Vegan diet best for planet

[nummi]

Diet is quite a simple thing. Physical body has nutritional needs and the need to be free of harmful toxins. Those needs need be met if best possible health is the goal.

Originally Posted by Everly

What was posted was that it was best FOR the planet.

So just the rock side of the planet, but not the life on it?

But I don't understand why you say "it does not work on everyone... Nor does it work on most people.."

I said it because that is the truth regarding this.

Vegan diet works for some. But not everyone and not most people.
With "works" I mean being in good health. Personally, vegan diet would destroy my health. On me it cannot work (actually it could if there were plants that have the corresponding animal nutrients in them in sufficient quantities, then it could work; but there are no such plants on this planet).

Diet is about nutrients, not about eating plants nor animals. Body doesn't need plants nor animals, it needs nutrients. And then where and how do you get the needed nutrients.

Wow. You've really misunderstood the post, as well as veganism, and run with it. You seem angry and that's puzzling.

I didn't misunderstand anything... Perhaps the OP (and some ensuing comments) didn't understand what they were saying or used wrong words to describe what they meant. I don't know which one, but what I do know is what was written is not all true.

I know exactly what veganism is. It is a religion that's harmful to those whose bodies cannot function properly avoiding eating animal products.
What is your take on veganism, how would you define it or describe it?

Nor am I angry. Nor seem I angry... Why would you say I am angry? What do you base it on?

What is it about veganism being good for the planet that upsets you? And how does eating other sentient beings benefit your health?

Please explain in what way would it be good for the planet.
Because I know it would not be good if you consider the planet the rock and the life on it. There's life on this planet that would die if they didn't eat other animals.

Do you like dolphins? The happy and loving and considerate creatures?

And just so you know... Anecdotes are not evidence or proof. Empirical evidence is necessary for proof, not anecdotal stories.

So in other words, no matter what anyone says, no matter what "proof" or "disproof" anyone provides, as long as it goes counter to your religion "veganism" you will not even try to listen nor think that perhaps what is told to you is actually true?

Yo do realize that even "empirical proof" is in the very beginning the very same "anecdotal stories"? Both are merely the opinions of someone. But I give my own opinions, not the opinions of someone else.
Why would you prefer the opinions of some people over others if they are both equivalent? And that you have to be the one to decide what is true or not, not the label above the opinion?
That something is deemed "empirical" does not mean it is true. That something is deemed "anecdotal" does not mean it is true. Whether is true or not is yours to decide, and you cannot decide by the label "empirical" or "anecdotal". Those labels mean nothing.

You know what actual truth is regarding "proof". It is that there is no "anecdotal stories" and there is no "empirical evidence". What there is is just mere logic and reason and connecting the obvious, and not ignoring or avoiding the obvious.

The one upset is you. Why does it upset you when someone says about veganism something obvious you cannot for some reasons accept?

I know vegan diet works for some people... But that you force your opinion that it works for everyone and the whole planet and for all life on it as the best thing ever... And when someone brings out the fact that it is not true, and then you accuse that person of anger and being upset (because the person brought to light something obvious), while your own response is clearly toned with anger? Now this is dishonest and disrespectful to others and yourself.

I know it is very hard for you to even start thinking in the direction I'm hoping you would. You don't have to abandon your current beliefs to think and imagine that you might be wrong. There's no threat to you, I do not represent a threat to you, so there is no reason to be angry and offensive.

And... I know why you are behaving like this.

Many questions in my response. It would be nice if you answered them truthfully and honestly, as no one ever has answered all them in all honesty. It truly would be the first time in my life if someone actually answered all the questions I asked...
And it would nice if you also gave at least a simple explanation to your opinions. Explanation in your own words. So I could see why you think as you do, so I could see more precisely the reason why you say what you say. So to understand better.

Originally Posted by nummi

Diet is about nutrients, not about eating plants nor animals. Body doesn't need plants nor animals, it needs nutrients. And then where and how do you get the needed nutrients.

What nutrients, exactly, are not found in plants?

Originally Posted by nummi

I know exactly what veganism is. It is a religion that's harmful to those whose bodies cannot function properly avoiding eating animal products.

