Lactose intolerance isn’t common, milking cows is good for them, and veggies are bad

“Only 2% of the western population is lactose intolerant. Milking the cows actually helps the cow to stay healthy. The majority of GMO products actually are the vegetables, replacing the source of calcium with vegetables won’t make it GMO free.”
The above passage was a comment made on fb, I responded what is found below…
Actually, “Approximately 65 percent of the human population has a reduced ability to digest lactose after infancy. Lactose intolerance in adulthood is most prevalent in people of East Asian descent, affecting more than 90 percent of adults in some of these communities.
” — http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/lactose-intolerance Milking the cows can only help the cow ‘stay healthy’ if the cow has been bred in a way to have unnaturally large utters and/ or is injected with hormones to have larger utters, and or must also have the following conditions met, the cow has been, 1)impregnated 2) and baby has been taken away. Under all of these circumstances the cow could be in distress with large utters, and no calf to relieve her. In this situation it may make sense to help ‘relieve’ the cow of her milk. However, this is an entirely man made situation. You would never make the same argument for a human, claiming that humans needed to be milked by anyone other than their baby because it ‘kept them healthy’ this is not factual. The majority of GMO’s are actually cotton, corn and soybeans. These are the items we need in the largest quantity hence make sense for companies to gain profit off of making GMO’s, there are some GMOS also among vegetables and fruits, but that can all be avoided if buying organic. Ultimately those who eat the most corn and soy often happen to be animals that we consume or consume their byproducts. So herbicides and pesticides that are within these plants, actually become that much more concentrated in the animal itself. For example it takes about 20 lbs of plant food to produce 1lb of cow flesh. https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=29892 That means that whatever pesticides are in that 20lbs of plant food, is now concentrated in that 1lb of animal flesh. So to say that having milk is better than vegetables is not accurate in terms of reducing your toxin intake. Especially in places for example in India where there is little to no regulation on what goes into milk to preserve it. It is often trucked for hours in the hot sun, and in order for it not to go bad, it’s a common for farmers to pour bleach in the milk. There have been plenty of articles to come out explaining all of the contaminants found in milk. In addition, vegetables contain many micronutrients, and antioxidants that help protect the body’s immune system against bacteria and other contaminants. Milk is largely devoid of these beneficial qualities. It also has too much protein to be considered a good source of calcium since, it takes large quantities of calcium to digest protein. http://saveourbones.com/osteoporosis-milk-myth/ your best source of calcium actually is dark leafy greens.
Advertisements

But humans are at the center of the universe

It’s unfortunate but I see this all of the time. People claiming that human beings are the apex of all of creation.

So ultimately we humans believe that animals are resources, how is it then, that most find animal factory farming monstrous then?

Some claim humans have been using animals since the beginning of time, and why should we ever think about changing?

Do you really believe that if we have always used animals for, food, shelter, clothing, that that justifies it as sane or good? In the face currently of ecological collapse on multiple fronts –oceanic and all lands?

Humans have always been at war with one another since as long as we are aware of, does that make war good or sane?

Humans have traditionally had much lower life spans, about half of what we have today, does that make shorter life spans sane or good?

Today, our extent to animal manipulation is much more than it ever has been, are you then against this? Animal testing for pharmaceuticals, make-up, house hold products, random experimental designs for ‘science’.

To what extent do you believe animals more resemble plants or rocks than they do humans? To what extent do you believe that animals have no capacity to care for themselves or others or their life? To what extent are Humans more aware, more conscious, more able than animals?

We just happen to be really good with tools, apart from that, I only actually see animals being often times, much more intelligent than us. We are the only species, who has managed to shift the ecosystem so much, that not only are we annihilating our own species, but we are bringing just about every other species down with us. If that isn’t a huge failure of intelligence, I’m not sure what is.

Just because something is weaker than us, I’m not sure how that justifies us, making full use of it. It’s the patriarchal mindset, use what can be used for your own means. Use other races for slaves, because you can, use woman and children for sex and labor without their permission because you can. Use animals for all of your needs, because you can. Use the world and its resources for your needs in excess because you can, Take from the poor, the sick, the helpless and the weak, because they are vulnerable, and it will keep you in power.

This is the mindset of many of the dominant cultures of the world today, They have hidden the messages so cleverly, yet they are still so bold and vibrant since, these are the actions unfortunately much more common among humans than the choice of compassion on this earth.

Our societies have successfully taught humans that this is the normal way, the only way, to gain strength, to gain fortune.

However, what is true compassion, what does living in an ecosphere mean. What is true connection. We live in a world that hardly anyone dare enter, or attempt to understand. We are trapped in the mundane everyday existence of cleaning, working, driving, using our gadgets, absorbing ourselves in made up stories projected onto screens. We are numb. Yet the mystery of the universe, the divine in all creation is here, waiting to be discovered in the minute occurrences that we too often ignore on a daily basis.

