Are Vegetarians Healthier?

Are Vegetarians Healthier?

Could veggie burgers increase your lifespan? Many experts insist that switching to a vegetarian lifestyle can greatly increase overall health, leading some to ditch their pork rinds like an old smoking habit. Still others swear by an omnivorous diet, saying that occasional New York steak never hurt anyone. Is a fresh helping of tofu just what the doctor ordered, or only a lot of empty calories?

Next question in Vegetarian

This content is inappropriate
Loading

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:


You are seeing 13 Comments. See all 143 Comments on this Question.
Regarding Question
Are Vegetarians Healthier?
  • Kobold
    Vegetarianism is a psychological symptom of unsustainable civilization

    Fear of death influences our relationship with food. A primary way this occurs is by projecting our fear of death onto animals.

    == Killing animals ==

    Killing is the only way in which most modern humans acquire food. Scavenging isn't too popular these days. Objections to killing animals have led many to adopt vegetarian diets. Some folks are even trying to figure out how to grow meat in vats.

    As an aside, I'm not against vegetarianism, veganism, fruitarianism, or any other crazy-ass diet. If you want to eat some way, eat that way. It does not have to be justified. I think the justifications given for vegetarianism are wrong though. To quickly address justifications not related to killing:

    * Animal Cruelty - Eating animals is not synonymous with eating factory farmed meat. I personally avoid factory farmed meat for nutritional reasons and because it's production is unnecessarily cruel. Chucking a spear into a dear or buffalo is not unnecessarily cruel. Nature is no better [1] (and there are reasons for it [2]).
    * Nutrition - Historically and anatomically speaking, humans are adapted to eat animals[3]. It's obviously not necessary, but ideal nutrition includes eating animals.
    * Sustainability - Eating meat is not sustainable? 6 billion people is not sustainable. Our single species is using 14-26% of the total photosynthetic production of the planet[4]. If everybody eats beans and rice in a state of near-famine, we can support an even larger population. Is that a worthwhile goal?

    Most people that consume meat do not kill their own meat. Most people who eat meat have not even seen someone else kill an animal for food. If I were to invite friends over and feed them braised rabbit, most would eat it and (I hope) enjoy it. Were I to mention that before they came over, I took a rabbit, whacked its head with a brick to stun it, cut its jugular, then gutted and skinned it, I would receive shocked looks. The modern food production system has abstracted us away from the concrete experience of killing an animal. Meat does not grow pre-cut in plastic-wrapped styrofoam containers, waiting to be harvested and labeled for sale by Wal-Mart.

    One result of this abstraction away from killing is that many people now frown upon hunting. It's ridiculous. Other species hunt. Paleolithic humans and earlier homonids lived as hunter-gatherers. That should be enough to justify hunting as a legitimate part of the human experience. Instead, people sneer at "redneck" hunters as "uncivilized" and then go celebrate "progress" by spending huge portions of their lives at work to earn money to buy hormone-laden, tasteless, nutritionally deficient meat products (not meat, meat products). Just grab some friends, sharpen some sticks, and go kill the damn thing yourself.

    Another result of abstraction away from killing is that vegetarianism and veganism have become popular in the last few decades. When killing is not understood to be a part of life, all life—not just human, then one can begin to explore the idea that it is normal to forgo it entirely. There have always been those that eschewed meat for religious reasons, but they were consciously trying to leave everyday experience of the world in search of the "divine". People spurn other forms of religious ascetism because they recognize how neurotic it is. The religious view is just as fucked up in this case.

    Speaking of religion, through schooling and everyday experience of the modern world we are inculcated with the idea that humans are somehow different than the rest of the living world. This idea originated in religious traditions—go read Genesis. Our species is the one made in god's image? What hubris. Darwinian evolution is rejected by the Catholic church to this day because it implies that humans are just another animal. What's funny is that even the secular world has adopted it, witness the soccer-moms gossiping about how horrible hunting is. Those who object to meat consumption often brush off other animals doing so stating that it is the carnivore's nature or that it cannot consciously choose, while we can. What arrogance! Perhaps the animals simply eat what works best instead of restricting their diet and then getting their rocks off on a sense of superiority over the rest of existence.

    == Killing plants ==

    People seem to be very into arbitrary divisions. Humans vs. non-conscious life (Michael Pollan has a good 20 min. talk on this [5]). Plants vs. animals. Many people say I should eat plants and not animals. It's interesting that people believe that plants do not suffer when dying. Perhaps we're just too biologically distant to have our empathy triggered or to project our own fears of death onto an ear of corn or a tomato. Aspargus doesn't scream when you cut off its roots. An blog post worth reading entitled Plants are People, Too[6] at Anthropik discusses biological markers of stress in plants:

    Continued (and cites) in sub-comment...

