Well, if you can't understand, I guess you should hear some counterpoints.

1) Quite a lot of time, we will hear from the vegan/vegetarian community that humans were not designed to eat meat, we were only designed to eat in a vegan/vegetarian manner. This is done by selectively ignoring a lot of evidence. This pisses people off when it is caught.

2) We have some real-life study evidence that vegans/vegetarians live less long than people who have some meat. There's a sweet spot on the curve between deep-fried steaks every day and no meat ever. And yet the veggie crowd will over-simplify and say that their diet is the way to go if you want to live longer. Again, it's another case of manipulating the evidence and this also pisses people off when caught.

Basically, the whackadoo types are running (and ruining) public relations for this kind of thing and that isn't working out.

I think people react to veganism as a crazy idea because it's threatening. As an ethical choice, it's passing judgement on their own choices. So their (probably unconscious) reaction is to dismiss it at crazy. That's a defense mechanism to keep them from having to take a hard look at their own choices and the impact on other living beings.

I was a pretty long time vegan and after about a decade as an omnivore, I'm now mostly avoid meat again, though I'm not as strict as I once was.

When I was a serious vegan I'd keep it to myself unless I really had to mention it. But once it came up, people would frequently try to poke holes in my reasoning. It didn't take long before I'd heard all the arguments against.

The only one that really resonated with me was: "I like meat too much, so I don't care to change, even if it's causing harm."

I felt like that was honest, and I could respect it. Everything else felt like someone trying to defend their own ego.

Now, this was all 20 years ago. So maybe people have softened to the idea some. Or at least are used to it enough that they wouldn't have as much the same reactions today.

I agree that the fact it's threatening is the key issue. It was threatening to me for years before I took the leap. People have softened to the idea, but it is still the only stance I hold that I still get either rigorously questioned or belittled for - despite all the commercial and cultural support that continues to grow for it. This doesn't happen for any other political, ethical, or religious stance I hold - such confrontation would be frowned upon under normal circumstances, so there must be a reason for such a trigger. We are now actively weighing the benefits versus the costs of animal agriculture in a different light, because for the first time in our history we are, by in large, no longer reliant on it for our survival as individuals.

A young philosophy YouTuber of all people (Alex O'Connor) was the one who put the ethics of veganism in the right light for me; I had already decreased my animal product consumption to almost nothing with it being the leading cause of deforestation and habitat loss, but was not sold on the animal rights front in the slightest. Alex dismantled all my "egotistical" arguments as you put it. I followed it by reading his recommendation of Peter Signers book 'Animal Liberation' which really nailed the coffin as it were.

I recommend these videos [1][2] and this book [3] whole-heartedly for those who are on the fence, or even far beyond it but would like a "reasoned" view of veganism rather than the shallow arguments to might hear from your hippie friend or 14 year-old newly vegan niece/nephew.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1vW9iSpLLk&t=192s [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcVR2OVxPYw [3] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29380.Animal_Liberation

Sorry but have you noticed that there is a vocal minority of vegans who are very aggressive in the way they promote their ideology? For example, "meat is murder" is not exactly the kind of thing you say when you want to start a calm conversation. So perhaps what you perceive as "threatening" is not the idea of not eating meat but the behaviour of some vegans.

No doubt, many vegans are passionate to the point of aggression. However, one can understand that response if you see it through a lens of a vegan. I wouldn't expect the murder of a person to be met with calm conversation for the most part, let alone the consumption of one. For a person who sees the distinction between species as completely arbitrary, having such a conversation would be like yourself having a conversation with a child murderer. Again, I can not recommend the two videos I linked enough. It will give you a great insight to the thinking that often is behind that anger you see in the vocal minority.

That point aside however, when I say threatening I mean that it's not uncommon for myself and others to get accosted by someone simply mentioning that we are vegan. Again, there is no other position I hold where I can say nothing at all (I mean this genuinely - I actively avoid the discussion to the point that I will tell people I won't talk about with them), yet I will still be talked at for 30 minutes about how my ethics are wrong. The only comparison I can give is when people are hurled racist or homophobic comments with no provocation. Even within my close friend group, of whom none are vegan, have noticed it and will swiftly interject when it happens. I mean this with all honestly, if I am at a party with say 10 people who I don't know, at least 1 person there will try to talk at me until I find an excuse to leave. To me, it seems like they hold insecurities about their own ethics and are trying to reason their way out of it, as if I were their therapist. It's happens way to often and is frankly bizarre.

