VWFringe said:
.... that's some pretty powerful sounding and down to earth stuff, or seems to be.
That's what I think. He's clearly a clever, effective, convincing and powerful orator. But he's trying to use other arguments to support his personal philosophical stance on our relationship with animals and stop what he percieves to be morally wrong, rather than physically wrong. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to me that many of his arguments are actually supported by conclusive science, and so not quite as down to earth as it seems. In fairness though I didn't have an hour and a half to spare, so only dipped in and out for 10 min (hasn't stopped me making my judgement though- he lost me on one of his other vids whe he concluded "humans are the devil"
). But to me the little of his quasi 'science' content in his argument that I saw I thought to be little more than propaganda. Lots of theory and personal conjecture presented as fact to support his preconceived conclusion. Don't forget the objective of his speech is to stop people using animals/eating meat, not to include the potential health benefits of consuming a quantity of meat in a balanced diet. There is a wealth of information out there on some of the deficiencies that
can develop in an
unbalanced vegetarian diet, but that doesn't seem to be addressed (I'm presuming actually- as i said, i didn't watch it all)
I just don't believe we have the conclusive advanced dietary long term understanding that the vegetarian/vegan movement sometimes indicate, and so often there's conjecture presented as fact and law. It's just not that easy to evidence a causal relationship over the lifetime of people. Our diets and lifestyles are just so varied, and intertwined. Often people with a bad restricted diet also lead an unhealthy lifestyle in lots of other ways, and vice versa. Very difficult from a analytical perspective to separate these factors.
If things were that simple and clear cut we would already have a nice simple statistic of vegetarians live on average
x years longer than omnivorous humans. Whereas actually some research has actually indicated the exact opposite (and some too that claims they do).
The animal rights issue is a different one, totally separate, and very personal to each individual conscience. Nothing to do with our physiology and metabolism. But it is a BIG issue- some animals are no doubt treated appallingly. But for me not to eat animals because of the way
some are treated is the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I live surrounded by Highland mountain cattle and sheep, and they live a pretty good life out in the hills and it's just one stressful day at the end of their lives that's not nice (the mummy cows cry when their calves are taken to slaughter-
just the separation, they don't know why). It's pretty sad, but the cycle of life. It could easilly have been another predator (I have a Golden Eagle nest under 200yds from my window- the farmer reckons it's had some lambs this year). I have no qualms from an animal rights perspective in eating those 'free range' animals.
VWFringge said:
t's a pretty powerful statement that we could end world hunger, cut oil consumption globally by one half, and stop most of the climate change due to mankind (and end all fear of e-coli outbreaks) if we just stopped eating meat and wearing leather.
I accept this rationale completely, and that one day might be the reason for humans to stop eating meat. It's just not efficient enough on an overpopulated world. And there WILL come a time that this is a serious issue, even if not quite just yet.
But it wouldn't 'end world hunger'. Most certainly not, and it's disingenuous to claim it would (not saying you, VW, I'm guessing this is a claim from the speech). People are starving because we produce food animals? Bullshit. At the moment it's not production that's the problem, but distribution. We can still produce plenty enough food to feed the 6.8 billion we have, but it's just not going to the right places.
Howeverr, whilst I agree with the economic principals, I'm not sure I agree about the magnitude- cutting oil production by half- that's an awful lot- It seems a gross oversimplification of our global energy economy- i reckon it hasn't accounted properly for alternative requirements. eg will need lots of fertiliser to produce all these vegetables- no more farm animals=no more animal based fertilisers- means more need for alternative chemical fertilisers- which is resource intensive to produce= lots of oil.
But I don't have any fact to back me up so I'm just guessing on this. Still, a 50% reduction just seems too much.
Fuck I wrote a lot. Sorry. Used my whole lunch break, plus some. And I still need to eat. One of the advantage of working from home i suppose.