5 ms·

Nah man, just eat the plants those animals are eating. You can't get away from the 10x energetic penalty.

komali2 7y ago
But the animals strip out the fiber/carbs and over time convert it into efficient stores of protein/fat. I need ~140g protein a day to perform in the gym, I don't really want to get that from beans and be chew through 3,500 calories of carbohydrates to get to that protein.
- lm28469 7y ago
  "Hey guys I'm all for saving the world and stuff but I have to beat my squat PR so it doesn't apply to me because chewing beans is annoying compared to eating chicken" This is exactly why we're doomed. Everybody wants to "save the world", everybody knows what to do, nobody does it because it's incompatible with our current self destructing life style. No you don't >need< 140g of prot a day, you can hit all the macro/micro nutrients your body needs easily even with very low amount of meat. Who cares about gym performances, we're talking about the future of an entire planet/eco system. > At the heart of capitalism is a vast and scarcely examined assumption: you are entitled to as great a share of the world’s resources as your money can buy. You can purchase as much land, as much atmospheric space, as many minerals, as much meat and fish as you can afford, regardless of who might be deprived. If you can pay for them, you can own entire mountain ranges and fertile plains. You can burn as much fuel as you like. Every pound or dollar secures a certain right over the world’s natural wealth. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/15/capitalism-destroying-earth-human-right-climate-strike-children https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr...
  - komali2 7y ago
    I sympathize with the environmentalist cause, because I am an environmentalist. I listened to a podcast by Dan Harmon once, where he was talking about a fictional protest at Berkeley, with antifa on one side and nazis on the other. One of the Berkeley protesters in the skit says "While I don't support almost any Republican principles, I actually do think I should be allowed to own a gun." The Berkeley students, enraged, push him to the nazi side. I've also heard this called "fallacy of the pure movement." There's lots of words for it, but the basic idea is someone alienates all but the True Believers from their cause. In your mind, I must be a vegan to be a true environmentalist. There is No Good Reason to eat meat. A bit silly, there are plenty of Good Reasons to eat meat. I just named one. Another is culture - isn't a tribe of fisherman that have been fishing for 2,000 years entitled to continue to pass down their recipes for cooking fish to future generations? Kinda moot though, because the dangerous thing you're opening yourself up to here is a retort of raw values - when was the last time you took a flight? How DARE you? Used a car? Why didn't you spend 2 hours biking instead? How DARE you not sacrifice every centimeter of your well being for the environmentalist cause? There is no True Believer. Not even you are the True Environmentalist. Accusing me of not being True doesn't help.
    - andbberger 7y ago
      alright that's enough flaming from you for today
      - komali2 7y ago
        You're the one that called me delusional lol where am I flaming?
    - lm28469 7y ago
      > A bit silly, there are plenty of Good Reasons to eat meat. Yes, but no reason to eat meat every day / multiple time a day. > I must be a vegan to be a true environmentalist. No, just act according to your beliefs. If you willingly do something going against what you preach then you should look into yourself, you're either lying to us or lying to yourself. You don't have to be an extremist, if everyone was acting on the low hanging fruits [0] it would already help immensely. [0] Eat local food, don't waste food, reduce meat consumption, don't overuse AC/heating, don't be one of these guys who take the plane every weekend, don't buy useless low quality gadgets, &c. Also: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_20 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Let...
- trymas 7y ago
  If an olympic level athlete can reach peak success [0] while "chewing beans" - you can do that too. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2012/jul/30/lizzie-armitstead-vegetarian-athletes-olympics-2012 https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2012/ju...
  - komali2 7y ago
    Swimmers, tennis players, and runners. No weightlifters. Why the attacks? I don't buy pounds of factory farmed beef a week. I'm buying free range chicken and turkey, sustainable fish, free range egg and cheese. This supports the cause. We are on the same side.
    - andbberger 7y ago
      > This supports the cause. We are on the same side. No definitely not you're delusional.
      - komali2 7y ago
        Personal attacks? Seriously? This is no true Scotsman or some version of it. I don't get to be an environmentalist because I'm not a vegan? Nevermind the composting, bicycling, lobbying, donations, volunteering, picking up of trash, lack of a car, love of nature. What if I turned this argument around? What if I claimed you can't be an environmentalist if you ever purchase petroleum based products (plastics)? And then I called you delusional for thinking otherwise? How would you feel?
    - trymas 7y ago
      > No weightlifters. I've suspected that you'll write this. https://www.riseofthevegan.com/blog/only-male-us-weightlifter-in-olympics-is-vegan https://www.riseofthevegan.com/blog/only-male-us-weightlifte... Why do you think that 1kg of free range chicken is more ecofriendly [0] than the factory farmed one? I'd agree free range chicken is better from the ethical stand-point, but from pure efficiency of producing 1kg of chicken from available resources, I'd speculate that free range is not more ecological. We are talking about the fact that people are not fitting on this globe anymore and some sacrifices need to be made. Why are we destroying forests to make land to grow crops to produce meat with 10% efficiency versus if we'd use that land to feed ourselves directly? Growing animals just to slaughter them sounds extremely inefficient, land and resource consuming. 10% efficiency is pretty shitty efficiency when we are low on resources. [0] in terms of CO2 required, in terms of land required to grow same amount of animal meat, in terms of clean water required, etc.

