• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Veganism

If every one in the world was vegan, what do you think the results would be?

  • The results would be delightful.

  • The results would be somewhat beneficial, but nothing extreme.

  • There would be no or little difference.

  • The results would be somewhat harmful, but nothing extreme.

  • The results would be a catastrophe.


Results are only viewable after voting.

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I think it depends a lot on how we arrived there and what kind of resources we are looking at. Currently we don't have the infrastructure to support it. It's an easy choice to make for middle class first world people to make, much less so for people in rural poverty zones or arid climates. To say the least of people with a lot of nut or fruit based allergies.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
If you have a more complicated answer than the poll provides, I would love to hear it.

I picked the second, but there was not a really good choice. The result would not be neutral. It would likely be a natural evolution of humanity that would result in a universal diet such as this. ..
 
Eat bugs, or take vitamin B12.

Less meat would mean less muscle mass. Of course some may debate that. But, theres been experiments done on it and meat does increase muscle mass more. The amino acid profile is superior to vegies.

What about lite veganism? Where you eat eggs, cheese or whey?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
If you have a more complicated answer than the poll provides, I would love to hear it.

I know one thing for sure as I reduced my meat consumption and eating more greens and vegetables. You forgot to put in 'smelly'.

I'm getting really sick and tired of farting all the time!!!!!!
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think it depends a lot on how we arrived there and what kind of resources we are looking at. Currently we don't have the infrastructure to support it. It's an easy choice to make for middle class first world people to make, much less so for people in rural poverty zones or arid climates. To say the least of people with a lot of nut or fruit based allergies.
Always, these dull very Thoughtful Articulated clear answers digital... What kind of artist is that! Its rhetorical thus an exclamation mark rather than a question mark btw.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I picked the second, but there was not a really good choice. The result would not be neutral. It would likely be a natural evolution of humanity that would result in a universal diet such as this. ..
What would be the driver?
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I know one thing for sure as I reduced my meat consumption and eating more greens and vegetables. You forgot to put in 'smelly'.

I'm getting really sick and tired of farting all the time!!!!!!
I never noticed! Your farts seems no more offensive than others here on the magic of the internet!!!! My phone is an honour 6x.it doesnt have smell mode.. Android sucks..
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I never noticed! Your farts seems no more offensive than others here on the magic of the internet!!!! My phone is an honour 6x.it doesnt have smell mode.. Android sucks..
Wait till it hits the trade winds.
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
The results would certainly be most delightful. Humanity would need far less farmland than now (none for grazing and for growing animal fodder such as soya) and this would very much increase the availabilty of wilderness areas, so wild species could start thriving again and the ecological balance could return, mass extinction would come to a halt.

People in general would become much healthier and stay healthy for much longer in their lives. People in general would also become more subtle in their behaviour (meat and fish crudify the mind) which would decrease violence and crime in the world.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
If you have a more complicated answer than the poll provides, I would love to hear it.

Not sure if the methane emitted by 7 billion plus vegans would be more or less than the methane emitted by cows. Methane is a greenhouse gas, consider global warming
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
One cannot logically deny the improvement to environment, including climate, and the massive reduction in suffering of trillions upon trillions of sentient creatures, if humans ate the plant-based diet that apes such as humans are biologically adapted to eat. One cannot logically deny the improvement to the environment, including climate, and the reduction in suffering of many sentient creatures, if the majority of humans were to simply change their diet today to something closer to a vegan diet. Nor can one logically deny the improvement in human health if either of the above conditionals were true.

On a recent thread (But What Are the Risks of CO2 Removal Technologies?), I cited a September article published by the UN Environmental Programme that carried the unapologetic title, “Tackling the World's Most Urgent Problem: Meat”. The article spotlighted two newly developed products, Beyond Burger and Impossible Burger, noting, inter alia, that GHG emissions resulting from animal agriculture are at least equal to that of all forms of transportation combined, that roughly "80 per cent of agricultural land is used to make livestock feed or for grazing," and that while all the buildings, roads, parking lots and other paved surfaces take up less than 1% of the earth's land surface, more than 45% of the planet's land surface is used for grazing or growing feed for livestock. In stark contrast:

According to a research study conducted by the University of Michigan, a quarter-pound Beyond Burger requires 99 per cent less water, 93 per cent less land and generates 90 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions, using 46 per cent less energy to produce in the U.S. than its beef equivalent.​

The Impossible Burger, developed by Dr. Patrick Brown, founder of PLoS, requires approximately 75 per cent less water, 95 per cent less land, and generates about 87 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than beef burgers.

