Best products from r/DebateAVegan

First, thank you for your thoughts, antes, that was a real pleasure to read, really. Unfortunately, I don’t have true answers to your questions, because you’re asking tough questions and I’m not an authority at all, no degree, just an interested reader like yourself. But I can give you my attempts at answering them and you can reply.


>I'm under the impression that the more consistent a philosopher is in his philosophy (more rigid perhaps?) his ideas tend to result in different counterintuitive conclusions.

That really depends. I suspect you mean consistency as if it were based on a single value based on a single principle, like traditional utilitarianism. If one is committed to pluralism, though, that commitment might turn out differently. It’s also logically possible to be committed to folk ethics, common intuitions. Consistency in this regard means the opposite of what you say. For examples of this, see Ross and, to a lesser but more interesting degree, since he is a utilitarian, see Sidgwick.

But. Also check out metaphysics. Consistency in that field especially sometimes leads to to wildly unintuitive results. Famous papers like “I do not exist” aren’t uncommon. So you’re not off track here.



>Take for instance Bentham: He was probably the ultimate utilitarian who reduced the morality of all of our actions to the concept of value, through the balancing of our pains and pleasures. Surely he came up with his famous "Can they suffer?" precisely when he focused on living creatures' ability to experience those pains and pleasures.

Yes, I think so too. And, I think to their credit, the early utilitarians were challenged on this, about their theoretical willingness to include other animals into their moral calculations as if they were human. I forgot who it was (Mill?), but he said they, the utilitarians, were ready to stake it all on such an absurd result. Singer made good on this sentiment (that is, if you agree with him. His work, anyway, was better received.)




>Now, Bentham's rigid view didn't distinguish among different types of pleasures and also his ideas led him to come up with all sort of outrageous social norms, like creating workhouses where common citizens would forcibly take beggars to live and work so they wouldn't pester anyone on the streets and where their work would pay for their living expenses as well as to the one that kidnapped them for the inconvenience of taking them there in the first place. Not precisely something people remember him for...
So Mills came later and decided to humanize utilitarianism a bit, so he started incorporating other things that steered away from the exclusive idea of value which were based on virtues. Sandel says in this respect that:
Mill’s robust celebration of individuality is the most distinctive contribution of On Liberty. But it is also a kind of heresy. Since it appeals to moral ideals beyond utility—ideals of character and human flourishing—it is not really an elaboration of Bentham’s principle but a renunciation of it, despite Mill’s claim to the contrary.

.

>And the of course is the idea of lower and higher pleasures, in what the later are independent of our wants and desires and are simply based on our recognition of them being higher because of reasons of aesthetics and virtuosity.

I knew about Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures, but I haven’t read Mill so this is informative to me. Thanks!


>Mills's version of utilitarianism works around some of the Bentham's philosophy's softer spots, but he does it creating some ad hoc criteria that are completely subjective and at the expense of consistency.

I wonder, why do you say this?

Is it because Mill, according to your account, believes that “higher pleasures” and the virtues are divorced by what some have called “the resonance constraint”? That is, are we assuming these “higher” concerns aren’t necessarily connected to whatever our desires happen to be? Or that if they are so unconnected, they aren’t good?

If so, that rather begs the question against some opposing views in value theory (axiology). For a good book on this see https://www.amazon.com/Welfare-Happiness-Ethics-L-Sumner/dp/0198238789/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1519531157&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=welfare+happiness+and+etics

See also

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-point-of-view-of-the-universe-9780199603695?cc=us&lang=en&

Starting page 200

These books are free, btw, if you want them (do you know how to get them for free?)









>My first question is, how important is philosophical consistency in the first place?

It’s important. Contradiction is deadly. If you can prove someone’s views are inconsistent, contradictory, unintelligible, incoherent, then that’s a neon light way of proving their view doesn’t work or isn’t true.