Actually, I don't think it's bizzarre. If you think it's normal that someone who is vegan will treat ordinary people as murderers because they do something that nobody else thinks of as "murder", except for the person who is vegan, then it's normal for others to treat vegans as a target for their (probably clumsy) philosophising. If we're gonna have a big old culture war, then it's a free for all and why should only one side get to have fun with it?

The root cause of this is an unwillingness to even acknowledge the existence of a different point of view in other peoples' heads. The militatnt vegan is incapable of considering the fact that "meat is murder" is her own opinion and that it is not shared by everyone around her, in fact she wants to make everyone around her not just aware of what she thinks, but also agree with her, and if people dont' agree with her it's because they're not just murderers, they're also idiots who can't see how they're murderers. The idiot who buttonholes you to tell you your ideas are wrong similarly can't get it around his big fat head that some people think different than he does- or he's just a fucking bully who thinks he's got the majority on his side and can torment you all he likes. I'm happy to hear your friends stick up for you.

Still, what happens to you is not that strange if you see it in the context of peoples' inability to consider others' point of view and understand others' thiking, even just to disagree with it better.

And btw, I think you and the other poster above are doing that too, when you say that others are "threatened" by your veganism. Perhaps it's just me, but it sounds more like you two are bragging about your unorthodox ideas that challenge others' misconceptions, than really trying to understand what's going on in other peoples' heads.

I grew up very close with animals, and if anything, it made me like and appreciate meat more. Life is a short, vicious circle, and we're omnivores with a place in that circle. My dog will happily kill a deer (yep, I watched in shock as she did it), and eat it, and we're no different. The best thing we can do is care for the animals with respect, and give them good lives. It's far better than nature will ever provide.

> The best thing we can do is care for the animals with respect, and give them good lives.

Until someone gets hungry, and then letting the animal live a good life quickly stops being a concern, even though letting it live will result in exactly 0 nutritional problems (assuming a normal, balanced diet).

> we're no different.

But we are, no? We aren't dogs, right? Or lions, or deer, or doves, or elephants. We are humans, and can recognize moral worth and weigh the ethical concerns of a situation, such as "Is it really worth having this animal suffer and die, when I could instead just eat a veggie burger?"

> vicious circle

When do we get to the part of the circle where 10 billion humans are systematically artificially inseminated, farmed, milked, culled, processed, thumped, skinned, boiled, and cut every year to sate the appetites of pigs, geese, horses, cows, goats, sheep, fish, sharks, whales, etc?

> Until someone gets hungry, and then letting the animal live a good life quickly stops being a concern.

Not to any responsible farmer. Respect in death as well as life.

>"Is it really worth having this animal suffer and die, when I could instead just eat a veggie burger?"

Yes. I have never killed an animal to eat and had it suffer. I kill sheep with a very sharp knife, and they're unconscious from blood loss before they feel the pain. I thank them for their gift once they're gone.

> When do we get to the part of the circle where 10 billion humans are systematically artificially inseminated, farmed, milked, culled, processed, thumped, skinned, boiled, and cut every year to sate the appetites of pigs, geese, horses, cows, goats, sheep, fish, sharks, whales, etc?

Whenever they get smart enough to do that to us.

> Respect in death as well as life.

Butt killing someone isn't respectful just because we say it is. If I kill you without you feeling any pain, it's hard to say I'm really respecting you, even if I say "respect in death as well".

> I have never killed an animal to eat and had it suffer

Have you ever purchased food that contained animal products? Because there is the overwhelming likelihood that the products came from a factory farm, which tend to be horrific for animals. Also, you say it _is_ worth it. Why? Why not just eat something else that doesn't involve killing an animal that doesn't want to die?

> Whenever they get smart enough to do that to us.

Ah, so not much of a circle is it then? A circle is reciprocal, and what we do to animals most definitely is _not_.

>Butt killing someone isn't respectful just because we say it is. If I kill you without you feeling any pain, it's hard to say I'm really respecting you, even if I say "respect in death as well".

If I had to kill someone in self-defense, I'd also try to make it as humane as possible. There's no point in generating excess suffering.

> Why not just eat something else that doesn't involve killing an animal that doesn't want to die?

