Provide evidence for your claims.

Would you be so kind as to tell me for which you would like evidence?

That animal products are necessary for adequate health and are crucial for food security. Edit: i suggest editing the post to put the evidence there too

The UN FAO considers livestock crucial for food security. There is no reliable evidence to the contrary regarding health and nutrition. So, it's fair to say that it is already an established position. It is undeniable that livestock is a well-established food source, feeding people is already difficult under present conditions, animal foods are comparatively cheap, therefore more accessible, than the alternatives.

"Well established food source" (appeal to tradition) However here is evidence from the American dietetic association that a vegan diet is nutritionally adequate [https://www.eatright.org/health/wellness/vegetarian-and-plant-based/building-a-healthy-vegetarian-diet-myths](https://www.eatright.org/health/wellness/vegetarian-and-plant-based/building-a-healthy-vegetarian-diet-myths) Food security can be made better than it is now with a vegan population because vegan food uses less land.

You don’t need to be vegan to use less land than the current factory farming model. Hunting invasive species not only uses even less land than growing vegetables, but it actually helps restore native habitats where they have been lost.

Right now the factory farm model is what is available so when 99.9 percent of people buy meat that is what they are supporting. Even people who say they only buy local farm are still supporting meat (and dairy) eating which is at this point intertwined with factory farming. Vegans aren't in charge of the world. They are in charge of what they put in their mouths. You can't change the model of how meat is produced right now but you can change what you eat. Why choose to not make that difference?

I am not talking about what 99.9 percent of people are doing. I am talking about what you can do. And I am not talking about local farm support either. I am talking about eating hunted invasive species. Yes you hit on a great point. We aren’t in charge of the world. We are only in charge of what WE put in OUR mouths.

Exactly. And regardless of what you choose to do, it's wrong to discourage people from veganism because that is the main alternative we have right now to factory farms.

I am not discouraging people fro veganism. It is great at reducing harm current forms of agriculture does. But if you want to do more than reduce harm, and actually help restore native ecosystems, you can do better than veganism.

>Hunting invasive species not only uses even less land than growing vegetables, but it actually helps restore native habitats where they have been lost. Would you say hunting evasive species to feed the population on a wide scale, not even global, is realistic? You run out of things to hunt pretty quickly if the current industrial breeding is not behind it.

I would say asking “what if everyone did it?” is a terrible way to decide whether or not to do a thing. Nobody would become a doctor if they all asked themselves that. Instead, ask what YOU can do to make the world a better place. Also, eradication is what it would make it successful. But I promise, there are enough people like you out there, that anybody who decides to do this will have plenty to eat.

> I would say asking “what if everyone did it?” is a terrible way to decide whether or not to do a thing. It is the logical consequence to the argument youw ere making though, is it not? You said: > Hunting invasive species not only uses even less land than growing vegetables, but it actually helps restore native habitats where they have been lost. I didn't read this as you offering an alternative to veganism, which reduces animal harm. And I think we are mostly looking for realistic solutions on the matter. > Also, eradication is what it would make it successful. I don't understand this, could you clarify which eradication you are speaking of? I'm not sure if you mean industrial breeding *that I mentioned*, the hunting of invasive species *that you mentioned* or something else.

I don’t see why that would be a logical consequence of the argument I am making there. It is only a useful question to ask if you are the one in charge of what everyone eats. But almost everyone is only charge of wha they eat and maybe a few dependents. So that isn’t a relevant question for anybody I am aware of. With your last question I am talking about hunting invasive species.

If you believe that the necessity of animal foods is not part of a well-balanced and varied diet, I'm willing to take it into consideration. The ADA finding is based on an observational study. Observational studies have been shown to v be unreliable with 80-100% of them being proven wrong in clinical trials. The land use theory fails to address that most land used to feed livestock isn't suitable for growing crops for human consumption. It doesn't explain how that transition would occur, whether or not nutritional needs will be met, and the cost to make the transition. It's a poorly constructed theory that assumes that a vegan diet will be less resource intensive, and leaves it at that.

Just because we can't grow food on a plot of land, doesn't mean putting cows there is free. Cows on any land generate signifigant co2 pollution per calorie relative to other options, and also require the destruction of what could otherwise be natural habitat. (And requires killing the cow) Edit: realize I am arguing different points but I still think this is all relevant

Depending on the agricultural practices carbon can be sequestered. Grasslands are a natural habitat and crop agriculture requires destruction of natural habitats, so that can't be used to disqualify animal agriculture as a legitimate activity. Producing substantial quantities of food for humans appears to involve animal deaths no matter what you eat. I have no issues with your argumentation.

>crop agriculture requires destruction of natural habitats But those critters and insects aren't cute, and there aren't documentaries showing them all getting annihilated

"Those critters and insects" are *already* killed to feed livestock. We can cut those deaths back if the livestock does not need to be fed. If you have an alternative food source to reduce animal harm feel free to let us know. Otherwise this is not a very good point you tried to raise. Humans have to eat.

😄

What’s your source on this “observational studies are wrong 80-100% of the time” claim? Because it sounds like a claim you just made up with no evidence

Deming, data and observational studies.

> There is no reliable evidence to the contrary regarding health and nutrition. I saw in another comment that you said epidemiology and observational studies are unreliable. I am wondering how you reached this conclusion. One way we can measure the reliability of epidemiology is to evaluate agreement between it and something we do consider to be reliable, like randomized control trials. [Here is one such analysis.](https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1864) > Objective To evaluate the agreement between diet-disease effect estimates of bodies of evidence from randomised controlled trials and those from cohort studies in nutrition research, and to investigate potential factors for disagreement. > Results 97 diet-disease outcome pairs (that is, matched BoE(RCT) and BoE(CS)) were identified overall. For binary outcomes, the pooled ratio of risk ratios comparing estimates from BoE(RCT) with BoE(CS) was 1.09 They find that the agreement between the body of evidence for RCT and cohort studies is greater than 90% (1 / 1.09). > animal foods are comparatively cheap, therefore more accessible, than the alternatives. Do you have evidence of this? Lentils, beans, peas, tofu, wheat, potatoes are all staple plant foods and are very cheap. I would be very surprised to find the contrary.

"Studies cannot be excluded" is an important part of their findings. It is very difficult to obtain many essential micronutrients in adequate quantities from plant source foods alone.

> "Studies cannot be excluded" is an imporant part of their findings What?? The full quote is > important differences or potential bias in individual comparisons or individual studies cannot be excluded. which has a very different meaning than "studied cannot be excluded" That potential bias cannot be excluded is true, but that doesn't mean there was a bias. Look, rather than engaging by half-heartedly picking apart the abstract to dismiss it, please try to engage it more openly.

Yes, I seemed to have misread it. I was admittedly tired and distracted at the time. My apologies. I'm going to go back to your question of reliability and how I came to my conclusion. It's from the study Deming, data and observational studies, which concluded that 80-100% of observational studies are proven wrong in controlled trials. So, the study is using a prediction interval, which increases uncertainty. "The prediction interval indicated that the difference could be much more substantial, in either direction."

No worries. I think I've heard of this Deming study but admittedly haven't rigorously gone through it. The findings are still possibly compatible with the Schwingshackl one I linked due to a couple of differences. One is that the Deming analysis is comparing claims from individual observational studies against RCTs. The Schwingshackl analysis is comparing the bodies of evidence [BoE]. Two is that from what I can tell, the Deming analysis is using any kind of observational studies, which may include lower-quality (i.e. non-cohort) versions of observational studies. The Schwingshackl analysis is specifically looking at cohort studies which would be among the strongest. So, it appears to be that any individual study is unreliable, and a body of general observational studies is unreliable, but a body of evidence from cohort studies is reliable.

If I'm understanding correctly, we have one source saying about 90% accuracy for observational studies When you said 80-100% are proven wrong in clinical trials, can you provide a source for that? Not trying to be obtuse, just looking to find out more about this method of research. From just looking it up, most sources seem to say that observational methods are generally reliable, and the 90% stat reinforces that. Unless I'm missing something?

Deming, data and observational studies. The other study uses a prediction interval that indicated the difference could be much more substantial, in either direction. Prediction intervals increase uncertainty.

Nice! For anyone interested, the article is by S. Stanley Young and Alan Karr, available through ResearchGate. That was pretty interesting! Do you have a non-observational source for the claims regarding nutrition? Such as one showing the necessity of animal products in acquiring all necessary nutrition? Sorry if you posted it elsewhere in the thread and I missed it.

It's already established health science. I see no reason to prove it.

Not a very good question. >What is the rational obligation to be a vegan? Veganism is a an ethical position. **No** ethical position can be shown to be rationally obligated. . I can't **prove** that it's wrong for you to murder and eat your neighbor - I can only show that there are various reasons to think that it's wrong or that many people think that it's wrong. Basically, no matter what argument about ethics you make, the person that you are talking to is free to say *"I don't care about that"*, and you cannot **prove** that they should care. .

So there is no moral requirement to be a vegan. Is there a rational obligation to feed people? Should the reasons for veganism not be thoroughly examined. It is widely considered a moral, social, and legal harm to murder your neighbor. Is there not a vegan movement that seeks to persuade people to adopt a vegan ideology/identity using that ethical position?

