Vegetarianism/Veganism

[snowychap]

47 minutes ago, blandy said:

You might be right Darren, it might not happen and I might be mistaken to imagine otherwise. Though couldn’t I argue that animal welfare standards in farming in the west have risen, and that this is basically down to campaigning and demand from the population?

But you're treating the supply of meat in the farming industry as a homogenous mass, aren't you? And that's a mistake, surely?

Quote

I’d wonder whether, as per the discussion point, if more people go veggie or vegan that further pressure on meat producers, who would already have reduced volumes of critters, wouldn’t also lead to higher welfare standards, not just because a more animal sympathetic society would demand it, but also because they could maker larger profit margins?

I've read this a couple of times and I'm struggling to see how you get from a reduction in the demand for meat (coming about as it would here because of a reduction in the numbers in the marketplace desiring meat rather than because of an across the board reduction in demand) to a pressure on suppliers to improve their welfare standards? If they're fighting over a smaller overall market then it is as likely to be costs that are looked at rather than product improvement to maintain the level of demand that they had previously. Even this, though, misses the role that large retailers play (and the huge power they have) in setting the price paid to suppliers and therefore the maximum margin they make.*

As for the 'more animal sympathetic society' doing it, I don't necessarily agree that an increased proportion of vegetarianism or veganism equates to a 'more animal sympathetic society'. Even if it does, though, if killing an animal to eat it is regarded as cruel, wholly unnecessary and abhorrent then I don't see enough people from that increasing demographic engaging with producers to just get them to improve their methods (rather than stop producing) or with people who still eat meat to get them to try and force the suppliers on whom they rely for their meat to improve those methods (rather than just stop eating meat).

* I realise this is also going down the route I complain about above but I think it's acceptable if we're talking about the majority of meat production/supply/demand. When speaking about improvements in animal welfare standards then perhaps they've increased disproportionately in those specialist, smaller scale operations - even allowing for the attempt to address factory farming issues.

Edited May 18, 2019 by snowychap
Orphaned part sentence

[chrisp65]

I would have thought a fairly predictable consequence of vegetarianism becoming more politically mainstream would be the improvement of animal welfare.

If more and more people are eating less meat, and ecology and environment are moving up the agenda then animal welfare standards will rise. It would be an obvious tool of government to control meat production by adding more and more rules and regulations and better and better standards of welfare.

The twin consequences would be that it becomes more of a ball ache to try and produce meat to a price point. So you have to aim for the high end where you have a chance of recouping your costs. So some livestock produces will drop out of the game. Those remaining can demand the premium prices. So people will probably eat less meat.

Now Greggs can make a convincing and competitively priced vegan sausage roll, who's going to pay a fiver for the version with a dead pig in it? Once we don't need grey meat for pies and fillings, that's a massive leap forward.

It's a sort of virtuous circle.

[maqroll]

I recently tried "Beyond Meat" bratwurst. Plant based, no soy or dairy. It's very impressive, easily the best faux meat product I've tried. The texture and mouthfeel is spot on. It also looks like meat on the inside and when it cooks in a pan it sizzles. The only thing they didn't nail is the seasonings, but they can easily improve that. Very encouraging for the future.

[snowychap]

51 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Now Greggs can make a convincing and competitively priced vegan sausage roll, who's going to pay a fiver for the version with a dead pig in it?

The kind of person who would never find themselves in Greggs in the first place?

And all the people, surely, who you've suggested in your previous sentence will be demanding the 'high end', premium priced meat products?

It's a quite bizarre comparison.

Edited May 18, 2019 by snowychap

[snowychap]

54 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It's a sort of virtuous circle.

How virtuous is it when it appears to rely upon forcing the poorest in each round (and obviously the poorest first) to have less food choice, given that your train of thought revolves around continually pricing more and more people out of buying meat products?

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

The kind of person who would never find themselves in Greggs in the first place?

And all the people, surely, who you've suggested in your previous sentence will be demanding the 'high end', premium priced meat products?

It's a quite bizarre comparison.

Who sells the most sausage rolls? Greggs? Or that artisan guy that makes five quid sausage rolls at the annual food festival?

It's not a bizarre comparison, it's my exact point. Once meat is less cheap, it will become more specialist and consumption will drop. The van drivers after a steak bake will still go to Greggs in their hundreds of thousands. Greggs will sell them something that happens to not contain meat.

