Please stop murdering plants!

[Urban Gardener]

Absolutely. Before the fall and even afterwards up until the flood had wiped out all crops, it says very clearly that we were herbivores. I don't believe, from my reading of the Bible, that Christian salvation depends upon being vegan but I do believe very strongly that God would prefer it that way, and in the coming Kingdom, death will be eliminated and even "The lion will eat straw, like the Ox" (From Isaiah)

Exactly, if you take everything in context, veganism is encouraged. And we’re encouraged to eat a broad range of plants.

But I think it could still support fruitarianism. Fruit is clearly held in high regard. It could be that as we progress towards greater enlightenment, we’ll return to a fruit-based diet (like in the garden of Eden?).

I think we’re kind of splitting hairs by arguing about whether the Bible is for or against fruitarianism. The point is to be kind to other living things, yet also to do what is necessary to survive. That could be anything on the PB to fruitarian spectrum.

 

[Brian W]

Exactly, if you take everything in context, veganism is encouraged. And we’re encouraged to eat a broad range of plants.

But I think it could still support fruitarianism. Fruit is clearly held in high regard. It could be that as we progress towards greater enlightenment, we’ll return to a fruit-based diet (like in the garden of Eden?).

I think we’re kind of splitting hairs by arguing about whether the Bible is for or against fruitarianism. The point is to be kind to other living things, yet also to do what is necessary to survive. That could be anything on the PB to fruitarian spectrum.

Well I see it as God gave us the diet that is standard primate food (Primate diets are varied from species to species but fruit and nuts are what they have in common) God gave animals the other plants while not causing suffering, so on a moral level I don't see an issue. On a health issue, humans have adapted and changed a lot since those times so I am not sure. What I do know is that I could not possibly sustain such a restrictive diet. I don't believe I have to be kind to plants because I don't think they are capable of suffering and I have to eat something. BTW, it wasn't me who originally brought up the subject of the Bible in this debate. I brought up science. I linked to two scientific papers that support my position, I have yet to read any scientific papers that support the "plants have feelings" positions. Books that claim to be scientific will not do - many use that excuse to sell books and make money. I want to see actual papers that prove plants have feelings otherwise there is simply no case.

 

[Urban Gardener]

Well I see it as God gave us the diet that is standard primate food (Primate diets are varied from species to species but fruit and nuts are what they have in common) God gave animals the other plants while not causing suffering, so on a moral level I don't see an issue. On a health issue, humans have adapted and changed a lot since those times so I am not sure. What I do know is that I could not possibly sustain such a restrictive diet. I don't believe I have to be kind to plants because I don't think they are capable of suffering and I have to eat something. BTW, it wasn't me who originally brought up the subject of the Bible in this debate. I brought up science. I linked to two scientific papers that support my position, I have yet to read any scientific papers that support the "plants have feelings" positions. Books that claim to be scientific will not do - many use that excuse to sell books and make money. I want to see actual papers that prove plants have feelings otherwise there is simply no case.

I agree with you. And, having been involved in the sciences myself, I know how far off things can get. The scientific method is great. However, it is carried out by humans - with the full range of motivations and levels of honesty. It isn’t perfect. Dysfunction exists.

I think it would be interesting to talk about veganism and the Abrahamic religions in a separate thread. It’s an interesting topic. I’d like to delve deeper and go beyond its relevance to fruitarianism.

 

[Brian W]

I agree with you. And, having been involved in the sciences myself, I know how far off things can get. The scientific method is great. However, it is carried out by humans - with the full range of motivations and levels of honesty. It isn’t perfect. Dysfunction exists.

I think it would be interesting to talk about veganism and the Abrahamic religions in a separate thread. It’s an interesting topic. I’d like to delve deeper and go beyond its relevance to fruitarianism.

I agree. I like talking about it because there are so many Christian fundamentalists preaching against veganism and I always do the apologetics thing to tell vegans, "Hey, don't let it put you off - you can be both vegan and Christian." But another thread. I have no more desire to debate in this one.

 

[Colas D]

Actually growing grains and veggies is considerably more efficient than bananas or other fruits as you can see below.

View attachment 22871
Also growing fruits requires the use of pesticides and don't know enough about intensive farming of fruit to know if it would meet in practice your ethic criteria.

Since fruit requires considerably more land and many of the fruits sought would be tropical, not to mention waste would be much higher since conservation of fruit is much more difficult, it is not clear if the environmental impact would not be considerably worse if everyone turned to it.

Cooking does not destroy all vitamins at least not completely. Besides there are studies that show that cooking even if reducing the amount on one side increases the availability of the nutrients compensating for that loss. And the concentration of antioxidants increases with the cooking of some foods like tomatoes.

Besides if apes have not been eating only fruits and humans have not been eating only fruit why are we to assume that eating only fruit is enough for humans?

The examples you give are not enough evidence since we are talking of few cases and thus it is not enough to say such diet is adequate to all humans or even the majority. There are people who are able to live without eating at all. Would everyone be able to do the same?

Thanks Fakei. I strongly dispute your figures though and still affirm that fruits require less land than cereals, and by far. Here is an abstract from a scholarly publication:

Not enough fruits, vegetables grown to feed the planet​

Date:October 25, 2018 Source:University of Guelph
Summary: Study results show that the global agriculture system currently overproduces grains, fats and sugars, while production of fruits and vegetables and, to a smaller degree, protein is not sufficient to meet the nutritional needs of the current population. The researchers also found that shifting production to match nutritional dietary guidelines would require 50 million fewer hectares of arable land, because fruits and vegetables take less land to grow than grain, sugar and fat.

So you see Fakei, here are some scientists who totally disagree with your chart.

Your chart is not reliable for many reasons. What is plotted is the land used per 10000 kilocalories. But kilocalories are a very poor indicator of the nutritional value of food. Reducing food to kilocalories while ignoring minerals, vitamins, antioxidants and a host of other parameters (some of which we don't even know about) is completely meaningless. According to your chart, rice and maize would be the most eco-friendly food while we know full well they require a colossal amount of water.