Because I am above that animal on the food chain, and it's my natural right to eat it. Why don't you go judge a lion instead?

> Ah, so not much of a circle is it then?

We rot in the dirt eventually, plants eat us, and then herbivores eat those plants. It's a circle.

What kind of dog? My wolfhound keeps trying but just can't catch them.

My rancher buddies often tell me they suck at ranching because they get attached to some of their cows and just keep them instead of send them off.

Great Pyrenees. One of the most physically capable breeds nobody knows about. Similar bite force to Timber Wolves, and very nearly as fast.

I think where I get lost is the idea that things like this somehow mean having a chicken in your yard and eating some eggs every week is evil. That there are bad impacts of animal derived products, over-fishing, etc., and that these things aren't great seem like a true thing. But I don't understand how every case of anything to do with animals (including insects, etc.) is bad follows from it. (For another example, a hypothetical closed, renewable energy powered, aquaponic system doesn't strike me as propagating great evil.)

This is accurate. Goats and cows will literally beg you to milk them if you're late doing so. Chickens leave most of their eggs to rot, only incubating very few. Isn't it more disrespectful to the animal to let the food they provide go to waste?

Genuine question: Why do the animals beg you to milk them if they presumably have children? The animals only produce milk after having given birth, right? Are you saying that the animals produce so much milk that they still need to beg to be milked after their young have been nourished?

Or are you saying they only beg for milk in situations in which their young have been taken away?

Cows and Goats will both wean their offspring on their own, and continue to produce milk for years afterwards. Milking them keeps them from getting pregnant again too soon.

Is this true? Everything I'm reading online says that the animals will naturally "dry up" after the young have weened, and it's only by humans manually prolonging the lactation period that animals are able to give milk long after having given birth.

Yes, if you don't milk them after they wean their young, they can dry up. However, modern dairy farms let cows choose when and if they're milked, and the cows choose to be milked twice a day, and seem to really enjoy it.

We should also separate cows from sheep and goats. Where I am (prefer not to disclose exactly) sheep only produce milk between January and September and goats between April and November, the periods that coincide with their birth and weaning periods. And there's only few cows here because of the geography and the climate.

I think that in other places sheep can be milked year-round by having them breed twice in a year, but I'd guess that this would tire the animals and reduce the quality of the milk and probably also the quantity (which is already quite low for sheep and goats). I really doubt goats can be convinced to do things the humans' way. I've never heard of anyone industrially breeding them and I can't imagine goats nicely lining up to be milked by a robot!

A lot of the lore that animal rights folks share about how dairy animals are bred and milked seems to be collected from a very particular kind of practice, focused exclusively on dairy cows in the US, and that isn't as widespread as the animal rights people would have you think. For example, I bet everyone has heard by now how cows are cruelly separated from their calves immediately when the calf is born, but I doubt as many people have heard of Salers cows that will simply not produce any milk unless their calf is touching them. Milk from Salers cows is a legal requirement for some PDO cheeses so while their numbers are few compared to Freisians, Jerseys, etc, they are no less cows and no less dairy cows. They're just the inconvenient kind (for milking, as well as for propagandising).

Source for the enjoyment part?

Here's a good article on it: https://www.dairymoos.com/do-cows-like-to-be-milked/

If you've never milked cows, it may be hard to tell, but happy cows are very obvious if you know what you're looking for.

It should also be noted that stressed cows produce less milk, so it's economically advantageous to keep the cows happy.

This is the difference between me in my late teens, early 20s. hardcore vegan, avoided all animal products. Went to lengths to avoid leather, never ate any animal products.

Now, 20 years later, I'm mostly vegetarian, and limit dairy and other animal products. But it doesn't have to be perfect. I'm just trying to consume less of it and lessen my overall impact.

It doesn't have to be 100% pure.

> this somehow mean having a chicken in your yard and eating some eggs every week is evil.

I think this is a great step in the right direction, if you limit your animal product consumption to stuff like this. The problem is that no one really does just this. Loads of people have chickens in their backyard that they love, and they eat the eggs, but then they order a dish with eggs out at a restaurant, or they out for ice cream, and they are still supporting the companies responsible for the terrible treatment of animals that we see in videos of factory farms.

Most vegans probs won't join you in eating the backyard eggs, but most (that I know, at least!) would commend you for limiting your consumption of animal products that don't actively support factory farms.

