?

Where this argument really falls down is the point when you realize that vegans don't actually eat honey (example reference chosen at random, there are lots more out there).

A "vegan" who eats honey is exactly like a "vegetarian" who eats fish. That is, they aren't, despite what they may call themselves.

That's what vitamin supplements are for.

It's tricky to impossible if you're a 'real' vegan (though I suspect, given modern agriculture, there are few to none who can bear the label).

Yeah yeah yeah, I mis-typed, so sue me. :) BTW, I assume you're also taking a B12 supplement as per the Vegan society's recommendation?

Well, the Vegan society suggests taking a B12 supplement, along with the consumption of fortified foods, in order to ensure a sufficient volume of the vitamin is included in the diet, so I'm assuming such supplements are considered kosher. More specifically, according to Wikipedia, B12 is produced, industrially, "through fermentation of selected microorganisms," which does not, to my knowledge, violate any Vegan precepts.

I'm a vegan too, and I think PETA are just plain bonkers. I'd rather give my money to the Vegan Society than kooks like PETA.

I do it for health reasons too, and environmental reasons. I don't care what other people eat as long as I have a choice.

The water outflow of the Columbia River would provide each and every person with nearly 26 gallons of fresh water per day (cites: Columbia River).

We could feed all those people - about 500 square meters per person - with the existing farmland within the US (cites: vegan food estimates, farmland in the US).

Essentially, we could live mid-density, and feed and provide potable water for every single person on the face of the earth, and not require a single person living outside of Texas - no one on the other 6 continents, the oceans, or any other State. No one in Canada or Mexico.

We could feed everyone without a single acre converted from farmland - wouldn't need to touch a single acre of forest, nor city, nor ocean, nor park.

The earth can support a LOT of people; the problem is distribution of the resources. And that is a purely political issue. Concerns about too many people on earth are demonstrably false.

For food, well, the Vegans (not that I am one - I believe in being an omnivore!) say you can feed a person with 700 square meters of farmland. So that means that 1 square kilometer will feed 1400 people.

Now, the US has approximately 950 million square acres of farmland, which is around 3.9 million square kilometers. That would support 5.4 billion people. Add in a bit more farmland from northern Mexico or Canada, and we have enough space here in North America for the entire population AND the farmland to support it.

Meaning that - if we really wanted to - we could leave the other 6 continents - and a large portion of North America - empty, untouched, unused.

"Electric shaver?! Ha! What are you, a chick? You're not hardcore unless you shave with a rock."

Oddly enough though, people who use rocks for deodorant ...ehh, not so much.

The problem is, once we get to a point where it can be 100% proven, it's too fucking late. The evidence, whilst not totally conclusive, is pretty damn strong. We could stick our heads in the sand and sing "la la la", or we could do something about it and try to save ourselves and our descendents.

Fallacy. Let me illustrate:

The problem with not believing in God is once you get to the point where it can be proven, its too late. Therefore, the logical conclusion is to believe in God. - Pascal's Wager

The evidence for human caused global warming isn't as strong as I'd like. There are far too many unknowns. Quite frankly, we know squat about the environment, and we know squat about global warming. To add to the confusion, $bigcorp promotes one set of data, while $envirowackos promotes another set of data. (Hence my comparision to a belief in God -- some people (myself included) sees strong evidence for the existance of God. Other people do not.)

If we act in ways to prevent possible human-caused global warming, there are known and unknown economical costs to us all. "Economical costs" may sound dry and stuffy, but the net result is that acting to prevent possible human-caused global warming will impact each and every one of our lives in a negative way. That is certain. The cost effects and results of human caused global warming is uncertain.

There is evidence that we are coming out of another ice age. Personally, I believe that this evidence is stronger than the evidence for human caused global warming. Thus, we are probably facing a climate change regardless of what we do. If that is a case, even assuming a small additional climate change do to human causes, it might be more economically *and* environmentally efficient to devote our monies to other areas. What is "better" in the long run -- setting aside one square mile as a wildlife preserve, or reducing human caused global warming by .0001 C? (Disclaimer: numbers pulled out of my ass.)

If you do feel strongly about global warming, I would suggest trying a vegan diet. Not eating meat tends to result in less pollution, less fossil fuels, and you don't get all those nasty greenhouse gasses from farting cows (don't laugh -- cow farts have been studied as a cause for climate change). While eggs and milk is more efficient, the pollution and antibiotic/hormone problems from factory farms may still be a problem.

That's simply not true. The founder of the Vegan Society is still alive and well to this day. Carl Lewis was (is?) a vegan. I've met a 75-year-old vegan granny at an animal rights protest who was in good health for her age. There's plenty more examples I could cite.

Vegetarians in general and vegans in particular need to go through effort to find suitable replacements for the protiens they would be getting otherwise in order to maintain status quo.

Not really. See this factsheet on protein.

The only thing vegans like me can't get reliably in their diets, except from "artificial" sources, is Vitamin B12 - I take vegan B12 supplements to make sure I get enough.

However, I obviously would recommend anyone thinking of going vegan to read up on the dietary recommendations before jumping in.

That's simply not true. The founder of the Vegan Society is still alive and well to this day. Carl Lewis was (is?) a vegan. I've met a 75-year-old vegan granny at an animal rights protest who was in good health for her age. There's plenty more examples I could cite.

Vegetarians in general and vegans in particular need to go through effort to find suitable replacements for the protiens they would be getting otherwise in order to maintain status quo.

Not really. See this factsheet on protein.

The only thing vegans like me can't get reliably in their diets, except from "artificial" sources, is Vitamin B12 - I take vegan B12 supplements to make sure I get enough.

However, I obviously would recommend anyone thinking of going vegan to read up on the dietary recommendations before jumping in.