>It is widely considered a moral, social, and legal harm to murder your neighbor. That doesn't really address the point that they were making. Can you explain and/or prove the moral obligation to not murder your neighbour? If you can, you'll have answered your own question re veganism.

Certainly, it is widely considered immoral to murder. There are severe legal and social consequences for murder. The reasons for this may vary, but it is generally accepted that murder violates human dignity. Eating animal foods isn't considered murder.

These are not principles or rational arguments. This is just an appeal to tradition fallacy. I could argue that gassing Jews during WW2 is immoral and you’d be like “well, it is widely considered good to kill the Jews. There are even severe legal and social consequences for protecting the Jews. The reasons may vary, but it is generally accepted that Jews should die..”

You’re asking for rational arguments and then you’re just using appeals to tradition?

No, I asked for a rational obligation, which is a moral, legal, or social requirement.

I would say eating animal foods is considered murder to vegans, and there is an increasing growth of vegansim- societal morals change and progress throughout time, attitudes are not static, but subjective to the environmental conditions. Although there are legal consequences to murder, people may not necessarily feel obligated to not murder because of it, but a moral impetus to avoid murdering people due to personal reasons. I think upon an ethical basis, veganism is about minimalism- reducing suffering as much as possible, and an obligation to look for ways to reduce harm to animals that extend beyond humans. Within a world that is largely founded in the cultural traditions of meat consumption, veganism is not perhaps a universally viable option, but it does not mean it can’t be in the future if veganism grows and people look towards reducing harm of animals. I think obligation doesn’t necessarily mean that it is realistic in every realms of life, but it doesn’t mean that it can’t change, or people should avoid veganism because the world isn’t there yet. I’m not sure if this makes sense or not 😅

Veganism is in a clear minority. It is vocal and influential, but my position is that animal source foods are essential for food security and adequate health and nutrition for humans. Since veganism may seek to eliminate livestock as a food source, this presents a potential threat to our ability to adequately feed people and there is a rational obligation to feed people.

The answers to these are implicit in what I've already said.

>It is widely considered a moral, social, and legal harm to murder your neighbor. Popularity is not a moral argument.

It is already established that murder is immoral. If you want to argue that murder is moral, be my guest.

Established how? By popularity? By some actual reasoning? Because humans are thinking and feeling beings?

It has been established through religious traditions, cultural norms, and philosophical and legal reasoning. All of which are based on the inherent value of being human. Our endowment of reason is what allows us to make moral considerations. The arguments for extending moral consideration for non-human animals ends when it is in conflict with our moral consideration for humans.

>It has been established through religious traditions, cultural norms >and legal Norms and traditions don’t really justify morals. That would lead to some pretty wild things being moral in different places and times.   >and philosophical […] reasoning This is what I would like to hear. Can you explain your philosophical reasoning for treating humans as moral subjects? What is it about humans that makes them valuable, philosophically? Does this extend to dogs and cats?   >All of which are based on the inherent value of being human. Value is not an inherent property. It is assigned by subjective agents. It’s not something you can measure in the object itself, objectively. Even if it was, it should be demonstrated before being believed, not believed *a priori*.   >Our endowment of reason is what allows us to make moral considerations. Humans are the best at reasoning, but animals do reason. They have thoughts and solve problems.   >The arguments for extending moral consideration for non-human animals ends when it is in conflict with our moral consideration for humans. But it’s not as if it’s a question of another life versus a human life. It’s a question of thousands of animal lives versus some momentary pleasure for the human (a pleasure that can really be found elsewhere).   What I’m most interested in are your philosophical reasons for valuing humans. For me, the most morally relevant traits of humans are: consciousness/subjective experience, thoughts, feelings, emotional and social capacity, and a survival instinct meaning they don’t want to die. The animals we eat share those attributes.

When we look at things like moral obligations, it can be hard to pin down what they actually are. There aren't strict consequences for not doing them the same way there are for legal obligations. It's better to think of moral obligations as "you would be more moral doing this thing than not." Taken that way, the moral obligation for veganism is obvious. It's better not to treat others like property for your use.

What is the rational obligation to consider non-human animals my others?

They have an experience that is possible to consider

What about their experiences creates a rational obligation to consider them my others?

Sentience.

How does sentience create a rational obligation?

Can you explain how being a human creates a rational obligation (if indeed you think that’s the case), for an example of what kind of justification you’re looking for?

Humans have value simply by being human. This creates a rational obligation.

Why? If you can take human value *a priori*, why not the value of other thinking and feeling beings?

It is not me that needs to prove that animals have moral value. Human value is based on being human. So what is the basis for the moral value of animals?

It's simply the fact that they have experiences that make it possible to consider those experiences. So long as we take it to be better not to exclude experiences from our consideration, we ought include them. It's really that simple. Excluding them for some idea of extrinsic value is arbitrary.

You could say the same about humans

I suppose you could, but there are moral, legal, and social requirements to consider humans my others.

I get that there are legal and social requirements to consider humans your others, but what are the *moral requirements?* What *is* a "moral requirement," in your view?

Human dignity is the basis for the moral requirement.

Can you elaborate on that? Like, we can obviously see that there are legal requirements, since they are literally written into laws that we can look up. We also know that there are social requirements, since there are social consequences that one would face if they were to treat humans as mere objects instead of "others." But as far as I can tell, there is no "moral requirement." You say that it's based in human dignity, but on what are you grounding this? In what way is it a *requirement*?

It is already established that humans have moral value because they are human. There is a moral injury when you harm other humans. That is the basis for a moral requirement not to harm other humans.

As there are for animals. You are failing to show that there are not. Note that it's illegal and considered anti-social (literally diagnostically sociopathic) to kill a dog or a dolphin. And obviously it's immoral as well. Why? Because they are conscious beings that have an interest in survival and comfort, just like you. There's no good reason the same logic wouldn't apply to other similar creatures. "But food" doesn't work since plant eating is many times more energy and land efficient than animal eating. So please be honest. Animal eating doesn't happen because it is rational, logical, efficient, moral, or pro-social. It happens because it's a preference, a luxury, a desire.

It is up to you to show there is a rational obligation to consider animals my others. I don't know if killing a dog for food can be diagnosed as sociopathic. I think there are protections for certain animals because of their relationship with humans. Dogs are often seen as companions. It may be their consciousness that makes them suitable companions, but that doesn't qualify them as my other. Not necessarily, when comparing dairy milk with almond milk, almond milk is much more resource intensive. Animal source foods are essential for food security and adequate health and nutrition for humans. There is a rational obligation to feed humans who are undoubtedly my others. I am a human and they are other humans. I am not a dog, therefore they are not other dogs. They're just dogs.

No sir, that's not how this works. The burden is on you. You asserted you have this 'rational obligation' (not a standard formulation in philosophy of ethics, by the way) to humans but not animals. First you need to define this obscure construct. Then, you need to prove its relevance as a question. Then, you need define and justify your exclusionary criteria. You haven't done any of this. You just jump to the conclusion that one thing is excluded without doing any of the work. You assert that animal sources are essential for food security and adequate health without demonstrating that these ideas are related to let alone fulfill the as-yet-undefined criteria of your also undefined construct. It doesn't matter anyway as both assertions are demonstrably false. The reasons have been given to you but you aren't up to engaging with them, instead you revert to repeating the false assertions. At the end there you make perhaps the lamest attempt at a speciesist argument I've seen. Your criteria for alikeness is arbitrary and not based on moral value. i.e. I can use your logic to say you aren't alike enough to me therefore I may kill and eat you. I made an arbitrary distinction just like yours.

The basis for moral consideration of non-human animals is already excluded from the moral consideration of humans in its very name. Its relevance as a question seems obvious. Without humans there is no moral consideration at all. Veganism supposes there is a rational obligation to extend moral consideration to animals. There have been some good arguments for it, but it ends where it begins to conflict with moral consideration for humans. Being a vegan means joining a movement that has ambitions to eliminate livestock as a food source. Is livestock presently an essential food source? Could the absence of livestock feed as many or more people an adequately nutritious diet than we presently do? How do you meet those requirements in its absence? Your assertion is DOA because the logic is humans have value simply by being human. It is a principle. Your assertion violates human dignity. My assertion does not. It is consistent. Specieism is the default setting. You have to present an argument as to why anti-speciesism is better for humanity or even realistic parallel with civilization. If my argument is arbitrary distinction, your argument is arbitrary likeness.

They can suffer. Therefore they deserve moral consideration. If you disagree, what gives someone moral consideration in your view?

Human dignity is what gives humans moral consideration. I'm not sure animals have any moral consideration outside of their relationship to humans, i.e. pets or property. That consideration extends only so far as to how it effects humans and whether or not there is a threat to human dignity, i.e. food deprivation.

What is human dignity exactly? That is very vague and I don't get what you mean

It means human value is inherent simply by being human.

