7 ms·

Because we have a biological need for meat. Meat tastes good because we need it to thrive (note, we can survive on a vegetarian diet but it is not optimal). >H

Because we have a biological need for meat. Meat tastes good because we need it to thrive (note, we can survive on a vegetarian diet but it is not optimal). >How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat? How can you be against slave labor of children and still regularly wear clothing made in sweatshops? It's easy, it's a cost-benefit trade-off. It is simply too expensive. People understand that animals are treated horribly and every time I see such a video I immediately stop eating meat for a week or so and then it slowly creeps back. The biological alternatives are just too expensive right now. IF there is lab grown meat that tastes the same and costs the same I'll happily stop eating the other type of meat. The point is, people are fully aware that clothing by HM/Nike/Primark is made by slave labor but there is so much working against us. First of all, ads. Ads work, that's a fact. Second, the fact that there is a market (we buy and sell clothing in stores) further occupies our attention and leads to min/maxing of cost/benefit in the store (making us forget that the clothing is created by slave labor by children). Third, there is the whole substitution bias "if I won't buy it, someone else will!" which is a bullshit argument. The fact is that humans are really kind of stupid and every time we walk in a store so much shit is thrown at us that we completely forget about 99% of the important things in life and just shop for bargains ... everytime I'm in the Primark I have to remind myself that there are children suffering for this, yet I still bought two shorts for $8 each and have worn them quite often. Sorry for the long rant. Just my two cents.

latch 8y ago
I appreciate your reply. If I can paraphrase your first point, people eat meat because they enjoy it, and that's that. I'm curious what your source is for saying a vegetarian diet isn't optimal. Most studies I've seen (including large and long studies) claim the opposite. Here's a list: [1] I agree it's like sweatshops. I didn't want to draw the comparison to slavery because I think the ethical question stands on its own, but maybe you're right to point out that it's the same driving impulse. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_nutrition#Health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_nutrition#Health_ef...
- sokoloff 8y ago
  I readily agree that the people I know who are vegetarian are, as a cohort, seem healthier, more active, and happier than the randomly selected American. What I can't readily conclude is cause and effect. I haven't seen many (any?) studies that effectively isolate vegetarian diet in humans from confounding factors as mentioned in the first paragraph of the wikipedia link you provided. I've yet to meet a vegetarian who sits on the couch all day, smoking, eating fries, chips and candy, drinking beer and watching TV. I've met plenty of others who fall fairly close to that stereotype and I'll readily admit that if I looked only at "vegetarian vs not", I'd conclude that vegetarian was more optimal. By the same token, I'd probably conclude that merely owning hiking boots or a kayak or soccer cleats was a life quality and quantity extender.
- Rainymood 8y ago
  > If I can paraphrase your first point, people eat meat because they enjoy it, and that's that. I understand your sentiment but there's a reason people enjoy eating meat, it feels pleasureable in our mouth because it is rich in nutrients and rare in nature. In nature you don't eat meat every day like we do in our current society. Just like donuts and candy tastes nice is because there's a lot of sugar and fat in them, things that are scarce in nature. >I'm curious what your source is for saying a vegetarian diet isn't optimal. Most studies I've seen (including large and long studies) claim the opposite. Here's a list: [1] If you actually read through the Wikipedia I am not really convinced > (...) although this is at least partly due to lifestyle factors beyond diet, such as a low prevalence of smoking, and the generally high socioeconomic status >(...) and other lifestyle factors associated with a vegetarian diet may contribute to the positive health outcomes that have been identified among vegetarians.[11] The point Wikipedia tries to make is clear. What I'm trying to argue is that there are nutrients in meat that you are unable to get anywhere else than from meat. Yes, I fully realize that we can synthesize these things artificially but you still need them. As with most things in life, the optimum is somewhere in between. One could eat no meat at all, one end of the scale, one could eat only meat, the other end of the scale with the optimum probably somewhere in between.
  - iN7h33nD 8y ago

latch 8y ago

I appreciate your reply. If I can paraphrase your first point, people eat meat because they enjoy it, and that's that. I'm curious what your source is for saying a vegetarian diet isn't optimal. Most studies I've seen (including large and long studies) claim the opposite. Here's a list: [1] I agree it's like sweatshops. I didn't want to draw the comparison to slavery because I think the ethical question stands on its own, but maybe you're right to point out that it's the same driving impulse. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_nutrition#Health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_nutrition#Health_ef...

sokoloff 8y ago
I readily agree that the people I know who are vegetarian are, as a cohort, seem healthier, more active, and happier than the randomly selected American. What I can't readily conclude is cause and effect. I haven't seen many (any?) studies that effectively isolate vegetarian diet in humans from confounding factors as mentioned in the first paragraph of the wikipedia link you provided. I've yet to meet a vegetarian who sits on the couch all day, smoking, eating fries, chips and candy, drinking beer and watching TV. I've met plenty of others who fall fairly close to that stereotype and I'll readily admit that if I looked only at "vegetarian vs not", I'd conclude that vegetarian was more optimal. By the same token, I'd probably conclude that merely owning hiking boots or a kayak or soccer cleats was a life quality and quantity extender.
Rainymood 8y ago
> If I can paraphrase your first point, people eat meat because they enjoy it, and that's that. I understand your sentiment but there's a reason people enjoy eating meat, it feels pleasureable in our mouth because it is rich in nutrients and rare in nature. In nature you don't eat meat every day like we do in our current society. Just like donuts and candy tastes nice is because there's a lot of sugar and fat in them, things that are scarce in nature. >I'm curious what your source is for saying a vegetarian diet isn't optimal. Most studies I've seen (including large and long studies) claim the opposite. Here's a list: [1] If you actually read through the Wikipedia I am not really convinced > (...) although this is at least partly due to lifestyle factors beyond diet, such as a low prevalence of smoking, and the generally high socioeconomic status >(...) and other lifestyle factors associated with a vegetarian diet may contribute to the positive health outcomes that have been identified among vegetarians.[11] The point Wikipedia tries to make is clear. What I'm trying to argue is that there are nutrients in meat that you are unable to get anywhere else than from meat. Yes, I fully realize that we can synthesize these things artificially but you still need them. As with most things in life, the optimum is somewhere in between. One could eat no meat at all, one end of the scale, one could eat only meat, the other end of the scale with the optimum probably somewhere in between.
- iN7h33nD 8y ago