>I love consistency, to me is tantamount to good thinking (I'm an extremely logical person) but I uppose that it can be inconvenient as well. Notice that it goes back to the "grey areas" of my exchange with the other poster and also with our previous conversation on situational ethics: I rather have people take a principled stance instead of saying something that too me sounds like "yeah maybe your right or wrong... but you know, shit happens... so, we'll see how things are in this specific case".

There might be something to say about situational ethics, though, at least as we discussed it. Again, this is what I cited:

Hi MrJKFrosty! You raise a few different points, so I will address them one by one. I'm not an ethical expert, just a very happy vegan. Here goes:

>It's natural for animals to eat meat, and therefor we shouldn't be exempt from that reality.

It's natural for some animals to eat meat. Human beings are able to eat many different kinds of food, including meat. We also can eat candy, beer, insects, human meat, shoe leather, etc. It would be very difficult to decide what is really a "natural" human diet. Historically, humans have eaten whatever is most available and provides the best nutritional/energy rewards. Some primates eat other animals, and others do not. As modern humans, we have the choice to eat what makes the most sense for us according to a variety of factors, not just broad-sweeping labels of what's natural.

>Yes, animals have less developed brains than humans and thus it's more difficult for them to make conscious decisions, but humans are not to blame for that. It's a consequence of billions of years of evolution, adaptation and natural selection. Sorry guys, but I'm not going to make things harder on myself just because I have the burden of being a more developed organism.

As you said earlier, humans are animals. Every other species on earth doesn't have less developed brains than humans - this is a lie humans tell ourselves to justify our treatment of other species. Our brains are remarkably similar to other vertebrates. They're just specialized for our environments. It's no more difficult for other species to make conscious decisions than it is for us. You are not a more developed organism than every other kind of animal. You are just a different kind of organism. Isn't it convenient that humans would place humans at the top of our intelligence hierarchies? Ranking intelligence by human standards will always put humans at the top. We're better at being humans than any other animal. We can win human intelligence tests any day of the week. There's a lot of really interesting reading you could do on this, but if you're interested specifically in the neurological question of how our brains compare to those of other species, check out Carnivore Minds.

>Many carnivorous animals are capable of safely consuming plants, while only a handful of species (certain lion species, for example) are physically incapable of eating vegetation.

I agree.

>In contrast, animals in the wild are brutally and relentlessly mauled apart with the claws and teeth their predator exhibits.

This is a generalization. Every carnivorous/predatory species hunts differently. Yes, some do cause their prey to suffer. Others don't.

For me, the existence of predator/prey relationships doesn't compel me to change my behavior one way or the other. My veganism tells me to eat as low on the food chain as possible in order to minimize suffering, because I can do so and thrive as a very healthy human. I eat delicious food every day, I feel great, I'm a healthy weight, and I get to pull myself out of the factory farming system altogether. I recognize that not all humans throughout history have been able to do that. Historically, humans have been both prey and predator. Now, our species acts as an apex predator. Why defend our factory farms when we have much simpler and kinder options readily available to us?

I appreciate the tangential benefits that ethical veganism provide to the environment by attacking industrialized farming practices, I believe it's a necessary discussion that is to be held. The problem I see with veganism - and I realize that this here is the irreconciliable difference between my ideas and those of veganism - is that anti-speciesism is at the heart of the lifestyle and the moral frameworks that support it. I that veganism's reliance on speciesism is counterproductive in our understanding of how to better confront pressing environmental issues that we are facing right now and to me, becomes a reductionist idea that pretends, inadequately, to explain every single facet of the relationship between humans and animals as the exclusive result of discriminations from the former towards the later. In fact, some vegans will say that veganism should be all about anti-speciesism (take a look at my exchange with gurduloo in another thread of this post).

A common vegan talking point against meat consumption is that we, as humans, have no innate desire to hunt, kill, or exploit other living beings for personal gain, but that those are learned traits that are not present in the vast majority of people, for which most prefer to pay others (farmers and the food industry) to do these acts for us. This vegan talking point says paying others to butcher animals for us is carnist and speciesist.