I don't think veganism is a crazy idea, but it often seems to devolve into some sort of purity competition that becomes crazy.

Vegan here. Not sure if this is exactly what you are hinting at, but I do perceive a significant bias against veganism that is, to my perspective, usually just not based on a solid rational basis.

Veganism has no solid basis in that there is no precedent.

There is for vegetarianism, it was not invented in the nineteenth century, but veganism was. There are no examples of vegan cultures before modern times.

Given that what we do not know about human metabolism is more important than what we do know I am sceptical of some new radical dietary plan.

Animal agriculture is a top cause of climate catastrophe. Is avoid global catastrophe a radical idea?

Is it?

Is not industrial agriculture generally (and more generally, greed) the actual problem?

I do not think that intensive crop growing is better than pastoral farming of animals for meat. The former is catastrophic to the local environment the latter is all around me and causes very few problems.

I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but growing animals for meat generally requires growing lots and lots of feed stock. Many multiples more than what it would require to feed humans directly.

So because we want meat, more and more industrial agriculture has to happen to grow that meat. So yeah, I think having an industrial meat industry has more environmental impact, than just having industrial farming in the absence of the industrial meat industry.

It kind of goes both ways, today's factory farmed meat is grown with lots of grains and corn which is grown using artificial fertilizer, that is a lot of waste. But a bit more traditionally and on smaller scales you donn't feed cows much of any grains, that is for people to eat, they eat the alfalfa which is grown in rotation to put nutrients/fertilizer into the soil for free and without any pollution.

So eating meat is both very polluting, but once was and still could be a net positive for agricultural sustainability and reducing fossil fuel pollution.

No it does not.

Certain industrial techniques do.

I am surrounded by pasture with sheep (and some cattle, and even some Lama? Alpaca?...) eating grass.

Industrial agriculture is not a state of nature, it is a choice.

The industrial production of soy beans is quite horrifying also.

There are industrial farming techniques that are not so bad as there are traditional techniques that are awful.

We are intelligent creatures and we can make choices. Better choices than just giving up

I'm unsure what kind of an argument you are making. Consider a parallel that could be uttered in the past:

"Letting women vote has no basis in that there is no precedent."

We know enough about nutrition that we could get all the nutrients needed without animal products. If your concern is about health, then how many examples of vegan people living healthy lives into their 90s would be enough to convince you?

I'm not sure that "women should get to vote" is logically the same as "get your B12 from fortified foods like nutritional yeast and you still end up with B12 deficiency" ...

The main finding of this review is that vegetarians develop B12 depletion or deficiency regardless of demographic characteristics, place of residency, age, or type of vegetarian diet. Vegetarians should thus take preventive measures to ensure adequate intake of this vitamin, including regular consumption of supplements containing B12.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23356638/

This is solved by a trivial supplement. Millions of vegans/vegetarians take them every day, and many hundreds of millions of livestock (which is how most get their B12, as well). If we didn't supplement our livestock with B12, we'd all always be deficient.

A lot of suffering is avoided with a measly supplement.

Are you asking people to eat pills to ensure adequate nutrition?

In the case of B12, yes. B12 deficiencies are a result of modern farming practices, _not_ plant-based diets. This is why our livestock are supplemented with B12.

B12 was originally sourced naturally by consuming things straight from the ground, like foraging and drinking from streams, or eating animals. Modern farming doesn't allow for a lot of this consuming straight from the wilderness though, so B12 needs to be supplemented. Either into animals so we get it via their meat, or directly, via a supplement.

Your B12 is coming from a supplement either way, though. Vegans just ask that you take out the middleman so that they don't need to die for you to get something that is found in a measly pill.

My response was to parody the statement I was responding to, specifically "Veganism has no solid basis in that there is no precedent." I was hoping replacing just one word would have made the connection as clear as possible. Is having no precedent enough of an argument to stop change? It's absurd on its face.

Problem is your example.

A) There is plenty of precedent for women being involved in the mechanisms of government

B) Governance is a cultural artefact and diet is a matter of biology. I do not think we perfectly understand culture, but we create it as we go along. The requirements of biology are hard, must be met, and very poorly understood. SO lack of precedent for veganism (plenty for vegetarianism) is an issue

Why fight over a minor problem with my example? If you can't come up with a parallel statement that shows the absurdity of the claim, you're not trying hard enough.

