3 ms·

But that's not factually true. Take your pick of most legumes. They're cheaper, have more than enough protein as well as other nutrients, are more environmental

But that's not factually true. Take your pick of most legumes. They're cheaper, have more than enough protein as well as other nutrients, are more environmentally sustainable and don't require killing sentient creatures...

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Take your pick of most legumes. They're cheaper, have more than enough protein as well as other nutrients, are more environmentally sustainable and don't require killing sentient creatures... Most legumes have a pretty high carb-to-protein ratio, and are also incomplete proteins. (Also, there's probably no reasonable definition of sentience that includes all animals and excludes all plants.)
- mitchtbaum 11y ago
  > Most legumes have a pretty high carb-to-protein ratio, and are also incomplete proteins. >> The reason for the bean/grain combo is nutrition and protein. When you combine beans and grains, their different amino acid makeups form to combine complete proteins. They also each contain different nutrients and grains are higher in calories. There's a reason that some grain was always the staple of the local diet, whether wheat, barley, rice, corn or whatever. "Bread is the staff of life." >> You'll live better on a bean/grain combo than just beans along. Ask the native Americans. from _MikeK_, via http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=181260 http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=181260 Also.. >> Every time legumes like beans, lentils, and peanuts are combined with grains like wheat, rice, and corn, a complete protein is born. from http://greatist.com/health/complete-vegetarian-proteins http://greatist.com/health/complete-vegetarian-proteins
- ShittyAlgorithm 11y ago
  > Most legumes have a pretty high carb-to-protein ratio, and are also incomplete proteins. This is a red herring, based on misinformation about nutrition. It is not hard to fulfill your daily protein needs and get in all your essential amino acids and maintain a healthy calorie intake while eating a diet of legumes, grains, and vegetables. It can be done for a fraction of the price of a omnivore's diet and can be a lot better nutritionally than downing tuna every day (i.e., there's more opportunities for variety). > there's probably no reasonable definition of sentience that includes all animals and excludes all plants. There are a few, but it actually is largely irrelevant. If you stop eating animals you also consume less plants. Every time you eat an animal you have to consider that in order to raise that animal it had to eat a lot of plants that you could've been eating instead. Raising animals is massively inefficient energy-wise, which is why our plant consumption goes down when people stop eating meat. So really there's no need to draw a "sentience line" in the sand. Assuming everything is sentient, vegetarian diets are better for both plants and animals. But even if it were necessary to draw this sort of line, it would make a fair deal of sense to say that anything without a nervous system is at least relatively less likely to be sentient. There are some arguments for plant sentience due to their limited molecular signalling responses to harmful stimuli, but there is definitely a lot less evidence to support that hypothesis than there is to support the hypothesis that tuna are sentient.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Take your pick of most legumes. They're cheaper, have more than enough protein as well as other nutrients, are more environmentally sustainable and don't require killing sentient creatures... Most legumes have a pretty high carb-to-protein ratio, and are also incomplete proteins. (Also, there's probably no reasonable definition of sentience that includes all animals and excludes all plants.)

mitchtbaum 11y ago
> Most legumes have a pretty high carb-to-protein ratio, and are also incomplete proteins. >> The reason for the bean/grain combo is nutrition and protein. When you combine beans and grains, their different amino acid makeups form to combine complete proteins. They also each contain different nutrients and grains are higher in calories. There's a reason that some grain was always the staple of the local diet, whether wheat, barley, rice, corn or whatever. "Bread is the staff of life." >> You'll live better on a bean/grain combo than just beans along. Ask the native Americans. from _MikeK_, via http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=181260 http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=181260 Also.. >> Every time legumes like beans, lentils, and peanuts are combined with grains like wheat, rice, and corn, a complete protein is born. from http://greatist.com/health/complete-vegetarian-proteins http://greatist.com/health/complete-vegetarian-proteins
ShittyAlgorithm 11y ago
> Most legumes have a pretty high carb-to-protein ratio, and are also incomplete proteins. This is a red herring, based on misinformation about nutrition. It is not hard to fulfill your daily protein needs and get in all your essential amino acids and maintain a healthy calorie intake while eating a diet of legumes, grains, and vegetables. It can be done for a fraction of the price of a omnivore's diet and can be a lot better nutritionally than downing tuna every day (i.e., there's more opportunities for variety). > there's probably no reasonable definition of sentience that includes all animals and excludes all plants. There are a few, but it actually is largely irrelevant. If you stop eating animals you also consume less plants. Every time you eat an animal you have to consider that in order to raise that animal it had to eat a lot of plants that you could've been eating instead. Raising animals is massively inefficient energy-wise, which is why our plant consumption goes down when people stop eating meat. So really there's no need to draw a "sentience line" in the sand. Assuming everything is sentient, vegetarian diets are better for both plants and animals. But even if it were necessary to draw this sort of line, it would make a fair deal of sense to say that anything without a nervous system is at least relatively less likely to be sentient. There are some arguments for plant sentience due to their limited molecular signalling responses to harmful stimuli, but there is definitely a lot less evidence to support that hypothesis than there is to support the hypothesis that tuna are sentient.