While at first it might make sense, this oversimplified explanation misses a profound discussion on division of labour, which as an economic concept has been approached and discussed since Plato's Republic but has much more recently been identified by Donald E. Brown as a "human universal": "those (empirically determined) features of culture, society, language, behavior, and psyche found in all ethnographically or historically recorded human societies [emphasis mine]".

https://www.amazon.com/Being-Humans-Anthropological-Particularity-Transdisciplinary/dp/3110169746

Brown states that the explanation for human universals might be probabilistic, however "the greater the number of societies that possess the pattern, and the more complex the pattern, the less the likelihood that the distribution of the pattern results from mere coincidence" and he details a few possible explanations for these universals, including them being being features of human nature itself:

>Ethology provides inspiration for the identification of species-typical behaviours and the study of the developmental processes (combining innateness and learning) that produce them (see, e.g. Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989; Seligman/Hager 1972; Tiger/Fox 1971). Sociobiology provides ultimate (i.e. evolutionary) explanations for such universals as kin altruism and the norm of reciprocity (Hamilton 1964; Trivers 1971).

Other philosophers expand on these ideas (see for instance August John Hoffman's "Philosophical Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology").

There might or not be evolutionary explanations for the division of labor, but discarding the cultural motivations and consequences of specialization that have brought along the delegating food production and distribution system to third parties, including those that allow the present socio-economic conditions for veganism to exist in the first place - increase in productivity and efficiency, development of technological innovations - seems completely inappropriate.

So a vegan says that we pay farmers of the food industry to do acts of killing for us to eat, and that is a proof of speciesism. I ask you, how can we even come up with sustainable alternatives to production of food and else (even vegan alternatives in this case) if we don't even understand the underlying elements that motivate why we humans act a certain way and how basic economy works?

Factory farming, which is a relatively recent phenomenom, has come to be as a natural consequence of the paradigms of classic economy: Needs are infinite and resources are scarce, economic entities are "rational", rational entities increase profits and reduce costs, the system will balance itself out. The consumerist model and the economic assumptions of classic liberal economy are the elements that we would really have to confront, and we are only going to be able to do that through a true understanding of concepts like "division of labor" and how it affects common used benchmarks that we use to measure economic value: productivity, efficiency, cost reduction, etc.

That's why within veganism you often see discussions about economy and lifestyle issues that people don't agree upon and they are going to give you contradicting answers.

Take for instance plastic and veganism, some vegans defending palm oil (I participated in that thread too countering OP's arguments), veganism and air-flight, almond milk as a substitute for dairy milk, etc.

>it's like people are playing some kind of game, and they just want you to join their side

I completely understand this, and it makes it difficult to figure out what's true. I do think that vegans sometimes stretch the truth in order to try to win converts, but I look at that as a misguided act of compassion, because the new vegans are going to learn eventually and then they may very well give up.

Personally, I believe that we can absolutely be healthy on a plant-based diet as long as we supplement B12, D3, and omega-3 fatty acids.The first two are incredibly cheap: This supplement costs $20 for a three-month supply of B12, on top of giving a host of other useful nutrients in case you're missing anything, and for $12 you can buy eight months' worth of D3.

As for omega-3 fatty acids, they are unfortunately on the more expensive side. A lot of vegans say that we can get sufficient EPA and DHA by eating ALA, such as from flaxseed and chia, and converting it ourselves. While there was a promising study saying that vegans convert ALA to EPA and DHA more efficiently that omnis, flax and chia on their own are probably not sufficient.

At the recommended dosages, supplementing omega-3 FAs will cost you about $15 a month. I usually buy Ovega-3, although I recently tried Tesla and liked it as well. We probably need more than 500g a day, since we're meant to consume a somewhat even ratio of omega-3 and omega-6, which would push the cost up to $30 a month or higher. I take three grams a day for mental health, although I doubt that most people would need that much.