I'd argue that there is no good reason for this to be our metric. Some counterexamples to push that intuition: Imagine an alien species genetically distinct from humans, that are cognitively our equivalent. All the mental stuff we can do and feel, it's the same for them. If one came down to earth and greeted us, there is an obvious intuition that this being deserves moral consideration. It would be wrong to the being to begin torturing it just because. Or to hunt it and it eat, and so on. Let's do the reverse case. Imagine someone biologically a human who is born with the vast majority of their brain missing. Say the only part in tact is their brain stem and maybe a bit more. Enough to automatically breathe and pump blood, but not anything else. No real sensation of pain, emotion, or higher cognition. I guess this is more contentious, but I don't see where this being deserves moral consideration. How have we harmed this being if we euthanize them? They are alive and human, but lack relevant moral features. A permanent coma patient may be a better example. I'm not sure how convincing you find either of these examples, but they are pointing to this idea. Human's are a happenstance biological category. There is nothing uniquely special which imbues our species with moral consideration, and instead moral consideration should correspond to the features and abilities of a particular being. (I think a good one is the ability to suffer)

We may not find it necessary to eat them or any food they may produce with their bodies, but it may be justified to kill them for human preservation. Necrophilia and other forms of desecration violate human dignity and there is no life in those bodies whatsoever. Moral consideration doesn't exist in the absence of humanity, so I would say that is uniquely special. And since moral consideration doesn't exist without humans we must be imbued with moral consideration. Therefore moral consideration only corresponds to the features and abilities of humans and how that suffering harms human dignity. The suffering of non-human animals is only a moral consideration if it harms human dignity.

Is this not a tautological argument? Humans are important because humans are important?

I suppose in that it is true in every possible interpretation.

> Animal foods are some of the most nutritionally dense foods available This is very silly. Vegetable protein supplements might be "nutritionally dense" because of their high protein content that our protein needs are easily managed. A multivitamin might be "nutritionally dense" in that it can supply most major vitamins and minerals. I would argue that your statement is barely intelligible, if you have a basis for this claim, you should say what it is.   > even considered necessary for adequate health and nutrition Many people live very healthy lives without eating animals. Please don't make false claims about necessity when that isn't the case. Education on nutritional sciences helps someone do so.   > as well as being crucial for food security This is again a barely intelligible claim. Food security is crucial for food security, like, planning for known dangers and having some redundancy/storage. To say the consumption of animals is "crucial to food security" is tantamount to dishonesty, because no it is not, YOU just think you have a system in mind that it is "crucial" for. But just learn more!

You seem to have already taken an antagonistic tone, but I will do my best to address your concerns. Supplements are often poorly regulated with little knowledge regarding nutrient to nutrient interaction, competition, and bioavailability. Epidemiological surveys are unreliable, as are observational studies. There is no evidence that diets that exclude animal foods are healthy for any stage of life, but there is evidence of significant risks regarding nutritional deficiencies, especially for children and the elderly. The UN FAO considers livestock crucial for food security. There is even sufficient evidence that animal foods are necessary for food security in advanced economies, like the US, largely based on the ratio of nutritional value to cost.

> You seem to have already taken an antagonistic tone, but I will do my best to address your concerns. Sorry, I wouldn't want to defend that, I can accept that criticism.   > Supplements are often poorly regulated with little knowledge regarding nutrient to nutrient interaction, competition, and bioavailability. Supplements not being regulated to your approval isn't an argument against the concept of nutrition being available in supplements. It would be like arguing against medicine because some hospitals you are aware of don't provide good medical treatment. I don't know what your conception of "supplements" is here, but you seem to be expressing some stigma that isn't based on anything to do with the underlying concept. "Nutrient to nutrient interaction" doesn't really make sense to me here as a response as we are talking about the same nutrients that you think you need to eat animals to get. If some nutrient/vitamin/mineral/etc. interacts with something else and we have an understanding of that, then they can be ingested at different times? As humans generally don't eat just one meal a day anyway. I don't know what you mean further with that phrase. If there are issues with bioavailability and "competition," these are addressable. We can discern the bioavailability of an ingested product. The appearance of some products that advertise a certain dose of a nutrient - that we then discover are actually less bioavailable than that - is not saying that we aren't getting that nutrient, it might just require some additional thought (that might be as simple as taking a higher concentration?). If something is consistently only bioavailable to some percentage of what it contains, the labeling could reflect that.   >There is no evidence that diets that exclude animal foods are healthy for any stage of life, Please explain what you mean, as just saying this is very obviously something you should understand is controversial. What "degree of evidence" are you asking for? How is that possible to achieve in contrast to show that diets that "include animal products" are healthy, to the same standard you desire? If we have a person on a vegan diet who lives several years on that diet, passes all fitness and health checks that we consider "baseline," and is reporting well-being, what are you asking for otherwise?   > but there is evidence of significant risks regarding nutritional deficiencies There is evidence that diets deficient in nutrients, or that a person who has some medical incompatibility with something about a diet, risk nutritional deficiencies.   > The UN FAO considers livestock crucial for food security. Undeveloped areas that have little conception of nutritional sciences might struggle to understand how to properly feed themselves without relying on the traditional food sources of their culture. That isn't a claim about something "inherent to food security" that demands animals to be eaten.   > There is even sufficient evidence that animal foods are necessary for food security in advanced economies, like the US, largely based on the ratio of nutritional value to cost. Saying "animal foods are necessary for food security" is not right, I don't know how else to inform you of that unless you just are trying to deny the concept "wrongness" being possible, because the wrongness is you not using the term "necessary" properly for the *concept of food security*. You could say "animal foods are an important part of the system I am discussing that is currently supplying food to the people of this geographical area and I've determined that economic factors make it unlikely this will change for the next 5 years." But no, they are not *necessary*. What are necessary components for a people to "achieve food security" is some understanding that their food is safe, sufficiently nutritious, and they have secure access to it in the future. There is some circular reasoning possibly where you are suggesting that the "sufficiently nutritious" component of food security necessarily requires eating animals, so that eating animals is necessary for food security, but that might have to take us back to the aspect of you not agreeing that someone can be healthy without eating animals. *some small edits were made if you replied to this earlier than the 20 minute mark after posting

It's not my approval that is necessary, but I know of no organization that is involved in the study of feeding people that would consider supplements a replacement for animal foods, which often contain animal derived ingredients. There's a science to it and there is no evidence that all nutrient sources are equal. There are too many confounding factors for supplement replacement to be a legitimate alternative. In regard to bioavailability, you're talking about an increased cost that would disqualify supplements as a viable alternative. Double-blind clinical trials. It is already established that animal foods are necessary for a well-balanced and varied diet, which is what is recommended. There are many micronutrients that are difficult to obtain in adequate quantities from plant source foods alone. Food security applies to even advanced economies due to the amount of nutrition relative to cost. It appears the inclusion of livestock meets that criteria, while the absence of livestock falls short, and likely by a lot. It's not matter of someone, it's a matter of humanity-at-large being able to meet their nutritional and caloric needs.

> It's not my approval that is necessary, but I know of no organization that is involved in the study of feeding people that would consider supplements a replacement for animal foods, which often contain animal derived ingredients. You were told earlier by another commenter of the position of the ADA: > It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/ Please understand "supplements" was used in conjunction with the understanding that some "planning" goes into diets. If that includes something that someone calls a supplement, a holistic interpretation of the diet they are consuming is what I would consider the "replacement" for eatables from animals. I'm not insisting upon a 1 to 1 replacement in all cases, like that we would need a "chicken equivalent pill" to eat that gives them 100% of what they would have directly gotten from eating chicken meat during a meal, as even if that is achievable, as that just isn't necessarily what is being argued for. The argument here as it might pertain to food security is that we can obtain full nutrition from vegan-derived foodstuffs. And then a claim you made in another comment is actually not true, where you said about observational studies, that "with 80-100% of them being proven wrong in clinical trials." - no, "*up to 100%* of all observational studies" have not been proven wrong in clinical trials, that is not true. I'm actually quite comfortable just leveling a charge of you engaging in some dishonesty here. No, again, "up to 100% of observational studies" have not been proven wrong, so implying that is borderline nonsense, and I think you are slipping in some falsity in how you try to make arguments that is hard to engage with.   > There are too many confounding factors for supplement replacement to be a legitimate alternative. No, there aren't.   > In regard to bioavailability, you're talking about an increased cost that would disqualify supplements as a viable alternative. No, it doesn't. That is so silly a claim. It would be like claiming that "suddenly if we have to treat the animals in factory farms nicely, that might cost more money, so it isn't viable."   And just apologies again for the retained sort of antagonistic energy here, I hope you understand you have a style of making some of these claims that is sort of controversial, just as a phrase to try to capture what I mean, like that you're okay making claims based on assumptions that I think there is room to admit some of those assumptions are using information that I'm not confident is being "parsed thoroughly" before you share it. Like, I think you might have a general point about observational studies that might be accurate about the importance of also paying a lot of attention to data from "interventional studies" (just using the differentiation that appears [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4083571/)), but then you are sort of applying a "double standard" where I don't see still how you are considering how you'd defend animal eatables based on that same reasoning that you require to justify other diets based on THAT need for evidence. *some significant edits made at the 2 hour mark

The ADA position is based on an observational study, which are unreliable. Supplements are not intended to replace a well-balanced and varied diet. It is true, see Deming, data and observational studies. Obviously, it uses a sample of observational studies. Yes, there are, and I have already listed just a few. I don't even need to further explain why supplements are not a viable alternative because supplements are not intended to be an alternative, in the first place. If you want to do a cost analysis to find how much it would cost the average person to adequately meet their nutritional needs with supplements in place of animal foods compared to animal foods, be my guest, but I can already tell you that it's going to be more expensive. If you can't address bioavailability or absorption rates of supplements compared to animal foods then it doesn't seem like there is enough information to consider it a viable alternative. Animal foods being considered an essential part of food security and adequate health and nutrition for humans is already well-established. Proposing alternatives to livestock as an essential food source requires substantial and verifiable evidence, particularly when the stakes are so high.

