4 ms·

This is a useless article with a serious vegan bent. Humans cannot survive as vegans, and suggesting so is a pretty backwards thing given that these are basic

This is a useless article with a serious vegan bent. Humans cannot survive as vegans, and suggesting so is a pretty backwards thing given that these are basic scientific facts; so called "healthy vegans" often are taking supplements that they believe are vegan when they are in fact animal-sourced, or they are using algae-based products that are often highly contaminated as a nature of their production. Literally, the headline might as well be "People Still Don't Get the Link Between Humanity's Existence and Climate Change, And All Humans Should Die". In addition, they are unable to illustrate a link between humanity's actions and climate change and just take the meme for granted. More and more evidence continues to mount that indicates the large scale climate trends are entirely driven by the sun (something that outputs 384.6 YW, strikes us with 174.0 PW of that, and the current human energy need is 18.0 PW), and the pollution of humans (which is undeniably bad, and maybe the second largest driver behind modern diseases; but does not sufficiently change the Earth's albiedo to explain the trends over the past 100+ years) has very little to do with it. On top of this, the continued use of crops that are a mismatch with our animal herds would actually have helped their climate change argument, but they purposely ignored it to instead focus on pushing a vegan agenda. As in: stop using corn and other toxic feed crops, and instead grow nutrient dense foods to feed animals instead. The discontinuation of corn and cereal grains as cash crops (through methods such as ending costly government subsidizes and letting corn and grain-focused farms collapse under the free market, as they should) would do far more to reduce the pollution and (already small) effect on climate change than trying to get non-vegans to accept a lifestyle incompatible with the biology of humans. The vegan religion continues to ignore basic facts about humans, the evolution of humans, and what humans require to survive and thrive, so I have no clue why Scientific American would allow themselves to become a mouthpiece for something that has no basis in science. I'm honestly waiting for vegan "researchers" to start trying to use meat eating as an explanation for the magnetic poles rapidly moving away from their traditional positions, the Solar Grand Minimum that we're heading possibly into this solar cycle, the eerily quiet solar surface, the unusually cold weather in the Middle East, AND the thickening of the ice shelf in Antarctica against the widely popularized (and not scientifically based) predictions by Al Gore. Claiming humanity has this much control over the weather is a bit egotistical. The only time we've successfully done it on a large enough scale to matter, we caused a mini ice age in Europe, and choked London out with thick black (and certainly lethal) smog. In comparison, natural causes such as once-in-ten-thousand-year volcanic eruptions have done more damage.

erispoe 9y ago
Evolution doesn't have a purpose. Just because you can eat meat doesn't mean you have to, or that you should. You can have a meat-free, protein-heavy diet. Most of meat products are so processed that they are indistinguishable from plant-based substitutes anyway. If you try an Impossible Burger without knowing it's plant-based, you wouldn't notice it's not meat. Beside, are you seriously denying anthropic climate change?
- fileeditview 9y ago
  Even if evolution doesn't have a purpose it's pretty clear that meat consumption has been a boost to human evolution. Also I wonder what kind of meat products you are eating?! If I buy and prepare a steak or some other raw meat it's pretty clearly meat. I also tried vegan sausages and stuff multiple times because of some friends. I NEVER could confuse it for meat.. so forgive me but this argument is totally invalid for me.
  - newscracker 9y ago
    Just because something happened in the past and resulted in some benefits doesn’t necessarily mean we have to continue it. For example, the two world wars and their impacts also helped accelerate technological progress to a great degree, but I’m sure nobody would argue that we need more of them. In our current times, and in this century, we’ll have better alternatives that help humankind (if people accept them). Meat will not be a necessity for those living in a globalized world.
- Nadya 9y ago
  >If you try an Impossible Burger without knowing it's plant-based, you wouldn't notice it's not meat. Bullshit. My mother has tried to pass that product as a hamburger and in a single bite I spat it out and asked her what the hell was wrong with the burger - it has a very un-burger-like aftertaste. I'm 99% sure people who think the "tastes like meat!" replacements taste like meat have damaged or weak taste buds and literally don't know what meat actually tastes like to many people. Like how a red/green color-blind person wouldn't know what red/green actually look like for most people.

erispoe 9y ago

Evolution doesn't have a purpose. Just because you can eat meat doesn't mean you have to, or that you should. You can have a meat-free, protein-heavy diet. Most of meat products are so processed that they are indistinguishable from plant-based substitutes anyway. If you try an Impossible Burger without knowing it's plant-based, you wouldn't notice it's not meat. Beside, are you seriously denying anthropic climate change?

fileeditview 9y ago
Even if evolution doesn't have a purpose it's pretty clear that meat consumption has been a boost to human evolution. Also I wonder what kind of meat products you are eating?! If I buy and prepare a steak or some other raw meat it's pretty clearly meat. I also tried vegan sausages and stuff multiple times because of some friends. I NEVER could confuse it for meat.. so forgive me but this argument is totally invalid for me.
- newscracker 9y ago
  Just because something happened in the past and resulted in some benefits doesn’t necessarily mean we have to continue it. For example, the two world wars and their impacts also helped accelerate technological progress to a great degree, but I’m sure nobody would argue that we need more of them. In our current times, and in this century, we’ll have better alternatives that help humankind (if people accept them). Meat will not be a necessity for those living in a globalized world.
Nadya 9y ago
>If you try an Impossible Burger without knowing it's plant-based, you wouldn't notice it's not meat. Bullshit. My mother has tried to pass that product as a hamburger and in a single bite I spat it out and asked her what the hell was wrong with the burger - it has a very un-burger-like aftertaste. I'm 99% sure people who think the "tastes like meat!" replacements taste like meat have damaged or weak taste buds and literally don't know what meat actually tastes like to many people. Like how a red/green color-blind person wouldn't know what red/green actually look like for most people.