Yet, if we choose to listen, if we choose to be present, we can find this unshakable propensity of wisdom, in nature, we are not limited to the spoken words of humans throughout the ages, of course they would be telling the story with the creature of their choice (their race, gender and religion of human) in the center, but that hardly is anything but a boastful lie, to imagine the world as only full to the extent of that one component. Humans can’t exist without the functions of the ecosystem on planet earth, we are hardly important.

We in fact, are so weak, so fragile, so small in the grand scheme of things. To believe humans are at the center of the stage above and beyond all other life. It’s the same mindset as the belief that the Sun rotated around the Earth, claiming everything is only about us. So arrogant, so boastful, so untrue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfP-XBUbMvs

But what if we all went vegan… what happens to all of the animals??

Oh the classic question!!

Not sure why I haven’t gotten this one yet!!

and my response:

the truth is although, it’s a vegan’s dream for everyone to become vegan overnight, it wouldn’t happen. Things happen gradually on planet earth (well for the most part). And even if everyone went vegan overnight, we’d find a compassionate way to deal with the animals. Obviously there isn’t enough land for all of them to thrive on, so we would do the best we could at rescuing the few that we can, onto sanctuaries, and the rest we would most likely need to euthanize. But that would likely never happen, because as things happen slowly, so does everything else. So as ppl begin to eat less and less meat, human beings breed less and less animals. Until no breeding is required anymore. Whatever animals are left, would certainly be able to live out their days at that point, because likely there will be so few left. The only reason we have millions is the crazy rate that we breed them. Because we are also killing hundreds of thousands a day… which means we are breeding hundreds of thousands a day. http://thethinkingvegan.com/…/veganism-and-spirituality/ — you can see the rate we kill them here.

but vegan products wouldn’t exist without the animal product version they were trying to imitate

This conversation came up on fb as someone was arguing that if the FDA wanted to allow the regulation that  ‘just mayo’ should not be allowed to exist labelled that because the original recipe of mayonnaise contains whipped eggs, that they should do it.

It’s not completely true that vegan versions of things would only exist if the animal version existed too. Did you know that cooked jackfruit has a texture and taste very similar to pulled pork? We just happen to compare jackfruit to pulled pork because most ppl have had pulled pork before they ever had a chance to try jackfruit. So your right, it’s a form of semantics that is helpful, especially when a meat, dairy and egg culture is most of what people’s foundation is in cooking. But in my mind, we modify meat and dairy much more to resemble plants than we do the other way around. separating every body part, separating fats, adding sugar and salt, fermenting, drying, cooking, pounding, smashing, churning, seasoning… ultimately meat is meat, milk is milk.. if we all ate them in their natural state, raw, and directly from the animal, I’d imagine a lot more people would automatically be more if not entirely plant based, and the variety of milk and meat would be almost negligible except perhaps for a few aquatic species. Yet we don’t consume animal products in their natural state, modifications to meat, egg and dairy are beyond normalized in our culture, in fact many of these products do hardly resemble the animal product found in them, in fact most people may not even really realize if they aren’t reading labels how many animal products are in everything. Think of a poptart. This food is sweet, solid, crunchy on the outside, and oozing with fruity filled insides. The sweetness wouldn’t be possible without fruits, the strongest flavor in the poptart wouldn’t be possible without fruits. The crunchiness texture is more like a plant food– and is largely made of plant foods, milk is liquid. Yet milk is an ingredient in that food, and that food isn’t made to taste like milk. If we take mayo– sure maybe the original recipe was whipped eggs. Yet whipped coconut milk can make a very similar texture to this. But what makes mayo, mayo… the sweet, yet salty, creamy based sauce. The largest ingredient in mayonnaise today, is actually soybean oil. Mayonnaise doesn’t taste like egg, because they have actually flavored it to taste like plants and minerals — salt, lemon and sugar. Egg is just a filler, in fact it’s a little interesting the we put egg in it in the first place if mayonnaise can be just as easily made without it. And by not using eggs, we are saving greenhouse gasses from entering the atmosphere, effluent from chicken egg farms, brutality to hens and baby chicks, brutality to workers inside of those factories, and cholesterol. The truth is, most meat and dairy hardly resemble the original entirety of that substance or the animal it came from. I don’t know anyone who could tell the difference between raw ground turkey, raw ground lamb, raw ground duck, raw ground dog, or raw ground human…. maybe there would be slight color variations, but ultimately they’d be used pretty similarly. We don’t go vegan because we don’t like the tastes or textures of the foods we grew up with, veganism is an ethical stance. There are 100’s of thousands of plants along with those corresponding fruit and vegetables. There is such a wide variety of tastes and textures within fruits alone, yet we hardly make use of a few species since somehow we’ve gotten to the space in time where our societies largely eat animal based products. At this point it’s unfortunately most of what we know about food, there are very few recipes that most ppl are familiar with that don’t contain animal products. i guess ultimately in my mind it shouldn’t matter if a company has slightly tweaked a name. Since companies have been doing it since the beginning. personally it’s much easier if a product that resembles another product can have a similar name so I know what recipes I can substitute it for. If someone wanted a ranch dressing, but it happened to be made with completely different ingredients, yet it was also possibly cheaper than the original ranch dressing… they wouldn’t know to buy the other ranch dressing if it didn’t have a similar name. If the FDA made that kind of a regulation that foods could not have similar names to each other, it would be slightly chaotic. Many companies would end up having to change many of their product names. Think of how many maple syrups are labelled maple syrup without having actually a trace of real maple syrup inside of it. I guess what’s bothersome about it, is the targeting nature of the egg lobby, when ‘just mayo’ isn’t doing really anything different that any other company has been doing since the beginning.

