Are Tofu Eaters Destroying the Environment?

a reply to: amazing

We need the same number of calories and the same amount of protein whether we eat Vegan or traditional. You add to that at the same time organic, which means less product per acre, in some cases far less per acre and I think you will find not not much difference in impact.

I did not mean for this to be about a health in any way. Putting health considerations asside, if a person is honest, I don't think there are any genuine environmental benefits to a Vegan diet. Remember Vegan means no dairy, no eggs, no cheese and ....

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses

originally posted by: rickymouse
I would have to say that scientific advancement is negatively effecting our health more than anything else.

I ponder this all the time. It seems our hubris doesn't allow us to see or admit this on a large (enough) scale. Our best intentions and most of our inventions sow the seeds of our destruction. Wonder what the world will look like when my 6 year old grows up.

I am sitting in front of a computer instead of doing something else, it is hard on circulation in the legs. Science created the computer which can have negative effects. That poor circulation could do more harm than the benefit of any studying I do on the net on health. I make sure to try to get up and move around every half hour or so.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
Soy, you and deforestation.

Most people associate soy with tofu and soy milk. However, only a small portion of soy is consumed directly by humans. In fact, most of the world’s soy crop ends up in feed for poultry, pork, cattle and even farmed fish.

Unbeknownst to most of us, soy is found in almost all commercially produced meat or chicken that we eat.

And unfortunately, the expansion of soy to feed the world’s growing demand for meat often contributes to deforestation and the loss of other valuable ecosystems in Latin America.

A person might argue that if we stop eating meat then the destruction of forests to accommodate soy bean crops would end. That's hardly the case since the protein would need to be replaced, which would mean even more farm land would be needed to replace all that protein and all those calories. The problem of cow farts might pale in comparison to the damage done by maintaining the worlds population on a vegetable based diet.

Then if you decide that the whole world should not use pesticides or fertilizers in commercial farming, add on a lot more acreage that would be needed to feed the world. Without modern methods it takes far more land to produce the same crops. So along with Tofu being destructive to the environment, so called organic methods would do even worse damage due to needing all those extra acres of crops.

I believe it's a wash. Whether we eat meat or turn to an organic Vegan diet, similar damage would be done to the environment, making the histrionics over meat eating moot.

Soy Agriculture in the Amazon Basin

A Greenpeace report (link is external) in 2006 singled out McDonalds and international commodity firm Cargill as culprits; Cargill’s response forced Brazilian soy traders to not buy soy from farmlands deforested after June 2006. The Brazilian government followed with measures to monitor compliance and deny bank credit to municipalities guilty of deforestation. After several years, satellite monitoring confirms deforestation free soy; the reduction has even proved resilient to fluctuations in the soy market. Soy production has continued, primarily through yield increases but also through expansion into the Cerrado zone of southern Brazil, as well as northern Bolivia, Argentina, and Paraguay.

Isn't it interesting how reports on this never seem to mention that if you remove meat production from the equation, the protein must be replaced to prevent massive starvation around the world and what it would take to replace it, not to mention the exact same impact on the environment in the end.

We need to go back to farming by designing functioning ecosystems that can support both animals and us, it's certainly possible with permaculture, but as of yet, there are challenges to commercialising it.

I say "go back" because there is evidence that similar methods could have been used by the ancient Amazonian cultures, thus explaining why there appears to be such a dense concentration of plants that are useful to humans.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: whywhynot
Interesting Study

CONCLUSION Both the meat-based average American diet and the lactoovovegetarian diet require significant quantities of nonrenewable fossil energy to produce. Thus, both food systems are not sustainable in the long term based on heavy fossil energy requirements. However, the meat-based diet requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet. The major threat to future survival and to US natural resources is rapid population growth. The US population of 285 million is projected to double to 570 million in the next 70 y, which will place greater stress on the already-limited supply of energy, land, and water resources. These vital resources will have to be divided among ever greater numbers of people.

Except there are is no limited supply of food, energy and water. We just don't manage it well.

Every day, we (the worlds countries but probably just the US alone) throw away enough food to feed the entire worlds population. We aren't pushing desalinization plants, but there is more than enough water on earth for everyone for ever. All we need to do is convert most of our power grid to solar and wind and we have enough energy for all of our needs. There is no scarcity of resources only bad management.

I agree with a lot of this, but everyone on Earth eating vegetables is just another example of bad management.