Pick a society that didn't have women voting; imagine someone making the argument "there is no precedent", and notice how it's an absurd argument. It sounds like a conservative's wet dream, implying that whenever there is no precedent for something, it meaningfully counts against that thing. Sure, there is no precedent for surviving a guillotine, but are you saying the intention of my sentence wasn't clear?

How about this, at some point in history someone could have said "there is no precedent for the internet" -- would that have been a meaningful "con" against creating it?

As my follow up question goes: "How many examples of vegan people living healthy lives into their 90s would be enough to convince you?"

A good parallel about veganism is from the past: people were saying "hey, we shouldn't have slaves" and slave owners saying "but I like it this way". To ignore the arguments of the anti-slavery movement by gesturing at some generic concern for well being is absurd. If in fact having no slaves meant that the rich families were going to have less money and would eat less-nutritious food is not a good argument for perpetuating slavery.

Except Vitamin D3. Vitamin D2 is only a partial replacement.

I feel the lmited factual objections, and they are typically somewhat slight, is the avoidance of problems like osteoporosis. Calcium is just not as bioavailable in plant sources. In like sense we don't synthesise some vitamins well, which is an indication we expect bioavailable sources to be in our diet, genetically speaking.

Probably, insect sources would meet fat soluable needs if a live source was to be chosen.

(Not a vegan, omnivorous, happy to consider lacto-ovo vegetarianism at some poibt)

Harvard found calcium to be more bioavailable in plants.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium/#:~:tex....

What's your source for animal-based calcium being more bioavailable?

I had my calcium tested as a vegetarian and later as a vegan and it's gone up.

The studies I read suggest oxalate and phylate inhibit absorption. For instance

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12088515/

As a layperson, perhaps I misconstrued bioavailabilty and absorption because both come into effect.

I glad your calcium levels have risen btw, I would wonder if other effects like exercise or overall dietary sufficiency have changed. If for instance you ate less foods with chelating agents you'd alter iron absorption, perhaps your dietary shift removed confounding phylate? And no matter why, it's great they rose.

As a meat eater, I don't think there are too many serious challenges outside of religious beliefs to the ethical arguments for veganism. Mammals at least are clearly as sentient about survival and their kin as we are. But that doesn't mean we can't accept that their suffering is worth it for our gustatory pleasure. I could accept a world where I simply have to pay more for meat to spare the horrors of factory farming, but I have no personal problem with humane-intentioned husbandry and slaughter.

Where in your argument are humans excluded for gustatory pleasure?

We aren't. We have no ethical justification for why at the species level we get to cage lions for show rather than they us for food, if that's what you mean.

I think there are many compelling arguments for veganism, but the idea that "animals aren't as dumb as we think they are" is not compelling. At least not to me.

I wouldn't downvote you for that opinion, however I am curious to hear your elaboration on what you mean.

I'm not vegan and never will be. I don't think veganism is a crazy idea, I think it's great if that's what a person likes. And I don't see how this story, the context of it, adds substantial merit to veganism.

> I don't see how this story, the context of it, adds substantial merit to veganism.

If cows are smart enough to be potty trained then maybe we should not confine them to feedlots and slaughter them.

If you think that how we treat an animal should depend on its IQ, then you are heading down a road that many will find uncomfortable real quick.

I honestly don't see how being smart enough to be potty trained has anything to do with whether something should be eaten. That's a truly bizarre connection to make.

We are part of nature and eat food that is part of a traditional diet or a very close substitute. Whether something is in our traditional diet has only a limited relationship to how intelligent it is. For instance, if it is so intelligent that we have not been able to catch it then it would certainly be excluded from our diet. But in general, that's not why foods are actually excluded in practice, so this is a fringe theory to explain why humans have developed as omnivores that eat meat as well as vegetables.

These are not feedlots, are they? They video would not play for me). These would be herd homes, which are a very different concept. Generally cattle are very happy in "herd homes". Happier than living in the mud.

Golden retrievers may live happy lives, but we don't slaughter them.

If a being is killed, it ceases to be.

If it has no friends/family who miss its absence, who cares?

Death is not immoral, it just is.

I can only speak for myself: I feel that killing animals is wrong, I don’t have the self control to stop, and seeing people who do (and are living more ethical lives than me) makes me annoyed and resentful. I would, however, be extremely proud if my children decided to become vegan (and would prepare vegan meals for them).