But its human nature

“To many animals, nature is a very cruel, harsh, and unforgiving experience. The planet “Mother Earth” has always been Predators vs Prey. As humans it seems like we have just followed these rules of nature… ”

well its the story that’s been perpetuated the most by society, yet the story that has been painted by a multitude of philosophers and scientists before us is a little more broad, there is also a large amount of cooperation, animals that work together to make life easier for the both of them. There is also compassionate acts by humans and animals with no apparent survival reason. — Or maybe it’s just less on the surface since cooperation among groups can ultimately lead to better survival. Obviously predator and prey relationships are apparent, however there are also many other types of relationships, detrivores, scavengers, photosynthesizing organisms, chemoheterotrophs — organisms that survive off of all sorts of chemicals — sulfur, nitrogen etc. microorganisms are the oldest creatures on the planet, and have much better adapted themselves to all environments than we have. We have largely followed a slim pickings set of traits found in nature. Namely, depleting resources faster than they are able to regenerate at the cost of our own value of life. In addition to, naming ourselves top predator. These both are choices, not facts or necessities for being human on earth. Yet it is definitely a necessity for a diversity of relationships and a wise use of resources for the survival of certain organisms on the planet.

But animals will overrun the world if we don’t eat them!!!

The top of the food chain has been completely falsified by humans.  We idealize it so much, to the extent that we routinely hunt, kill and trophy-ize the real top predators (who we’d have absolutely no shot against with no weapons) and imprison all of their prey, and artificially inseminate them, so that we can house them for generations for our consumption.  We have created them, to the numbers we have.  The world most likely wouldn’t change vegan overnight, although it would be the biggest dream of a vegan to have everything to change over night, but realistically it will be a slow decline– even if it’s not by choice.. it will be from the lack of resources to care for the animals, and their products will become more and more expensive (check out ‘cowspiracy’)

If we stopped killing animals, predators would most likely re-populate and keep the rest of the populations in check.  The real overrunning problem, is humans, we are pretty much a virus at present moment with the rate we are destroying ecosystems.  Perhaps some animal needs to start eating us?? If this argument was to be taken seriously that is.

The one hard thing about being vegan

That people LOVEEEEE to make up arguments!

And they will use their ‘wonderful’ logic to justify why eating meat is SOOO much healthier for the planet and requires fewer resources.. This is fantasy.. this is a made up world in their head.. and yes IT DOES get frustrating at times.. especially when you work for 2-3 hours on a rebuttal that HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION. Im not sure why I did it. I think because I hadn’t noticed it on my page 

1- I didn’t want people to actually believe him — because non-vegans mind you will believe anything that makes them feel good about themselves 

2- I didn’t want to delete it and make it seem as though I had no answer for his outlandish comment.  

 

Anyway… here it is. 

seriously

  • Deibiddo Shirubāman One must figure the value of the calories and what must be put into the land. In that case, this vegan meme is leaving out a lot of data, which is common for vegan propaganda.

    You can certainly raise one cow per year on an acre, which would yield about ~800 lbs of beef ( plus some products like leather and milk which have additional value )

    800 pounds x 800 calories = 640,000 calories in one year ( i’m leaving out the amount of calories in the milk here ).

    You wouldn’t have to water the land or do much if you were raising the cow on the grass.

    Now with tomatoes, you’re going to get 3,280,000 calories ( if this 40,000lbs value is correct ), but you’re going to have to water the entire acre every day. You’re going to have to spray some form of pesticides and other chemicals. You’re going to have to add fertilizer. This drives up the cost of those calories dramatically.

    So, when i go to buy food after all costs are integrated, i will have to buy about 8lbs. of tomatoes at $8 total in order to get the same calories out of $3 of 1lb. of ground beef.