Fruit trees in the context of fruitarian permaculture do not need pesticides or fertilisers. They are naturally fertilised by the rotten fruits that fall on the ground. Unlike monocrop culture, orchards are rich in biodiversity, which prevent them from being ravaged by swarms of locusts for example. In an orchard, you can plant a fig tree beside a plum tree beside a pear tree. This variety does not attract swarms. However, if a swarm of locusts happen to come across a monocrop field of wheat, they will wreak havoc. Also, fruit trees hold the soil together with their roots, so the soil doesn't get washed away when flooded. That is not the case after a cereal field have been harvested.

The figures on your chart are completely meaningless. Crucially, they ignore the fact that an orchard produces wood and leaves in addition to the fruits. The wood locks carbon and reduces carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The leaves carry out photosynthesis, reduce carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and crucially produce oxygen.

In an orchard, the trees are spaced out so the soil is never exhausted. In a mono-crop field the plants are bunched up and the soil gets exhausted.

Claiming that cooked food has nutritional advantages is a form of propaganda. I don't buy into it. It is like claiming that red wine increases life expectancy or that cigarettes are good for memory.

Apes eat a 95% fruit diet. If we claim to be ethical beings, we must do better than they do. We must eat a 100% fruit diet.

 

[Colas D]

Then of course there's the reality that not all people live in climates where they can be fruitarians. If this "god" you speak of "meant" for people to be fruitarian and all I'd expect it to be more widely available
This thread belongs here as much as a breatharian one, cause I'm sure there's something about minerals ....

What about the eskimoes then? They live in a place where they cannot be vegan. Yet, God doesn't want us to eat animals.
I think that when it's possible to do so, we have a moral duty to go to a suitable place, like the tropics.

 

[Colas D]

I know that plants grow towards the sun, I have seen it in person.
I don’t consider not wanting to harm a sentient being as compassion, only because meat eaters would use that as an excuse. They don’t love animals so they don’t have to be vegan. You don’t need to love animals in order to not eat them. It’s more like animals are sentient beings who want to live too. Knowing that is enough, so I don’t have to feel love for each animal I don’t eat. The motivation I had for quitting animal products did come from an animal that is commonly disliked- pet rats.

Thanks Danielle, I approve of what you've just written. So you don't have to love the plants not to eat them. Let's not love them then. And crucially, let's not eat them! I love the plants though, I really have this feeling in me.

 

[Colas D]

I agree. I like talking about it because there are so many Christian fundamentalists preaching against veganism and I always do the apologetics thing to tell vegans, "Hey, don't let it put you off - you can be both vegan and Christian." But another thread. I have no more desire to debate in this one.

I do believe in God. Very strongly I should add. However, I'll never believe that the Bible is inerrant. There are some very beautiful verses in the Bible, granted. But there are some atrocious verses too. The Bible is a mere book, completely fallible. Worshipping a book is a form of abyssal folly.

The Bible teaches cruelty towards animals and humans. It is the written work of many ancient authors, some of whom were filled with murder and hatred. Many had an archaic mentality. An example among hundreds of others is found in the book of Numbers. God asks Moses to slaughter all the Medianite, men, women and children. All except for the female virgins that the Hebrews had to keep for themselves as sexual slaves (Numbers 31:18). What about the animals? Well, Joshua were asked to hamstring thousands of horses so that the Israelite could better slay and massacre the Canaanite (Jos 11:6). Arguing that the Bible promotes veganism is like arguing that Mein Kampf promotes humanism.

Fundamentalist Christians that argue against veganism are wrong and mean, but at least they are consistent. Granted, there are a few verses that are nice to animals in Genesis and Isaiah. I love them and find them extremely inspiring and beautiful. But overall, the Bible preaches cruelty towards animals. The book of Leviticus is a butcher textbook.

As for the New Testament, Jesus ate fish! The apostle Paul has also laid out his doctrine with respect to veganism. Christians should eat everything but be patient towards their weak brothers that refrain from eating meat (Romans 14:2). As for the people spreading veganism in the latter times, they are spreading doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1). Anyway, according to Paul, God doesn't even care about the ox! (1 Corinthians 9:9).

I love God wholeheartedly and want to follow her/his will with all my strength. But the Spirit of God is not enclosed in a book, however inspiring some passages may be. The Spirit of God works everywhere, in Muslims, in liberal Christians, in Buddhists, in Hindhuists, in Atheists, etc. It is the inner light that guides us all. And this inner light tells me that fruitarianism is good. It tells me that ultimately, fruitarianism is the only way this Earth will be turned into a Garden of Eden.

 

[Colas D]

I agree with you. And, having been involved in the sciences myself, I know how far off things can get. The scientific method is great. However, it is carried out by humans - with the full range of motivations and levels of honesty. It isn’t perfect. Dysfunction exists.

I think it would be interesting to talk about veganism and the Abrahamic religions in a separate thread. It’s an interesting topic. I’d like to delve deeper and go beyond its relevance to fruitarianism.

I do believe in God. Very strongly I should add. However, I'll never believe that the Bible is inerrant. There are some very beautiful verses in the Bible, granted. But there are some atrocious verses too. The Bible is a mere book, completely fallible. Worshipping a book is a form of abyssal folly.

The Bible teaches cruelty towards animals and humans. It is the written work of many ancient authors, some of whom were filled with murder and hatred. Many had an archaic mentality. An example among hundreds of others is found in the book of Numbers. God asks Moses to slaughter all the Medianite, men, women and children. All except for the female virgins that the Hebrews had to keep for themselves as sexual slaves (Numbers 31:18). What about the animals? Well, Joshua were asked to hamstring thousands of horses so that the Israelite could better slay and massacre the Canaanite (Jos 11:6). Arguing that the Bible promotes veganism is like arguing that Mein Kampf promotes humanism.

Fundamentalist Christians that argue against veganism are wrong and mean, but at least they are consistent. Granted, there are a few verses that are nice to animals in Genesis and Isaiah. I love them and find them extremely inspiring and beautiful. But overall, the Bible preaches cruelty towards animals. The book of Leviticus is a butcher textbook.