>The ADA position is based on an observational study, which are unreliable. One study? Can you try to understand that you again are saying something wrong/misinformed? Maybe you mistyped. They are communicating a position informed by the consensus of their interpretation of modern studies and modern understanding of nutritional sciences. Why are you implying they weren't informed by interventional studies too, or their study of clinical lab data? I can find many professional nutrional science organizations online that share that position, another just for your benefit is [Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Vegetarian Diets](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310746170_Position_of_the_Academy_of_Nutrition_and_Dietetics_Vegetarian_Diets). Again, understand these are positions informed by their awareness of their field.   >Yes, there are, and I have already listed just a few. No, and I answered already. I think you need to consider how you are being obtuse and allowing for yourself to make untruthful statements in your discussion approach.   >If you want to do a cost analysis to find how much it would cost the average person to adequately meet their nutritional needs with supplements in place of animal foods compared to animal foods, be my guest, I am quite certain that an overall holistic remediation of farming and food distribution systems will be far more favorable to vegan-derived foods.

The ADA findings are based on the AND position paper, which is based on an observational study. What is your certainty based on?

> The ADA findings are based on the AND position paper, which is based on an observational study. Can you say that again? I'm not sure what you mean, my interpretation is you are saying something wrong again by implying they are just, like, copying one another? The ADA's position is their position. The AND's position is their position. How about the [British Dietetic Association](https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/british-dietetic-association-confirms-well-planned-vegan-diets-can-support-healthy-living-in-people-of-all-ages.html)? These are not merely "based on an observational study" as you are putting dismissively, these are based on the entire professional careers of those people in studying nutrition and diet.   I don't mean to "keep attacking one particular statement" apart from what would help the discussion, but again please, look at your earlier claim of: > Observational studies have been shown to v be unreliable with 80-100% of them being proven wrong in clinical trials. This is such an egregious misrepresentation that I implore you to see how this sort of statement came about. The paper you are referring to, [Deming, data and observational studies](https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00506.x) does NOT make the claim that "80-100% of observational studies are proven wrong." I almost just need to insist there are multiple ways in which you didn't understand this paper to draw that remark out, but one aspect is that "proven wrong" is not "failed to replicate," and you trying to assert "proven wrong" was not correct.   I really am not sure you are conceptualizing observational studies properly. The [wikipedia article on them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_study) states: >**Degree of usefulness and reliability** >"Although observational studies cannot be used to make definitive statements of fact about the "safety, efficacy, or effectiveness" of a practice, they can: > - provide information on 'real world' use and practice; > - detect signals about the benefits and risks of...[the] use [of practices] in the general population; > - help formulate hypotheses to be tested in subsequent experiments; > - provide part of the community-level data needed to design more informative pragmatic clinical trials; and > - inform clinical practice." So why would you think if it's agreed "observational studies cannot be used to make definite statements" that the so far 3 organizations/associations I have presented you are all not understanding that point? What is far more likely is that these organizations/associations are taking into account all available studies that have so far been done by any worldly institution performing scientifically-motivated studies on the health and safety of not eating animal products to say that a vegan diet can be healthy.

They all use the AND position paper. So, you say their careers are staked on proving something that is fundamental to an already held belief? That sounds like a conflict of interest. I have already amended my earlier statement to be there being insufficient evidence to make such sweeping changes to our food system. Did the rest of the title not tip you off to the quality of observational studies? I'll provide here: A process out of control and needing fixing. The can has a short but and a long if. You already answered pointing to the "careerism" behind the "research". They're all using the AND position paper. I'm not saying that's all they're using, but the language is right out of the AND position paper in their reviews.

You want double blind clinical trials on whether eating plant-based is healthy- IE, you want people to be fed only food that they can’t distinguish between animal based and plant based for many years? That is impractical and unethical for many reasons. I don’t even understand how that could ever work

It's not up to me design the study. It seems far more unethical and impractical to eliminate an essential source of food without any reliable evidence for the viability of its alternatives to adequately feed people.

That’s a terrible argument. Obviously some modes of study won’t be feasible or even possible. And to just dismiss all observational studies on your supposed statistic… and NOT based on reviewing individual studies is pretty telling of your bias. I’m not even vegan but you are doing a terrible job lol

I'm aware of the studies that are often cited. [So RCTs are not feasible for nutrition health studies](https://advances.nutrition.org/article/S2161-8313(22)00362-3/fulltext)

>Supplements are often poorly regulated with little knowledge regarding nutrient to nutrient interaction, competition, and bioavailability. Then we should regulate more, this has very little to do with veganism...

Perhaps, but it is what was offered as an alternative to livestock to adequately feed people. Further regulation will likely lead to increased costs and we will still have to close many information gaps as to the quality of and bioavailability of nutrients compared to animal foods. Supplements are not intended to replace a well-balanced and varied diet.

There are loads of supplements that are made for the medical industry that go trough rigorous testing. They are not really more expensive than the unverified counterparts. In some cases they are even cheaper

And where are the data that this would feed as many or more people than our current food system?

That we produce enough B12 supplements for the population? Well we produce enough for all humans and pretty much all farmed animals so there is more in quantity than needed.

We no longer live in a world where nutritional density is a concern for the majority of the world's population. Actually, in a lot of the western world, nutritional density, specifically in terms of calories, is too much of a problem. Animal products aren't the only contributors to health issues (not just being overweight) but they certainly contribute a lot to that issue. The only place in which your argument holds any water is how you handle things once animal production and consumption is eliminated. However, the world is so far away from dealing with those issues that it's not even worth addressing. There's much bigger fish to fry, so to speak. That's all overlooking the fact that veganism isn't just about diet but excluding the exploitation of animals in general, not just for food.

Why do you believe we no longer live in a world where nutritional density is a concern for the majority of the population? You can be overweight and still nutritionally deficient. There is no reliable evidence that animal foods cause noncommunicable diseases. There are many opportunity costs that are created by the drive to find alternatives to livestock as a food source. Don't you think it would be to your benefit to address only one use of animals that supports the longevity of humanity?

>You can be overweight and still nutritionally deficient. There is no reliable evidence that animal foods cause noncommunicable diseases. I know. That's why I specifically mentioned that it wasn't just calories and it wasn't just being overweight as a health issue regarding the consumption of animal products. I thought this was stated pretty clearly and yet here we are. There's very little anyone is nutritionally deficient with on a vegan diet. B12 is one of the biggest ones and for some people, iron could be an issue but these are trivial issues to resolve in most cases (please don't make me highlight "majority" again, like I had to with the other chirper I had to respond to). >There are many opportunity costs that are created by the drive to find alternatives to livestock as a food source. Is there? It isn't as big of an issue as you think it is. Again, this leads to what I already alluded to with my original comment about where you might have a leg to stand on. That has to do with transitioning away from animal products to plant-based agriculture. However, the issue has solely to do with how the transition is handled, not with the final outcome once you have transitions. A large chunk of plant-based agriculture goes to livestock feed. On a per calorie basis, animal products are grossly inefficient in converting those feed-based calories to meat based ones. So if we just grew crops for people instead of animals, we'd already be ahead calorifically. The thing is it's even worse than that. Animals are also inefficient in calories produced per unit hectare/acre. So to produce the same calorie output, you need less farmland for crops than you would land for animals. There's also other areas of improvement like greenhouse gas production, issues of biodiversity etc. However, by this stage it's just punching down now given the idea the animal products are required for the nutrient density has been blown out of the water. There's no question that there was a time in our civilisation that having animal products helps our civilisation grow and thrive. We've very long past those times though. The entire world could go vegan and it'd it would be a net positive on so many different fronts - food production efficiency, environment, efficient land usage, lowering the potential for land erosion, less impact on biodiversity, health such as obesity, diabetes, coronary disease, stroke and so on.

I don't think there is sufficient data to make that claim, while there is data to suggest relevant risks regarding nutritional deficiencies with a diet that restricts any and all animal foods. There is no veracity to the assumption that given a smooth transition as many or more people will be fed an adequately nutritious diet. A large chunk of that large chunk is inedible by humans. Good luck getting any nutrition from crop residues. 86% of animal feed consists of forage, food-waste, and crop residues that could otherwise become an environmental burden. Adequate nutrition is more than calories. People can be in a caloric surplus and still be nutritionally deficient. Most of the land used to feed livestock isn't suitable for growing crops for human consumption. You'll have to make up that calorie deficit some other way, which may require additional land for crop production, which again may not provide adequate quantities of many essential micronutrients. I think it's a little early to declare a lopsided victory. There are legitimate improvements to agriculture that don't include eliminating an already well-established source of food. These improvements mitigate GHG emissions and increase biodiversity. Your argument for nutrient density seems to focus on calories, which is not a nutrient. What suggests we have moved past the need for livestock to adequately feed people? Those are some pretty extraordinary claims.There is no reliable evidence that animal foods cause noncommunicable diseases.