Would stopping lions from eating gazelle improve the lives of the gazelle? No, it would cause them to starve to death from over grazing. If that sounds stupid, why do you suggest a meat eating animal like a human should stop eating meat?

Before you say we don't need to eat meat, we are Omnivores which means we need a varied diet of both meat and vegetable matter to really thrive efficiently. Without modern civilisation, veganism would be literally impossible.

a reply to: seeker1963

Your post is full of nonsense. Are beans, rice, soy, and local veggies expensive? No, they aren't. Unless you're buying the fancy stuff. And sure, it can be cheaper if you buy highly processed meat products and grains. However, I think the debate is on healthy eating here.

Sure, there is a vegan agenda. An agenda to stop animal suffering. What is the pro-meat anti-vegan agenda? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the massive meat industry or how infowars (your video link) sells "miracle meat-based supplements and products.

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

I think we are capable of many things we are not doing that would improve things. It's the commercial viability aspect that holds us back I'm sure.

Our real problems stem in no small part from massive populations in small area's not capable of sustaining them. Close the borders and stop trade and watch China and India return to medieval times as their environments collapse.

For one, the world would not go vegan all at once and secondly, all your complaints have to do with overpopulation. Animals need grains and veggies to live. More people equals more deforestation no matter what.

a reply to: blueman12

Actually the thread is about, is there any environmental advantage to being a Vegan.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: seeker1963

Your post is full of nonsense. Are beans, rice, soy, and local veggies expensive? No, they aren't. Unless you're buying the fancy stuff. And sure, it can be cheaper if you buy highly processed meat products and grains. However, I think the debate is on healthy eating here.

Sure, there is a vegan agenda. An agenda to stop animal suffering. What is the pro-meat anti-vegan agenda? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the massive meat industry or how infowars (your video link) sells "miracle meat-based supplements and products.

I gave examples of how expensive meat substitutes are, and your "animal suffering" nonsense tells me all I need to know about you and your agenda. Man has eaten flesh since hunger became a priority to being able to survive.

The debate isn't about healthy eating, it's about how sustainable the dream you Vegans have. Did you even read the OP?

a reply to: Blaine91555

Yes I know. However, vegans take up maybe 1-3 percent of the population and have very little impacts on today's world. Is there any actual studies on a large vegan population or is this all speculation based on a fantasy if the world suddenly lost all meat sources?

In either case, overpopulation is the main cause of environmental human damage.

a reply to: blueman12

I'm just trying to discuss what it would take and the environmental impact of the world turning to an all vegetable diet. Would it benefit the environment or make things worse. I'm saying it would be a wash as producing the same calories and protein would use a similar amount of land. It would have no meaningful impact.

That I posted is not entirely on point, but the linked article someone else posted did go into it a bit. However it did not factor in organic in the mixture which would greatly increase the amount of land needed.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: amazing

We need the same number of calories and the same amount of protein whether we eat Vegan or traditional. You add to that at the same time organic, which means less product per acre, in some cases far less per acre and I think you will find not not much difference in impact.

I did not mean for this to be about a health in any way. Putting health considerations asside, if a person is honest, I don't think there are any genuine environmental benefits to a Vegan diet. Remember Vegan means no dairy, no eggs, no cheese and ....

Fair enough and I don't have the numbers...But I believe that the amount of land for the cattle and corn is way more for the same amount of land needed to grow a comparable amount of Fruit and Vegatables (Non Corn). I saw a study but I don't know where....sorry.

a reply to: seeker1963

Meat products can be VERY expensive too. It all depends. If you don't want to cook, then yea vegan is going to be expensive.

So animal suffering is nonsense to you? Alright, well no point in debating you anymore since you're void of empathy.

Also, most vegans don't condemn humans for eating animals to survive. I sure don't. It's not like that now unless you're on the streets. Most ppl eat meat because of taste, and often could care less if that cow, pig, or chicken suffered.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: 38181
Travel through the midwestern states especially Illinois during the summer months, all you can see are fields of Corn, and Soybeans. As far as you can see. I wonder where all that goes!

High Fractose corn syrup in every cereal, Candy bar, cookie, Chip, Cracker and other processed food in the grocery store.

All GMO, do you know how much of the US soy crop is GMO??? Now imagine the poison used to produce that amount of soy! I forgot about Canola! Everyone uses canola oil now as well, how much of that is GMO?

I hear you. No soy here or very little and all my oil is olive oil or coconut oil or mostly. Remember that eating healthy is never perfect it's always a process of finding the healthiest options that you can afford and stomach. I can't eat bucket loads of Kale although I hear it's healthy for you. I could never stand cottage cheese and that was supposed to be healthy too.

