Plants Really Do 'Scream'. We've Simply Never Heard Them Until Now
Plants Really Do 'Scream'. We've Simply Never Heard Them Until Now
It seems like Roald Dahl may have been onto something after all: if you hurt a plant, it screams.
You're viewing a single thread.
Vegans: .. uh.. now what?
Vegans consume fewer plants than anyone else. It takes a LOT of plants to raise a cow, pig, or chicken. From an economic point of view, meat is a way of refining mountains of cheap, plentiful, safe plant products into a scarce, harmful and addictive luxury product. This comes up a lot, you'd be amazed how many plants rights activists your average vegan runs into.
Vegans: we'll have only a little vegetable cruelty, as a treat.
Whatever keeps the high horse fed.
You're going to have to unpack this a bit more for me.
Edit: Ohhhh, you're another one of those plant rights activists. Buddy, I eat plants for breakfast. You know what? Now I'm going to eat twice as many plants, just because it upsets you.
Lol your reading comprehension.
Unless you count grass and non-human consumables and non-potable water...sure...until then that's bullshit.
How is that bullshit? I am not vegan, but that's just a scientific consensus and a major reason why plant diet is way lower carbon than a meat diet. If you need to grow plant food for your animal food, eventually you have to grow way more plant food.
Most animals raised for meat consumption are fed with crops, notably soy, not wild grass.
Thinking animals raised for meat only consume resources (land (first cause of biodiversity loss), plants, water, energy) that would not be useful to humans anyway is undoubtedly wrong.Researchers Poore and Nemecek are a great source of meta-analysis information about those subjects. Check this summary here for example: http://environmath.org/2018/06/17/paper-of-the-day-poore-nemecek-2018-reducing-foods-environmental-impacts/
Let me know if I misunderstood your point.
It's less important that such arguments be factually accurate than that they are superficially convincing enough to distract the person giving the argument from thoughts and feelings they are unwilling to process.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/50901500/px-based_v3.2/educ-matrls/pdfs/HO_what-cows-eat.pdf
We do not feed them food we can eat, it would be such a waste to do so. We literally feed them shit we cannot consume. Feeds are made from roots/stalks/inedible plants.
The vegan industry doesn't like this, so they say well that land could be used for other things, when in reality it's already being used for the food that we eat.
They are also fed grains and soy in varying percentage depending on regions and countries.
There is also still the use of land, energy, fresh water and the methane emissions typical of cows.This is another break down of the above-mentioned study: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
You can see that indeed, the USA does better than other countries on not dedicating crops to animal feed, but it is still about 14%, while the world average is around 40%. Isn't that a lot that could be earned back?
The majority of the land used for cattle grazing is not suitable for farmland. It's either to hilly or rocky or just plain doesn't have great soil. Not to mention the level of crops it would require to feed people and the amount of people who just cannot sustain on a all vegan diet. There is a reason we are omnivores and not herbivores.
This is also covered by the study and the article I shared above. It would require using more lands for crops that feed people, but that's ridiculously small compared to the land that would be regained from stopping animal agriculture, which is 75%. Just removing cows would do the vast majority of that.
Crops for feed can be regained and if most pasture land is inappropriate for crops, some are, so we would gain from freeing those too. Furthermore, this land can be given back to biodiversity, which will also benefit us in the long term, if just protecting biodiversity for the sake of it is not a good argument for you.
Again, I am not vegan, I mostly advocate for reducing, not forbidding, consumption proportionally to ecological impact. If some people for medical reason require meat, I'm completely fine with it, this would likely be a small percentage of the current consumption.
Omnivore, not obligate carnivore except for a few exceptions maybe, so we could use a low meat diet or a fully plant based diet fine.
this land can be given back to biodiversity,
there is no reason to think this is going to happen. they'll build a mall or a skyscraper.
"This is an area the size of North America plus Brazil"
whose land is it, and what is their prediliction for money?
It's going to be one hell of a mall then
poore-nemecek is based on misreading LCA studies. LCA as a measurement is not transferable between studies. poore-nemececk just went through and did averages. it's not good science. it's not even science.
This is also covered by the study and the article I shared above. It would require using more lands for crops that feed people, but that's ridiculously small compared to the land that would be regained from stopping animal agriculture, which is 75%. Just removing cows would do the vast majority of that.
Again the majority of the land used for cattle is not suitable for crops. So unless you plan on putting houses on that land it's not going to be used for anything anyways.
Crops for feed can be regained and if most pasture land is inappropriate for crops, some are, so we would gain from freeing those too. Furthermore, this land can be given back to biodiversity, which will also benefit us in the long term, if just protecting biodiversity for the sake of it is not a good argument for you.