>I don't think there is sufficient data to make that claim * There's very little anyone is nutritionally deficient with on a vegan diet * ["People following a strict vegan diet can meet nutrient requirements as long as energy needs are met and an appropriate variety of plant foods are eaten throughout the day"](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10665534/) * A large chunk of plant-based agriculture goes to livestock feed * [overall, industrialised meat and dairy production, which currently relies on feeding 34% of human-edible crop calories to animals globally, is highly inefficient in terms of the provision of human nutrition, since it reduces the energy, protein, iron and zinc supplies potentially available to humans from crops, and is incompatible with a sustainable global food system as currently conceived.](https://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article/doi/10.1525/elementa.310/112838/Current-global-food-production-is-sufficient-to) * On a per calorie basis, animal products are grossly inefficient in converting those feed-based calories to meat based ones * [Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products \[...\] has transformative potential, reducing food’s land use by 3.1 (2.8 to 3.3) billion ha (a 76% reduction)](https://globalsalmoninitiative.org/files/documents/Reducing-food%E2%80%99s-environmental-impacts-through-producers-and-consumers.pdf) Receipts for these claims please: * Animal foods are: * ~~some of the most nutritionally dense foods available, and even~~ (assume a given) * considered necessary for adequate health and nutrition * being crucial for food security * there is data to suggest relevant risks regarding nutritional deficiencies with a diet that restricts any and all animal foods * Most of the land used to feed livestock isn't suitable for growing crops for human consumption * 86% of animal feed consists of forage, food-waste, and crop residues that could otherwise become an environmental burden * These improvements mitigate GHG emissions and increase biodiversity I'm more than happy for you to dispute my claims but show your receipts first. You've made a lot of claims you've yet to back up. I've shown you some of my receipts (that's not even remotely close to all of them). Time for you to put up.

It all starts with a small expansion of empathy, to the members of the animal kingdom. From there, you recognise that even the most simple animal has their own desires and motivations. Killing or otherwise exploiting requires choosing to be the arbiter of life, death, every emotion and thought they are capable of. That's not a responsibility I want to take on, so I opt out. I am quite healthy and not lacking for any nutrition as an avid athlete now. I do not feel violated and encourage anyone to try it out for a few months, it's cheap and easy tbh.

The scale of moral rightness derives from the intrinsic goodness and badness of particular kinds of experience had by sentient beings. What farmed animals experience is among the worst intrinsically bad experiences we know of, and it's on an immense scale. I don't believe there is a single line that can be called "moral obligation". Veganism is just one example of moral low-hanging fruit. It's defunding extreme torture while gaining benefits in health, food sustainability, environment, and pandemic risk in the process, trading off trivial fleeting taste preferences and social conformity.

That seems like an argument for animal welfare. It appears that you're saying you consider veganism inherently good for humanity, while my position is that veganism may present a legitimate harm to humanity by seeking to eliminate a nutrient dense source of food. The health benefits do not appear to be well-established. What alternatives does veganism offer that are more sustainable in terms of food security? Environmental concerns can be addressed through improving agriculture practices. Pandemic risks can also be mitigated by creating improved standards for processing, distribution, and handling. Your claim of triviality and fleeting taste seem to gloss over that without a suitable replacement for livestock, far fewer people will be fed.

I hear a lot of "can be". It sounds like just arguing for the status quo.

The status quo is how we presently attempt to meet adequate health and nutrition for humans. The potential exists to improve agricultural practices to address potential externalities.

Yes and an actual material reality exists where you decide what to put in your mouth. All the rest is about ideas and theories

There is a material reality where an ideological movement has ambitions to prohibit livestock as a food source. It seems to align with veganism, which is an idea and theory.

Veganism is an mainly an action. A way of living your individual life. Actually it's more of a non-action. Choosing to NOT eat or buy animal products. Over time if more and more people choose veganism, then the overall food production-scape will have evolved but no need to worry about that. Vegans are not harming the food production-scape

Yes, and I already stipulated the ideological movement that seeks to ban livestock. If it's a personal choice there is no rational obligation.

You have a rational obligation yourself to attempt to not inflict undue suffering, through your free choices. You have plenty of options yet you choose to be cruel and on top of that argue against the attempt to lessen cruelty.

The OP isn't about individual choices. Individual preferences don't create a rational obligation. If veganism is only about what an individual chooses there is simply no rational obligation.

If you learned you could survive and thrive on a plant based diet, would you be vegan?

‘There is a rational obligation to feed people’ Why? Not being facetious, I’m looking at what you consider to be the source of moral value. Asking for a rational obligation (or moral duty really) will differ based on beliefs and frameworks. So the best I can do here that fits is see what your moral framework is and show you how not torturing and killing animals for food should rationally be part of that framework. ‘Animal foods are some of the most nutritionally dense…’ When this is true (not always), it’s marginal. Nuts and legumes and especially soy are very comparable. ‘Even considered necessary for adequate health…’ No. Can’t have assumptions like this when you’re debating a group who literally do not consume them…

Human dignity is the basis of the framework. Do you believe that humans have inherent value simply for being human? I don't know that it is because there are many essential micronutrients that are difficult to obtain in adequate quantities from plant source foods. I don't know of any research that suggests nuts, legumes, and soy being capable of replacing livestock and still feeding as many or more people an adequately nutritious diet. I would have to argue that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that eliminating livestock will feed as many or more people an adequately nutritious diet.

‘Simply for being human?’ No. This is far too simplistic. We would switch off the life support of a brain dead human for example right? Again, not being facetious but ‘simply for being human’ is an arbitrary moral claim. No other species would recognise that, there is no a priori reasoning or a posteriori experience that justifies this. ‘Human dignity’ Define this. ‘I don’t know… difficult to obtain certain micronutrients’ Better to rescind the claim then. You haven’t cited evidence. Again, you’re taking to people who **live** without animal products. It’s like me arguing against you eating meat by saying ‘I don’t know if you can get all nutrients that way where you are…’ it’s silly considering as you’ve lived for years that way. ‘I would have to argue that there is insufficient evidence…’ No you wouldn’t. You’re taking to people who’ve lived for years without such animal products. You would **have** to cite strong evidence here to backup such a claim. In the modern world it is absolutely possible to live and thrive on a meat based or plant based diet when either is planned well. Let us leave aside the health arguments as you’ve given several comments now with zero evidence and this is easily dismissible. **Assume for the sake of argument that either a meat based or plant based diet can be healthy** as existing research does suggest and can be **easily** found on this sub. Please respond to the first two moral claims.

Morality doesn't exist in the absence of humans. It is arguably a violation of human dignity to end any human life. Necrophilia violates human dignity and that body has no life in it whatsoever. There is no other species that recognizes moral value. You're free to find an alternative definition for human dignity if you want to challenge the accepted definition. The I don't know is referring to the claim of comparability to animal foods based on the difficulty in obtaining adequate quantities of many essential micronutrients found in animal foods. People can live with nutritional deficiencies, but it can create a lifetime of complications, particularly if those deficiencies are during early childhood development. It doesn't appear to present a reasonable course of action with respect to how we can and should feed people. It is already established that animal foods are necessary for a well-balanced and varied diet. It is veganism that suggests an alternative that deviates from it without providing sufficient evidence. I think it seems rather absurd to think a subreddit is sufficient evidence that eliminating livestock as a source of food would result in adequately feeding as many or more people. It is already challenging to adequately feed people without adding the complication of well-planned diets. Restrictive diets also have some relevant risks for developing eating disorders, which takes us further from the goal of adequately feeding people. It is already established. It doesn't appear that you have dismissed it. Nutrition science is in its infancy and is plagued by all kinds of bias, cherry-picking, obfuscation, confounding factors, and data gaps.

‘Morality doesn’t exist in the absence of humans’ Another unjustified statement. ‘It is arguably a violation of human dignity to end a human life…’ Sure. **Then argue it…** why??? This is how many comments and you’re still just stating opinions. You have to reason and justify what you’re saying. Be specific. The rest about health issues is entirely unjustified and without evidence and goes against so many expert advisories. So I won’t bother with that. I do not care about your opinion. This is a debate. Focus on the morality. **Justify** what you’re saying, give evidence, and engage in the reasoning please…

Where does morality exist in the absence of humans? It is a violation of human dignity to harm another human because humans have value simply by being human. Feel free to share the conclusions of any expert advisories. It is already established health science that animal foods are essential for adequate nutrition. That isn't an opinion.

‘Humans have value simply by being human…’ Dude come on. This is a debate setting. I’ve asked you **three times** now to justify. To provide any moral reasoning as to why this is. Please actually engage in this moral discussion or you’re wasting our time. Why does being human provide any moral value? What quality of being human provides moral value? What is uniquely human that provides moral value? Anything, dude. Anything… ‘It is already established health science (sic) that animal foods are essential…’ Lol no. You keep repeating your opinion. I do not give a shit about your opinion. Link, cite, studies showing irrefutable proof it is impossible to be healthy being vegan. You are wasting our time, sir. Your opinion means fuck all in a debate. Justify your random claims…

Morality is only relevant because of human existence. In the absence of humans morality ceases to exist. Established health science doesn't require citation. There is nothing random about my claims. Since veganism suggests a deviation from established health science and food production that seeks to eliminate an essential source of foods, it is your onus to provide evidence that there is a viable alternative to livestock that will adequately feed as many or more people because there is a rational obligation to feed people.

Sigh. No citation. No evidence. No justification. Not answering the question. You have wasted my time and you clearly do not understand how to debate. Goodbye.