As for the New Testament, Jesus ate fish! The apostle Paul has also laid out his doctrine with respect to veganism. Christians should eat everything but be patient towards their weak brothers that refrain from eating meat (Romans 14:2). As for the people spreading veganism in the latter times, they are spreading doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1). Anyway, according to Paul, God doesn't even care about the ox! (1 Corinthians 9:9).

I love God wholeheartedly and want to follow her/his will with all my strength. But the Spirit of God is not enclosed in a book, however inspiring some passages may be. The Spirit of God works everywhere, in Muslims, in liberal Christians, in Buddhists, in Hindhuists, in Atheists, etc. It is the inner light that guides us all. And this inner light tells me that fruitarianism is good. It tells me that ultimately, fruitarianism is the only way this Earth will be turned into a Garden of Eden.

 

[fakei]

Thanks Fakei. I strongly dispute your figures though and still affirm that fruits require less land than cereals, and by far. Here is an abstract from a scholarly publication:

Not enough fruits, vegetables grown to feed the planet​

Date:October 25, 2018 Source:University of Guelph
Summary: Study results show that the global agriculture system currently overproduces grains, fats and sugars, while production of fruits and vegetables and, to a smaller degree, protein is not sufficient to meet the nutritional needs of the current population. The researchers also found that shifting production to match nutritional dietary guidelines would require 50 million fewer hectares of arable land, because fruits and vegetables take less land to grow than grain, sugar and fat.

So you see Fakei, here are some scientists who totally disagree with your chart.

Your chart is not reliable for many reasons. What is plotted is the land used per 10000 kilocalories. But kilocalories are a very poor indicator of the nutritional value of food. Reducing food to kilocalories while ignoring minerals, vitamins, antioxidants and a host of other parameters (some of which we don't even know about) is completely meaningless. According to your chart, rice and maize would be the most eco-friendly food while we know full well they require a colossal amount of water.

Fruit trees in the context of fruitarian permaculture do not need pesticides or fertilisers. They are naturally fertilised by the rotten fruits that fall on the ground. Unlike monocrop culture, orchards are rich in biodiversity, which prevent them from being ravaged by swarms of locusts for example. In an orchard, you can plant a fig tree beside a plum tree beside a pear tree. This variety does not attract swarms. However, if a swarm of locusts happen to come across a monocrop field of wheat, they will wreak havoc. Also, fruit trees hold the soil together with their roots, so the soil doesn't get washed away when flooded. That is not the case after a cereal field have been harvested.

The figures on your chart are completely meaningless. Crucially, they ignore the fact that an orchard produces wood and leaves in addition to the fruits. The wood locks carbon and reduces carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The leaves carry out photosynthesis, reduce carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and crucially produce oxygen.

In an orchard, the trees are spaced out so the soil is never exhausted. In a mono-crop field the plants are bunched up and the soil gets exhausted.

Claiming that cooked food has nutritional advantages is a form of propaganda. I don't buy into it. It is like claiming that red wine increases life expectancy or that cigarettes are good for memory.

Apes eat a 95% fruit diet. If we claim to be ethical beings, we must do better than they do. We must eat a 100% fruit diet.

Unfortunately this is one of those situations where things look great in theory but not in practice. Or like that guy that made a 5 euros trip to buy something with a 50 cent discount.

Grains require less water than fruits besides less land and according to the diagram below fruit requires more water than any meat product for the same amount of protein.
Grains are also richer as far as I know both in nutrients and minerals and also contain antioxidants. To claim caloric or protein content don't matter is an intelectualy dishonest argument since a person needs to meet caloric and protein needs and you require more land and water to meet them through fruits than grains.

Water footprint of crop and animal products: a comparison

Besides, exotic fruits that require long distance transportation are considered to be the plant foods with higher environmental impact. Exotic plant foods have also been associated with cutting of rain forest, child labor and disruption of local communities. Maybe not all of these last are used in a fruitarian diet but is worth considering


According to this article chimpanzee diet is made 60% of fruit BTW.


Also if you look at the historical incidence of cannibalism it seems higher in populations that lived in tropical regions where tropical fruits are available but where staple foods of less quality like maize and mandioca flour were used. And if you look at Brazilian indians according to literature there were ritual cannibals and dietary cannibals. The ritual cannibals, the ones that practiced it only in religious ceremonies being the more developed semi-nomadic ones with agricultural practices while the dietary cannibals, the ones who were cannibals for dietary purposes, were fully nomadic hunter gatherers. While there was cannibalism in Europe it was not a major issue in recorded times. You can see that the average ancient Greek was close to a lacto-vegetarian diet mostly grain based and the average roman or medieval rural European and up to the 19th 20th century was mostly living on grains. Incidentally Europeans have had the staples with higher protein content like wheat, spelt, barley, oats, buckwheat, etc...
Now I understand the argument above can be disputed but it is worth considering.


Finally even though it is not exactly the same thing but health professionals often report receiving complaining patients that went on raw diets of salads and fruits and attribute their problems to it, and this has been mentioned as a potential cause of failed vegan diets.

 

[silva]

Unfortunately this is one of those situations where things look great in theory but not in practice. Or like that guy that made a 5 euros trip to buy something with a 50 cent discount.

Grains require less water than fruits besides less land and according to the diagram below require more water than any meat product for the same amount of protein. They are also richer as far as I know both in nutrients and minerals and also contain antioxidants. To claim caloric or protein content doesn't matter is an intelectualy dishonest argument since a person needs to meet caloric and protein needs and you require more land and water to meet them through fruits than grains.

Water footprint of crop and animal products: a comparison

Besides, exotic fruits that require long distance transportation are considered to be the plant foods with higher environmental impact. Exotic plant foods have also been associated with cutting of rain forest, child labor and disruption of local communities. Maybe not all of these last are used in a fruitarian diet but is worth considering


According to this article chimpanzee diet is made 60% of fruit BTW.


