<p>Eating mammals is worse than other animals, in my opinion, since mammals exhibit more of the group closeness we see so much in humans. For example, chickens don't care much when their friends get eaten, but say there were a giant monster that would come and eat your friends every day. You would care. Cows and other mammals exhibit similar behavior.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
If all human beings suddenly became vegetarians, there would be serious consequences that would upset the Earth's natural order. Furthermore, human anatomy dictates that we were built to digest and handle meat.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Yes... earth would be able to sustain more human beings. Remember the 10% rule of energy, where 90% of energy is lost as heat. Thus, if we all became vegetarians, the earth theoretically would be able to support 10X the current limit.</p>
<p>damitssam, we wouldn't actually be able to sustain 10x more people...that's a matter of limited space rather than limited food. But I do know what you're thinking about--there would be more food. And the number is actually like 100x because of all the water/grain that needs to feed cows, etc. That could end famine but most Americans have the capitalistic view that since they have made the money to buy expensive food (meat), they are entitled to it.</p>
<p>"sagar_indurkhya , do you go to NCSSM?"</p>
<p>Yeah.</p>
<p>"who ever said being vegetarian is a good way to be skinny -- thats just a load of crap. I know plenty of indian vegeterians who are fat."</p>
<p>Yep yep. Soy? ***! Seriously, if your mom can cook really good indian food, and you don't work out, YOU WILL GAIN WEIGHT. The reason the Indian vegetarian diet works out in India is because most of the people there work harder(physically), walk more, etc.</p>
<p>I'm a vegetarian who eats fish and a very small amount of dairy that I'm trying to eventually cut out. (This will mean I'm a quasi-vegan who would be a vegan if I didn't eat fish, but since I wouldn't eat eggs or dairy then calling me just a vegetarian isn't entirely accurate). The correct term would be pesco-vegetarian, meaning no animal flesh except fish. This can be with or without eggs and dairy.</p>
<p>I do it for both health and ethical reasons. The health reasons are self explanatory - cut out meat and you're cutting out cholesterol, saturated fat, antibiotics, pesticides, hormones, fecal bacteria, and (if you eat a balanced veg diet, not junk food) you're adding fiber, calcium, antioxidants and vitamins not found in meat. Everything found in meat, including complete (yes, complete) proteins can be found in soy. The whole "you need complete proteins only found in animal products" is BS - complete proteins are found in soy, but even if you don't eat soy then you can eat two partial protein foods, such as beans and grains, and your body will figure it out. </p>
<p>The ethical reasons are quite profound but basically sum up to this: we CAN be healthy and live well on a vegetarian diet, so why should we sacrifice animal life and contirbute to suffering that is essentially unnecessary? This is the philosophy of Leo Tolstoy. Basically, since we can survive well on a vegetarian diet, why eat meat. </p>
<p>The second major ethical reason for me is the environment. Vegans consume 1/75 of the amount of water that a meateater does. How? Because it takes so much water to feed livestock. This is a fact.</p>
<p>ONE ACRE of fertile soil can produce 50,000 pounds of tomatoes, or 250 pounds of meat. This is a fact.</p>
<p>The consumption of meat depletes the ozone layer by methane gas given off by the unnaturally high amount of breeding (and an unstable population) on cattle farms. </p>
<p>70% (fact) of the grain grown in third world countries is used to feed livestock, often in places like the USA and Europe. The 30% left over is frequently not enough to support the local population. Feeding livestock 70% of the world's grains means we are indirectly consuming it, when we could be just as healthy (in fact, healthier, because according to CDC research vegetarians live to be 4 years older and have 1/9 the risk of becoming obese, in addition to other significantly reduced risks for cancer and heart disease) without this indirect, inefficient use of crops.</p>
<p>Another reason that may interest you: meat and dairy have hormones that cause hair loss, flactulence, acne (since I stopped eating meat my skin has improved dramatically), and leads to constipation that causes bad breath and body odor.</p>
<p>If you'd like more information, <a href="http://www.goveg.com%5B/url%5D">www.goveg.com</a> and <a href="http://www.peta.org%5B/url%5D">www.peta.org</a> have a ton of details about why you should consider eating less (or no) meat.</p>
<p>"What I don't get is why some people won't eat beef or steak, but will eat chicken or fish. It's not like cows have better personalities than chickens or fish. And also, 1 cow=about 10 steaks+ 20 hamburgers (I think). 1 chicken=2 chicken wings and dinner for two or three people. So to feed 20 people, you would need to kill one or two cows, or seven to ten chickens. That's why I'll eat beef and steak, but not chicken. I also don't eat eggs, because I'm not really into eating any animal's sex cell. Yuck."</p>
