Jan 19th, 2015: Vegan's Savior
 

How do you know someone's a vegan? Just wait, they'll tell you. ba-dum-tss
It's funny because it's true, however once you get past the ones who are bandwagon jumpers and bragging, there's more to it. The rest are either the PETA camp whining about animal cruelty, or people who have actually read the evidence, and want to explain the many health benefits.

Since most people's eyes glaze over when anyone tells the about a healthier lifestyle, even(especially?) if it's their doctor, these folks usually throw in some be-good-to-the-Earth stuff to keep your attention. The fly (stop it) in their ointment is the difficulty, the work involved, in buying and preparing veggies to get enough protein.

Well, here she comes to save the day! Katharina Unger is on the way!

http://cellar.org/2015/insectfood1.jpg

Yeah, the word larvae just rolls off the tongue in such a mouth watering fashion. :yum:

Now you know after this becomes the rage, the capitalists will jump in with both feet, trying to become your Black Soldier Fly Egg supplier. And don't forget items like Black Soldier Fly Larvae Helper.

http://cellar.org/2015/insectfood2.jpg

Yes Rodney, we can all get along.

um, how would that be vegan? I'm confused

Well the chickens eat the larvae right up, and then you -- uh --

... trade the eggs for lettuce.

Maybe it saves vegans who fall off the bandwagon from going beyond the point of no return.

are they considering that the larvae are freely giving themselves to be eaten? So they'd actually fit in with a fruitarian diet? Or are we just interpreting vegans as people who don't approve of the farming of cute animals who appear regularly in story books?

It has more to do with the practical considerations of doing the greatest good for animals as a whole. Take a look at this article by a self described longtime vegan and vegan advocate:

[READ THE ARTICLE FOR ARGUMENTS AND COUNTER-ARGUMENTS]

Dietary vegans, ovo-lacto vegetarians, ethical vegans, and environmental vegans, all eschew animal protein as in sweet yummy bacon.
The larvae will give them lots of protein without molesting animals, their common goal.
I don't even know what he hell a fruitarian is. :eyebrow:

The funny thing is I was going to design one of these things to automatically feed chickens. It is apparently pretty common in dirty hippie circles. Great design though if it wasn't bugs I'd eat what was produced in such a tidy way.

Seems reasonable. Most vegans seem to have a bug up their ass anyway. :D

If we aren't to eat meat, why then do we have incisors, canines (teeth) and premolars.

Eventually, we would only have molars and no front jaws.

Pardon me, we are omnivores, we have always been omnivores and I intend to stay that way.

So there.

How dare you question dog's wisdom...

http://cellar.org/2015/outofflock.jpg

:lol2:

Horses, cattle, sheep, all have incisors, canines, and premolars. Their teeth are remarkably, astonishingly like ours. Incisors, canines, and premolars are used for cutting, tearing, and mashing (prior to grinding) ... of virtually any foodstuff, plants included.

We are obviously capable of being omnivores, but the question is not whether we can, but what we ought.

On that, the science is in.

btw: Now reads as Vegans savor.

As for the larvae ... bleeecccchhh. :vomit:

Any vegan worth the name knows that it's impossible to be protein-deficient if you're taking in enough calories to meet your metabolic needs (roughly 700 kcal/day). Protein deficiency is called kwashiorkor. It really isn't an issue in the USA, particularly among those who are vegans by decision.

You can if you refuse to eat food containing DNA.

??? You can what? No one said anything about refusing to eat food containing DNA.

Be protein deficient.

I was referencing a recent study where people when polled wanted food containing DNA to be labeled.

My link is to an article about how that poll was silly.

Thanks for that. The conclusion was reasonable: that people, when confronted with a question formulated so as to be ridiculous, answer the more reasonable question they assume you meant to ask.

All of which is still to say that North Americans are in no danger of being protein deficient, vegan or non-vegan.

The topic of insects wasn't really brought up as a supplement for protein deficiency; rather, as a protein substitute for plants to reduce the collateral damage to other animals that occurs when raising and harvesting crops.

Agreed, that current farming methods are harmful ... both the despicable treatment of most animals destined for grocery stores, and the cultivation of feed crops for factory-farmed animals. There's a better solution than farming black soldier fly larvae (or any other insects) for human consumption, though.

Of course, everyone knows that we should be eating our dead.