A religion?? A RELIGION?

How did you come to that conclusion? Do you even know what veganism is? Do you know what a religion is?

Originally Posted by nummi

What is your take on veganism, how would you define it or describe it?

It's not about how I would define or describe it. It actually has a very clear 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.

Originally Posted by nummi

Nor am I angry. Nor seem I angry... Why would you say I am angry? What do you base it on?

You cannot tell me how you seem to me. If you're not angry, you're not. I accept that. I said it because defensiveness and incorrect information signal to me that a person is angry at some level.

Originally Posted by nummi

There's life on this planet that would die if they didn't eat other animals.

You don't understand the far-reaching ecological implications of veganism. It has nothing to do with obligate carnivores. Veganism is for humans. Where did you get the idea that it applies to, say, cheetahs? Jeez, straw man much?

Originally Posted by nummi

Yo do realize that even "empirical proof" is in the very beginning the very same "anecdotal stories"? Both are merely the opinions of someone.

Both sentences are incorrect. An anecdote might, sometimes, be the genesis of a hypothesis, but that's hardly the case all the time. Moreover, empirical evidence is entirely outside the realm of opinion. Evidence is evidence. The conclusions one might reach based on that evidence might be opinion, the evidence is reality and not opinion.

Originally Posted by nummi

and you cannot decide by the label "empirical" or "anecdotal". Those labels mean nothing.

Yes, I can and yes, they do. Get a dictionary.

Originally Posted by nummi

I know vegan diet works for some people... But that you force your opinion that it works for everyone and the whole planet and for all life on it as the best thing ever

What forum are you reading?? Who the heck is forcing opinions on others? Expressing one's opinion does not equate to force. Who posted that veganism should be forced on every being on the planet? Please point me to that post because I must've missed it.

[nummi]

Getting long... Because I actually explain myself...

Originally Posted by Everly

What nutrients, exactly, are not found in plants?

Quite many actually.
But the most important part is that they are not found in plants in the quantities the physical body needs them.

A religion?? A RELIGION?

How did you come to that conclusion? Do you even know what veganism is? Do you know what a religion is?

Interesting you would laugh at it... Because I don't laugh at your opinions. You are again being disrespectful.

I came to that conclusion due to the fact that our bodies have nutritional needs that cannot be met, on this planet, if you don't eat animals. Of course some few people do well by not eating animals, but the same is not true about most humans.
And considering how most "vegans", but not all, behave when encountering something that goes counter to their beliefs.

Veganism is a religion, just as is paleo, and all those other "types". Truth is there actually are no different diet "types", not any kind, because the body has needs that need be met. Body needs nutrition, that's all there is in this regard. Different people, different bodies, somewhat different needs.
If you give the body what it needs then you simply eat right. If you don't give the body what it needs, then you are eating wrong. This simple.

A religion has rules and dogmas you are not supposed to break and are supposed to uphold even if is obvious they are false (whether knowingly or not). Also having some rituals, mantras, and similar practices (again knowingly or not). To the extent that if you see something that shows the rules and dogma and whatever practices to be wrong, the followers deny and ignore it, and instead keep following the false and harmful practices.
Essentially, religion is about having a specific kind mentality and maintaining that mentality (whether knowingly or not) toward some "object", despite it being obvious there are significant flaws.

I don't care for "textbook" definitions. Because I have my own senses and mind. I look myself what is going on. I give my own thoughts and opinions.

It's not about how I would define or describe it. It actually has a very clear 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.

So... in other words veganism IS a religion... Christians, muslims, buddhists, etc. - they too live their life, life according to their religion and beliefs... It is obvious you do not know what religion is.

Alright... "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."
Considering human body has nutritional needs that cannot be met without eating animals... this means avoiding eating animals is impractical and harmful.
Eating animals because it is necessary to keep the body functioning as it should is not exploitation. It is necessity.
Since animals need be eaten, to give the body what it needs, so the body could function as it should, there will be other parts of the animal that generally are not eaten, like it's skin and fur... It is practical to find uses for them. Wasting usable material is impractical.

There are some people who can do well without eating animals, but the same does not apply to all.

Veganism is harmful to those whose bodies cannot function properly avoiding eating animal products.

You cannot tell me how you seem to me. If you're not angry, you're not. I accept that. I said it because defensiveness and incorrect information signal to me that a person is angry at some level.

I am honest and truthful. I can be with a firm and serious tone. Firmness and seriousness is not anger.

I've never said to you how I seem to you.
You said how I seem to you. Then I said what the actual reality is regarding me. You do not know nor see me better than I know and see myself... and the truth is the conclusion (me being angry) you made of me is wrong. I know why you thought me angry, it's because I said something that goes counter to your religion. Because of your beliefs you have tolerance issues with those who know differently and seemingly opposingly to your beliefs.

I'm not angry. Nor am I defensive. Nor give I incorrect information. I'm merely explaining things the way I understand them and see them, and I ask questions.
What I see is you do give incorrect information.
You have essentially given an absolute statement about everyone and this planet, without actually knowing everyone and without actually considering everything relevant about this planet.
I brought out the fact that what was claimed about everyone does not apply to me. Am I not someone? And that does not apply to the whole planet, because life on this planet is not veganistic.

You don't understand the far-reaching ecological implications of veganism. It has nothing to do with obligate carnivores. Veganism is for humans. Where did you get the idea that it applies to, say, cheetahs? Jeez, straw man much?

I can see your tone is even angrier than before... Why?

I understand far better than you. I can see where you stand... You are not taking into consideration many relevant aspects. And thus the conclusions you make are at least partially wrong.

Veganism is not for all humans. The simple fact that most humans cannot function properly without eating animals, because animals contain essential nutrients in needed quantities, says so. Veganism can be, not is, but can be for those who can function well on it, and choose to diet like this.
Those "vegans" who actually do well on this diet, it doesn't mean they wouldn't do as well or even better when including animals as food.

Are humans not animals themselves? Sure we have quite a background... genetic manipulation thousands of years past, more than once. Even now they're trying it again... We are somewhat different animals than the rest on this planet, but we are still animals.

If humans who need to eat animals, because they have such nutritional needs, avoid eating animals, it is the same if for example dolphins avoided eating fish and thus suffered severely for it (they'd go extinct...). It is the same if lions didn't eat animals, they'd die out too... Chickens, they are omnivores like are humans, if chickens can't get animal food they don't live long.
I'm not straw manning anything. I'm bringing out facts that apply on this planet, with its peculiar life and conditions.
Humans are, according to the need of the physical body, omnivores (this does apply to all humans, but some have intrinsic qualities that enable them to do well omitting animals, and some do well omitting plants).

It is disrespectful and dishonest and harmful to oneself to omit one's physical body the nutrients it needs to function properly, when the body is not capable of doing well without.

Both sentences are incorrect. An anecdote might, sometimes, be the genesis of a hypothesis, but that's hardly the case all the time. Moreover, empirical evidence is entirely outside the realm of opinion. Evidence is evidence. The conclusions one might reach based on that evidence might be opinion, the evidence is reality and not opinion.

Empirical evidence cannot exist without someone making a decision over whether it is true or not. Or are you saying an artificial intelligence decides for us what is real and what is not? Obviously that's not true... Also, those who make those "scientific" decisions, as to what is real or not, they think based on rules made up by other people.
"Empirical evidence" cannot exist without someone first making a decision that "this is empirical and this is not".
Opinions and opinions and more opinions...

So no, the sentences are not incorrect. "Empirical" or not, opinions all the same.

Evidence is evidence, this is true.
But using the labels "empirical" or "anecdotal" is merely preferring one over the other without actually looking which one is correct.

Also, it is much easier to prove something false. All you need for that is just one "thing" that actually exists and goes against it.
If you go the path of looking for evidence to "prove" something true, then you'll never stop looking, because there's endless justifications for something to be true. Endless.
So, for your own sake I would advise to look for that which disproves something, because all you need is one item. So simple. And then you can move on. This is the one I use - I don't look for justifications, I look for what disproves.

Yes, I can and yes, they do. Get a dictionary.

