Fossil fuel consumption is important, but its not the whole picture. Its take way more water to raise a pound of cow milk than a pound of soy milk. Given that much agricultural irrigation uses groundwater that is being recharged much slower than its being used, that's a real environmental advantage.

Finally, the reasons vegetarians (who are not synonymous with environmentalists) like soy is because SOYBEANS DON'T HAVE EYES AND A BRAIN. Even if soy was just as bad for the environment, it would still have that advantage over cow tit juice.

mike_in_nm:

Finally, the reasons vegetarians (who are not synonymous with environmentalists) like soy is because SOYBEANS DON'T HAVE EYES AND A BRAIN. Even if soy was just as bad for the environment, it would still have that advantage over cow tit juice.

Well seeing as all the women I know possess both eyes and a brain, I presume that you'd be against mothers breastfeeding infant children? Afterall, it is just human tit juice!

"Finally, the reasons vegetarians (who are not synonymous with environmentalists) like soy is because SOYBEANS DON'T HAVE EYES AND A BRAIN. Even if soy was just as bad for the environment, it would still have that advantage over cow tit juice."

A carrot may not have eyes and a brain, but it's still a living organism. It's not a carrot's fault that it lacks a central nervous system. How dare you exploit poor carrots as a source of food! Carrots are being mass murdered around the world thanks to people like you and it's time for it to stop.

Mike in nm

Too bad that none of your arguments make sense.

How does irrigation that uses ground water faster than it is replenished better for the environment?

Where did you get your stats on water consumption on cows verses soy bean farming?

It's ashamed that your mother supplied you with milk. Maybe she should have just thrown you a block of tofu and a few bean sprouts.

I can almost guarantee that it takes more water to make soy milk due to the layers of processing it takes to make it into 'milk.'

Also, it's nice to see that the environment takes a back seat to your lifestyle choice. Classy and not at all shallow or short-sighted.

But vegetarians aren't anti-dairy; vegans are. Plenty of vegetarians drink delicious cow milk.

and it takes far more water to create soy milk than it does to raise and milk a cow

and "a pound of cow milk"? wtf? pounds are utterly useless in the comparison of two dietary liquids, and your use of them clearly indicates that you put zero though and zero research into your statement

Mothers have a choice whether to breast feed or not. Mother's milk is intended for human consumption.

Cows do not have a choice whether to be artificially inseminated and kept permanently pregnant. Their milk is intended for their calves, which more often than not, are sent off for slaughter.

Your comparison between the two is pathetic.

Omnivores kill plants AND animals. The animals omnivores eat ate plants too -- quite a few, in fact. Corn, soy, grass -- they all die before the cow dies.

To try to argue that vegetarians are somehow inconsistent or misguided simply because they participate in the food chain (just much lower in it) is nothing but ignorant. People need to eat something. Vegans choose the food with the least pain and cruelty involved in its production and their diets involve less animal AND plant death.

The environment takes a back seat to pain and suffering, yes. Does this really surprise you? What's more important: stopping human-to-human murder, or reducing carbon emissions? You may not agree that animals deserve rights to live happily without slaughter, but that does not give you the right to demean what that choice truly is. We have different opinions and care for different things -- I believe protecting ALL sentient life is a priority on this planet. When that guideline is followed, luckily, other great things can happen.

It's not a "lifestyle choice" it's an ETHICAL choice.

Wow a vegetarian staking a claim to a prime piece of the high moral ground, what a surprise! If you had read my piece properly instead of immediately reaching for the rhetorical brickbats, you would have seen that I was responding to Mike's assertion that vegetarians frown on consuming produce from anything that once had eyes or brains. Obviously, you're somewhat lacking in the latter, possibly both, which is perhaps the best indictment of the vegetarian lifestyle!

And as to your whole "choice" arguement, there is never "choice" in nature, and to imply that there is represents yet again another misguided attempt to attribue human charasterictics to our animal friends. The fact is, humans are top of the food chain, and while you are perfectly entitled to abhor that sutuation, please keep your self righteous pronouncements on the matter to yourself. I think I'm old enough and intelligent enough to make an informed decision on what appears on my plate, and certainly don't need unctious lectures on the matter from anyone.

Earth - to - Vegan Loonbats!

Humans are omnivores. It is no more cruel for humans to eat other animals, then it is cruel for a lion to eat a wilderbeast.

Hmmmm, roast wilderbeast! Reading the Green Lantern always makes me hungry.

Then again, maybe lions just need to make more ethical choices.

While they're at it, maybe they could convince the lions to use flush toilets and shower regularly, too...

Okay allergic, to be absolutely consistant with my views I will now start eating excess children to aid in decreasing the human population. I suggest we start with any of your offspring.

wait... if you do start eating children, is that a "lifestyle choice" or an ETHICAL choice?