
Being vegan isn’t as good for humanity as you think - linhmtran168
http://qz.com/749443/being-vegan-isnt-as-environmentally-friendly-as-you-think/
======
cryodesign
A pretty weak article and omits any new developments in the future of food
production.

The main argument of the article appears to be that some farm land won't be
used (perennial cropland) when people are on a vegan diet. Well, then use that
space to build some aeroponic or hydroponic farms [1]. You'll get produce all
year around.

Other studies have shown that it's not sustainable if we'd have to rely on
meat to feed the world. The only reason why we keep eating meat is because
it's cultural, traditional and pleasurable. Our society doesn't need meat
anymore to survive, plenty of other protein sources available that doesn't
involve killing other sentient beings en masse. Even some high performance
athletes are relying on a plant-based diet only - making the argument 'you
need animal protein to be strong' moot [2]

The future of food is going to be plant based [3].

[1] [http://aerofarms.com/](http://aerofarms.com/) [2]
[http://thediscerningbrute.com/more-vegan-athletes-rise-to-
th...](http://thediscerningbrute.com/more-vegan-athletes-rise-to-the-top/) [3]
[http://beyondmeat.com/](http://beyondmeat.com/)

~~~
DiabloD3
One of the larger problems I've found with the vegan diet is, where do you
source your Omega 3 from? ALA (found in flax and chia seeds) has low
bioavailability as opposed to EPA and DHA found in fish and eggs.

Not only that, flax and chia seeds are very high in Omega 6, thus promote
dangerous levels of inflammation.

So, can a vegan please explain to me how your community has managed to solve
this?

~~~
marricks
Fish get their Omega 3 from algae, and so that's probably the best and most
direct way to get it. That's what Soylent does for Omega 3's using bio
reactors.

Also, vegans are healthier than the average population with lower rates of
death in major categories like heart disease[1]. In other words, from the
standard american diet to veganism, it's generally much healthier which I
think is the better comparison to make.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Health_effects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Health_effects)

~~~
swiley
I would argue that the reason vegans are much healthier isn't their specific
diet but that they're paying so much attention to their diet.

~~~
marricks
That sounds less of an argument and more of an opinion. Throwing out anecdotal
evidence, I'm a vegan and I know a couple dozen vegans, most of us don't pay
any attention to what we eat except making sure it doesn't include an animal
product.

------
DominikPeters
Going vegan isn't supposed to be as good for humanity as possible -- it is
supposed to be as good as possible for all conscious beings, including non-
human animals. It would be rather surprising if the _best_ diet for humans
would also be the _best_ diet for humans and animals taken together. On the
other hand, it is encouraging that these two goals do not conflict for the
most part: The paper only finds pretty minimal land-use efficiency gains if
one mixes some animal products into a plant-based diet.

~~~
patcheudor
Exactly. The idea of the vegan diet being "good for humanity" isn't something
that crosses the minds of many "die-hard vegans", quite the opposite in fact.
Many have a profound dislike of humanity and choose a vegan diet out of
concern for the animals harmed in food production. Morrissey would be an
excellent example of someone who really takes that philosophy to heart. For
the record, I'm a vegetarian, my daughter is vegan, and I'm a Morrissey fan.

~~~
Pxtl
"profound dislike for humanity" seems unfair.

------
watchtheworld
The idea of the vegan diet being "good for humanity" isn't solely about land
use which this article focuses on. It's mostly about use of energy.

Vegan diet: food from land -> truck -> grocery store -> my mouth.

Meat/dairy/what have you: food from land -> truck -> animal's mouth -> truck
-> grocery store -> my mouth.

And when it comes to meat it means years feeding and water etc. until the
product can actually be sent to the store. That's the idea behind it being
"good for humanity". A lot of energy/pollution/water use is going into
something we simply do not need in such large portions. If we ate less meat
(like humans have been doing for most of our history) things would be a lot
better for the environment and therefore humanity.

~~~
bitL
Tell that to someone forced to paleo diet due to health/performance reasons.
We obviously don't have as complicated ingestion system as cows nor as simple
as cats so we aren't "designed" to eat vegetables/meat only but most likely
both.

~~~
collyw
I find it hard top believe that we need both. People have populated (almost)
every part of the world for centuries, and have vastly different diets
wherever you go. Indians are vegetarian in general, while I imagine that
Inuits traditionally ate pretty much anything but plants.

~~~
bitL
We should probably look at dominant human type and dominant diseases in
populations skewed to a particular diet to see what the effects are. I would
be interested in looking at strength/muscle/fat ratios, how does their tooth
decay, % of population affected by frequent vegetable/fruit toxins and % of
population affected by gout and similar illnesses caused by excessive meat
consumption.

------
wlesieutre
The main point of the article appears to be that the vegan diet doesn't use
the perennial cropland. Would be nice if they bothered to mention why. Are the
perennial crops 100% feed crops and not something that humans can use, even in
crazy reprocessed vegan food substitutes?

~~~
hoggleboggle
Land is not a problem if vegetables come to reign, hydroponics and aeroponics
will easily substitute the inefficient land-use.

Tom et al. (2015) [1] also show that in the US the switch to a vegan diet
would be less efficient. But it's natural, from an economic perspective, that
existing processes are optimized for efficiency and low costs and given the
high demand for vegetables and fruits there would obviously be a huge
incentive to optimize the production processes and lower the prices.

Vanham et al. (2013) [2,3] show that EU would benefit from a vegan diet when
it comes to water usage.

Overall, it's quite obvious that the medical costs of today are extremely
large mostly due to overconsumption of animal products. It is unfortunate that
they can be easily overconsumed and thus cause health issues. Diet that
includes animals is much more destructive when it comes to dead ocean zones,
rainforest destruction, species extinction and water pollution, being the
biggest factor in mentioned issues.

[1]: Energy use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions for
current food consumption patterns and dietary recommendations in the US
[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-015-9577-y](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-015-9577-y)

[2]: The water footprint of the EU for different diets
[http://temp.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Vanham-
Bidoglio-2014....](http://temp.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Vanham-
Bidoglio-2014.pdf)

[3]: Potential water saving through changes in European diets
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412013...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412013002055)

~~~
hoggleboggle
why the downvotes? such a welcoming community. I seem to have replied to the
wrong parent.

well, I'll leave then :(

~~~
mrob
It's not at all obvious that the "medical costs of today are extremely large
mostly due to overconsumption of animal products". Some people blame sugar,
which is made from plants. Some people blame fat, which in the modern American
diet is largely vegetable oil. But human nutrition is notoriously difficult to
study, so making strong claims about any specific thing being to blame is
probably dishonest in some way.

~~~
crustygirl
USA eats excessive amounts of sugar, fat and calories.

3500kcal per person per day 150kg of meat per person per year (compared to
chinese of 60kg, or world average of 40kg).

overconsumption is the word. there was not a hint of criticism of meat being
"unhealthy" \-- it was mentioned in the frame of overconsumption.

~~~
mrob
150kg of meat/year is 411g/day. Making the conservative assumption that it's
all 20% fat ground beef (in practice it's likely leaner), that's only
1041kcal/day. This is well below the minimum calorie requirement for a healthy
adult, so for it to be "overconsumption" there must be something unhealthy
about meat specifically.

~~~
crustygirl
add to that 250kg of milk and 15kg of cheese and you'll soon have no space for
any kind of beans, legumes, vegetables and fruits.

as I've said before, problem is overconsumption of everything and animal
products take a huge part of that 3500kcal intake.

reducing intake of calorically dense foods is a good step towards battling the
rise of killer diseases since most of them are obviously caused by unhealthy
lifestyle.

~~~
eggy
Yes, I agree. It's all about balance and proportions.

If the average American counted everything they put in their mouth for two
weeks, they would be surprised as I was when I did it.

I am from Brooklyn, and grew up and lived their and in Manhattan until my
thirties. I was raised on a typical meat and potatoes, with the occasional
over-cooked vegetable (no salads) diet.

I remained at +195 lbs and 19 to 22% body fat even when active. I had thought
I had cut my caloric consumption down, but when I really counted it for two
weeks, I was consuming 2500 to 3000 calories per day. The only reason I was
not too obese was that I was very active. I was not a soda drinker or a fast
food person. I did like my eggs and cheeses, and pizza, and burritos with
cheese and sour cream. My cholesterol levels were very high, and my sugars
were out of whack even if I looked healthy to my American friends, but fat to
my SE Asian peers.

I have been living in SE Asia for 8 years now. For the last year, I have been
living in the rice fields of East Java. Food, rice and fruits, are not
transported, they are within reach of my doorstep. One of the benefits of
locally-grown produce. This is why I think city rooftop gardens, hydroponics,
and other tech will ameliorate some of the energy use in food transport.

I went vegetarian, and then vegan, almost 3 years ago. My weight has
stabilized at 178 lbs at 14% body fat. My blood work was all good last I
checked. I feel healthier and stronger. I still bench 190 lbs. which is 18 lbs
over my bodyweight now, and was under my bodyweight before, so yes, I am
stronger by that comparison. I can run further with less fatigue, and do more
pullups. I make it a habit to not sit for extended periods (read standing up,
squatting Asian-style with heels on the floor, or reclined on the floor).

My Mom always pushed for good posture. She would turn in her grave at all of
the youngsters with craned heads down peering at their phones ;) That and
shoulders back, and no slouching!

I think that genetics plays a role in some people's weight issues, but after
having my own, and listening and watching my peers, a LOT is just diet. It has
even been proven that exercise only 'polishes' off the last 10% or so. It is
diet that has the largest effect. I still like exercise for the other benefits
it has in reducing stress, helping me to sleep better, and maintaining or
building bone, joint and muscle strength.

------
reflexive
There is an implicit assumption that maximizing the number of people who can
be squeezed on to the planet is "good" for humanity. I have never heard a
reasonable justification for this. Anyone who's taken a long car trip in an
automobile packed to maximum passenger capacity will intuitively understand
the counterargument.

I'm more sympathetic to the idea of maintaining a population level within
which people can live with some amount of dignity e.g.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#Inscriptio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#Inscriptions)

~~~
collyw
I sometimes wonder if curing cancer and other diseases is such a noble cause.
More people consuming more of the finite resources that we have. Its a
difficult question, and I am thinking of lots of outliers as I type this.
Extending a 70 year olds life by a few years is different from curing a child
leukemia sufferer.

~~~
solipsism
The only difficulty is deciding how to define "noble". Such questions appear
hard because we vacillate between many different optimization functions, and
in conversation we lack precision.

------
astigsen
One thing that is often overlooked is the impact on biodiversity. Nothing
kills off as many species as converting an area to cropland. Turning it into
an enforced monoculture destroys the habitat for all the other plants and
animals that would usually live there.

Grazing animals can co-exist with other life, and some cases like forest
grazing [1] (which used to be the standard way of grazing animals in europe
and is slowly gaining traction again), has been shown to actually increase
biodiversity.

So paradoxically enough, if what you care about is biodiversity and the
livelihood of animals, you might consider reducing your consumption of
cropland produced products like vegetables and grains in favor of meats from
grazing animals.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture)

------
johnnybowman
Don't know why land use would be the determining factor for food access. If
the goal is to maximize access to food, that seems like a food distribution
problem, and not a production problem. Hungry people need cheap markets, not
farms.

~~~
analog31
Indeed, we already produce enough food, that it would be toxic if it were all
consumed. Meat production is a symptom of a food surplus.

------
Yenrabbit
Interesting article. I have long been of the opinion that a little meat is no
big deal. However, the argument that we can feed more people with a mostly
vegetarian diet vs a full vegan one doesn't mean going vegan is less
efficient. If we want the average diet to have less animal products, then if
some people completely give up meat it will be better than if they just cut
down - they are in a sense making up for everyone else still eating their
daily KFC bucket. Until most people are mostly vegetarian, we can still thank
the vegans for taking one for the team.

------
dgax
The article seems to focus more on instances where food production is a
limiting factor. Land use is less of a problem in places where we have
(collectively) enough food and people tend to focus more on the very serious
environmental impact of large-scale agriculture. In the latter case, I would
except a diet lower in meat to fare much better than the alternatives simply
because it requires fewer acres to be farmed (or the same acres less often as
the article points out) and thus has lower pollution output.

------
sova
Rather misinformed. Also, if farmland is the issue, has nobody in the science
world noticed the magic of hydroponic cultivation? Vertical gardening is
possible, a skyscraper has the footprint of a huge field when you use every
floor to grow food. Can't do that with cows.

~~~
bane
Why not? We do it with humans.

------
mixonic
Interesting, if a bit vegan shaming :-p According to the research referenced a
vegan diet is about 1.8x as efficient as a normal american diet. Seems pretty
good for humanity.

Limiting meat consumption by ~50% would have a similar sustainability impact
to a vegan diet.

W.K. Kellogg funded the research. Their grant:
[http://www.wkkf.org/grants/grant/2009/02/foodprints-and-
food...](http://www.wkkf.org/grants/grant/2009/02/foodprints-and-foodsheds-
tools-for-evaluating-the-sustainability-of-dietary-patterns-and-the-geograp)

------
solipsism
Talk about a strawman. The world is no where near 100% vegan. The fact that
all of humanity being vegan isn't the most efficient use of our resources has
no bearing whether it's better for you, today, to be vegan.

100% of humans being cops is bad for humanity. Does that imply being a cop is
not good for humanity?

