Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
oh brother wrote:
> Jonathan Ball > wrote in > hlink.net: > > >><much silliness snipped> >> >>>>>No it isn't. >>>> >>>>Yes, it is. >>> >>> >>>No it isn't. >> >>Yes, it is. "veganism" is founded on hatred. >> > > <more silliness snipped> > > Hmm... Let's see, I am vegan because I hate having high blood pressure. No. You are perhaps following a strictly vegetarian diet for health reasons, but unless you harbor goofy "animal rights" sentiments, you aren't "vegan" by definition. > No animal products in my diet, no blood pressure meds -> 110/70 > Meat and/or cheese, WITH blood pressure meds -> 155/110 > Yup, must be hatred. > > And, btw, although there are collateral deaths in the production of non- > animal based foods, the number of collateral deaths involved in the > production of animal based foods is magnitudes higher, due to the simple > fact that it takes significantly more agricultural resources (farmland, > etc.) to support animals that feed people than it takes agricultural > resources to feed people directly. > > ...back to lurking I go... |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
don't bother wrote:
>><much silliness snipped> >> >>>>>No it isn't. >>>> >>>>Yes, it is. >>> >>> >>>No it isn't. >> >>Yes, it is. "veganism" is founded on hatred. > > <more silliness snipped> > > Hmm... Let's see, I am vegan because I hate having high blood pressure. > No animal products in my diet, no blood pressure meds -> 110/70 > Meat and/or cheese, WITH blood pressure meds -> 155/110 You could accomplish similar reduction with low-fat or non-fat meats and dairy products, some exercise, and stress reduction. Veganism is not listed as a cure for hypertension. You're "evidence" is purely anecdotal, not to mention extreme (your extremist mindset is probably why you were hypertensive in the first place). > Yup, must be hatred. > > And, btw, although there are collateral deaths in the production of non- > animal based foods, the number of collateral deaths involved in the > production of animal based foods is magnitudes higher, due to the simple > fact that it takes significantly more agricultural resources (farmland, > etc.) to support animals that feed people than it takes agricultural > resources to feed people directly. Applesranges. You don't eat grass. Cows, sheep, and deer do. It does nothing to create an imbalance of precious grains, soy, or water to consume grazed animals. The meat from grazed animals, btw, is much healthier for you than grain-fed. It's higher in omega 3s and lower in saturated fats. The professor named in the following release says, "[T]he low fat ratio of wild ruminants and grass-fed beef is good news for people who need to reduce their cholesterol." ---- Cave Men Diets Offer Insights To Today's Health Problems, Study Shows WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. Eat meat. That's the dietary advice given by a team of scientists who examined the dietary role of fat in a study that combined nutritional analysis with anthropologic research about the diets of ancient hunter-gatherer societies. But there's a catch: To be as healthy as a cave man you have to eat certain kinds of fish, wild game such as venison, or grass-fed meat such as beef. The research was conducted by Bruce Watkins, professor and university faculty scholar at Purdue University and director of the Center for Enhancing Foods to Protect Health, and anthropologist Loren Cordain, professor of health and exercise science at Colorado State University and author of "The Paleo Diet" (John Wiley & Sons, 2002). Watkins and Cordain conducted detailed chemical analysis of the meats people ate 10,000 years ago and compared those results to the most common meat people eat today. They found that wild game, such as venison or elk meat, as well as grass-fed beef, contain a mixture of fats that are actually healthy for you, and, the researchers say, lower cholesterol and reduce other chronic disease risk. Recent studies have indicated that a healthy diet should contain a balance of essential fats. The two types of most concern are omega-6 and omega-3, and both are essential for proper nutrition. Omega-3 fat, which is often found in high levels in certain fish, has been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, but too much omega-3 can increase the risk of stroke. Omega-6 fat also is an essential fat, but too much omega-6 in the diet can contribute to inflammatory responses associated with of chronic disease. According to Watkins, the analysis done at Purdue found that wild elk, deer and antelope from the Rocky Mountains region have greater amounts of omega-3 fatty acids and a lower and therefore healthier ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids in muscle meats, compared to grain-fed beef. "Both grass-fed steers and the wild ruminants have a ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids slightly above two in meat. In other words, two parts omega-6 to one part omega-3," Watkins says. "That ratio is much lower than the ratios of 5-to-1 to 13-to-1 reported in previous studies for grain-fed steers." Watkins says the low fat ratio of wild ruminants and grass-fed beef is good news for people who need to reduce their cholesterol. "The fatty acid ratio in wild ruminants is consistent with the recent American Heart Association recommendation to increase the consumption of omega-3 fatty acids found in certain