O it would be great to have more biodiversity, we need all the insects we can get, but cows aren't killing off our insect populations, growing crops and spraying pesticides are. Which don't even get me started on organic...they use organic pesticides which are way more devastating to the environment.
Again, I am not vegan, I mostly advocate for reducing, not forbidding, consumption proportionally to ecological impact. If some people for medical reason require meat, I'm completely fine with it, this would likely be a small percentage of the current consumption.
In honesty, we need vertical farms and lab grown meat. If that could be pulled off then we'd be golden. I'm not against eating plants, but I'm not someone who likes that militant vegans come in and spew bullshit just because they want to feel morally superior to people who eat meat.
Omnivore, not obligate carnivore except for a few exceptions maybe, so we could use a low meat diet or a fully plant based diet fine.
The issue isn't that we can't, it's that the majority of people already eat like crap, which meat helps fill in the blanks. If we went to all plant based, people would still eat like crap and be missing vitamin D and protein.
Also a good chunk of us are already eating a low meat diet because that shit is expensive.
Are you not aware that the more meat you eat, the younger you die and the more major diseases you experience? Meat is toxic, people are not better off for having any amount of it in their diet. Plants are made of protein. Calorie for calorie, plants are a superior protein source. There is not one major health consequence in the world today caused by
too muchnot enough protein. The leading cause of death of all humans on earth COMPLETELY GOES AWAY without meat consumption, and so do several others. The idea that a lack of vitamin D and protein is a major health issue for humans who eat mostly plants is ridiculous, and any consequences can be easily mitigated. There is nothing you can take that will prevent meat from killing you.Guessing you didn't read anything from the john hopkins link...like usual. Meat is not toxic, I don't know where you got that from, calorie for calorie they are not superior in protein, and the leading cause of death of all humans doesn't vanish because of stopping meat consumption (hint meat doesn't turn you into a 800lb whale)....the fuck are you babbling about.
The majority of the land used for cattle grazing is not suitable for farmland.
But why should land be treated in that binary? How much biodiversity is being destroyed just to keep cattle or some other animals instead of keeping it in its natural state?
In it's natural state bison would have been grazing on it. That also doesn't solve the gripe that vegans have which is that land could be used for crops, which really destroys the biodiversity of land. At least with cattle, you just let them eat anything that grows. Horses are usually terrible for biodiversity because people mow the land and want nice lush fields, were as cattle farmers don't, they let the cows eat roughage which is actually healthier for them. They also rotate pastures a lot more than most horse people do.
Yes, but inefficiently.
You go eat some grass/roughage and tell me how well that fills you up.
Pretty well, actually. Grasses like corn, wheat, rice, and oats make up a substantial portion of the typical diet.
Cool, can't grow that shit where cattle graze. We also...once again do not feed things that we can consume to cows. It literally would be a massive waste of money.
What figures are you basing your ignorance off of? The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals. Animal ag is one of the largest consumers of fresh (ie "potable") water. There are ten animals living in human possession for every human on Earth. Without intensive plant agriculture, we could not possibly feed them all. Grass and run-off is not what is producing your food.
And since we are specifically discussing the hypothetical suffering of plants, why wouldn't you count grass? You're triggered.
The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals
That's a lie. 2/3 of the world's crop calories go directly to people. One third of the world's crop calories go to livestock, but that's as the other user is mentioning, mostly crop seconds or parts of plants that we can't eat.
What figures are you basing your ignorance off of? The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals. Animal ag is one of the largest consumers of fresh (ie "potable") water. There are ten animals living in human possession for every human on Earth. Without intensive plant agriculture, we could not possibly feed them all. Grass and run-off is not what is producing your food.
No they are not. They eat the shit we cannot eat, they graze the majority of their lives and we use non potable water to water them. The feed we feed them is not made with anything that a human could consume. It's roots/stalks/inedible plants. This bullshit that keeps being promoted by vegans that everything a cow can eat is bullshit.
And since we are specifically discussing the hypothetical suffering of plants, why wouldn't you count grass? You're triggered.
Because your entire point was that vegans consume less plants than anyone else, which is basically saying "vegans are still better than meat eaters" it's more hilarious dick wagging from you chods.
Lol butthurt misinformation troll
Lol I'm butthurt? Lol you vegans are fucking hilariously ignorant bunch. You're like religious zealots too, all high and mighty with an ignorant levels of information being spewed to you.