Also if you look at the historical incidence of cannibalism it seems higher in populations that lived in tropical regions where tropical fruits are available but where staple foods of less quality like maize and mandioca flour were used. And if you look at Brazilian indians according to literature there were ritual cannibals and dietary cannibals. The ritual cannibals, the ones that practiced it only in religious ceremonies being the more developed semi-nomadic ones with agricultural practices while the dietary cannibals, the ones who were cannibals for dietary purposes, were fully nomadic hunter gatherers. While there was cannibalism in Europe it was not a major issue in recorded times. You can see that the average ancient Greek was close to a lacto-vegetarian diet mostly grain based and the average roman or medieval rural European and up to the 19th 20th century was mostly living on grains. Incidentally Europeans have had the staples with higher protein content like wheat, spelt, barley, oats, buckwheat, etc...
Now I understand the argument above can be disputed but it is worth considering.


Finally even though it is not exactly the same thing but health professionals often report receiving complaining patients that went on raw diets of salads and fruits and attribute their problems to it, and this has been mentioned as a potential cause of failed vegan diets.

...and why I stress - if you're going to do an narrow, tailored version of a vegan/plant based diet PLEASE do no identify as a vegan!
If you do not supplement B12 PLEASE let it be known.

It is widely known that those on a plant based diet should eat a variety, as well as take B12. If you don't adhere to those guidelines state your choices loud and clear and do not taint the reputation of vegans

 

[Colas D]

Unfortunately this is one of those situations where things look great in theory but not in practice. Or like that guy that made a 5 euros trip to buy something with a 50 cent discount.

Grains require less water than fruits besides less land and according to the diagram below fruit requires more water than any meat product for the same amount of protein.
Grains are also richer as far as I know both in nutrients and minerals and also contain antioxidants. To claim caloric or protein content don't matter is an intelectualy dishonest argument since a person needs to meet caloric and protein needs and you require more land and water to meet them through fruits than grains.

Water footprint of crop and animal products: a comparison

Besides, exotic fruits that require long distance transportation are considered to be the plant foods with higher environmental impact. Exotic plant foods have also been associated with cutting of rain forest, child labor and disruption of local communities. Maybe not all of these last are used in a fruitarian diet but is worth considering


According to this article chimpanzee diet is made 60% of fruit BTW.


Also if you look at the historical incidence of cannibalism it seems higher in populations that lived in tropical regions where tropical fruits are available but where staple foods of less quality like maize and mandioca flour were used. And if you look at Brazilian indians according to literature there were ritual cannibals and dietary cannibals. The ritual cannibals, the ones that practiced it only in religious ceremonies being the more developed semi-nomadic ones with agricultural practices while the dietary cannibals, the ones who were cannibals for dietary purposes, were fully nomadic hunter gatherers. While there was cannibalism in Europe it was not a major issue in recorded times. You can see that the average ancient Greek was close to a lacto-vegetarian diet mostly grain based and the average roman or medieval rural European and up to the 19th 20th century was mostly living on grains. Incidentally Europeans have had the staples with higher protein content like wheat, spelt, barley, oats, buckwheat, etc...
Now I understand the argument above can be disputed but it is worth considering.


Finally even though it is not exactly the same thing but health professionals often report receiving complaining patients that went on raw diets of salads and fruits and attribute their problems to it, and this has been mentioned as a potential cause of failed vegan diets.

Thanks Fakei. Unfortunately, I'm very busy and can not afford to discuss these matters any longer. However, it has been a real pleasure to have this debate with you. I've had the feeling that you are a very respectful person. Unfortunately, not everybody is like you when it comes to debating!

I will reply quickly to the points you brought up. But first, let's put things into perspective. Although environmental questions are very important, they come second. The fundamental question when it comes to ethical fruitarianism should always be: Are plants sentient beings? All other matters are of secondary importance when compared to this essential issue. If plants are sentient beings indeed, the consequences of fruitarianism on the environment do not really matter. If plants can feel pain, we all have a moral duty to become fruitarian. If farming a cow required no land and no water at all, I would still refrain from eating a cow because such a deed is morally evil. The same logic applies to cereals: even if they required no land and no water at all, I would still refrain from eating them because doing so is morally evil in my sight.

In terms of land uptake, you can pull up your sleeve as many bar charts as you want to, I will not change my position of an iota. As I said, some scientists fully disagree with your figures for the reasons I have explained above.

In terms of water consumption, your figures are also completely fallacious and meaningless for the following reasons:

1) Your bar charts compare entities that cannot lend themselves to fair comparison. The umbrella term "fruits" include entities as diverse as dates and watermelons. If you were to measure the water uptake of each piece of fruit separately, you would get results that are dramatically different. A date palm requires very little water as it has evolved to be adapted to the desert climate.

2) Fruit trees require just the right amount of water as long as they are adapted to their habitat. As I said, a date palm in the Sahara will use up very little water. On the contrary, a mango plant in a rainforest will require much more water. That's perfectly fine because as a matter of fact there is plenty of water available in rainforests!

3) Fruit trees do not waste water. Most of the water loss in plants is accounted for by transpiration. Plants need to cool down and therefore release water as vapour through their stomata (underneath the leaves). This water goes back into the water cycle, it returns to the clouds, the rivers and the sea. That's no spoilage!

4) Part of the water is used to carry out photosynthesis. So it is used to produce oxygen, a vital gas that enables us to live. That's no spoilage!

5) Part of the water is used to produce the tree trunk which locks carbon and reduces the greenhouse effect.

6) The main product of photosynthesis is glucose, which is found in fruits (as well as fructose, a similar simple sugar). When you eat glucose in fruits, you eat the direct product of photosynthesis. That is not the case when you eat starch in wheat. After photosynthesis has been carried out, plants can convert some glucose into starch. Starch is a long-chain polymer of glucose molecules joined together. As the plant adds one glucose molecule to the starch polymer, one molecule of water is released. So water is lost in the production of starch! (so long for the myth of saving water by eating starchy cereals!)

7) Last but not least, when you are on a fruitarian diet, you do not need to drink water. I do not drink water. I get all the water I need from fruits. So I save water. And I do not put chlorine tap water into my body.