fish in order to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease," he says. The results of the study were published in the January issue of European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Purdue University Office of Research Programs and the Pope & Young Club, a national conservation organization. Analyzing the foods that people ate 10,000 years ago is not a flight of scientific esoterica. The researchers say this finding has important implications for what we eat today. Although 10,000 years ago predates all modern civilizations, it is a small blip in the evolutionary timeline of humans. Some nutritionists believe that by studying what people ate in the Paleolithic Era, also known as the Old Stone Age, they can determine the proper mix of foods for modern man. Cordain says anthropological nutritionists such as himself have studied the few isolated hunter-gatherer societies such as the Nanamiut of Alaska, the Aborigines of Australia and the !Kung of Africa that remained into the 20th century and found that modern maladies, such as heart disease, high cholesterol, obesity and diabetes, are rare in these populations. "Over the past several decades, numerous studies have found that indigenous populations have low serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels," Cordain says. This is despite the fact that their diets aren't going to reap praise from many modern nutritionists. "Previous studies by myself and colleagues had found that nearly all 97 percent of the world's hunter-gatherer societies would have exceeded recommended guidelines for fat," Cordain says. Watkins says although this may be surprising to many people, it fits exactly with what research is showing about the importance of specific types of fat in the diet. "Current research is showing that, with the decline of fat in the diet, the amount of fat isn't as important as the relative amounts, or ratio, of specific fats in your diet. It's a qualitative issue, not a quantitative issue," he says. "By eating more of the good fat you can lower your cholesterol and reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease." This balance of fats has changed dramatically in the past century, he adds. "Generally, our modern diets, especially in the past 100 years, have changed to where we're consuming excess amounts of omega-6 fat. Omega-6 is found in high levels in many of the oil seed crops that we consume," Watkins says. "It's also found in the meat of the livestock that eat these grains, as this study shows." Watkins adds that this research suggests new ways for potential diversification in agricultural production. "Our study points out that there are opportunities for ranchers and producers to develop niche markets for grass-fed beef that fit consumer interest in beef products that deliver special nutrients," Watkins says. "There may also be branding opportunities for products like the Laura's Lean Beef Products." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0205080142.htm ---- > ...back to lurking I go... Shadow person. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle; "veganism" doesn't necessarily causeleast harm
oh brother wrote:
> Jonathan Ball > wrote in > hlink.net: > > >><much silliness snipped> >> >>>>>No it isn't. >>>> >>>>Yes, it is. >>> >>> >>>No it isn't. >> >>Yes, it is. "veganism" is founded on hatred. >> > > <more silliness snipped> > > Hmm... Let's see, I am vegan because I hate having high blood pressure. > No animal products in my diet, no blood pressure meds -> 110/70 > Meat and/or cheese, WITH blood pressure meds -> 155/110 > Yup, must be hatred. > > And, btw, although there are collateral deaths in the production of non- > animal based foods, the number of collateral deaths involved in the > production of animal based foods is magnitudes higher, due to the simple > fact that it takes significantly more agricultural resources (farmland, > etc.) to support animals that feed people than it takes agricultural > resources to feed people directly. This, of course, is false. As a lot of meat is currently produced, more agricultural resources are used. There is, of course, no requirement that meat be produced in that way. In particular, there is no requirement that YOU consume meat that is produced in that way. You could eat grass-fed beef, wild game, and wild line- or net-caught fish, and in so doing, you could collaterally kill fewer animals than you do at present with your strictly vegetarian diet. The fundamental flaw with "veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is manifold: - no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem requiring a response - doesn't solve the alleged problem, even in terms of a personal response to it, let alone societally --> "vegans" continue to cause animal death - is predicated on an invalid *comparative* morality |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"oh brother" > wrote in message . 32... > Jonathan Ball > wrote in > hlink.net: > > > <much silliness snipped> > >>>> > >>>>No it isn't. > >>> > >>>Yes, it is. > >> > >> > >> No it isn't. > > > > Yes, it is. "veganism" is founded on hatred. > > > <more silliness snipped> > > Hmm... Let's see, I am vegan because I hate having high blood pressure. > No animal products in my diet, no blood pressure meds -> 110/70 > Meat and/or cheese, WITH blood pressure meds -> 155/110 > Yup, must be hatred. > > And, btw, although there are collateral deaths in the production of non- > animal based foods, the number of collateral deaths involved in the > production of animal based foods is magnitudes higher, ================ really, you have a cite for that little tidbit, or are you just barfing the same old vegan propaganda? due to the simple > fact that it takes significantly more agricultural resources (farmland, > etc.) to support animals that feed people than it takes agricultural > resources to feed people directly. ================= Yep, just spewing the same old propaganda. Where then, if meat is automatically causing more animal death and suffering, does eating game fall on your scale? > > ...back to lurking I go... ================= You should, at least until you gather some real facts... |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
