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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2004, 08:51 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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...



  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2004, 10:07 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2004, 10:21 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #124 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2004, 11:57 PM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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...



  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-01-2004, 12:11 AM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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...






  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-01-2004, 12:49 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-01-2004, 08:06 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bung fell in Carboy.....Harm wine??? [email protected] Winemaking 3 09-11-2007 03:08 PM
One Meal high in fats can harm Health sara shh General Cooking 0 04-06-2007 12:49 PM
Atkins 'can harm heart in a fortnight' Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD General Cooking 34 30-11-2005 06:30 AM
Atkins 'can harm heart in a fortnight' Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD General Cooking 0 18-11-2005 05:22 PM
vegetarians and least harm [email protected] Vegan 4 19-09-2005 05:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017