Finally, health dramatically improves on a strictly fruitarian diet. I used to get colds and mouth ulcers all the time when I was on a vegan diet. I haven't caught a cold or got a mouth ulcer since I am on a fruitarian diet. Fruits do not produce mucus (except for avocado that can produce mucus in small amounts). Cooked food, cereals, meat and fish produce a colossal amount of mucus. Colds are ways found by our organism to get rid of the mucus. Colds are not useless, they serve a purpose. As far as I know, people on a strictly fruitarian diet do not catch colds. Also, faeces and urine have no odour whatsoever when you are on a fruitarian diet (or they have a very light fragrance of fruit which is by no means repulsive). Similarly, transpiration is odourless. These are powerful signs that the body do not need to excrete toxins continually on a fruitarian diet.

 

[Colas D]

...and why I stress - if you're going to do an narrow, tailored version of a vegan/plant based diet PLEASE do no identify as a vegan!
If you do not supplement B12 PLEASE let it be known.

It is widely known that those on a plant based diet should eat a variety, as well as take B12. If you don't adhere to those guidelines state your choices loud and clear and do not taint the reputation of vegans

I have already stated my choices loud and clear, but I will do it again: I do not take any supplements whatsoever. So I do not take any B12 supplements of course.
Silva, who are you to decree who is vegan and who is not? Sorry, I don't mean to be offensive but your comment reminds me of the fundamentalist Christians that proclaim that if you do not believe exactly as they do, you're not a Christian. Isn't that a bit narrow-minded? As a matter of fact, I do not primarily consider myself as a vegan. I consider myself primarily as a strict fruitarian. However, I would be perfectly entitled to consider myself a vegan if I wanted to as I perfectly fit the bill. I meet all the criteria: I do not eat animals and their products, I do not wear them, etc. It is not for you to decide who I am. Fruitarianism is about extending your compassion to include our vegetal brothers and sisters. It is a form of love that encompasses everything. It does not taint the reputation of vegans but promotes it to a much higher standard.

 

[silva]

I have already stated my choices loud and clear, but I will do it again: I do not take any supplements whatsoever. So I do not take any B12 supplements of course.
Silva, who are you to decree who is vegan and who is not? Sorry, I don't mean to be offensive but your comment reminds me of the fundamentalist Christians that proclaim that if you do not believe exactly as they do, you're not a Christian. Isn't that a bit narrow-minded? As a matter of fact, I do not primarily consider myself as a vegan. I consider myself primarily as a strict fruitarian. However, I would be perfectly entitled to consider myself a vegan if I wanted to as I perfectly fit the bill. I meet all the criteria: I do not eat animals and their products, I do not wear them, etc. It is not for you to decide who I am. Fruitarianism is about extending your compassion to include our vegetal brothers and sisters. It is a form of love that encompasses everything. It does not taint the reputation of vegans but promotes it to a much higher standard.

You are vegan just as people that eat nothing but fast food burgers and fries, donuts and soda are omnivores. I never once asserted that you didn't qualify. I asked that you would refrain from calling yourself vegan, as your limited diet is exactly what gives the vegan diet a bad reputation of being nutritionally unsound.
But then that is science, not religion

 

[fakei]

Thanks Fakei. Unfortunately, I'm very busy and can not afford to discuss these matters any longer. However, it has been a real pleasure to have this debate with you. I've had the feeling that you are a very respectful person. Unfortunately, not everybody is like you when it comes to debating!

I will reply quickly to the points you brought up. But first, let's put things into perspective. Although environmental questions are very important, they come second. The fundamental question when it comes to ethical fruitarianism should always be: Are plants sentient beings? All other matters are of secondary importance when compared to this essential issue. If plants are sentient beings indeed, the consequences of fruitarianism on the environment do not really matter. If plants can feel pain, we all have a moral duty to become fruitarian. If farming a cow required no land and no water at all, I would still refrain from eating a cow because such a deed is morally evil. The same logic applies to cereals: even if they required no land and no water at all, I would still refrain from eating them because doing so is morally evil in my sight.

In terms of land uptake, you can pull up your sleeve as many bar charts as you want to, I will not change my position of an iota. As I said, some scientists fully disagree with your figures for the reasons I have explained above.

In terms of water consumption, your figures are also completely fallacious and meaningless for the following reasons:

1) Your bar charts compare entities that cannot lend themselves to fair comparison. The umbrella term "fruits" include entities as diverse as dates and watermelons. If you were to measure the water uptake of each piece of fruit separately, you would get results that are dramatically different. A date palm requires very little water as it has evolved to be adapted to the desert climate.

2) Fruit trees require just the right amount of water as long as they are adapted to their habitat. As I said, a date palm in the Sahara will use up very little water. On the contrary, a mango plant in a rainforest will require much more water. That's perfectly fine because as a matter of fact there is plenty of water available in rainforests!

3) Fruit trees do not waste water. Most of the water loss in plants is accounted for by transpiration. Plants need to cool down and therefore release water as vapour through their stomata (underneath the leaves). This water goes back into the water cycle, it returns to the clouds, the rivers and the sea. That's no spoilage!

4) Part of the water is used to carry out photosynthesis. So it is used to produce oxygen, a vital gas that enables us to live. That's no spoilage!

5) Part of the water is used to produce the tree trunk which locks carbon and reduces the greenhouse effect.

6) The main product of photosynthesis is glucose, which is found in fruits (as well as fructose, a similar simple sugar). When you eat glucose in fruits, you eat the direct product of photosynthesis. That is not the case when you eat starch in wheat. After photosynthesis has been carried out, plants can convert some glucose into starch. Starch is a long-chain polymer of glucose molecules joined together. As the plant adds one glucose molecule to the starch polymer, one molecule of water is released. So water is lost in the production of starch! (so long for the myth of saving water by eating starchy cereals!)

7) Last but not least, when you are on a fruitarian diet, you do not need to drink water. I do not drink water. I get all the water I need from fruits. So I save water. And I do not put chlorine tap water into my body.