As far as needing eggs and dairy to be healthy, I suspect that that's the work of animal industries spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Dairies have taken a huge hit lately as people switch to plant-based milk (now with 100% less pus!), and I think they'd gladly lie to the public in order to tourniquet their losses. For instance, we were all told that we need milk in order to have strong bones, right? But that's absolutely not true. First-world countries have higher rates of osteoporosis. And while I'm not sure how credible this is, the great Yourofsky believed that it was because animal protein is acidic, and to counteract that acidity our bodies draw calcium from our bones.

I'm going to wrap this up before I ramble any more, but in short, take B12 D12 and omega-3s and you will be all set!

*While it wasn't dairy, /r/vegan recently had a laughably transparent article about someone who was arguing not only that it was okay to wear fur, but that it was actually a moral imperative* to do so. It was such a moving piece that I immediately drove to a mink farm and snapped those little fuckers' necks myself, because god damn it, I'm a patriot

Read Eat Like You Care for 30+ common excuses and logical answers to them, and watch Mic the Vegan episodes that interest you. He is great at debating/debunking always cites his sources. For in-depth health stuff I would read How Not to Die as well as any Nutrition Facts videos that interest you, also with all sources cited.

After a while the excuses get so repetitive it becomes easy. And remember, any time you can replace the animal in question with a dog, it's usually a very easy way to get your point across:

-Should we drink dog milk?

-Should dogs be in zoos?

-Should we have dog-fur coats?

-Should we cage puppies for veal?

-Should we eat dogs because they have a smaller carbon footprint than cows?

Etc...

Also, remind your friend that "Vegan" is just a useful term to encompass your principals. You have made an ethical decision to not contribute to harming animals. Veganism just happens to be in line with those ethics and is a useful term for expressing them. If there were no word for "vegan" you would still be doing the same thing, you would just have to do a lot of detailed explaining at restaurants and dinner parties.

You've already admitted that you think moral action is instrumentally good toward the good end of efficient communal living, which again is a moral naturalist account. For someone close to your view see here:

https://www.amazon.com/Morality-Normativity-Society-David-Copp/dp/0195144015#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1521580328994


>What you simply fail to realize (in a spectacular manner) is that that description is not incompatible with living under sound ethical reasoning

"Sound ethical reasoning" on your view would be reducible to rational decision making toward the end of of efficient communal living. This is a moral naturalist account of what "sound ethical reasoning" would entail.


>Believing there is no INHERENT right and wrong does not stop one from deciding what is wrong and right, independently of what you think is universal or not.

You seem to think efficient communal living is intrinsically or inherently valuable, that is, if we are to make any sense of your claim that morality is instrumentally good toward the end of efficient communal living. If efficient communal living is also instrumentally valuable that just pushes the question down the road -- instrumental toward what good end? It has to stop somewhere, something has to be the source of this instrumental good, for that just is what it is to be "instrumentally good" (which you allow the existence of).

I don't see anything wrong with a well planned out raw vegan diet. They're not eating any unhealthy food at all, it's definitely a healthy diet. I'd prefer a raw vegan over any paleo/zero carb/atkins/low carb/blah blah carbs are cancer person any day. They'd be much healthier too, and raw vegan doesn't have to mean skinny, which is why I mentioned "a well planned out raw vegan diet".

There's truth to their arguments. For example, an enzyme called "myrosinase" in broccoli gets released when you cut/chew it (if you cut it you have to wait at least 40 minutes for the enzyme to do its job), basically cutting it or chewing it mixes the enzyme and "glucoraphanin" in the broccoli and the enzyme transforms glucoraphanin into "sulforaphane" which is the most powerful phytonutrient you can get from a food (this is one of the main reasons why everyone needs to eat several servings of cruciferous leafy greens every day!!, it's important, don't be a lazy person and just freaking eat some...)