One huge flaw with the way vegetarianism/veganism is often presented it that it's all or nothing. But that's a fallacy. Eat one less meat meal every week if you want. Have vegan Sundays. Cut out only cows.

Jim - I'm not vegan, but I wanted to be the voice of the universe telling you that you CAN do it. Start by moving to pescatarian or vegetarian for a month, then maybe a year. Then phase out the other stuff.

Bask in the glow of doing something you believe is right, even if it's hard. Be the example for your kids even if it's with baby steps. Cheers.

You can do it. You can absolutely do it.

I'm having trouble parsing your sentence. You're annoyed and resentful of yourself or of the vegans?

Of them, for holding a mirror up to my own failings.

This argument doesn't work. I mean, people do horrible things to other people too (including killing them). So a dark way of looking at this is that people only care about things they form an attachment to (humans or animals or material objects).

People also get PTSD from killing other people. And militaries go to great lengths to dehumanize the enemy and get soldiers to be more ok with killing other humans.

People still often end up traumatized after doing that killing.

Even at a huge distance, drone pilots end up with PTSD fairly frequently.

So I don't think it's quite so black and white as only caring about things we have attachment to.

Speaking for myself, veganism is a crazy idea because it means putting yourself in a position where you can't get all the nutrients you need from the food you eat and you have to take supplements to make up for the deficiencies, otherwise you risk suffering from malnourishment.

I don't get this kind of choice at all. Nourishment should come from food, not from supplements. If you don't eat well enough to keep yourself healthy and fullfill your needs, you should change your diet. If there are ideological reasons, religious or political reasons, then you should re-examine those. There is nothing ethical in starving yourself. You will not care for animals and will not save the environment by not eating enough food.

What's more, being vegan achieves exactly 0 change to the suffering of animals and to the damage done to the environment. When you go to the supermarket and find a steak on a shelf, whether you buy it or not makes no difference to the suffering of the animal or the amount of greenhouse gasses produced to raise it. You can choose to buy the steak and eat it or not, but you can't change what has already happened. So whether you eat meat or not is just an empty, symbolic gesture. It may give you the warm moral fuzzies, but you haven't changed anything in reality.

The idea of course is that if everyone becomes vegan, then meat production will stop or decrease. It could work in theory, but in practice the number of vegetarians and vegans keeps rising but meat production and consumption has been increasing steadily since the 1960's:

https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production

So what is the vegan plan? Whatever it is, it's not making a dent. Everybody has heard the vegan and vegetarian claims by now: meat is murder, it destroys the environment, you're a bad person for liking meat, the goalposts keep shifting, but meat production keeps increasing, never decreasing, no matter what.

It's not just a crazy idea, it's an idea that doesn't work.

I think veganism is awesome. Sadly, I like meat more than I like veganism.

Vegan food is not delicious. I’m not going to stop eating meat, we need to figure out another way around this like lab grown meat or something.

I'll be vegan when hell freezes over but I think what you say means you just don't have experience with a food culture where most dishes are plant based, like the Mediterrannean or the Indian cuisine.

I grew up in a Mediterrannean country. If you think about it, that's the one region in the entire world that has so many different nations famous for their cuisines: Spain, Italy, Greece, France, Morocco, Tunisia ... and all of them are 80% technically vegetarian or vegan. Think of Italian cuisine with all its pasta with tomato sauce and olive oil, for example, or the Greek cuisine with all its sea food, the world-famous French cheeses, Moroccan pilafs, etc.

It's funny in a way but most of those are the cuisines of traditionally piss poor people (in Italy, for example, you eat best in the -still- poor South). They say that "need is the mother of invention" and I guess if you can't rely on having steak and fries for breakfast, lunch and dinner, then you really need to get creative if you want to have some pleasure with your food.

It's a real tragedy that in the West being vegan has more or less become synonymous with fake burgers and milk substitutes. There's so many things you can eat that are vegan, or vegetarian, that aren't "fake" anything and don't "substitute" anything, they're just delicious foods in their own right. But then, there are so many people who don't even know how to cook steak and fries to begin with, let alone know how to make a good meal out of some vegetables...