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: whywhynot
Interesting Study

CONCLUSION Both the meat-based average American diet and the lactoovovegetarian diet require significant quantities of nonrenewable fossil energy to produce. Thus, both food systems are not sustainable in the long term based on heavy fossil energy requirements. However, the meat-based diet requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet. The major threat to future survival and to US natural resources is rapid population growth. The US population of 285 million is projected to double to 570 million in the next 70 y, which will place greater stress on the already-limited supply of energy, land, and water resources. These vital resources will have to be divided among ever greater numbers of people.

Except there are is no limited supply of food, energy and water. We just don't manage it well.

Every day, we (the worlds countries but probably just the US alone) throw away enough food to feed the entire worlds population. We aren't pushing desalinization plants, but there is more than enough water on earth for everyone for ever. All we need to do is convert most of our power grid to solar and wind and we have enough energy for all of our needs. There is no scarcity of resources only bad management.

I agree with a lot of this, but everyone on Earth eating vegetables is just another example of bad management.

Would stopping lions from eating gazelle improve the lives of the gazelle? No, it would cause them to starve to death from over grazing. If that sounds stupid, why do you suggest a meat eating animal like a human should stop eating meat?

Before you say we don't need to eat meat, we are Omnivores which means we need a varied diet of both meat and vegetable matter to really thrive efficiently. Without modern civilisation, veganism would be literally impossible.

I disagree. Because the staple of a Vegan diet or most diets really should be nuts, Beans, Vegatables, Fruit. We all know that we need more fruit and vegetables. We all know that processed meats cause cancer. We all know we need to cut out most of our Sugar and Carbs and that too much alchohol is bad for you etc. We all love it, but we know that bacon isn't healthy for you.

Even before I went Vegan I knew my diet was lacking so I would take a MULTI vitamin to supplement. Modern Civilization makes that possible. maybe the only think I'm missing is some B-12. I take that anda multi vitamin to be safe and I do take plant based protein powder to amek sure I get enough protein since I'm working out all the time.

I'm not telling anyone to adopt my lifestyle or eating habits though. I'm just saying it works for me and certain aspects of my lifestyle like more raw nuts, fruits and vegatables is good for most people.

Less beef and pork is probably better for the environment too. Seriouslly can't be worse.

And lastly most nutrition advice we get, at least here in the us, comes from big lobbying companies. Maybe beef is good for you, but I don't want the beef industry telling me that, I'd like some scientific studies. maybe Dairy is good for you, but I don't want the dairy farmers associations telling me that, I want actual nutrionists and scientists.

Our dietary recommendations in the US are created and controlled by food lobbying groups. Once you undersnat that....

Well if meat or vegan isn't the awnser to environmental issues, what is? I'm in favor of peaceful depopulation, like a one child policy. However, that'd probably never work in today's world.

I just see all this vegan/meat talk as mute, while the population is getting bigger and bigger.

originally posted by: blueman12
Well if meat or vegan isn't the awnser to environmental issues, what is? I'm in favor of peaceful depopulation, like a one child policy. However, that'd probably never work in today's world.

I just see all this vegan/meat talk as mute, while the population is getting bigger and bigger.

Population isn't an issue. We have plenty of land, power, Water and food. We just don't manage it correctly. Vegan/meat issue is irrelevant.

a reply to: amazing

Well then my point still remains if that's true. If we can't manage it now, then how will manage it in 10, 20 , 30 years..? Population is growing at an exponential rate and to ignore that is silly.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: amazing

Well then my point still remains if that's true. If we can't manage it now, then how will manage it in 10, 20 , 30 years..? Population is growing at an exponential rate and to ignore that is silly.

I hear you. Not sure how to change that. Take Sudan. They're starving and dying but we have enough food for them, we have enough shelter for them, we have enough water for them. Politically, our governments don't care. Our Tech Billionaires don't care. Our news media don't care.

a reply to: blueman12

That's a good question.

As countries evolve past the Third World, less births seem to be the rule. It happens naturally as a result of education and industrialization. I actually know a father and son team that by themselves farm over 20,000 acres using modern equipment. I understand that in Third World countries, the large numbers of children are in no small part a result of needing the labor.

I know I come from a farming family on one side and a ranching family on the other and very large families were the rule, because you needed the children to make the farm survive and pay. Not anymore. I suspect all it will take to slow down population growth would be to bring the less developed world into the modern age.