Just now, snowychap said:

How virtuous is it when it appears to rely upon forcing the poorest in each round (and obviously the poorest first) to have less food choice, given that your train of thought revolves around continually pricing more and more people out of buying meat products?

It's not less, it's different.

Like pricing four star petrol out and introducing unleaded.

Yes, there will always be someone that demands their right to drive a gas guzzler, but we can't be governed by luddites.

[snowychap]

28 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It's not a bizarre comparison, it's my exact point.

If you're having to put two products that are never going to be substitutes next to each other to make your point without actually addressing whether the move from a meat-based savoury to a vegetarian one in Greggs is going to be as inevitable as you need to suppose then I think your point isn't very good.

29 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It's not less, it's different.

Ha ha ha.

What utter crap. Of course it is less choice, it is less choice than they had before and less choice than other groups would still retain.

Tell yourself it's all virtuous if you want but I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't be in the first few tranches of those whose choices would be limited should your circle get rolling.

What you are really saying is that your hoped-for endgame would be only a very few having the means to choose if they wish to enjoy a particular thing, it'll take lots of iterations to get there and obviously the poorest are the ones who need to make the sacrifice first because...well because they're the poor.

Thanks. I'm out of this one.

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

If you're having to put two products that are never going to be substitutes next to each other to make your point without actually addressing whether the move from a meat-based savoury to a vegetarian one in Greggs is going to be as inevitable as you need to suppose then I think your point isn't very good.

Ha ha ha.

What utter crap. Of course it is less choice, it is less choice than they had before and less choice than other groups would still retain.

Tell yourself it's all virtuous if you want but I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't be in the first few tranches of those whose choices would be limited should your circle get rolling.

What you are really saying is that your hoped-for endgame would be only a very few having the means to choose if they wish to enjoy a particular thing, it'll take lots of iterations to get there and obviously the poorest are the ones who need to make the sacrifice first because...well because they're the poor.

Thanks. I'm out of this one.

 

But there never used to be a vegan sausage roll and now there is.

One in, one out. You're arguing against simple maths.

Hey, look, not everyone can be the future. But if I was you, I'd stock up on those tinned fray bentos pies whilst you can.

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

But there never used to be a vegan sausage roll and now there is.

One in, one out. You're arguing against simple maths.

I think you're mixing up simple and simplistic.

[chrisp65]

Just now, snowychap said:

I think you're mixing up simple and simplistic.

you said you were out

[Skruff]

If people want to go vegan, good for them. Good for their health, for the sustainability of the world etc. 

I don't get the whole moral discussion it always leads to though. Neither the "you're a bad person for eating meat and I'm a good person for not eating meat" nor the "you shouldn't do anything positive or good, because you're doing some other thing that's not". Both arguments are ridiculous. 

[Stevo985]

Yeah I think there’s a difference in taking a moral stance on eating meat and saying someone is a bad person for eating meat. 

Ive never said the latter and I don’t think anyone in this thread has. I don’t think someone is a bad person for eating meat. 

Edited May 19, 2019 by Stevo985

[Mic09]

On 18/05/2019 at 18:19, Stevo985 said:

But why can't we have moral stances on all these things individually?

Why does my moral stance on eating animals have to be irrelevant because I still travel on planes?

I just think that if you are going to argue on the moral lines, you need to be very careful and consistent to do so. 

If you want to argue on dietary/health ground? Fine, I'm no expert in this, but I can see solid arguments from your side.

If you want to argue on the sustainability grounds, again, that's a conversation to be had.

But arguing for it on moral grounds is entering a philosophical debate, and if you are OK with cruelty to animals on one ground (i.e. easiness of travel that destroys environment) then your moral argument becomes much weaker. 

[Mic09]

On 19/05/2019 at 02:50, Skruff said:

If people want to go vegan, good for them. Good for their health, for the sustainability of the world etc. 

 I don't get the whole moral discussion it always leads to though. Neither the "you're a bad person for eating meat and I'm a good person for not eating meat" nor the "you shouldn't do anything positive or good, because you're doing some other thing that's not". Both arguments are ridiculous. 

Again, if someone specifically argues on a moral reasons for veganism, this has to be put to scrutiny.