I don’t think you’ve had the right vegan food. Some is disgusting, just like some meat-based foods are (fermented shark?). Some can be made really well. I’m not a vegan but I’ve noticed what’s missing in it a lot of them is umami - savoriness. That’s an easy fix: soy sauce, kombu, tomatoes (paste especially), certain mushrooms, even pure MSG. Things with a lot of glutamate go a long way to making most dishes better, non-vegan ones included.

Mushrooms is the only thing on that list that even comes close and I admit they are delicious.

I think it’s a matter of judicious use. I use a lot of tamari/soy sauce when I cook, but not enough that the food tastes overly of it. It’s the savoriness I want, not the actual flavor. Same with tomato paste - roast it in the oven so it has some color and then mix it in with things like soups. They won’t taste like tomato paste (unless you go overboard with it) but they will have a fuller mouthfeel and feel more satisfying.

When I make stock at home from vegetable trimmings, I put mushrooms and kombu in. In Japanese cooking those two things make a dashi, which is a base stock for a lot of dishes, but even adding them to regular stocks (or if I’m cooking rice or quinoa or something) by tying a sheet of seaweed around some mushrooms and then pulling it out when the cooking is done, it imparts a lot of glutamate but not an overly seaweed-y flavor. I don’t eat the seaweed or the mushrooms usually (dried shiitakes have a texture I don’t like), I use them only to infuse things.

Improving cultivation of more types of mushroom would do a lot.

The range of tastes in mushrooms varies a lot more than most people realise - it drives me crazy how many English words are used for the same mushroom (portobello, white, brown, chestnut, crimini, champignon all refer to agaricus bisporus), and how few mushroom varieties most people have tasted.

Especially as A.bisporus is one of the most boring mushrooms in existence.

I am an omnivore, but I noticed that mushrooms can often satisfy my craving for meat.

>Vegan food is not delicious.

As in, there exists no delicious food that doesn't contain animal products?

All of the cultures that have long food histories mostly not based around meat must be miserable? Nobody could possibly enjoy vegetable pad thai or chana masala? French fries?

Indian food is delicious because everything is rich in dairy. I honestly have never had a pad thai without meat. French fries are a compliment to something, I can rarely eat them by themselves.

Pad Thai is delicious with shrimps and also with Tofu. In my experience it's not the meat that adds most of the flavor.

Shrimp is meat ...

Shrimp is considered seafood so in terms of diet would be considered pescatarian.

I also said tofu which tastes great and is neither seafood or meat.

For the purposes of a discussion about being a vegan ... it's not on the menu.

Tofu it is, then.

Tofu is not delicious.

This thread is about vegans…

No it's bullshit.

That is one opinion. Mine is that meat is gross and that vegan food is delicious.

With meat eaters it’s a superset. We’re not missing out on anything.

Well, the intersection of vegan food with meat is the empty set. But I get what you mean if you mean "vegan" food, the stuff that is trying to emulate the taste of meat, albeit poorly. But fruits, vegetables, mushrooms, carbs, they're great.

I eat cows. And pigs.

I am not put off by this. The role of cows and pigs in this world is to be eaten.

They would not exist otherwise.

They're domesticated versions of wild animals that existed long before humans.

And if you let a pig out of its pen, it'll very quickly return to its instinctual lifestyle and absolutely thrive virtually anywhere. Wild pigs have no problem attacking people and even eating them.

Pigs exist just for humans as much as coyotes do. Which is to say, they don't.

I agree with this. Religiously, I believe plants and animals are for the benefit of mankind. However, they must be used responsibly.

I am the opposite of religious, but I agree

Because everything on this planet and beyond exists only for humans to exploit and use up? That’s a very narrow take on things.

No. Animals that humans breed, farm, and that rely on humans for every aspect of their lives. They exist for humans to exploit.

That is a very narrow part of things

Isn't that a circular argument?

They only exist for humans to exploit because humans put them in that situation.

Yes. We could stop, then no cows or pigs.

So because humans started exploiting them, obviously we can’t stop. Right.

their roles could get more interesting once we give them neuralinks and higher educations

A science fiction story about a group of machine learning data labelers who get outsourced to neural interface outfitted livestock sounds promising.

All this illustrates is that vegetarianism is ultimately a human social phenomenon. Cute animals doing human-like things get our sympathy and fuel vegan cultural movements, while cockroaches replicating some other human quality are still treated as pests to be removed, without exception.