Why are you so angry again?

Okay then...
And who decides what gets what label? Who are the people who label these things? Do you know their mind and how they see the world? After all, if they are crazy...
How can you be sure what is under the label is true and correct if you don't actually look nor think yourself whether it is true or not? It's the content that matters, not the label. The label means nothing.

Have you heard of "experiments" done on scientists? An article was published in a prestigious science magazine. Scientists who read it, almost all of them believed it, because it was labeled "empirical". You know what the actual truth was? The entire article, all of it, was absolute and utter nonsense... This was done on purpose. And it's been done more than once, each time the same result - that most scientists are actually quite stupid.

Empirical and anecdotal - the labels - mean nothing. It's the content that matters, only the content.

What forum are you reading?? Who the heck is forcing opinions on others? Expressing one's opinion does not equate to force. Who posted that veganism should be forced on every being on the planet? Please point me to that post because I must've missed it.

Why are you so angry?

I'm reading a forum where at least most people are with an open mind and are respectful and honest. It's why I'm here. It's what I am also like.

It is forcing opinion if you are not considering relevant aspects, and thus, with anger or a violent tone, assert a false conclusion as truth.

I have never said that someone has said that veganism should be forced on every being on the planet. I have never said this. Why would you say I've done something I have never done? This is disrespectful, again...
What I said was that you forced your opinion. Not that veganism should be forced onto everyone.

[knightofalbion]

Nummi: The thread is about how the livestock industry is destroying rainforest, contributing to desertification, wasting huge amount of grain and other natural resources, causing vast amounts of pollution, adding to greenhouse gas emissions - more than all forms of transport combined etc. etc.

The livestock industry is unsustainable at the present rate, never mind with an extra 40% of people tapping into the system by 2050 or so.

It is destroying the planet, not to mention all the animals that are getting slaughtered by the billion.

Okay, so you are new here, so we'll cut you some slack, but this is the 'Vegetarian and Vegan' section ...

Check out 'Why Humans Are Naturally Herbivorous' thread post 42

Nummi, there are no nutrients in animals that aren't found in plants. That's a fact.

[nummi]

Originally Posted by Everly

Nummi, there are no nutrients in animals that aren't found in plants. That's a fact.

There are those that are not found in plants. Please do some research.
And I have mentioned at least twice that it's not just about the nutrients that aren't found in plants. That most importantly it's about the quantities of the nutrients that are found also in plants.
You can leave aside the fact that some necessary nutrients are not present in plants. Leave that aside, don't even consider it. But do consider the fact that there are nutrients that cannot be obtained in the needed quantities from plants alone.

I tried to ask for explanations of the claims that "veganism is best for the planet" and "best for everyone". No one has given me an explanation. No one. Why?

In fact, the only one actually explaining anything regarding this is me alone... I know my side, I've explained my side. But your side? Why do you not explain yourself?

If you have never had the intention of explaining your claims and opinions that you have presented (as it seems to be), then why did you say anything at all?
Isn't this forum's purpose to learn about oneself and others and the world? To do this explanations of opinions are required. Looking into oneself and seeing the reasons why you think the way you do, and why you hold the opinions you do.

[nummi]

Originally Posted by knightofalbion

Nummi: The thread is about how the livestock industry is destroying rainforest, contributing to desertification, wasting huge amount of grain and other natural resources, causing vast amounts of pollution, adding to greenhouse gas emissions - more than all forms of transport combined etc. etc.

The livestock industry is not destroying rainforests.
The agricultural industry is. And industrial industry is (for paper and wood). And also merely because doing so is harmful to life on Earth.

The livestock industry is not contributing to desertification. The cutting down of trees is, and the planting of crops that are grown with dirt-life destroying chemicals is.
Grains are not wasted because of livestock industry, they are wasted because too much is planted. And either way, those grains are grown with harmful chemicals and toxins; eating those grains is very bad, health wise, for everyone.