This is the epitome of projection, FYI. All this wasted energy and impotent vitriol, railing against a non-existent evil ("the vegan industry?" seriously sad), defending the (actually malignant) status quo for free. It's exhausting feeling so sorry for you
What status quo? Lol the majority of your food comes from small farms, not these mega corps that everyone seems to think exist. Farming is a fuck ton of work for little reward, it's why most younger people are selling their parents farms vs taking over the business.
Accept that you're misinformed or deliberately misleading. There are no other options, sorry. "Family farms" are simply operators of big agriculture's bidding, the latter having complete regulatory and market capture.
"Only four corporations—ADM, Bunge, Cargill and Dreyfus—control more than 75 percent of the global grain trade. They overwhelmingly push commodity crops like corn and soy on local farmers at the expense of native crops."
"the vast majority of cows in the United States live on factory farms. Factory farms depend on cheap and unsustainable animal feed, such as corn and soy, to maximize profits at the expense of animal welfare."
"Factory farms now account for 72 percent of poultry production, 43 percent of egg production, and 55 percent of pork production worldwide."
No they do not. What source are you trying to quote here?
https://www.usfarmdata.com/percentage-of-small-medium-and-large-farms-in-the-us
Family farms continue to play a significant role in U.S. agriculture. In 2015, family farms accounted for 99 percent of all U.S. farms and 89 percent of production.
You're sources are %100 wrong. The majority of our food comes from family farms. They sell back to the large farms for slaughter or processing a lot of the times, but those operations do not rear or grow the majority of our food.
So please inform yourself because you're just spewing more vegan bullshit data.
https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/small_medium_large_does_farm_size_really_matter
Some more data for you...
The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals.
It's not that clear, it depends on the country. See the part about share of cereals dedicated to animal feed in this link, it's about 15% in the USA and the rest of the feed is byproducts of crops used for human reasons. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
Are you saying grass aren't plants? Why would it matter if the plant is consumable by humans if vegans are trying to minimize suffering?
Because they're not about minimizing suffering, it's about being morally superior to meat eaters and letting everyone know about it. The post I replied to, literally made that a point.
…addictive?
Addictive like water and air are addictive.
I challenge you to make an appetizing meal out of the plants (and specific cultivars!) used as animal feed.
Not a vegan: remember we raise a lot of these plants just as feed. If the reason to feed disappeared, so would the vast quantity of “not tasty” plants.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/50901500/px-based_v3.2/educ-matrls/pdfs/HO_what-cows-eat.pdf
No we do not...this is bullshit propagated by vegans. You cannot eat the shit cattle do.
Yes, but I can grow human food on the same plots of land.
....what part of the food grown is for humans and the shit you cannot eat from it is fed to cattle do you not get? You also cannot grow most food where cattle graze, as it's to rocky or hilly or has to little water for it other than grass...
Wouldn't you need to decimate the population of cows, pigs, and chickens in order to reduce their environmental impact? This argument always invokes an image of Thanos wiping out half the universe in order to 'save' it, but the people making this argument never seem to be receptive to acknowledging this point and just hand wave this step away.
Which would you prefer? A thousand people living freely or a hundred thousand people living in cages too small to stand up in?
Get outta here with pretending that big number = better. Those animals are raised in horrifying conditions explictly to be slaughtered. They wouldn't exist in the first place except for the cruelty and greed of the meat industry. We routinely acknowledge that there are 'fates worse than death' for people, but when it comes to animals people seem to forget that. With the ending of the meat industry, fewer animals would exist, but they would be much better cared for.
The population of livestock is artificially high because of meat industries. Additionally, all animals in a meat producing farm will be killed already. That's the entire purpose. Simply slowing the reproductive rate of the industry would reduce the populations on a fairly short timeline. I'm a meat eater myself, but using the killing of animals as an argument AGAINST slowing meat production is not very logical.
Meat eaters are already decimating populations, they are Thanos with a universe conveyor belt, clicking every second.
the same plants that are being fed to animals are the plants that we eat too. animals are mostly said crop seconds or parts of plants the people can't or won't eat.
If you think pigs, chickens and cows have the same level of awareness and perception as broccoli, tomatoes or potatoes than you're the potato.
Humans have to eat and with the exception of a few minerals like salt, everything edible to humans is alive on some level. Vegansisn is making an ethical choice about reducing what causes the most pain fear and suffering in another. If I were to develop cancer, a tape worm or a virus should I also allow those living things to thrive as well or does "Uh, now what?" also apply to antibiotics?
How about I just get to eat meat because I consider it far more humane to be more efficient about proteins? And eggs and cheeses are more efficient with all sorts of aminos.
As much as I respect vegans I also don't agree with their approach. I am of the opinion (as is most biologists) that we are omnivores.