:bolt:

my favorite part of that article:

of course it's dead.


as opposed to eating.. .. the ... living????!!!!

No. http://cellar.org/2012/nono.gif
Cattle and sheep have no upper incisors which is why they can't bite off anything. They use the lower incisors to rip vegetation like you'd tear off a piece of waxed paper. Cattle have no canine teeth, and while the sheep's outside set of incisors are called canines they are hardly capable of ripping anything tougher than grass. Both cattle and sheep have premolars and molars which are strictly for chewing and grinding, because they are too far back in their mouth to bite anything.

Oh, and weresheep? Only Gromit can see them, so no worry there.

I find a very weird dissonance in people who talk about what we (as a whole) are "meant" to eat due to evolution, as if evolution is akin to predestiny. The whole point of evolution is that if we have to change due to our environment, then we (as a whole) can do that. By definition we (as a whole) don't have to do what our ancestors did--if our environment suddenly makes it so that nothing but meat is available to eat, then we'll eat that, a bunch of us will die, but the ones whose metabolisms can manage it, if only barely, will have babies who are better at it, and in a few thousand years we'll be like lions scoffing at how we were never "meant" to eat produce.

On an individual level, it's an entirely different story. I know what works best for my one body, personally, and I don't give a shit what vegans or bacon-lovers or anyone else thinks I "should" be eating.

I think I'd like to study your body more closely... Uh, for scientificical like stuff... yeah, that's it, for the good of the species. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :blush:

Good for species morale, no doubt, but I think it's safe to day that my genetic contribution to the species is iffy at best. But I'm all for raising, ah, morale. :)

Some things are better attributed to creationism like if God didn't intend for man to eat pussy, he wouldn't have made it look like a taco.

I would not eat a taco that came with hairs attached.

How about a hotdog? :-)

Well, you need a few hairs on that to floss afterwards, right ;)

Everybody is a little different outside the general stuff. I've noticed a relationship between sugar and inflammation for me. We're going to ease back into the dirty hippie foods and see if I can't dump some belly weight.

Think of the time savings if you put tooth paste on it first.

Ouch! :headshake

I feel similarly. To me, it's more correct to think of it as hearing blueboy56's statement as "our ancestors were successful (at eating and living and reproducing) by eating meat; that worked for them and we have the same tools (teeth), so let's go with the same plan!". It's too simplistic. It reverses cause and effect, with regard to evolution (and never mind the vast generational timescales involved to produce different teeth in a population).

It only works as a rebuttal to any claims that we are not meant to eat meat.

If you take it further, and claim that we can, therefore we must, then it doesn't work.

It happens a lot in internet argument; an argument that only works as a response is erroneously used on its own.

Does anyone argue about this stuff anywhere else?

Correct, however the claim that we can demonstrates we are omnivores. Therefore we get to choose... between being a Dietary/ovo-lacto/ethical/environmental vegan, or sweet, crispy, tasty, luscious bacon.

Yes glatt, lots of places.

Before the internet, it was probably mostly one-on-one correspondence, or competing editorials in monthly journals. I would guess (but having no first-hand experience, I wouldn't claim) that the signal to noise ratio was a bit higher.

I'm sure every category of logical fallacy in today's arguments occurred plenty of times before the internet, but not in such volume.

Yes, I suspect so.

In every dorm room on every college campus world-wide has had these discussions,
let alone the formal classes in philosophy, zoology, geology, sociology, law (e.g. Scopes trial),
and maybe more so in religious classes and classes about religion, and

... in my household around the "kitchen table", with each daughter as she passed the teeny-bopper stage.

Especially since it seems every new thing down the pike has been seized by a small percentage who are extremely militant about it. This is what created the standard saw about how do you know if someone is vegan? :rolleyes:

Seems to be an increase in aggressive people willing to go balls to the wall over trivial shit, maybe encouraged by the internet. Not that the internet is a bad thing, but it's allowed psychopaths who kept a low profile, to find kindred spirits to assure them they are not antisocial, the rest of society just can't handle the truth.

From a local bookstore flyer about upcoming events.

Wednesday: Vegan Survival Guide
Thursday: Mike Huckabee

Nothing could better encapsulate this city I live in.

That's awesome.

Thursday ~ Vegan Survival Guide to Austin;
.................Tip # 1 ~ Don't come back on Friday. :haha: