Yes, a vegan diet will require some consideration, but within Singer's broader recommendations, a vegetarian diet puts you in a better place than a meat-eating one.
> And yes, it does matter, to everyone: you have to have B12, essential
> proteins and essential fats. an entirely vegan diet doesn't provide that
> for you. a vegetarian diet usually doesn't provide that for you. there
> are plenty of stories of people becoming ill because they ate a
> vegetarian diet without knowing that they had to carefully eat certain
> foods to get the right amount of essential proteins, fats, B!2.
I am afraid I still do not agree. Scientific descriptions/prescriptions (eat B12, etc) are useful (even if after the fact) but are not the only way to understand or act. As I mentioned groups have organically evolved well-balanced diets, long before terms like B12 were introduced into common vocabulary.
Also, we make large compromises when it comes to the choices we make, relative to the priorities we hold (a long life, health, etc). I would probably increase my life expectancy and health significantly if I quit my geek lifestyle and took on a lesser paying but more relaxing job, and spent more time running or swimming. Arguably, such changes will more significantly boost my general health than a better chosen diet. I fail to adopt them nonetheless, and so do many, many people, because of the ordering of priorities.
Again, I am speaking in the general case. If you have particular health issues that require you to more carefully monitor and balance your diet, then those considerations can legitimately override others.
> But please do tell us about the vegetarian cultures and what they ate
> and who they were. I don't want a list of books to read, I want
> references to legit sources and quotes.
Not who they were, but who they are. Take the Brahmins in Tamil Nadu, in India, and perhaps the larger population of the state. Or many Jains in India. They have recorded generations on a vegetarian diet. Even among meat eaters, in many parts of the world meat is a luxury that is available rarely enough that it cannot be considered a significant part of one's consumption. For a smaller sample, my extended family (running into a 100 or so members) are vegetarians and we have a fairly good record of health and longevity.
Today, research seems to suggest that genetic (to a large extent) and external environmental attributes largely determine the health and life expectancy of human beings.
> What you're claiming isn't unarguably true. It's disputed.
What do you perceive as my claim? If it isn't clear, this is what I am claiming (or rather, suggesting): (a) apart from cases where dietary requirements pose a known risk to one's health, scientifically granular diet management may not be vital, (b) we juggle a set of priorities in arriving at our choices, (c) the existence of vegetarian cultures belies the notion that meat is significantly important for one's health/longevity.
Yes this stuff is quite arguable and hence our argument! ;-) But note that it is also arguable (and is argued elsewhere) that meat is a requirement in one's diet, or that dropping meat drops vital components that are difficult to obtain elsewhere. It is even arguable that all the "vital components" that are listed today as "essential" are even essential at all. All in the general case.
There is another thing that I need to emphasize here: despite his more radical stance in this recent text, Singer, philosophically, has not been absolutist (in my reading). And nor am I, or any of the vegetarians or animal issues activists I know. Each step towards diminishing cruelty towards animals is a significant gain, for us. Humane slaughtering, where animals do not stand the chance of having their skin ripped away while alive and conscious. That would be a gain. Reduction in meaningless repetitions of animal testing for beauty products. That would be a huge success.
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/