(as is most biologists) that we are omnivores.
No vegans dispute this. In fact that is a large reason we point that meat is not a necessity to a healthy diet like many claim.
But fundamentally I'm not here to talk about veganism. You are entitled to your own beliefs, I only wanted to provide a complete answer to the "hypocritical vegans" comment that appears in every thread paints feeling pain. While I personally think deciding that things are most "humane" when they are "efficient" for you regardless of the effect it has on others is selfish and motivated reasoning, thus unethical. But this thread nor community is a place to discuss ethics, I clearly illuminated why equating plant rights and animal rights is silly, so frankly I would just like to end the discussion there. Thanks.
No vegans dispute this.
I've actually seen vegans dispute that. I have no problem with veganism. It is not a bad idea. I don't eat meat, but I do not have the willpower (or the money) to be a vegan.
But I have seen that.
(or the money) to be a vegan.
That’s an urban myth as the whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper and it’s only the prepackaged supermarket vegan alternatives that are more expensive on average.
There are several products that are more expensive in any diet like waygu steak or decades old wine.
Oxford University research has today revealed that, in countries such as the US, the UK, Australia and across Western Europe, adopting a vegan, vegetarian, or flexitarian diet could slash your food bill by up to one-third.
Your paste:
adopting a vegan, vegetarian, or flexitarian diet could slash your food bill by up to one-third.
Me:
I don’t eat meat
Either you did not read my post or you ignored it to lecture me anyway. Either way, you are not here in good faith.
I’m only disputing your claim that the “vegan diet is expensive.”
Claiming the vegan diet is expensive when a comprehensive study by Oxford on the topic says otherwise necessitates reexamining the claim.
That's study doesn't cover people who have some or all of their food subsidized or provided for free, people who hunt fish or trap for their food, nor those who raise their own. it covers nobody who is working poor, only people who pay full retail price for all their food.
I did not say that. Do not put it in quotes because that is not what I said.
I said:
I do not have the willpower (or the money) to be a vegan.
Because we're fucking poor.
Also there's this issue: https://lemmy.world/post/18940775
Believe it or not, the plant-based version of Ensure is a lot more expensive and I'd like to not starve to death if it's all the same to you.
Maybe learn a little about a person before pointing fingers, especially when they're on your side.
Well I do think getting protein from many sources makes more sense and easier to obtain. Are there other options? Absolutely. But how available are they at all times and how much do I need to eat to get the same amount? I hear what you are saying by selfishness but we kind of have to be. It's what fuels this giant meat puppet I move around daily.
Many sources of protein
You think vegans just eat blocks of tofu all day? My diet has never been more varied and flavorful than when I went vegan. Every single environmental impact study says animal agriculture is a bane to our continued existence, and it goes so far beyond that. Our lands and crops are swallowed up by this ever-rotating machine of suffering and murder that affects the lives of billions of land animals every year, which die terrified and in pain. No "varied protein" myth is worth so much suffering.
No. One of my sisters is a vegan and we have had extensive talks about it. Yea garbanzo and peanut butter are great power packed availability. But peanut butter only goes so far. Garbanzo needs a massive amount to match isolated whey or anything close.
I totally agree with the environmental impact. I wish I could have locally sourced options that wouldn't impact the environment so much.
I love how micromanaging nutrition only ever comes up when veganism is mentioned. Do you think people who gorge themselves on steak and cheeseburgers are inherently healthier than someone with a vegan diet because they consume animal protein? You might be shocked to learn that the densest source of protein doesn't come from an animal.
EDIT: You DO have local sources available to you. It's in the same grocery store you buy slaughtered animals from.
That isn't factual. The diversity of food is different in every area. And it doesn't come up just in veganism. Nutritionists and athletes talk about it often.
You can stop pretending that you're trying to advocate for people in food-starved areas. Veganism, believe it or not, has never actually been about trying to force people in marginalized areas to adopt a vegan diet. Veganism is about harm reduction, full stop. The people who appeal to veganism are the same people who can make those choices in any grocery store that they go to, whether they live in a food desert or not. Personally, I don't live in an area that's considered vegan-friendly. However, I find myself to be okay with that purely because I know for a fact that my decisions aren't reliant on convenience alone.