I wouldn't argue for the destruction/absorption of enzymes or nutrients. If it was a problem then everyone eating cooked foods would have a ton of digestion and health problems and that's not true.

For example, people who only ate cooked broccoli still had sulforaphane present in their urine. How is that possible? If you cook broccoli it destroys the enzyme, and in the end that enzyme doesn't get to mix with glucoraphanin to transform it into sulforaphane. Well, it was found that the gut in your bacteria can do the same job. That's right, your gut bacteria has the exact same enzyme found in broccoli that makes it one of the healthiest foods on the planet! There was an issue though, it took 10 cups of cooked broccoli to get 1 cups worth of sulforaphane from raw broccoli, so it's still important to either include just a little bit of raw broc, or cut it up and leave it for a little bit (a good strategy is to cut up veggies up every day and leave em in the fridge until needed).

While cooking might destroy some nutrition it also makes a lot of it bioavailable. Some foods like broccoli had better nutrient absorption while it was steamed, but boiling lowered it (because it's in the water, so if you're making stew/soup it doesn't matter), and microwaving for 5 minutes destroyed a lot of nutrition (making it around 50% worse than raw broccoli).

>It seems based completely on woo and appeals to nature

You complain about fallacies.

>I've met a few raw vegans and at least two of them have eating disorders 'in their past'

Then you go associating a whole diet with some anecdotal evidence. Don't argue against fallacies with fallacies.

https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/135/10/2372/4669843 - can't blame the diet for the b12 deficiency. People should take responsibility.

>This study indicates that consumption of a strict raw food diet lowers plasma total cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations, but also lowers serum HDL cholesterol and increases tHcy concentrations due to vitamin B-12 deficiency.

Raw vegan diets do need to be well planned (just like any diet...) with some issues that you have to overcome.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15795346

>A RF vegetarian diet is associated with low bone mass at clinically important skeletal regions but is without evidence of increased bone turnover or impaired vitamin D status.

One group was eating a lot more calories though - If you eat a low amount of calories you're obviously going to lose size.

>Nutrient intakes differed significantly between the groups. The RF vegetarians ate a variety of raw vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, sprouted grains, and cereals, dressed with olive oil (1285-2432 kcal/d; approximately 9.1% of calories from protein, 43.2% from fat, and 47.7% from complex carbohydrates). All of them strictly avoided cooked and processed foods containing trans-fatty acids, highly glycemic foods, and foods of animal origin. Their mean daily dietary intakes of calcium and vitamin D (calciferol) were low, 579 ± 260 mg/d and 16 ± 36 U/d, respectively. The control group ate usual American diets containing foods of plant and animal origin (1976-3537 kcal/d; approximately 17.9% of calories from protein, 32.1% from fat, and 50.0% from carbohydrates). Their mean daily dietary intakes of calcium and vitamin D were 1093 ± 394 mg/d and 348 ± 192 U/d, respectively.

But...

>Surprisingly, serum C-telopeptide of type I collagen11 and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase,12 well-accepted markers of bone resorption and formation, respectively, were not significantly different between the 2 groups. This finding provides evidence that these RF vegetarians are in a steady state in regard to their bone turnover and suggests that their low bone mass may be due to a transient increase in bone degradation or decrease in bone synthesis that occurred during the early adaptive weight loss response to the RF diet. Although low bone mass is a risk factor for fracture, bone quality also plays a role.13 It is therefore possible that RF vegetarians with a low bone mass may not have an increased incidence of fractures because of good bone quality. Clearly, it will be necessary to follow up a large number of RF vegetarians for a sufficiently long period to determine whether they have an increased risk of developing fractures.

I'd say almonds should be eaten daily for raw vegans, because they're a great calcium source, and not only calcium, they have a good nutritional profile over all.

If you're truly interested in the science of raw vegan diets, then here's a book with the best up to date research:

"Becoming raw: the essential guide to raw vegan diets"

If you're not interested in books, I'd recommend: One of the best doctors on earth, mister Dr. Michael Greger

I lived out of a vehicle while vegan for a while.