Finally, health dramatically improves on a strictly fruitarian diet. I used to get colds and mouth ulcers all the time when I was on a vegan diet. I haven't caught a cold or got a mouth ulcer since I am on a fruitarian diet. Fruits do not produce mucus (except for avocado that can produce mucus in small amounts). Cooked food, cereals, meat and fish produce a colossal amount of mucus. Colds are ways found by our organism to get rid of the mucus. Colds are not useless, they serve a purpose. As far as I know, people on a strictly fruitarian diet do not catch colds. Also, faeces and urine have no odour whatsoever when you are on a fruitarian diet (or they have a very light fragrance of fruit which is by no means repulsive). Similarly, transpiration is odourless. These are powerful signs that the body do not need to excrete toxins continually on a fruitarian diet.

Thank you for your kind words Colas D. Honestly I think your arguments are still like the guy who paid 5 euros for a trip only to get a 50 cent discount on something and contain many fallacies.

First of all if you or any people feel better with an all fruit diet and see improvement in health please go on with it, just don't claim it is morally superior or more sustainable, or something everyone should adhere too, based on insufficient data. And I never had any of the problems you claim with a strict vegetarian diet and in fact vegetarians in general are known to be less prone to colds, it's not just personal experience it has also been noticed by people who are not vegetarian. And BTW Bananas are a starchy fruit.

Regarding studies on this issue it is important to notice that they don't seem to take in account an all-fruit diet. You may find articles comparing a vegan diet with a diet that includes meat and animal products but I haven't found articles comparing a vegan diet with a fruit diet. So when an article says fruit has less environmental impact they are not assuming the consumption of fruit to meet the necessary intake of nutrients in an all-fruit diet.

Your claim that environmental impact doesn't matter is a fallacy, if you will be indirectly harming humans and other animals and destroying rain-forest, and end up with an intensive farming system of fruits that cuts trees and kills insects and grasses all the same, and this is completely crazy to say the least. In fact it looks a bit like Communism and other utopian political systems that yield in practice opposite results to what is preached. If fruits were not enough to feed 3 million Brazilian Native Americans, which is the estimated number at Cabral's arrival, it is difficult to believe you will be able to feed 220 million Brazilians. And what about the 1,3 billion people from India? After you fed tropical populations how many tropical fruits will be left for the rest of the world?


Regarding the water cycle, and not being an expert, but all water is part of the water cycle. You don't steal as far as I know any water from it, what you might do is reduce the amount of water that is available for consumption through inefficient use and contamination at a given period of time. In fact some of your arguments could justify that the water impact of meat consumption is negligible since animals also loose part of the water through several physiological processes, including breathing, and humans consume part of that water too and loose it too, which makes no sense at all. Besides while you may argue that part of the water consumed by the plant is available in the fruit, so you don't need to drink it, there is still the problem that some fruits are diuretic. One may actually require more water if consuming them although this may change with fruit types.

Regarding what crops are at stake when it comes to water you can check the statistics of amount of fruit produced. Bananas, watermelons, apples grapes and oranges are on top of the list.

Plants also consume oxygen and release CO2 to the atmosphere BTW, what they do is incorporate carbon in them until they die.

Killer Bananas: The Environmental Impact of Banana Plantations​

It is not a secret that current practices of banana farming in many areas of the world are contributing to the destruction of tropical rainforests- one of the most diverse ecosystems on our planet. 75% of the earth’s biodiversity lives in these forests, and because the majority of bananas are grown in monoculture plantations (plantations in which they are the only type of vegetation), as well as areas of cleared rainforest, they are playing a big part in the tragic loss of biodiversity we are seeing today.1 We, as American consumers are not making matters any better as we eat, on average, twenty-eight pounds of bananas per person per year.2 This inexpensive fruit is the fifth largest agricultural commodity in world trade, and for people in areas of Central, East, and West Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, it constitutes a large portion of their diet.3

Monoculture​

A major problem associated with growing any crop in a monoculture is that once the land has been devoted to agriculture for a single species, soil fertility diminishes greatly. In the case of bananas, the former rainforest soil in which they are originally planted is particularly rich in nutrients. Deforestation, however, has resulted in the loss of a great amount of productive land, due to the fact that once protective forest cover is depleted, overall soil quality greatly declines.4 Banana producers are forced to continually expand their fields to make up for the diminished production per hectare, and the cycle of destruction begins again. Monoculture plantations pose another problem in the sense that they keep the plants from developing immunity to many devastating diseases that occur in nature. Within the past few decades, certain viruses, pests, and fungi, have spread in epidemic proportions, and have begun to attack the world’s top selling commercial breed-the Cavendish.5 This susceptibility has, in turn, resulted in a crop heavily dependent on agrochemicals for its survival, and a widespread strategy for banana farmers- kill all invasive and threatening species with toxic pesticides. . . lots of them.

Pesticides ​

On many banana plantations, fungicides and insecticides are applied as many as forty times a year, amounting to a total use of nearly 44 kilograms per hectare.6 Not only do these chemicals cause cancer and mutations in humans, making them extremely harmful to the workers on plantations, but they are also devastating to the surrounding environment. After seeping into the water table, the toxic substances find their way into local aquatic systems, making the water an unsuitable habitat for many types of wildlife. Sediments from overused land and agrochemical runoff are contributing to coral reef deterioration off the coasts of Costa Rica. Tortoises and manatees are facing extinction partly due to the fact that pesticide runoff kills the algae on which they feed.7 The combination of chemical usage, deforestation, and mono-crop plantations has led to soil so depleted of nutrients and saturated with agrochemicals that it is impossible for any type of vegetation to survive in it. If some solution is not found, banana plantations will continue to contribute greatly to degradation of fertile land and loss of biodiversity.