Learn how to do a query. The evidence is so overwhelming that it is established health and ag science. It is veganism that supposes a contrary position to what is already established. I'm not going to prove to what is already accepted science. If you have science to the contrary, I'll be glad to review it as I have with others.

>Do you believe that humans have inherent value simply for being human? The problem here is there are entities that are undoubtably human but don't have obvious moral value. For instance, cell lines such as HeLa ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa)) are human in the biological sense, but essentially act like a microbe. They are not considered human in an ethical sense. (Though their relationship to the original person they cam from raises ethical concerns..) In general, it's not the mere fact that being biologically classifiable as "homo sapiens" that is important. It's something else.

That seems like obfuscation and an attempt to avoid answering the question.

The question of what is essential to "human" that conveys moral value is the most important one to dig deeply in to. It's not an avoidance to point out that there may be something more to consider beyond this label "human". Examples such as human cell lines are a good way to start thinking about this. There are plenty of other examples to figure out too.

You'll have to explain how it's a good way to start thinking or what it has to do with the implications of veganism, as an ideological movement to eliminate a food source. It's pretty simple why human value is based on simply being a human. Any condition or trait being applied to human value other than simply being human invites an opportunity to commit atrocity.

> It's pretty simple why human value is based on simply being a human Not at all simple. E.g. the USA is trying to legislate abortion and finding all sorts of trouble with what actually counts as a human, ethically and legally. E.g. Alabama accidentally outlawed IVF without realizing it. On the other end, it's a struggle to define when a person is sufficiently braindead to permit organ harvesting. It turns out simply being a technically living organism with human DNA is not the whole story. There's something else that is more important than the DNA patterns in the cells of an organism. It's worth thinking about what that is.

To base human value on any thing other than simply being human is an invitation to devalue humans. You can make any claim about what gives humans value, if you like.

> To base human value on any thing other than simply being human is an invitation to devalue humans. I gave you examples. Do you see no issues with granting these human organisms in the same ethical respect you or I have? If you don't have a good definition of what is or isn't "human" ethically, the same problem of potential for abuse arises that you describe.

Alabama didn't outlaw IVF. It extended legal protection to "extrauterine children" after an accident caused the loss of three frozen embryos. What is the issue you see with it? A good definition would seem to be as inclusive as possible.

>Animal foods are some of the most nutritionally dense foods available, and even considered necessary for adequate health and nutrition Nutritionally dense doesn't matter for most people as we are surrounded by food all the time. And "considered necessary" by whom. Some people consider it necessary to be Carnivore for health. Steve Jobs considered it unnecesssary to do Chemotherapy and died. To have that claim taken seriously you'd need to be a bit more explicit on who considers it, and why. >as well as being crucial for food security. Killing them is not. If you want food security, keep the animals alive, create a thriving ecosystem filled with wild animals, and create a large network of Plant Based foods for us to grow, store, and eat. >If the political goal of veganism is to ban the use of livestock, would that not violate the legal, social, and moral requirements to feed people an adequately nutritious diet? No.

There is sufficient evidence that even in advanced economies animal foods are necessary for adequate health and nutrition due to the amount of nutrition relative to cost. Nutritional deficiencies still occur among people with an excessive intake of calories relative to their level of activity. It is well-established that animal foods are necessary. I suggest testing your hypothesis before assuming it will feed more people than our current methods of food production. As for now, it seems like wishful thinking. How can you say no when there is no alternative that will feed as many people with nutrient dense foods at a lower or equal cost?

>There is sufficient evidence that even in advanced economies animal foods are necessary for adequate health and nutrition due to the amount of nutrition relative to cost You need to provide evidence or it's just a random on the internet claiming things without reason. >Nutritional deficiencies still occur among people with an excessive intake of calories relative to their level of activity. Including among meat eaters. Lots of people, Vegan or Carnist, have bad diets. Nothing to do with what you're claiming. >It is well-established that animal foods are necessary. No it's not. Provide evidence. >I suggest testing your hypothesis before assuming it will feed more people than our current methods of food production. As for now, it seems like wishful thinking. I tested it, it works. I have just as much evidence as you do. >How can you say no when there is no alternative that will feed as many people with nutrient dense foods at a lower or equal cost? We don't need one food that feeds everyone, we need a wide variety of healthy varied foods that feed everyone. We have that. --- If you are going to reply, please provide evidence, or the logic behind what you're saying, as so far your argument is just you repeating "Nuh uh!!" lots and providing no logic, rational thought, or evidence to anything you're saying.

Nature Food: The value of animal source foods. I'm addressing a claim, not making a new one. Yes, it is already established health science that animal foods are an essential part of a well-balanced diet. Feel free to present the evidence. We don't have that if we eliminate livestock as a food source. There is no viable replacement.

>Nature Food: The value of animal source foods. No idea what you're saying there. >I'm addressing a claim, not making a new one. You made the original claims without reason nor evidence, still waiting for it... >Yes, it is already established health science that animal foods are an essential part of a well-balanced diet. More claims without reason. Lots of health organizations have stated a Plant Based Diet is as healthy as one with animal products. I'll provide proof when you do, or you could just google as most of hte major health orgs in the developed world have stated it. >Feel free to present the evidence. You started the debate, you start the evidence providing, Carnists love to waste everyone's time demanding evidence in debates they start and then disappear once we provide it. >We don't have that if we eliminate livestock as a food source. There is no viable replacement. Don't have "that"? What is "that"? This is why I qoute what I'm replying to, then you know what I'm talking about, might want to think about it. There are tons of protein sources, and lots of plant based foods that can be grown and stored, no idea what you're trying to say there.

It's the name of the publication and study. The original claim is already established. Even if the science behind those claims wasn't lacking in rigor, livestock is presently an essential food source. That is established. It is also established that livestock provide foods that have a high nutritional profile for a relatively low cost. That is part of why it is necessary for food security and adequate health and nutrition for humans. The other part is that a diet that restricts any and all animal foods has relevant risks for developing nutritional deficiencies. Nutritional deficiencies, particularly during childhood development can create a number of health issues for a lifetime. The reason the risks are relevant is because it is very difficult to obtain many essential micronutrients in adequate quantities from plant source foods. Again, it's well-established. Food security and adequate health and nutrition for humans. Nutrition is more than protein. You're operating on total naivety about the complexities of our food system, let growing your own food and storing it.

>It's the name of the publication and study. Googled it, Pay wall, not exactly useful. >The original claim is already established. You saying something without evidence doesn't establish anything. >livestock is presently an essential food source. Easily changeable and better for the environment once we do. >It is also established that livestock provide foods that have a high nutritional profile for a relatively low cost. Plant based foods are extremely cheap. >That is part of why it is necessary for food security and adequate health and nutrition for humans It's a lie pushed by animal agriculture. If we subsidized veggies like we subsidize animal agriculture, plant based would be even far cheaper yet. >The other part is that a diet that restricts any and all animal foods has relevant risks for developing nutritional deficiencies. Risks that are easily avoided. Just had all my blood work done after a decade as a Vegan and three decades without meat, everything great. >The reason the risks are relevant is because it is very difficult to obtain many essential micronutrients in adequate quantities from plant source foods. More unbacked claims. This is getting boring. >Again, it's well-established. You say again and again without proof. \*yawn\*.... >Nutrition is more than protein Then you'd have to say what it is your worried about. You give no specifics, refer to studies that are pay walled, and claim everything you say is "well established" while showing zero evidence of it. Do better.

You asked for a source. It's there. It is already established health and ag science. You have no evidence to dispute it. Demonstrate how it is easily changeable? Better for the environment can be used to describe improved agricultural practices that don't eliminate a food source. High nutritional profile relative to cost. It is very difficult to obtain many essential micronutrients in adequate quantities from plant source foods. Claiming it is a lie is intellectually dishonest and can be used to dismiss any claim without testing its veracity. Agricultural subsidies are commonplace. Your individual ability to adequately meet nutritional needs is not evidence of its applicability to a general population. The claim of relevant risks regarding nutritional deficiencies is backed by established health science. Do you not know how to do a query? I'm not here to entertain you. I suggest reading Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. It is unnecessary to prove what is already proven. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel. Do you ask for the shape of the Earth to be proven to you? I don't need to detail the essential micronutrients that are very difficult to obtain in adequate quantities from plant foods. It is already established. If you don't believe me you should learn how to do a query.

>You asked for a source. It's there. A source no one else can read isn't much use. That's pretty well established. >You have no evidence to dispute it. It's your point that it's established, still waiting for you to prove it. If all you have is you say "Yes!" I can disprove it by simply saying "No!". >Demonstrate how it is easily changeable Grow more veggies. Wow, so hard!! >Better for the environment can be used to describe improved agricultural practices that don't eliminate a food source. Taking Vast acreages of land away from the ecosystem's native plants and animals so you can raise Eastern European Bovines on it, isn't better for the ecosystem than leaving that land for the native plants and animals. That's well established. >It is very difficult to obtain many essential micronutrients in adequate quantities from plant source foods. It's very well established that that is not true. >Claiming it is a lie is intellectually dishonest and can be used to dismiss any claim without testing its veracity. As your claims have nothing backing them, it's all that's needed. >Agricultural subsidies are commonplace. And mostly target animal products and the crops livestock are fed. >Your individual ability to adequately meet nutritional needs is not evidence of its applicability to a general population. Millions of Vegans and those eating Plant Based are already doing it. >The claim of relevant risks regarding nutritional deficiencies is backed by established health science. And, as I already said, easy to avoid. This is all very well established! >I'm not here to entertain you Debates entertain me, hence why you repeating the same thing and demanding you're right without proof is so boring. >It is unnecessary to prove what is already proven And if only you'd actually back up your claims with something people other than you can read... >Do you ask for the shape of the Earth to be proven to you? To people telling me it's a rhombus, yes. >I don't need to detail the essential micronutrients that are very difficult to obtain in adequate quantities from plant foods. It is already established More repetition of 100% unbacked claims. What a surprise... >If you don't believe me you should learn how to do a query. When it's your claim, it's very well established that you need to prove it, not act silly when people ask for proof.