​

It's better to get some type of cooker. If you don't want to fuck with propane and fuels, you can use a little 12v cooker like this one: https://www.amazon.com/Gideon-Heated-Electric-12-Volt-Portable/dp/B072QKTGM9/

​

You can cook oatmeal and other basic things with that 12v stove easily.

​

If you don't want to use any type of cooker, it's going to be more challenging. Granola, nuts, fruit, and raw veggies are gonna be your best friend. Might even be a good idea to buy some meal replacement powder like soylent. I also used to regularly use those food bars at grocery stores. Some fast food places like chinese restaurants even sell small side orders of cooked rice and/or beans. I highly suggest getting some type of cooker though as it makes everything easier. Also might be a good idea to look into food kitchens.

Relevant studies:

• Vegetarian versus Meat-Based Diets for Companion Animals (2016) - "Cats and dogs maintained on vegetarian diets may be healthy—including those exercising at the highest levels—and indeed may experience a range of health benefits."
  
• Cats and Carbohydrates: The Carnivore Fantasy? (2017) - "Because of the discrepancy in carbohydrate content between a natural prey diet and currently available traditional commercial cat foods, excess carbohydrate intake is often considered the primary cause of feline obesity [4,8,9]. It has been postulated that excessive amounts of dietary carbohydrates cause an overproduction of insulin resulting in excess fat deposition ... Nguyen et al. and Backus et al. confirmed increased weight gain and expansion of fat mass when cats had free choice access to a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet ... in comparison to a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet ... Coradini et al. also concluded that a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet .. resulted in increased fat deposition and greater weight gain when fed ad libitum compared to a high-carbohydrate, low-protein diet ... Based on the research discussed above, carbohydrates do not appear to be the biggest concern in the development of obesity. Overfeeding and thereby consumption of excess calories of any macronutrient is a much more important risk factor for obesity and should be the main focus of obesity prevention."
  
• VEGAN NUTRITION OF DOGS AND CATS (2014) - "It is the intention of this paper to provide general information on vegan nutrition of dogs and cats and furthermore to deal with how an adequate nutrient intake can be met with only plant based feeds" - Master's thesis from the Veterinary University of Vienna (translated from German).
  
  
  More : https://www.reddit.com/r/veganpets/wiki/faq
  
  
  

  Is the science settled on vegan pet diets? What are the benefits and risks?
  

  
  More research definitely needs to be done in this field. The provided studies show evidence that vegan diets can be healthy for dogs, cats, and other pets, but many of those studies were small: more evidence is required to prove it. However, it is difficult, expensive, and time consuming to gather enough scientific research to "prove" something. Just look at all the confusion in human nutrition research, which receives many times more funding and interest than veterinary nutrition research ever will.
  
  Does that mean we should avoid vegan pet diets in the meantime? Ultimately this is a personal decision, but this subreddit's stance is a resounding NO. Let's create a simple cost/benefit analysis to help make this decision.
  
  

  Benefits and Support
  

  
  

• Most, if not all, currently available peer reviewed research supports vegan pet diets as a healthy food source
  
• There are many reasons to believe vegan pet food may be healthier than meat-based pet food, even if all the studies have not yet been performed to prove it
  
• There are at least 23 different suppliers of vegan pet foods, many of which only provide vegan pet foods. How could these companies stay in business if all their customers became ill?
  
• All of the minerals, vitamins, amino acids, and other additives that go into vegan pet foods go into regular pet foods too.
  
• Thousands of cats and dogs have already gone vegan, as evidenced by their social media presence
  
• "through their diet, [cats and dogs] constitute about 25–30% of the environmental impacts from animal production in terms of the use of land, water, fossil fuel, phosphate, and biocides." - Source
  
• A cow, pig, chicken, fish, or other animal died to provide byproducts for your pets meal. How is your pet different from them?
  