What is Being Done?​

As awareness is being raised about the huge negative environmental impacts of mono-crop banana plantations, an increasing number of exporters are choosing to harvest more environmentally friendly fruit by limiting chemical usage on their plants. In 1991, Chiquita Brands International began its “Better Banana Project,” requiring banana producers to maintain certain standards and environmental practices such as reduced pesticide usage and soil conservation.8 Many other smaller corporations and independent farmers have chosen the “organic” path, cutting out synthetic agrochemical usage altogether. This is not an easy task because of the high risk of diseased fruit. Organic farmers have found effective solutions to this problem, however, including developing plantations in drier areas where deadly fungi are less prevalent, and also incorporating other plants to provide shade. This “polyculture” method of farming creates wind barriers for the banana plants, and botanical pesticides such as lemon grass and tobacco are often incorporated in the fields to protect the crop from a variety of pests naturally. Crop rotation every few years replenishes the soil, and proves to be very beneficial in keeping pests and diseases from developing resistance to the natural pesticides.9

---

1Worobetz, Kendra. “Loss of Biodiversity is a Critical Issue.” Department of Biological Sciences. University of Alberta: April 14, 2000.
2Fairclough, Gordon; McDermott, Darren. “Fruit of Labor: The Banana Business Is Rotten, So Why Do People Fight Over It?” Wall Street Journal; New York, N.Y.: Aug. 9, 1999.
3UNITED Nations. Food and Agricultural Organization. “Going Bananas.” Economist; 10/22/2005, vol. 377 Issue 8443, pg. 85-85.
4Morton, J. 1987. Banana. In: Fruits of Warm Climates. Julia F. Morton, Miami, FL. 1987 (Banana).
5Mlot, Christine. “Greening the World’s Most Popular Fruit.” National Wildlife, Feb/Mar2004, Vol. 42 Issue 2, p18-19.
6Ibid.
7Blythman, Joanna. “Bent Bananas.” Ecologist; May2005, Vol. 35 Issue 4, p44-49.
8Mlot, Christine. “Greening the World’s Most Popular Fruit.” National Wildlife, Feb/Mar2004, Vol. 42 Issue 2, p18-19.
9Yamileth, Astorga. “The Environmental Impact of the Banana Industry.”

http://www.google.com/search?q=cach...uk/docume[/URL]"]www.bananalink.org.uk/docume

[/URL]
nts/Current_Environmental_Impact_by_Y_Astorga.doc+The+Environmental+Impact+of+the

Environmental Impacts of Banana Growing / Bananas

Environmental Impacts of Banana Growing / Bananas

Sustainable Food Trust

The reason why avocados are being banned from trendy cafes

 

[fakei]

And by the way my country has also become one of the "victims" of the avocado craze with people in the south dumping more water friendly and sustainable trees like almond, carob, olive and fig trees. I hope the translation below through google translator is understandable. Don't know if that is not the reason why with the recent covid crisis haven't been able to find shelled almonds in supermarkets, only walnuts. Walnut trees since they grow in the colder areas of the North are probably more protected from avocado competition.

Regenerarte launches a crowdfunding campaign, where it addresses the issue of avocado plantations, starting in 2014, by the hands of a family business in Loulé, and as consequences for the Algarve region. In an area of 150 hectares, in the area of Barão de São João, municipality of Lagos, an avocado plantation was installed. which planted 80 hectares of trees, with subsidies from the PDR2020 (around 600 thousand euros). According to Regenerarte, who initially destroyed the entire vegetation, then they removed all the stones, even as larger ones, damaging the characteristics of the soil. Later, they wanted to expand a farm to another 50 hectares, but this time they were no longer able to obtain the approval of CCDR and APA because of the pressure on the aquifer, on water resources, as they would join the existing plantation and a 40 hectare golf course nearby. The expansion was thus prevented. Shortly thereafter, a Frutineves, who also bet on the installation of avocados. Both wanted to be located in this area because DRAPAlg had data that there was a lot of water in this place due to the aquifer, according to the video. The new company also started by cleaning and destroying an entire vegetation, including cork oaks, carob trees, olive trees, fig trees, almond trees, all rainfed trees, plantations that represent the Algarve in everything. In May 2019, CCDR decreed an embargo on Frutineves not to plant anything before an environmental impact assessment was carried out. In June, the company started planting. In addition to buying more properties, they currently have about 13 properties (130 hectares), installed the entire irrigation system, planted all the trees, after the embargo was enacted. Although the GNR's Sepna went there to inspect several times, they were unable to stop them from continuing to plant the avocado trees. It is then necessary to carry out an environmental impact assessment, which the law requires and that "valuing what is 'ours'", says Regenerarte. Expenditure on aquifer resources is the main problem, since toxic herbicides are applied, which damage the environment and destroy biodiversity. In addition, people's health is also impaired and jobs are not created. These projects are fully automated and exported to a Spanish company that guarantees the purchase of the entire production of the vast majority of companies in the Algarve. "This is not a region for avocados," says the video. Participants continue that "the water they are spending, with figures given by DRAPAlg, daily from the two plantations that add up to about 200 hectares is 3.5 million liters of water. At a time of drought in which the Algarve is in extreme drought. It’s really unfortunate. ” You can watch the entire video HERE.

Monocultura do abacate com 'prejuizos' para a biodiversidade do Algarve

The video below is in Portuguese but after min. 3 there is a segment where a girl explains in English the water impact of avocado plantations. This was during a particularly dry period when aquifers were really low.

 

[Colas D]

You are vegan just as people that eat nothing but fast food burgers and fries, donuts and soda are omnivores. I never once asserted that you didn't qualify. I asked that you would refrain from calling yourself vegan, as your limited diet is exactly what gives the vegan diet a bad reputation of being nutritionally unsound.
But then that is science, not religion

Thanks for this clarification Silva. I will carry on calling myself a vegan as much as I fancy it though! Comparing fruits to fast food burgers is a bit daring. These foods are just at the opposite ends of the alimentary spectrum!
I do not taint the reputation of veganism but promote it to a much higher moral standard. Preaching veganism doesn't tarnish the reputation of vegetarianism. Actually, many people turn vegetarians after being preached veganism. Similarly, many people may well turn vegan after having being preached strict fruitarianism.

The scientific method lays on two pillars:
1) Scientists come up with theories
2) Scientists verify or falsify their theories using experiments
Now, there are so few strict fruitarianism out there that no research has ever been carried out on strict fruitarianism. You may well find the odd study on people eating mostly fruits and nuts but that's a completely different story, as eating nuts is highly detrimental to health. In this respect, dismissing strict fruitarianism on the basis of nutritional preconceptions is not science but religion. Or philosophy, as you wish. Actually, the only piece of research that can be linked to strict fruitarianism confirms its validity. People eating 20 pieces of fruits per day have been surveyed. Well, it turns out that their glycemic indices were perfectly normal as their liver were able to convert fructose into glycogen. For full explanation, please watch the YouTube video called "How much fruit is too much fruit?" by Dr Michael Greger (who is not a fruitarian and therefore not biased).