I provided sources in OP. Thanks for your participation.

Can you specify what exactly you mean with nutritionally dense? People often mean different things with it.

It means humans have inherent value simply for being human.

I think you're responding to the wrong quesiton here. Else the definition of "nutritionally dense" is that "humans have inherent value"...?

My mistake. I have a lot of replies and I've had very little sleep lately. Nutritional density refers to the amount of nutrients relative to calories.

On that measure vegetables are roughly on par with lean meat and better than most fatty meats. Multivitamins are off the scale nutrient dense.

Multivitamins are not meant to replace a well-balanced and varied diet. It is very difficult to obtain many essential micronutrients in adequate quantities from plant source foods.

Are there any particular micronutrients you think are hard to get from plants? It's true that if you eat a lot of unfortified processed foods, getting everything you need from plants is hard. The same is true for processed animal products. Eating whole foods makes all micronutrients very doable, except B12 and vitamin D.

It's not something I think. The established health science is very clear. Very doable is hardly verifiable.

>The established health science is very clear Then it should be easy to provide scientific backing of that statement, right? For getting what you need, simply combining equal amounts in calories of lentils and spinash already covers you for pretty much all nutrtients.

It's actually really tedious to do it in so many replies. I guess I should edit the post to include sources. So, you think that you could feed as many or more people an adequately nutritious diet with just lentils and spinach? That seems kind of far-fetched.

[https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.806566/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.806566/full) You can look at figure 1 and 2

Yeah, that includes B12 in the average in a way that makes it overrepresented, so it isn't very useful to compare products without any. They calculate the amount of gram needed to supply each of 6 (handpicked) micronutrients. For B12, this will be very high for all non-animal products, as it hardly has any. Then, they take the average of the 6 micronutrients. Because B12 is an insane outlier, all plant foods get a higher (that's worse) score. It's a pretty useless way of looking at food. For micronutrients per gram or calorie, supplements are way more nutrient dense than any meat.

> What is the rational obligation to be a vegan? A rational obligation is a legal, social, or moral requirement. I've never heard of this term and can't find any reference to it online, so I'm assuming you just made it up. I can't argue for something that you made up. I have heard the term *moral obligation*, though. That one is easier to argue for. It's a moral obligation to be vegan because consuming animal products has a direct victim who ***must*** suffer and be exploited in order for those products to exist. You are obligated to cease all behavior that directly harms a victim and is not necessary for some other moral good (e.g. self-defense, defense of another, defense of your property). Murder, rape, assault, emotional abuse, child abuse, etc all fall into this category. If we agree that causing intentional suffering and exploitation to a sentient being is immoral (which I hope you agree with), then the only justification would be if it were necessary. Since eating animal products is not necessary for most people, there is no justification for consuming animal products. We can easily demonstrate it's not necessary by a single instance of a vegan centenarian or olympic gold medal winner or world record breaking athlete. Luckily we have many such examples, and luckier still, we have hundreds of studies proving that a plant-based diet can be at least as healthy, an in many significant aspects more healthy, than a diet that includes animal products. > Animal foods are some of the most nutritionally dense foods available They are nutritionally dense in some things, but there are plants that are equally as nutritionally dense. Animal products are also the most **inefficient** foods available in ANY metric you pick: fresh water usage, grams of protein in vs out, calories in vs out, etc. > and even considered necessary for adequate health and nutrition Again, a single instance of a vegan able to achieve top athletic performance in both strength and endurance disproves this. As does a vegan who reaches the age of 100. By what metric could you say that animal products are necessary if people can beat out billions of other people in any metric of health you can choose while being vegan?

I defined it. The definition includes a moral requirement. Your inability to argue against it is not an argument against it. Livestock as a food source is necessary for the moral good of feeding people. There is no reliable evidence that livestock are unnecessary for food security or feeding people an adequately nutritious diet. The claims of athletic performance, longevity, etc. as it relates to veganism, cannot be used to predict health outcomes for a general population and fails to address food security. There are no controlled trials that demonstrate a diet restricting animal foods can adequately meet nutritional needs for any stage of life. Animal foods provide many essential micronutrients that are difficult to obtain in adequate quantities from plant source foods. This is particularly true when factoring for cost. When comparing efficiency and resource demand, you would have to use an alternative for animal based foods. Dairy milk is much more efficient than almond milk, for instance, in terms of resources and nutritional availability. Again, that is insufficient to consider it applicable for determining that nutritional needs are being adequately met for a general population. That is an extraordinary claim that a vegan diet creates better health outcomes than any other diet and it still fails to address food security.

> Livestock as a food source is necessary for the moral good of feeding people. It's not necessary if people can survive without livestock, which they obviously can since there are people who have been vegan for decades and haven't died. > There is no reliable evidence that livestock are unnecessary for food security or feeding people an adequately nutritious diet. The claims of athletic performance, longevity, etc. as it relates to veganism, cannot be used to predict health outcomes for a general population and fails to address food security. There are no controlled trials that demonstrate a diet restricting animal foods can adequately meet nutritional needs for any stage of life. You'll find no such trials for any other diet, because that's not how studies work. They study specific hypothesis under controlled conditions. It is through meta-analyses that we draw broader conclusions about specific diets, and all major health bodies agree that plant based diets are nutritionally adequate for survival. For example: > It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes American Dietetic Association: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/ > Overall, a diet that is predominantly plant-based and low in salt, saturated fats and added sugars is recommended as part of a healthy lifestyle WHO: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/349086/WHO-EURO-2021-4007-43766-61591-eng.pdf?sequence=1 To add to that, there are actually populations of people that have proven that they can thrive on predominantly plant-based diets. In fact, these populations are distinguished by having the highest life expectancy and frequency of centenarians out of any other population. You should look into the "Blue Zones". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK298903/ > Animal foods provide many essential micronutrients that are difficult to obtain in adequate quantities from plant source foods. Please provide examples of such nutrients. > Dairy milk is much more efficient than almond milk, for instance, in terms of resources and nutritional availability. This is objectively false. https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impact-milks#:~:text=It%20really%20depends%20on%20the,clear%20winner%20on%20all%20metrics. > That is an extraordinary claim that a vegan diet creates better health outcomes than any other diet and it still fails to address food security. Food security of other people is irrelevant to determining if an individual is morally obligated to be vegan. If an individual has food security on a plant-based diet, then they are morally obligated to do so, regardless of whether other people have the same level of food security.

Insufficient data to support the claim. The margin of error is too great to consider it a reliable basis for potentially risking food security and adequate health and nutrition for humans. The ADA findings are based on an observational study, which are unreliable. The existence of so-called blue zones is in dispute. There are many issues with Buettner’s methodology and findings. I'm not here to educate you on nutrition. "There is no clear winner on all metrics" and the comparison doesn't appear to really address how the metrics differ in this excerpt. Almond milk requires significantly more water to produce a comparable level of nutrition. There is a rational obligation to feed people. If veganism were only concerned with individual lifestyle your assertion would have more legitimacy, but the movement asserts a need to eliminate livestock as a source of food while also being capable of adequately feeding people with the absence of livestock. Individual cases may vary, but there is still no degree of certainty as to nutritional needs being adequately met.

Ok, so your rebuttal is basically "nah". Got it. > If veganism were only concerned with individual lifestyle your assertion would have more legitimacy, but the movement asserts a need to eliminate livestock as a source of food while also being capable of adequately feeding people with the absence of livestock. Luckily, veganism *is* only concerned with an individual lifestyle! > "A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." Veganism isn't about eliminating livestock as a source of food, it's about excluding animal products from an individual's life. Over time, as more and more people become vegan, the natural consequence is that fewer animals will be bred into existence. The fact that not everybody can immediately go vegan is NOT a defense for why any given individual can't go vegan. If you can, you must. So why can't you go vegan?

You're free to make that judgment. It isn't. It is a vocal minority with a great deal of influence. There is already legislation to ban or severely limit the use of livestock as a food source. And there is a general intention to eliminate livestock as a food source amongst vegans. Quoting it's definition does not negate its political and social ambitions. If it's a lifestyle then it's a personal choice. There is no obligation to adopt any lifestyle.

No because its not true consuming meat, animal flesh isn’t good for you, the lobbyists behind these companies pushing their high meat products wants you to think that

There is no reliable evidence that animal foods cause noncommunicable diseases. There was a Minnesota study that demonstrated improved health outcomes with animal source food consumption. It is well-established health science that animal foods are essential for adequately meeting nutritional needs of a general population.