rick etter wrote:
> "oh brother" > wrote in message > . 32... > >>Jonathan Ball > wrote in rthlink.net: >> >> >>><much silliness snipped> >>> >>>>>>No it isn't. >>>>> >>>>>Yes, it is. >>>> >>>> >>>>No it isn't. >>> >>>Yes, it is. "veganism" is founded on hatred. >>> >> >><more silliness snipped> >> >>Hmm... Let's see, I am vegan because I hate having high blood pressure. >>No animal products in my diet, no blood pressure meds -> 110/70 >>Meat and/or cheese, WITH blood pressure meds -> 155/110 >>Yup, must be hatred. >> >>And, btw, although there are collateral deaths in the production of non- >>animal based foods, the number of collateral deaths involved in the >>production of animal based foods is magnitudes higher, > > ================ > really, you have a cite for that little tidbit, or are you just barfing the > same old vegan propaganda? I'm willing to grant that it's true, as far as the food most people actually eat. Most people who eat meat eat commercially produced beef, chicken, pork, lamb, and so on, and it is true that the same amount of calories obtained from the meat of those animals could be obtained from just a fraction of the vegetable material that is fed to the animals. However, it is beside the point, or rather the points. The first point is, as you note below, if he wants to consume a "least harm" diet, he isn't obliged to look only at commercially produced meat if he is willing to look at meat at all; there is game and also "boutique" meat, such as grass-fed beef. Second, even if he insists on eschewing (rather than chewing, heh heh) meat, it is INADEQUATE to meet the ethical requirement that "vegans" impose on themselves. That requirement is either strong - no animal deaths caused by "lifestyle" - or possibly weak - "minimizing" or "reducing" animal deaths. If it is strong, then all "vegans" fail. If the requirement is weak, then they *still* fail, because there is no coherent stopping rule: EVERY "vegan" could "reduce" or "minimize" still further, but none does. > > > >> due to the simple >>fact that it takes significantly more agricultural resources (farmland, >>etc.) to support animals that feed people than it takes agricultural >>resources to feed people directly. > > ================= > Yep, just spewing the same old propaganda. Where then, if meat is > automatically causing more animal death and suffering, does eating game fall > on your scale? > > >>...back to lurking I go... > > ================= > You should, at least until you gather some real facts... > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
On 4 Jan 2004 16:30:24 -0800, (Purple) wrote:
wrote in message >. .. >> On 3 Jan 2004 19:46:19 -0800, (Purple) wrote: >> >> >I'm no vegan and I can see that testing on animals for >> >something as trivial as a new, slightly improved cosmetic >> >is morally very wrong. >> >> Do you think it would be morally correct to just put it >> on the market and see what happens? > >Not if there is a significant risk to human health because it >hasn't been adequately tested. Tested how? >If new ingredients can not be >developed without animal testing we should just make do with >what he already have. __________________________________________________ _______ If scientists could replace animal research and testing with methods which did not need to use animals then they would. There are several reasons for this: * Scientists do not like or want to use animals in research. Like the vast majority of people they do not want to see animals suffer unnecessarily. In fact less than 10% of biomedical research uses animals. Unfortunately for much of the work involved in biomedical research there are as yet no working alternative techniques that would allow us to stop using animals. * Biomedical research is producing thousands of new compounds, which may have potential as new drugs. It is much more efficient to screen these compounds using rapid non-animal techniques to test their effectiveness and toxicity. * The very high standards of animal welfare and care required of British research establishments are a contributory factor in making animal research very expensive. If scientists can develop alternatives to using animals it will allow them to divert their limited research funds to other areas of research. [...] http://www.bret.org.uk/noan.htm ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ [...] From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction. Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition, toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild animals. In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were all developed to help human couples, but today they also are regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species. [...] http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH: Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and adults this year. Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't be insulin dependent -- they would be dead. 60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood pressure. Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia. More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye this year because cataract surgery would be impossible. Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques. The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be confined to wheelchairs. 7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral palsy, now preventable through phototherapy. There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of patients with end-stage renal disease. Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain. Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many others would join the two million people already killed by the disease. Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have died from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies and more than 200 other diseases now preventable thanks to animal research. http://www.ampef.org/research.htm ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle; "veganism" doesn't necessarily cause least harm
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote
> oh brother wrote: > > And, btw, although there are collateral deaths in the production of non- > > animal based foods, the number of collateral deaths involved in the > > production of animal based foods is magnitudes higher, due to the simple > > fact that it takes significantly more agricultural resources (farmland, > > etc.) to support animals that feed people than it takes agricultural > > resources to feed people directly. > > This, of course, is false. As a lot of meat is > currently produced, more agricultural resources are > used. There is, of course, no requirement that meat be > produced in that way. In particular, there is no > requirement that YOU consume meat that is produced in > that way. You could eat grass-fed beef, wild game, and > wild line- or net-caught fish, and in so doing, you > could collaterally kill fewer animals than you do at > present with your strictly vegetarian diet. > > The fundamental flaw with "veganism" as an ethical > response to a perceived ethical problem is manifold: > > - no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem > requiring a response > - doesn't solve the alleged problem, even in terms of a > personal response to it, let alone societally --> > "vegans" > continue to cause animal death > - is predicated on an invalid *comparative* morality Good post. Speaking of requiring a response, since you have left very little room for equivocation, I predict that "oh brother" will not be responding. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
wrote in message >. ..
> On 4 Jan 2004 16:30:24 -0800, (Purple) wrote: > > wrote in message >. .. > >> On 3 Jan 2004 19:46:19 -0800, (Purple) wrote: > >> > >> >I'm no vegan and I can see that testing on animals for > >> >something as trivial as a new, slightly improved cosmetic > >> >is morally very wrong. > >> > >> Do you think it would be morally correct to just put it > >> on the market and see what happens? > > > >Not if there is a significant risk to human health because it > >hasn't been adequately tested. > > Tested how? > > >If new ingredients can not be > >developed without animal testing we should just make do with > >what he already have. > __________________________________________________ _______ > If scientists could replace animal research and testing > with methods which did not need to use animals then > they would. > > There are several reasons for this: [snip] All irrelevent. I was talking specifically about cosmetics testing. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
On 15 Jan 2004 16:13:58 -0800, (Purple) wrote:
wrote in message >. .. >> On 4 Jan 2004 16:30:24 -0800, (Purple) wrote: >> >> wrote in message >. .. >> >> On 3 Jan 2004 19:46:19 -0800, (Purple) wrote: >> >> >> >> >I'm no vegan and I can see that testing on animals for >> >> >something as trivial as a new, slightly improved cosmetic >> >> >is morally very wrong. >> >> >> >> Do you think it would be morally correct to just put it >> >> on the market and see what happens? >> > >> >Not if there is a significant risk to human health because it >> >hasn't been adequately tested. >> >> Tested how? >> >> >If new ingredients can not be >> >developed without animal testing we should just make do with >> >what he already have. >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> If scientists could replace animal research and testing >> with methods which did not need to use animals then >> they would. >> >> There are several reasons for this: > >[snip] > >All irrelevent. I was talking specifically about cosmetics >testing. How do you think they should be tested, if you think they should? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bung fell in Carboy.....Harm wine??? | Winemaking | |||
One Meal high in fats can harm Health | General Cooking | |||
Atkins 'can harm heart in a fortnight' | General Cooking | |||
Atkins 'can harm heart in a fortnight' | General Cooking | |||
vegetarians and least harm | Vegan |