<p>To give you a perspective of why I eat fish and not red meat or poultry, it's because fish are not domesticaed and you eat them out of their natural habitat:</p>
<ul>
<li>little to no suffering during death</li>
<li>they are lean and healthy because they actually get exercise instead of being stuck in a cage their entire lives</li>
<li>they have no pre-slaughter additives</li>
<li>they are bred naturally without human influence</li>
<li>their consumption does not contribute to the depletion of the environment.</li>
</ul>
<p>And they are not "missed," like higher animals sort of are. That's my main objection to eating animals, and the reason why I don't just wither up and die since "plants are alive too." Yes, plants are alive, but they don't feel for each other. After all, if you put the pig to sleep before you kill it, the PIG itself doesn't care, it's dead!</p>
<p>Excellent point! :)</p>
<p>I eat all meat aside from pork (religious reasons). Who cares if cows or chickens live crappy lives? It's not like they're productive members of society that build schools for children or care for the elderly. They're just food. That's all. Sure, a baby cow might look kinda cute... but that's not when I'm thinking when i'm eating veal, i'm thinking how GOOD it tastes!</p>
<p>....</p>
<p>I think the baby cow's mom would differ with you on that.</p>
<p>Wow...way to have some heart, dcfca.</p>
<p>They're ANIMALS. I'm against eating things like monkeys/gorrilas which have some human qualities (ability to sign language, etc) but cows are cows. As for the baby cow's mom differing, who cares. she'd be my porterhouse steak the next day.</p>
<p>And don't get me started on chickens.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the way animals in Europe are treated is a lot more humane
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Brits had a hard time with Mad Cow Disease. Or was it Foot-and-Mouth Disease? What about foie gras? I don't think the ducks like being forcefed till they nearly explode.</p>
<p>My philosophy is eat every animal, or eat none. None of this wishy washy vegetarianism. If you want to act like some kind of Jesus Christ of the animals, then spare all of them. Leave the poor chickens and fishies alone.</p>
<p>how do you quote? I've never figured it out...</p>
<p>So...dcfca...you and I totally don't agree and, for the most part, you make me want to throw up a little. </p>
<p>as for Jesus Christ of the animals...that just makes me happy.</p>
<p>throw up? because I enjoy red meat? that's a little extreme. </p>
<p>I do have to say though that red meat is just my favorite kind. I don't even care for chicken that much. I love going into fogo de chao, getting filet mignon wrapped in bacon, slices of sirloin, leg of lamb, lamb chops, etc. All cooked medium, some pieces maybe even medium-rare for extra flavor.</p>
<p>I just don't see the whole morality angle you guys are using. Some people complain that the animals aren't treated humanely but you CAN buy free range food or halal which is where they kill the animal in a very specific way to minimize suffering I think. Personally I don't opt for this route, just because it's pricier and it doesn't make me lose sleep at night to know I ate part of a cow.</p>
<p>I've been a meat-eater all my life, but recently I've been moving towards a semi-vegetarian diet...not for any ideological reasons, but because it feels much healthier. I still eat some meat, partly because I don't want to force my family to accommodate, and partly because I do enjoy it in moderation. I'll consider being fully vegetarian when I get to college and have more control over my diet.</p>
<p>The way some people freak about baby cows and lambchops, you'd think there weren't billions of PEOPLE in dire suffering around the world.</p>
<p>"Freaking out" over animals doesn't mean that you aren't aware of or don't care about other tragedies in the world. It's fully possible to be a vegan WHILE working to help others. It's not an either/or thing.</p>
<p>Yeah...the whole thing about how vegetarians are just picky eaters when there are starving people in the world...um...well...send the meat we're not eating over to feed them. Honestly, I don't see the people that eat meat to be any more humanitarian than vegetarians, so that arguement seems void. Yes, there are starving children, but the fact that we choose not to purchase meat products hurts those children even more? The only thing you're pointing out is that we have the choice to eat meat when the starving children don't have the choice because they have nothing? I don't see the valid argument there.</p>
<p>Actually don't send the meat over to feed the starving. Just don't grow the meat in the first place and send thirty times the weight you're not eating in meat as grain to the starving.</p>