Local meat is not better for the environment. Scientific information is only one click away. Look at this graph, it's impressive. Plus:
Vegan Bullshit Bingo
#11 I only eat organic and regionalWhile seemingly 99% of people say this about themselves, the proportion of organic meat in virtually all western countries is less than 2%. Maybe you consciously buy organic products for the big feast, but then in everyday life you go get your weekly hamburger, the restaurant around the corner, or "just this once" prefer to reach for the somewhat cheaper discount products. Moreover, in organic farming, animals suffer and die in the same way. Organic cannot solve the core problems: Murder and exploitation for pleasure. The goal is more about soothing the conscience of consumers rather than actually helping the animals.
this is just more poore-nemecek, a paper debunked by its own citations
lol, stop trolling. Nothing is real right? Animal suffering is.
this is a science community. it's reasonable to expect people to provide good science.
Local meat is local murder.
What? The entire point of veganism is that it is an entire order of magnitude more efficient than eating meat. Turns out all the land we use to feed animals we can just grow soybeans on instead. Speaking of which, you want amino acids? Wanna take a guess what has all the amino acids you need? That's right, tofu! It's widely recognized as the healthiest source of protein possible. That sets it apart from red or processed meat, which actively gives you heart disease and cancer.
Look, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. If you want to eat meat despite the facts indicating you shouldn't, that's fine. Same as you can decide to smoke cigarettes and drive a Hummer. Just be aware that it's worse for both you and the entire planet.
Excessive soy beans has side effects as well. Most nutritionists (like doctors) agree that plant based with diversity of meats is the healthier option.
You don’t need those animal products for nothing. As most doctors are carnists and do not fully understand nutrition because they have not studied the topic much in their training.
The objective of this article is to present to physicians an update on plant-based diets. Concerns about the rising cost of health care are being voiced nationwide, even as unhealthy lifestyles are contributing to the spread of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. For these reasons, physicians looking for cost-effective interventions to improve health outcomes are becoming more involved in helping their patients adopt healthier lifestyles. Healthy eating may be best achieved with a plant-based diet, which we define as a regimen that encourages whole, plant-based foods and discourages meats, dairy products, and eggs as well as all refined and processed foods. We present a case study as an example of the potential health benefits of such a diet. Research shows that plant-based diets are cost-effective, low-risk interventions that may lower body mass index, blood pressure, HbA1C, and cholesterol levels. They may also reduce the number of medications needed to treat chronic diseases and lower ischemic heart disease mortality rates. Physicians should consider recommending a plant-based diet to all their patients, especially those with high blood pressure, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or obesity.
your case study is over a decade old. do you have any supporting data?
eating meat has no effect on the planet.
The entire point of veganism is that it is an entire order of magnitude more efficient than eating meat.
the definition provided by the vegan society makes no mention of efficiency.
What does being omnivores have to do with anything?
How about I just get to eat meat because I consider it far more humane to be more efficient about proteins?
What does this have to do with anything? This is bringing efficiency to an ethics fight.
I'm not fighting. I find it annoying to have to eat 16 times the amount of normal peanut butter as one chicken breast. It's pure math.
If something is wrong, then it's wrong, regardless of how efficient or inefficient it is.
It's not wrong though lol
Well, that's a completely different argument.
If you think pigs, chickens and cows have the same level of awareness and perception as broccoli, tomatoes or potatoes than you're the potato.
Eat people because they're potatoes, got it!
Or wait, it's "than"? Hmm...no, I can't think of how to turn it into a joke with a punchline of "than" being there instead of "then", lol
Haha as always, you do what you can
Won't someone think of the plants feelings?!?
What? The fact that plants physically react to being cut has absolutely no bearing on whether they have conscious experience.
Well, not in any way that we can relate to anyway. But that was the same with animals much earlier.
How much earlier are we talking? I bet if you asked prehistoric hunter-gatherers whether they thought animals experienced pain, they woulds say yes. The idea that animals were automata comes from Descartes.
Time to start eating bacteria now, I guess.
Maybe hundreds of years from now we can synthesize nutrients without involving any living cells. At that point, it could be seen as unethical to enslave, murder and eat billions of microbial cells. For the time being, our life still depends on other living things, so better get comfortable with having mixed feelings about survival.
Technically we can, it's just so expensive as to be completely out of the question.
But they're working on it!
Personally, I'm still just waiting on lab meat.
Doing chemistry by mixing chemicals is like fumbling in the dark. You tend to have ridiculously low yield, because you can’t really control which reaction takes place. It’s just a game of probabilities, which makes this gamble really expensive.
Living cells are doing chemistry the right way by combining specific materials and making specific products. Enzymes are very picky, but with them you can actually control the reactions. Making enzymes is just next level complexity and a story for another time.
Isn’t that basically what nutritional yeast is?
No, yeast is fungi.
Same concept, though. Grow microbes in a vat and eat them.
This is exactly the response the author was hoping for.