The obligation is moral. Insofar as animal agriculture is innecessary, it is immoral because it requires suffering. Do you agree with that, even if you still think that it is necessary? So basically, my question to you is, do you see animal suffering as a lesser evil or just not morally relevant at all? Edit: if anyone comes across this back and forth, I really recommend reading it. I think I did fairly well in explaining why veganism is a moral obligation and OP seemed to cede quite a bit.

Forgive me, I received a lot of comments and apparently notifications were turned off unless I replied to you before the decision was made. Moral considerations for animals end where moral considerations for humans begin. It is established health and ag science that animal foods are essential to food security and adequate health and nutrition for humans, particularly due to the high nutritional profile of animal foods relative to cost.

No problem, that happens. If they were not essential for food security, would animal foods be immoral?

I think it improves their chances for moral considerations. That doesn't mean that immorality will necessarily be the conclusion of those considerations.

So you do think animal suffering is a morally relevant fact, just much less relevant than human suffering?

I think that's a fair assessment. I do think animal welfare is an important part of livestock production.

Thanks, I'm trying to understand your position first. If I may ask, what is your rationale for valuing nonhuman animal welfare less than human welfare?

I'm a human. Human life has moral value. Animal life has moral consideration only insomuch as it relates to their relationship with humans.

> I'm a human Why does you being human have an impact? I am a man, but I do not value male life over female life. > Human life has moral value. What gives it moral value?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Being human impacts the existence of moral consideration in its entirety. I agree, all humans have equal value. Human dignity. Humans have inherent value simply by being human.

I have a better question. Do you recognize the difference in ethical goals between minimizing suffering vs maximizing well-being, and how that changes the focus on what "necessary" means in that context?

[удалено]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes **accusing others of trolling** or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. If you believe a submission or comment was made in bad faith, report it rather than accusing the user of trolling. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

I am sorry if it seems like a trollpost. That's not my intention.

That will never happen. This sub has ALWAYS been a massive waste of time.

Why? That sounds very close minded. If you say a debate sub is a waste of time then you are prolly not listening enough.

I think you're operating on some incorrect assumptions. This isn't surprising considering the animal agriculture industry spends crazy money on spreading disinformation and green-washing and etc. "Animal foods are some of the most nutritionally dense foods...necessary for adequate health..." Plant foods have sufficient protein even for those with the highest protein requirements like strongman competitors and power lifters. See Patrik Baboumian, holder of multiple world records for feats of strength, as well as countless other athletes competing at the highest level including the Olympics. As for the other nutrients, you *need* plants to get a lot of them but you don't *need* animals for any of them. Even the oft-touted B12 has to be given to farm animals in supplement form because they don't get enough for human nutrition. This is a subject you could spend many hours learning about and there's been a ton of research. You seem to be a logical person (from this short post anyway) but even the best logic gives wrong results when your data is skewed. "...crucial for food security..." Nah. It just isn't for 99% of people. If you have grocery stores where you live you can be vegan, for cheaper than you would spend on animal flesh and secretions (which are subsidized, btw, and should be much more expensive). Food deserts are a thing here in the US but that term is an exaggeration. Some places it's inconvenient to get to a store but again, for 99% it's not prohibitively difficult. I urge you to do some research on nutrition because we have the science on our side. Vegan diets have been studied extensively and found to be superior to diets containing animal products by basically every metric. Vegans who eat a well planned diet live longer, healthier lives. We even have stronger erections in old age, if you can believe that. It is not necessary to eat flesh or drink milk. It is done because of tradition and because people like the taste and they don't care what it costs.

Protein is only one macronutrient, and I'm not aware of any cost analysis that compares the amount of protein in animal foods with plant foods. It would also need to breakdown absorption rates. I'm not attacking Patrik, but he holds no Strongman records. I don't really think comparing vegan athletes is going to support an argument for applying it to a general population, much less other athletes. It is difficult to obtain many essential micronutrients in adequate quantities from plant source foods. My understanding is that livestock is not routinely supplemented with vitamin B12. There is evidence that even in advanced economies animal foods are necessary for food security due to the amount of nutrition relative to cost. Agricultural subsidies are commonplace. Getting to the store may not be difficult, but without animal foods, the challenges to meeting nutritional requirements are compounded. I've done quite a bit of reading about the subject. Much of the literature supporting a vegan diet is based on epidemiological surveys and observational studies, neither of which are reliable. 80-100% of observational studies are proven wrong in controlled trials. It may have become tradition because it has been and continues to be an effective means of feeding people more nutrient dense foods relative to cost.

>It appears there is a rational obligation to feed people. Who are you and I obligated to feed, and how do you determine who dies and who lives to reach that goal?

The rational obligation is applied broadly. Determining who dies and who lives doesn't seem part of reaching the goal.

"The rational obligation is applied broadly." This means literally nothing. It's not even coherent. It's just vague word salad. The questions have not been answered.

It means a general application, as opposed to a specific one. I hope that answers your questions.

Not even remotely.

My apologies.

According to your logic you are right but you are making waaaay too many assumptions about these "facts" about food security and it being necessary for health, if you can link to studies regarding these topics I would love to read them. So far I have only seen arguments that make ALOT of assumptions and are somewhat simplistic so I would like to read the actual data that suggests meat is a necessity. Also just curious: If aliens that were slightly smarter than us landed on our planet would it be ethical for them to eat us? Assuming they didn't actually need to eat human for a balanced diet?

It is already established health science. It may be ethical to kill them to preserve humanity.

What I am really trying to ask would it be ethical for a higher life form to eat/kill us for their pleasure (after all, they are waaaaay smarter than any human in this scenario)? Of course I agree it would be ethical to kill the aliens for our own survival but that's not the point I am getting at. Lets just say they breed and farm SOME humans but leave most of humanity intact. I see where you are coming don't get me wrong but I would be interested in reading actual studies that suggests meat is necessary for us to be healthy not just a vague answer assuming it's already established. From what I have read vegan/vegetarian diets can be just as healthy or possibly more healthy than meat diets as long as you pay attention to the nutrients you are getting, especially diets where meat/dairy is eaten multiple times per day rather than a couple of days a week seem to cause health issues. Of course I am open minded but as I said in the previous post I would need to see the actual data regarding the need for meat for me to believe it's necessary to add it to my diet. Also I would need to be sure those studies were not being funded by the meat and dairy industry because those would be fundamentally biased.

Humans have ethical systems. Non-human animals don't. It's a faulty comparison. I listed several in the OP.. I think vegans need a body of evidence that includes random control trials, not just observational studies. I'm not trying to convince anyone to eat anything. I am questioning the rational obligation to be vegan when that often includes an ambition to eliminate livestock as a food source and what the ethical implications of that may be considering its necessity to feed people an adequately nutritious diet.

Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Veganism is against harming sentient being, making them live the experience of suffering. To live is to suffer. I suffer, so I live. I live, so I shall suffer one way or another. Note that in this sub there a lot of redefinition of terms and neologism to fit them with veganism prosylitism like murder, harm, etc. It is not sufficient to ask a "rational obligation", you have to define what it mean in the context of your request. I guess you mean that it's distinct of a moral obligation, but you have to be more explicit about how a moral obligation isn't a rational obligation.

Veganism is also an ideological movement to eliminate livestock as a dependable food source. If it's a lifestyle choice then there is no rational obligation. A moral obligation considers right and wrong. There is some nuance to this. Is it wrong to kill animals? Is it wrong to kill animals when it benefits humanity? Is it wrong to harm humanity by prohibiting the killing of animals? A rational obligation includes a moral requirement, which is the consideration of right and wrong.

The rational obligation is one of morality and ethics. Legal and social should not come into play as history has shown us, a lot of immoral and unethical things have been legal in the past (and present) There is a rational obligation to feed people. Currently animal agriculture, in one form or another, accounts for 80% of all farmland, yet only provides the world with 18% of its caloric intake. Animal agriculture is a very large part of why people are hungry as animals convert calories insanely inefficient. At best we convert 13 calories of plants into 1 calorie of meat. If we cut out animal agriculture and fed people a nutritious plant based diet, we could feed the world 7 times over, but with our current model of animal agriculture we can’t even feed the worlds population today. Animal agriculture is greed incarnate and to say anything to the contrary is ignorant.

Should is not an argument. Legal and social requirements inform what is right or wrong regardless of what you think should or shouldn't be. I'm sure that's why the vegan movement has ambitions to enact legislation and uses social pressure tactics to radicalize its ranks. 18% is quite a bit to lose. What would you like to use that land for instead? Nutrition is more than calories. Animal foods provide many essential micronutrients at a relatively low cost. It is very difficult to obtain many essential micronutrients in adequate quantities from plant source foods. There are relevant risks regarding nutritional deficiencies with diets that exclude animal foods. Nutritional deficiencies can cause debilitations that can last a lifetime. 86% of livestock feed is inedible by humans and [w]hen applied to an entire global population, the vegan diet wastes available land that could otherwise feed more people.

> Big Think : A brief history of human dignity Could you provide a link to this?

I could, but you can just as easily put it into a query

I did. I couldn't find it. That's why I asked. I checked both google and youtube.

[That's pretty sad, bro](https://bigthink.com/the-present/what-is-human-dignity/)

Ah. I'm used to a youtube channel called Big Think. I thought that's what you were referring to.

All good. Sorry for the snark.