 

[Colas D]

Thank you for your kind words Colas D. Honestly I think your arguments are still like the guy who paid 5 euros for a trip only to get a 50 cent discount on something and contain many fallacies.

First of all if you or any people feel better with an all fruit diet and see improvement in health please go on with it, just don't claim it is morally superior or more sustainable, or something everyone should adhere too, based on insufficient data. And I never had any of the problems you claim with a strict vegetarian diet and in fact vegetarians in general are known to be less prone to colds, it's not just personal experience it has also been noticed by people who are not vegetarian. And BTW Bananas are a starchy fruit.

Regarding studies on this issue it is important to notice that they don't seem to take in account an all-fruit diet. You may find articles comparing a vegan diet with a diet that includes meat and animal products but I haven't found articles comparing a vegan diet with a fruit diet. So when an article says fruit has less environmental impact they are not assuming the consumption of fruit to meet the necessary intake of nutrients in an all-fruit diet.

Your claim that environmental impact doesn't matter is a fallacy, if you will be indirectly harming humans and other animals and destroying rain-forest, and end up with an intensive farming system of fruits that cuts trees and kills insects and grasses all the same, and this is completely crazy to say the least. In fact it looks a bit like Communism and other utopian political systems that yield in practice opposite results to what is preached. If fruits were not enough to feed 3 million Brazilian Native Americans, which is the estimated number at Cabral's arrival, it is difficult to believe you will be able to feed 220 million Brazilians. And what about the 1,3 billion people from India? After you fed tropical populations how many tropical fruits will be left for the rest of the world?


Regarding the water cycle, and not being an expert, but all water is part of the water cycle. You don't steal as far as I know any water from it, what you might do is reduce the amount of water that is available for consumption through inefficient use and contamination at a given period of time. In fact some of your arguments could justify that the water impact of meat consumption is negligible since animals also loose part of the water through several physiological processes, including breathing, and humans consume part of that water too and loose it too, which makes no sense at all. Besides while you may argue that part of the water consumed by the plant is available in the fruit, so you don't need to drink it, there is still the problem that some fruits are diuretic. One may actually require more water if consuming them although this may change with fruit types.

Regarding what crops are at stake when it comes to water you can check the statistics of amount of fruit produced. Bananas, watermelons, apples grapes and oranges are on top of the list.

Plants also consume oxygen and release CO2 to the atmosphere BTW, what they do is incorporate carbon in them until they die.









Environmental Impacts of Banana Growing / Bananas


Sustainable Food Trust

The reason why avocados are being banned from trendy cafes

Thanks Fakei,

I've never said that environmental issues were not important, I said that they were very important. And you are perfectly right in stating that the well-being of animals and humans rests on the environment. You are also perfectly right in pointing out that the monoculture of bananas is an environmental catastrophe due to the clearing of rainforests, the use of pesticides and the loss of biodiversity. More generally, the current system of fruit production is a disaster, I grant you that. Things are far from being perfect. But they could become much better in a world based on fruitarian permaculture. Fruits have the potential to be the only food that is karmically free to eat. Fruits can be grown with love, without clearing rainforests, using pesticides or decreasing biodiversity. Fruit is the only food you can eat that does not damage the plant but serves her purpose and benefit her. I wish you a very good continuation. Adeus, meu amigo.

 

[silva]

Thanks for this clarification Silva. I will carry on calling myself a vegan as much as I fancy it though! Comparing fruits to fast food burgers is a bit daring. These foods are just at the opposite ends of the alimentary spectrum!
I do not taint the reputation of veganism but promote it to a much higher moral standard. Preaching veganism doesn't tarnish the reputation of vegetarianism. Actually, many people turn vegetarians after being preached veganism. Similarly, many people may well turn vegan after having being preached strict fruitarianism.

The scientific method lays on two pillars:
1) Scientists come up with theories
2) Scientists verify or falsify their theories using experiments
Now, there are so few strict fruitarianism out there that no research has ever been carried out on strict fruitarianism. You may well find the odd study on people eating mostly fruits and nuts but that's a completely different story, as eating nuts is highly detrimental to health. In this respect, dismissing strict fruitarianism on the basis of nutritional preconceptions is not science but religion. Or philosophy, as you wish. Actually, the only piece of research that can be linked to strict fruitarianism confirms its validity. People eating 20 pieces of fruits per day have been surveyed. Well, it turns out that their glycemic indices were perfectly normal as their liver were able to convert fructose into glycogen. For full explanation, please watch the YouTube video called "How much fruit is too much fruit?" by Dr Michael Greger (who is not a fruitarian and therefore not biased).

Since you bring up Dr Greger- who is not biased and relies on evidence based science-
The study on eating 20 serving of fruits included vegetables, and was done solely to study fructose toxicity.
He does not advise raw diets
Raw Food Diet Myths | NutritionFacts.org
You can take you pick of his numerous studies on the importance of B12 here:
Search

 

[fakei]

Thanks Fakei,

I've never said that environmental issues were not important, I said that they were very important. And you are perfectly right in stating that the well-being of animals and humans rests on the environment. You are also perfectly right in pointing out that the monoculture of bananas is an environmental catastrophe due to the clearing of rainforests, the use of pesticides and the loss of biodiversity. More generally, the current system of fruit production is a disaster, I grant you that. Things are far from being perfect. But they could become much better in a world based on fruitarian permaculture. Fruits have the potential to be the only food that is karmically free to eat. Fruits can be grown with love, without clearing rainforests, using pesticides or decreasing biodiversity. Fruit is the only food you can eat that does not damage the plant but serves her purpose and benefit her. I wish you a very good continuation. Adeus, meu amigo.

Thank you. I understand your point, the problem here is the practical applications. Good continuation for you too.