I recently spoke with a vegan that said they are specifically vegan to not hurt environment (sustainability, animal cruelty etc). Later on in the conversation I have found out that they take drugs; mashrooms, coke etc and they felt totally ok with it. 

Now, I have nothing against people taking drugs - do as you wish. It's your own moral/health decision. 

But if on one side you are not OK with hurting animals, but you don't care much about supporting an industry that promotes gang wars, gun violence,  killings and breaking laws that clearly hurt a lot of people, then arguing for Veganism from a moral point of view becomes a bit short sighted, at least in my opinion. 

[PieFacE]

4 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

But if on one side you are not OK with hurting animals, but you don't care much about supporting an industry that promotes gang wars, gun violence,  killings and breaking laws that clearly hurt a lot of people, then arguing for Veganism from a moral point of view becomes a bit short sighted, at least in my opinion. 

Animals are innocent, humans are not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Skruff]

18 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Again, if someone specifically argues on a moral reasons for veganism, this has to be put to scrutiny.

I recently spoke with a vegan that said they are specifically vegan to not hurt environment (sustainability, animal cruelty etc). Later on in the conversation I have found out that they take drugs; mashrooms, coke etc and they felt totally ok with it. 

Now, I have nothing against people taking drugs - do as you wish. It's your own moral/health decision. 

But if on one side you are not OK with hurting animals, but you don't care much about supporting an industry that promotes gang wars, gun violence,  killings and breaking laws that clearly hurt a lot of people, then arguing for Veganism from a moral point of view becomes a bit short sighted, at least in my opinion. 

If they were proselytising, or virtue signalling if you wish, I agree with with you. If they were simply explaining why they were vegan, I don't see the issue. Can't being vegan be your own moral/health decision as well?

If I say: I take drugs, I know it's bad and promotes said things. But I still do it, because, whatever reason, lack of impulse control, escapism etc. But I'd like to do something thats morally good and positive as well, so I've chosen to have a vegan diet, for animal welfare and sustainability.  Surely that's a none issue? 

(FYI I don't do drugs and I eat meat) 

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

I just think that if you are going to argue on the moral lines, you need to be very careful and consistent to do so. 

If you want to argue on dietary/health ground? Fine, I'm no expert in this, but I can see solid arguments from your side.

If you want to argue on the sustainability grounds, again, that's a conversation to be had.

But arguing for it on moral grounds is entering a philosophical debate, and if you are OK with cruelty to animals on one ground (i.e. easiness of travel that destroys environment) then your moral argument becomes much weaker. 

I do understand what you're saying and agree to an extent.

But on the other hand I still think it's possible to have a moral stance on something even if the rest of your life isn't squeaky clean.

In fact I think it's almost impossible not to.

[Mic09]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

I do understand what you're saying and agree to an extent.

But on the other hand I still think it's possible to have a moral stance on something even if the rest of your life isn't squeaky clean.

In fact I think it's almost impossible not to.

That's absolutely fine - no denying this  

But if you are going to argue from a moral perspective, yet are happy to go against it with a different action you are taking, it simply makes the pro vegan case weaker.

Saying ' I'm against animal cruelty, unless it helps me or benefits me in some way ' doesn't have the same ring to it  

Sorry if we have gone too deeply into the moral/philosophical. I call it the 'diet coke' argument. Sure it's better to have a diet coke when you eat 3 big macs.

But just don't say you are doing it to lose weight.

[Stevo985]

43 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

That's absolutely fine - no denying this  

But if you are going to argue from a moral perspective, yet are happy to go against it with a different action you are taking, it simply makes the pro vegan case weaker.

Saying ' I'm against animal cruelty, unless it helps me or benefits me in some way ' doesn't have the same ring to it  

Yeah I get that but I don't think that's what I'm doing, at least not consciously.

And like I said before, if I AM doing that, then I try to learn from what people tell me and adjust my lifestyle accordingly.

[Mic09]

12 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Yeah I get that but I don't think that's what I'm doing, at least not consciously.

And like I said before, if I AM doing that, then I try to learn from what people tell me and adjust my lifestyle accordingly.

I guess the conversation has moved away from your original post into the hypothetical veganism defence so I do apologise if I suggested you said something you didn't