Greenhouse gas emission is a lie. The gases that are in our atmosphere at present, in the past there have been much higher concentrations. For example CO2, it is necessary to plant life. There have been periods in the past, thousands of years ago, when CO2 was much higher than it is presently, and in those times Earth was greener because of it. Life was better, because plants were living better.
The gases that come from animals are not more than that what comes from motor vehicles or industrial plants. How much oil and coal is burned every day? Insane amounts, far more than any animals could fart in a whole year (though I don't know precise numbers, but it's obvious a lot more than animals can fart). How do they measure animal farts anyway...?

In livestock industry animals are held in small cages where they cannot move, where they cannot get sunshine, where they are fed grains (which is not their appropriate diet), they are fed and injected full of chemicals and toxins. Those animals should never be eaten, because just as plants grown with toxins and chemicals are harmful, so are animals grown the same way harmful when eaten.
Livestock industry is an abomination that has to stop. And it will, one day.

I suggest you do some unbiased research into all of this. You got some things right, but more things wrong.

Animals don't have to be grown in bad conditions. There is no need to grow them in bad conditions.
The reason they are grown so is because so doing their meat grows to be toxic and harmful. And so who eats that toxic and harmful meat will harm themselves in turn.

Animals raised in the appropriate conditions do not grow to have toxic and harmful meat.

The livestock industry is unsustainable at the present rate, never mind with an extra 40% of people tapping into the system by 2050 or so.

This is true, it is unsustainable.
Eating the meat that comes from it, it cannot even sustain those who eat it, as it is full of toxins and harmful chemicals and is nutritionally deficient. That meat is not food.

It is destroying the planet, not to mention all the animals that are getting slaughtered by the billion.

It is one thing that is harmful to life on this planet. Just one thing, and not the worst thing. Though it is extremely bad.
Just because so many animals are raised completely wrong, thus their meat is very harmful, does not mean all animal meat is harmful. Because there are animals raised in conditions right to them, animals who don't suffer pointlessly.

Agriculture is the worst. The forests that are cut down to make land for growing grains, and the chemicals sprayed onto those lands and those grains... Awful. All those chemicals and toxins remain there for decades, they leach into groundwater and pollute it. Those chemicals and toxins go into sea water, polluting it. They kill insects, microorganisms, birds, other animals. They harm humans who come into contact with them or eat those poisoned foods.
The negative effects of livestock industry don't come anywhere near to as bad as is modern agriculture. The amounts of land destroyed by agriculture is beyond insane. And then to consider how much of that agricultural produce goes to waste... which makes it all even more insane.

Okay, so you are new here, so we'll cut you some slack, but this is the 'Vegetarian and Vegan' section ...

That I'm new here has no significance.
I understand that this is "vegetarian and vegan" section. So it is exactly the right place to explain these things. Because explaining all this brings more light over what vegetarianism and veganism really are.

Check out 'Why Humans Are Naturally Herbivorous' thread post 42

Humans are naturally omnivores...

Eesh. I don't respond to nonsense.

I could not eat vegan or even vegetarian if I wanted to. I'm allergic to and/or intolerant of so many things in a nutritious vegan/vegetarian diet it's almost ridiculous. I do best on a diet with a lot of lean protein, beef, chicken and pork, a few carefully picked veggies and fruits, a few nuts, some grains, and very little by way of dairy or eggs. Beef is in fact so necessary to my diet that I literally will get anemic and have low platelets if I don't eat it. I am NOT physically adapted to eating much in terms of veggies and fruits and that. I can't get the nutrients I need from hardly any of that, and btw, that's been confirmed by medical testing. I just don't digest a whole lot of nutrients from veggies and fruits for some reason.

I eat rare beef several times a week and I remain healthy. I don't I end up in the ER. It's that simple. I could actually likely live mostly on meat if I had to. I can't say the same of the reverse. I basically see myself as a carnivore who can eat a few veggies and or some fruit now and again. My last roommate on the other hand she was the most natural vegan I've ever seen. She couldn't even hardly be in the same room with meat. It just nauseated her. You can imagine how tough it was for us to live together, shrug...

[nummi]

Originally Posted by Everly

Eesh. I don't respond to nonsense.

Why is what I have said nonsense?
An explanation would be respectful and the right thing to do, otherwise what you said is an insult.