The facts noted in the article do not even touch upon the vast quantities of other sorts of pollution and disease, including antibiotic resistant bacteria, that animal agriculture brings upon us
 
Last edited:

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Not sure if the methane emitted by 7 billion plus vegans would be more or less than the methane emitted by cows.
It would be a significant reduction in methane emissions if humans ate a vegan diet. After all, most of the food that cows and pigs eat goes toward growing and maintaining bones, gristle, organs, etc., that humans do not eat.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
It would be a significant reduction in methane emissions if humans ate a vegan diet. After all, most of the food that cows and pigs eat goes toward growing and maintaining bones, gristle, organs, etc., that humans do not eat.

Vegans do tend to fart a lot as has previously been noted, a gas containing much methane.

Edit
"bones, gristle, organs, etc., that humans do not eat."
I think some fast food joints and school kitchens would love to hear you say that
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Vegans do tend to fart a lot as has previously been noted, a gas containing much methane.
I stand by my statement: It would be a significant reduction in methane emissions if humans ate a vegan diet. After all, most of the food that cows and pigs eat goes toward growing and maintaining bones, gristle, organs, etc., that humans do not eat.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I stand by my statement: It would be a significant reduction in methane emissions if humans ate a vegan diet. After all, most of the food that cows and pigs eat goes toward growing and maintaining bones, gristle, organs, etc., that humans do not eat.


I edited my post #15 if you would like to take a look.

Humans also grow and maintain bones, gristle, organs, etc
 
See Twenty Three athletes who set World Records or became World Champions. Google "vegan bodybuilders". You'll see more muscle than you can handle.

Yes, i agree you can be in great shape doing veganism.

I saw those vegan bodybuilders too.

I dont know if your aware of the youtubers called the hodge twins? Well, anyways, they are natural bodybuilders, in great shape. They did an experiment doing a vegan diet for a period of time, consistently. Then they went back on there meat diet for period of time.

Then they showed there before and after pictures. The meat diet, there muscle bellies wer clearly bigger. The vegan pictures wer still in great shape, but not as big.

Also, they told how they felt. They said on the vegan diet, they felt energy, strong, healthy. But on the meat, they wer bigger and stronger.

Also, you gotta be careful to when you hear a bodybuilder is vegan. Yea, some may be PURE vegan. But, some of them just abstain from meat, fish and still eat eggs, cheese and whey.

And eggs, cheese and whey have an amino acid profile that is just as superior as meat.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
What would be the driver?

Actually, most other posters described different possible driving forces. I do not anticipate that all humanity will become totally vegan, but will evolve to a predominate vegetable, grain, legume and nut food sources. The Baha'i writings describe the future diet as dominantly vegetarian.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
One cannot logically deny the improvement to environment, including climate, and the massive reduction in suffering of trillions upon trillions of sentient creatures, if humans ate the plant-based diet that apes such as humans are biologically adapted to eat. One cannot logically deny the improvement to the environment, including climate, and the reduction in suffering of many sentient creatures, if the majority of humans were to simply change their diet today to something closer to a vegan diet. Nor can one logically deny the improvement in human health if either of the above conditionals were true.

On a recent thread (But What Are the Risks of CO2 Removal Technologies?), I cited a September article published by the UN Environmental Programme that carried the unapologetic title, “Tackling the World's Most Urgent Problem: Meat”. The article spotlighted two newly developed products, Beyond Burger and Impossible Burger, noting, inter alia, that GHG emissions resulting from animal agriculture are at least equal to that of all forms of transportation combined, that roughly "80 per cent of agricultural land is used to make livestock feed or for grazing," and that while all the buildings, roads, parking lots and other paved surfaces take up less than 1% of the earth's land surface, more than 45% of the planet's land surface is used for grazing or growing feed for livestock. In stark contrast:

According to a research study conducted by the University of Michigan, a quarter-pound Beyond Burger requires 99 per cent less water, 93 per cent less land and generates 90 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions, using 46 per cent less energy to produce in the U.S. than its beef equivalent.​

The Impossible Burger, developed by Dr. Patrick Brown, founder of PLoS, requires approximately 75 per cent less water, 95 per cent less land, and generates about 87 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than beef burgers.

The facts noted in the article do not even touch upon the vast quantities of other sorts of pollution and disease, including antibiotic resistant bacteria, that animal agriculture brings upon us
A drop in the population say under 1 bil. Would do even more. But rabbits will be rabbits rgardless.
 
Top