Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
The 'soy boy' phenomenon has gone really nuts this year. Soy is now officially the antimatter of meat.
 

luka

Well-known member
it's not been my experience of trumping supporters or meat eaters but yes i understand the fun part
 

droid

Well-known member
Who says veganism is progressive?

Veganism is progressive in the sense that it is the only possible future. Meat is destroying the soil, decimating the forests and contributes to about 35% of all emissions.

Even with the most optimistic projections it will be a rarity in the near future as its either taxed out of existence or land use switches to more efficient protein sources out of necessity. In 10/15 years a steak will cost you £200 if you can get one at all.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
"Meat is destroying the soil", oh dear god. Where even to begin. It's late now so I might bother tomorrow. That 35% figure is total garbage, for one thing.

But to start with, veganism isn't even the most sustainable type of diet: https://www.elementascience.org/articles/10.12952/journal.elementa.000116/

And for another, soy is an absolute environmental disaster, and demand for it is rocketing due the popularity of veganism.
 
Last edited:

droid

Well-known member
"Agricultural GHG emissions were estimated by Bellarby et al. (2008) to account for between 17% and 32% of all global anthropogenic emissions, with the aforementioned reports by the FAO (2006) and the World Watch Institute (Goodland & Anhang, 2009) concluding that animal agriculture contributes 18% and 51% of GHG emissions respectively. Ruminant livestock are often considered to confer the greatest contribution to total environmental impact when compared to their monogastric cohorts due to a combination of reductions in feed efficiency and the enteric methane production from rumen digestion. For example, dairy production accounts for approximately 2.7% of worldwide GHG emissions, with average emissions of 2.4 kg CO2-eq/kg FPCM (fat and protein-corrected milk) at the farm-gate (FAO, 2010). "

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0375-15892013000300002

The livestock sector is also one of the leading drivers of global deforestation, and is linked to 75 percent of historic deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest. Nearly a third of biodiversity loss to date has been linked to animal agriculture. Further amplifying water and air pollution, global livestock produce seven to nine times more sewage than humans, most of which is left untreated. They also discharge pesticides, antibiotics, and heavy metals into water systems.

Animal agriculture is linked to:

55 percent of erosion;

60 percent of nitrogen pollution; and

70 percent of the global dietary phosphorus footprint.

https://climatenexus.org/climate-issues/food/animal-agricultures-impact-on-climate-change/

The fact is that our diet is unsustainable in terms of efficient land use, water use, feed for livestock, deforestation (which alone contributes about 20% of emissions), leading to desertification and loss of biodiversity. Phosphorous and nitrogen use for feed erodes soil sustainability (despite the supposed benefits of grazing) and pollutes waterways and oceans. On top of that excessive antibiotic use in agriculture creates superbugs and pathogens spread from wild animals through livestock and then to humans, and will probably be the source of the next major pandemic.

There are problems with alternatives as well, but industrial meat production is an unmitigated disaster. Even if we dont sharply reduce our production and intake, we will soon be forced to do so.
 

droid

Well-known member
But I agree on one point - our future diet will almost certainly involve insects, which Im not sure qualifies as veganism.
 

luka

Well-known member
leaving aside this particular argument in which tea is operating, consciously or otherwise, as an agent of capital and death, the reason vegetarianism and veganism in particular are progressive is not because of pragmatic decisions concerning resources. as important as those are they don't determine whether or not an idea or practice is progressive. it is about expanding the circle of concern and ethical engagement. it is about the deliberate decision to step out of a simple power relationship, an up-down, domination and submission relationship. this is basic stuff. everything tea says should be automatically discounted, always, in every situation.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
erm who funded that research? :poop:

I dunno. But if you're implying that Big Meat must be behind it, bear in mind that it unequivocally shows that a high-meat diet like that of most Americans is not the most sustainable or land efficient. It finds that a vegan diet is more land efficient than a high meat diet, but that the best efficiency comes from either vegetarian but non-vegan diets or from omni diets with some meat (less than most American people currently eat).

That's all based on land use rather than GHG emissions, but anti-meat arguments usually revolve around excoriating the beef industry, which accounts for the vast majority of livestock emissions. But there is meat other beef. The climatic impact of poultry farming is negligible. (Never mind fish and seafood.)
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
leaving aside this particular argument in which tea is operating, consciously or otherwise, as an agent of capital and death, the reason vegetarianism and veganism in particular are progressive is not because of pragmatic decisions concerning resources. as important as those are they don't determine whether or not an idea or practice is progressive. it is about expanding the circle of concern and ethical engagement. it is about the deliberate decision to step out of a simple power relationship, an up-down, domination and submission relationship. this is basic stuff. everything tea says should be automatically discounted, always, in every situation.

 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
leaving aside this particular argument in which tea is operating, consciously or otherwise, as an agent of capital and death, the reason vegetarianism and veganism in particular are progressive is not because of pragmatic decisions concerning resources. as important as those are they don't determine whether or not an idea or practice is progressive. it is about expanding the circle of concern and ethical engagement. it is about the deliberate decision to step out of a simple power relationship, an up-down, domination and submission relationship. this is basic stuff. everything tea says should be automatically discounted, always, in every situation.

Are you vegetarian or vegan? Because there is still a relationship of dominance and submission if you use any animal products, not just meat per se.

But moreover I don't really see a problem here, because I don't feel the need to consider a chicken as an equal. No other creature voluntarily 'steps outside the power relations' established by evolutionary necessity. Obviously modern factory farming is a far cry from hunter-gatherer subsistence but our instincts haven't changed in the last 100,000 years. I posted that Zizek clip in jest but do I think there is something a little perverse in saying "No, our instincts are wrong, they've always been wrong, we should suppress them and do this instead".
 

luka

Well-known member
I think there is something a little perverse in saying "No, our instincts are wrong, they've always been wrong, we should suppress them and do this instead".

this is the reactionary position. it's not very sophisticated and it unravels as soon as you pull a single thread but you've stated it succinctly.
 

droid

Well-known member
I agree, we should all be staving in the heads of our rivals in order to achieve dominance and present ourselves as the most attractive prospect for mating.
 
Top