    - KoboldUS October 27, 2008 1:08AM

    Reply to this Recommend (5) Icon flag Side: No

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Kobold
      cont'd


      ----
      Researchers have even discovered the chemical markers of stress in plants, just like they have identified the chemical markers of stress in humans. Such evidence suggests that plants might even experience some analogue of emotion.

      > Koussevitzky, looking at the end of the signaling pathway, found the
      > corresponding binding factor known that ABI4, a known plant transcription
      > factor. It prevents light-induced regulatory factors from activating gene
      > expression. Additional work in the project had determined that the
      > chloroplast-localized, nuclear-encoded protein GUN1 is required for
      > integrating multiple stress-derived signals within the chloroplast. This
      > work was conducted by the first co-author of the article, Ajit Nott, who
      > was a research associate in Dr. Chory’s lab.

      > Many of the nuclear genes that encode chloroplast proteins are regulated by
      > a “master switch” in response to environmental conditions. This “master
      > switch,” like a binary computer, can activate or de-activate certain sets
      > of genes based on stress signaling processes.

      > “One of our suggestions in the paper is that ABI4 seems like a prime
      > candidate to be the ‘master switch,’” Koussevitzky said. “ABI4 binds to a
      > newly identified sequence motif, and by doing so prevents light-induced
      > regulatory factors from activating gene expression. It has a role in so
      > many signaling processes in the plant, it might actually be the ‘master
      > switch’ that researchers have been looking for.” (Trent, 2007)
      ----

      Plants might even experience some analog of emotion? How could they not? Every organism that responds to the outside world occupies a certain perceptual universe, an umwelt[7]. This umwelt combines sensory experiences pertinent to the organism's survival and reproduction with the salience of the perception to produce "the world" for that animal. If plant cells are producing chemical stress signals then they occupy an umwelt as surely as humans do.

      == Recoil ==

      Humans started large scale agriculture with cereal-grain monocropping to ensure a regular food supply. It also enables vegetarianism, which is calorically infeasible without the carbohydrates available from processed grains. If energy is not obtained from carbohydrates, which are relatively scarce in nature, it must be obtained from fat. No contemporary hunter-gatherer group has been found with a diet free of all animal products.

      The back breaking labor agriculture requires of farmers took a great toll on them historically (we currently use fossil-fuels to avoid this). Cereal-grains are also a poor nutritional staple[8] further weakening them (and us). Large scale agriculture also depletes soil nutrients[9] so that our descendants will have trouble feeding themselves.

      1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/12/indonesia
      2. http://www.reddit.com/info/6ndbr/comments/c04cr9n
      3. http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/metab-carn/metabolic-carnivory-1a.shtml
      4. http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/pubs/imhoff_nature.pdf
      5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQPN1O03z8I&feature=related
      6. http://anthropik.com/2007/08/plants-are-people-too /
      7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umwelt
      8. http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Cereal %20article.pdf
      9. http://www.ifpri.org/2020/BRIEFS/number62.htm

      - KoboldUS October 27, 2008 8:23AM

      Reply to this Recommend (5) Icon flag Side: No

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • happiness1535
        logicial mistakes

        Significant grain consumption is not necessary for vegetarianism . It would be hard to do without beans, but beans can replenish the soil. Olives, nuts, avocadoes, etc. can provide tons of fat.
        The science about so-called plant sentience is simply not credible. They have nothing remotely resembling a nervous system. Stress chemicals are not relevant, since any cell would show some signs of stress.
        Are you planning to start working on how to develop grass anesthesia for mowing lawns?

        - happiness1535US June 13, 2009 11:15AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • madninjamonkey
      Killing plants is not the same as killing animals

      Plants do not have a brain, a nervous system, or pain receptors, so they can't suffer when someone eats them. I don't feel bad if I eat lettuce, but I would never be able to forgive myself if I ate a steak.

      - madninjamonkeyUS December 15, 2008 2:59PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: Yes

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • SocialistBetty
        Suffering.

        But you don't feel bad that people toiled long hard hours bent over, baking in the heat for very little compensation. Something you would never "lower" yourself to.

        So you place the suffering of humans below the suffering of an animal.

        - SocialistBettyUS December 30, 2008 9:36AM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • madninjamonkey
          Reply to SocialistBetty

          Of course I don't feel bad for other human beings! I also don't feel bad for the workers in a chicken factory who are mostly Latin Americans with very little pay or education. They have to work in a blood and excrement-filled factory and repeat the same monotonous task so often that they are in risk of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. I care very much!

          I do not think that humans deserve to suffer more than animals do. I am simply choosing between whether a human suffers or a human and an animal suffers. What do you think is the best choice?

          - madninjamonkeyUS December 30, 2008 11:27AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • SocialistBetty
            Whatever you feel is best...

            I was picking on you... but it is a valid point.


            If you want to eat meat, but don't agree with the methods and means (which is my shituation), there are alternatives. Most 4-H animals are raised with love and care. You can eat kosher meat... in which the manner of death is quick and relatively painless. Anyone who's tried to commit suicide via ye old wrist slice will tell you it hurts only for a moment.