    Economics and resource wise, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to put a cow on that acre. Yes, tomatoes can produce more calories per acre, but they require exponentially more external resources which must be taken from somewhere else.

     
     
    •  
      Esther T So for 1 grass fed cow, it’s recommended to have 10-12 acres.
      coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/beefgfnc2004.pdf
      — This is for california where grazing is year round.

      Depending on how much winter a region experiences, they could have 1 cow per 3-5 acres, however they would need to supplement the cow with food from outside the operation. (also check out the film, ‘cowspiracy’) 

      For example–
      A steer, must eat 21 pounds of grain protein in order to produce one pound of beef.. so 21 lbs of grain x 800 = something like 16000 — Depending of course how much the animal can get from forage is wildly variable — and others who have made that mistake can end up in a lot of debt. 
      page http://smallfarms.ifas.ufl.edu/…/grassfed_beef/walter.pdf

      (Yes 800lbs to be generoushttp://smallfarms.ifas.ufl.edu/…/grassfed_beef/walter.pdf,
      meat produced from a cow is often 700-800lbs — because the whole cow won’t be totally comprised of cuts that people eat. So for that one cow, divided by 10 acres (to get lbs per acre)– is actually less than 100 lbs per acre. )

      So, if we were to get grain from outside the operation to raise this animal.. how much would we need?
      1 acre can actually produce about 150 bushels of corn, which translates to about 10,500lbs —- meaning you’d actually need 2 acres in addition to whatever land you have for your animal — (and grains are often chemical/fertilizer intensive– and pricey — .. not always the case but more often than not– comes to about 1400 dollars to buy 300 bushels of corn for one cow — nonorganic)…http://extension.missouri.edu/publicat…/DisplayPub.aspx

      Not all properties have running water or suitable climates to avoid irrigation. Cows will need water, depending on circumstances the cow will need 3-30 gallons of water per day.https://beef.unl.edu/amountwatercowsdrink and that doesn’t include the irrigation needed to maintain the pasture. 

      Which actually pasture, compared to small vegetables, needs more water — check out page 10 for a chart: 
      http://www.ext.colostate.edu/sam/sam-irr-guide.pdf

      — If you use the cow for meat — you won’t be getting the milk — milk production would be a whole different set of values, — for the sake of this discussion, we can keep it to meat, since that is what the graphic is on. 

      And again, back to grass fed, I found this excerpt from a meateaters guide.. if you are apprehensive of figures on vegan pages. 

      “Additionally, grass-fed cows must be raised for a much longer time to reach full weight than those that are fed a diet of grain, growth hormones and antibiotics to speed growth. The average feedlot steer is slaughtered at about 14 months, while many grass-fed cows live 20-to-30 months, depending on the quality of their forage. Keeping and maintaining an animal for the extra 6-to-18 months adds to the expense, including the cost of hay to feed the animals over the winter”. – See more at:http://www.ewg.org/meateat…/frequently-asked-questions/

      “Now with tomatoes, you’re going to get 3,280,000 calories ( if this 40,000lbs value is correct ), but you’re going to have to water the entire acre every day. You’re going to have to spray some form of pesticides and other chemicals. You’re going to have to add fertilizer. This drives up the cost of those calories dramatically.”

      — Not necessarily, depending on the type of floor management you have, you may even be able to get away with watering 1x per week. I was able to do this at my farm, because I mulched so heavily — and no it’s completely not necessary to use chemicals and pesticides if you manage the property correctly, I don’t use them. And many options for adding nutrients back to the soil are free or pretty cheap (I use old cardboard, newspapers, hay and plant legumes for nitrogen) 

      “So, when i go to buy food after all costs are integrated, i will have to buy about 8lbs. of tomatoes at $8 total in order to get the same calories out of $3 of 1lb. of ground beef.”

      These numbers are pretty relative — are you growing your own cow.. vs your own tomato? Because that is going to change things pretty dramatically. Especially if the government isn’t paying you to own that cow… check out (mind you tomatoes are hardly if at all subsidized– check out this —
      http://usmfreepress.org/…/meat-subsidies-strip-other…/)

      In terms of calories.. the quality of each calorie is definitely going to be different, when eating vegetables v. meat and not to mention health care costs if you were to value meat over vegetables more often than not. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8610089)
      But in terms of what you are giving your body when you eat vegetables — you are giving your body fiber, micronutrients,healthy fats, and protein without the negative effects of cholesterol, and much saturated fats. Check out this note for more informationhttps://www.facebook.com/notes/byron-vegan-delsignore/57-health-benefits-of-going-vegan/1441820126102030and also 
      http://www.webmd.com/…/plant-based-diet-for-heart
      The next time an argumentative comment is posted without properly cited references (preferably legitimate studies or university/governmental websites please), it will be deleted. I don’t really have time to rebuttal made up arguments.