  

  Risks
  

  
  

• Vegetables are less acidic than meat. Basic food may cause urinary crystal issues in cats, especially male cats. Most vegan cat foods are acidified (just like regular cat food), minimizing the risk of this issue. It's still smart to monitor your cat when switching over.
  
• Vegan diets feel risky to many. Some people claim that obligate carnivores, like cats, cannot survive on a properly formulated, nutritionally balanced "unnatural" vegan diet. In Zimbabwe, 164,000 crocodiles (obligate carnivores) are commercially raised on a vegan diet, it has been found cats digest >93% of the starches found in kibble, and cats readily digest the amino acids that are currently added to meat-based cat foods. In meta-analysis, cats have been found to do well on vegan diets.
  
• To be continued?
  
  There's a lot of potential good to come from a pet's vegan diet, even for their health. Any issues or risks that might arise can be monitored, discovered, and immediately reversed by returning to the pet's regular diet. Lots of benefit, low risk.
  

To the extent that it's effective. No matter how passionate you are about something, it's wasted effort if your message pushes people away. Unfortunately, it's often the people closest to us who are most defensive about these kinds of things. I tend to be more passive with friends and family, answering questions when asked, sharing food, and just trying to lead by example.

When doing public activism (leafleting, tabling, protesting), I can be a little more straightforward/bold. Even still, using statements that are personal ("This was my experience") and factual (no exaggeration!) tends to be a lot more effective than saying "you should" or otherwise telling people what to do.

For more information about how to be an effective advocate, here are some good resources:

• Striking at the Roots: A Practical Guide to Animal Activism by Mark Hawthorne
  
• Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini
  
• 10 Habits of Highly Effective Advocates - from Colleen Patrick-Goudreau's Food For Thought podcast
  

How Not To Die has been an amazing resource for me in my last 1.5 years on the vegan diet. I trust Michael Gregor and 100% recommend an algae-based Omega 3 supplement for that good EPA and DHA.

Here are the 2.5 supplements that I have been taking to achieve my satisfactory blood test results:

Multivitamin:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001GAOHVG/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&th=1

Omega 3:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B074N5JZK8/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

D3 - I only take this in the wintertime.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CYA8HD6/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1

There are quite a lot of different species of bugs that are edible. And they have a lot of protein. There are plans to grow bugs and sell them instead of other animal meat in a form of sausages.
This would save a lot of water, and other precious resources. And to be honest it would be a lot better than almonds for the enviroment
I would not eat alive bugs, and raw bugs. But if they are made in edible form or in a snack form for example: Crickets

Then yes I would eat. Just like I would not eat an alive cow or raw chicken on purpose.

> Except the ethics and stuff.

Isn't amazing how taking something out of context can completely change the intended meaning? I never said " Me only eating meat that I hunt is doing the same thing that a vegan diet would do." I said " Me only eating meat that I hunt is doing the same thing that a vegan diet would do, in terms of supply and demand." Of course hunting does not fit into a vegan diet. But it does have the same impact on the meat industry, because I am not buying meat. The money I spend on hunting goes to the government.

> I'm really surprised you haven't factored in the cost of the gun, the ammo, your time, lodging, equipment, processing, transport, refrigeration...

Most of these costs are 1 time payments. As a vegan, I am sure you have spent money on cooking equipment, like knifes, blenders, cutting boards, dishwashers, bowls, ect. that are not included in the actual cost of being vegan.

Still, to answer your question I will give you some price range ideas. Almost all of my things are hand-me-downs, but let's pretend you are a new hunter.

Gun: $250 This is for a basic gun, but this is a 1 time payment and can last many lifetimes if cleaned after every use.

Ammo: $15 20 rounds can last 2+ seasons. A hunter who is careful about shot placement will use 4 rounds or less per hunt. 2 hunts a year, 2 and a half years worth of ammo. Costs can also be cut down by reloading.

Time: Most hunters go hunting 2-3 days before the season starts to go camping. Hunting trips are more like camping trips than you realize. Most hunters, my self included, love to spend their time hunting. The time spent hunting is positive for most people.

Travel: If you are an out of state hunter, it gets costly, yes. In state hunting, travel can be extremely short. My elk camp is 6 hours away, so yeah there's that. But my deer hunting camp is literally 10 minutes from me.

Lodging: $91 Another 1 time purchase that can last 15+ years if treated correctly. This tent is plenty big enough for 2-3 people. In the case of my deer camp, I sleep at home, for free.

Equipment: Not sure what this means. I mean for knifes you can get dirt cheap ones any where. You could even use a kitchen knife. Food is typically the same price as it would be if I went to a grocery store to eat at home. Knifes are also 1 time purchase things.

Processing: $4 I mean, other than butcher paper and a meat grinder this is free. You can pay to have a butcher do it for you, but it is impracticable for cost savings.

Transport: Biggest cost really. Depends on where you are hunting. I mean you spend money on gas going camping or on a vacation, and since hunting is really just that, it doesn't really matter to me.

Refrigeration: I have 3 freezers, so this wasn't really a cost for me, but you can find cheap used fridges for less than $100. This is another 1 time purchase.

So all together: Less than $700 for all costs. These are all one time costs that only need to be payed for once. Let's say transportation is another $200 a year. That is still less than $1 per pound of meat. Obviously you are not successful every year, which I guess could add to costs, but the point of hunting isn't to kill something every year. It is to get out into the woods and make an attempt to feed your family.

Zoos yes and quite obviously. “Pets” are more difficult. Obviously breeding and trading dogs, cats and hamsters, etc. would be off the table. But what about the dogs cats and hamsters that are still here? Shouldn’t we care for them?

Two main options: (1) Care for the ones that are here as well as possible, but don’t let them reproduce. Let them cease to exist as a species. (2) Incorporate them in the political community. Take guidance from theories addressing the case how the interests of humans who have limited abilities to communicate and organize themselves can be fairly incorporated into the institutions of our societies.

Under both approaches there are numerous complexities: Assuming the view of “animals as persons”, one would probably reconsider the kind of responsibilities carers would have towards their animal companions. Having a dog killed for minor reasons other than self defense, like because he craps on your furniture, because you don’t want (or can’t) afford medical care or because a new romantic partner doesn’t like her would be off the table. Probably we should have public institutions who support people who struggle with or fail at their role as a caregiver.

One additional complexity are carnivore animals. Dogs can usually thrive on a plant based diet. Cats only sometimes. Assuming a vegan diet is infeasible for some cat, this raises a dilemma: Is raising and killing some animals to feed others O.K.? The hardness of this dilemma is part of what makes option (1) above so attractive to many vegans.

An influential vision of option (2) was written down by Donaldson and Kymlicka, while Francione wrote influentially on abolishing “pets” as a special case of abolishing animal exploitatoin in general. Torres and Benton influentially wrote on animal rights and the critique of the political economy.

> consumption = murder which I find incredibly flimsy for the reasons you outline above

I agree, this is regrettable, mostly wrong, or at least misleading and often elitist. I mentioned above, that I’d say though that it’s an idea with a rich cultural history that extends way beyond veganism. To make matters worse, I think this interpretation of veganism is mainstream and increasing in popularity. It is interesting though to compare the earliest definition and the current official one with this distinction in mind. While I think both are unfortunately ambiguous on the point “consumption vs politics”, I’d say the current is more suggestive towards the consumerist interpretation.

A case that I also find quite interesting is the historical movement of “ethical shoppers against (human) slavery”.

Cool. Thanks for clarifying. Here's a book that some psychology friends of mine have told me is a good rundown on the state of the art regarding whether any nonhuman animals have consciousness, reasoning abilities, or other fancy cognitive or conative capacities:

https://www.amazon.com/Routledge-Handbook-Philosophy-Animal-Handbooks/dp/1138822884