            If you don't want to eat meat because of the environmental costs associated with it, it would be best if you only ate what seasonally available or you'd be running into the same problems.

            If you don't want to eat meat because there's no valid reason at all to eat meat, you don't have to do anything but ensure you're eating the proper amounts of different veggies, nuts, legumes, and beans... and fruit. Maybe take some vitamins...

            But despite this, the fact that human beings suffer greatly doesn't go away. I would suggest you work for a summer in a fields and see exactly how back-breaking it is... that you live in housing that's provided and experience the conditions that migrant farm workers live in. Then you might be able to make a better decision as to just kind of suffering I'm talking about. There is a very real fight going on in this country that most people know nothing about. Child labour, abuse, degradation... people simply buy their vegetables and think nothing of it. You live in Oregon... how many tomatoes are growing right now? It's winter... that's right. Tomatoes don't grow in the winter. Where did they come from, then? Where does your food come from and do you know that there is no suffering of humans? Does it make okay to eat what you're eating because an animal isn't dying? Are you satisfied with your choice of promoting the abuse and suffering of humans to suit your high level of vegetable consumption? If everyone were to stop eating meat, imagine the demands on the farming industry.

            Eating vegetables is something everyone should do, but just because the cabbage doesn't suffer doesn't mean there are no problems associated with being complete vegetarian; or that there is no suffering involved. Neither does ignoring the problems make them go away.


            That's all I'm saying.

            - SocialistBettyUS December 30, 2008 3:00PM

            Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • madninjamonkey
              Reply to SocialistBetty

              Please believe me - slashing your wrists does NOT hurt for just a second. But let's focus on the animals instead of my messed-up life.

              I am vegan because I don't just have a problem with the way that animals are treated in meat, dairy, and egg farms, I have a problem with the fact that animals are being killed for food. I don't really care if the steak on my plate had a happy life once, it is still a piece of flesh off of a corpse and I helped kill a living, pain-feeling being for almost no reason at all. Not eating meat does help the environment and your health, but even if there were absolutely no benefit to the planet or me from going vegan, I still wouldn't eat animal problems because I believe that it is morally wrong. (For more information please go to: http://www.goveg.com/theissues.asp )

              I'm not trying to ignore the problem, I'm just trying to fix what I can. I can't do anything about child labor and exploitation; as much as I would like to help, I am thirteen. I don't think that anyone would take me seriously. If you can think of a way that doesn't involve killing something to help stop human suffering, by all means let me know.

              - madninjamonkeyUS December 30, 2008 7:48PM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • SocialistBetty
                And there wasn't a 9 yr old on the floor of the UN?

                You're better suited than anyone else then. Those are you peers. There are kids your age out there who are picking the vegetables YOU eat, bent over for hours and hours and yours. You're old enough to do it, go out and do it this summer. Tell you mom you want to know where your food really comes from. I don't think you really have any idea.

                And obviously, you didn't do it right if it hurt for more than 5 seconds.

                Is it morally wrong for the wolf to eat the caribou? For the bear to eat the salmon? The crow to eat the bug? Or are they eating what is available to them?

                The only way that you can truly eat morally is to eat what is available to you at the time and to grow your own food in the summer. But if you want to ignore that, go right ahead. It won't change the fact that you're ignoring the moral implications of eating only vegetables all the time simply because you want to.

                I have venison in the crock pot that I killed. It died in 5 seconds. Unlike the veggies in there with it, the suffering of that animal is nothing compared to the suffering inflicted upon the humans who gathered them, nor the gas that burnt to ship them here, nor the cost. But believe what you want to, simply because it suits your ideals to do so. Morals be damned. There's only comparatives anyway.

                - SocialistBettyUS December 31, 2008 12:13PM

                Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag Side: No

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • happiness1535
      no arrogance involved

      Carnivorous animals would die if they did not hunt. It is not a matter of what works best, but what works at all.
      It is no less absurd to say that being involved in meat production should make the production more acceptable to a person than being involved in abortion should make abortion more acceptable to a person. Some may learn psychological numbing, but others will feel the revulsion more intensely than they would have had they have had they not been involved.
      Death may happen, but we must do whatever possible to minimize it.
      There is a reason why we believe in retributive punishment for humans but not for animals (I hope you see what that addresses and why).

      - happiness1535US June 13, 2009 11:23AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Are Vegetarians Healthier?

Loading
  • Yes
  • No
Vote
View Results

Ask Your Friends to Vote

Spotlight

Loading
  • International Vegetarian Union
    The International Vegetarian Union (IVU) was founded in 1908 when the first World Vegetarian Congress was held in Dresden, Germany. The idea for IVU came from... More

Subscribe to Opposing News

Biweekly updates on new debates and experts

Loading
Thank you for signing up

Please check your email to confirm your subscription.