But the animals strip out the fiber/carbs and over time convert it into efficient stores of protein/fat. I need ~140g protein a day to perform in the gym, I don't really want to get that from beans and be chew through 3,500 calories of carbohydrates to get to that protein.

lm28469 7y ago
"Hey guys I'm all for saving the world and stuff but I have to beat my squat PR so it doesn't apply to me because chewing beans is annoying compared to eating chicken" This is exactly why we're doomed. Everybody wants to "save the world", everybody knows what to do, nobody does it because it's incompatible with our current self destructing life style. No you don't >need< 140g of prot a day, you can hit all the macro/micro nutrients your body needs easily even with very low amount of meat. Who cares about gym performances, we're talking about the future of an entire planet/eco system. > At the heart of capitalism is a vast and scarcely examined assumption: you are entitled to as great a share of the world’s resources as your money can buy. You can purchase as much land, as much atmospheric space, as many minerals, as much meat and fish as you can afford, regardless of who might be deprived. If you can pay for them, you can own entire mountain ranges and fertile plains. You can burn as much fuel as you like. Every pound or dollar secures a certain right over the world’s natural wealth. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/15/capitalism-destroying-earth-human-right-climate-strike-children https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr...
- komali2 7y ago
  I sympathize with the environmentalist cause, because I am an environmentalist. I listened to a podcast by Dan Harmon once, where he was talking about a fictional protest at Berkeley, with antifa on one side and nazis on the other. One of the Berkeley protesters in the skit says "While I don't support almost any Republican principles, I actually do think I should be allowed to own a gun." The Berkeley students, enraged, push him to the nazi side. I've also heard this called "fallacy of the pure movement." There's lots of words for it, but the basic idea is someone alienates all but the True Believers from their cause. In your mind, I must be a vegan to be a true environmentalist. There is No Good Reason to eat meat. A bit silly, there are plenty of Good Reasons to eat meat. I just named one. Another is culture - isn't a tribe of fisherman that have been fishing for 2,000 years entitled to continue to pass down their recipes for cooking fish to future generations? Kinda moot though, because the dangerous thing you're opening yourself up to here is a retort of raw values - when was the last time you took a flight? How DARE you? Used a car? Why didn't you spend 2 hours biking instead? How DARE you not sacrifice every centimeter of your well being for the environmentalist cause? There is no True Believer. Not even you are the True Environmentalist. Accusing me of not being True doesn't help.
  - andbberger 7y ago
    alright that's enough flaming from you for today
    - komali2 7y ago
      You're the one that called me delusional lol where am I flaming?
  - lm28469 7y ago
    > A bit silly, there are plenty of Good Reasons to eat meat. Yes, but no reason to eat meat every day / multiple time a day. > I must be a vegan to be a true environmentalist. No, just act according to your beliefs. If you willingly do something going against what you preach then you should look into yourself, you're either lying to us or lying to yourself. You don't have to be an extremist, if everyone was acting on the low hanging fruits [0] it would already help immensely. [0] Eat local food, don't waste food, reduce meat consumption, don't overuse AC/heating, don't be one of these guys who take the plane every weekend, don't buy useless low quality gadgets, &c. Also: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_20 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Let...
trymas 7y ago
If an olympic level athlete can reach peak success [0] while "chewing beans" - you can do that too. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2012/jul/30/lizzie-armitstead-vegetarian-athletes-olympics-2012 https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2012/ju...
- komali2 7y ago
  Swimmers, tennis players, and runners. No weightlifters. Why the attacks? I don't buy pounds of factory farmed beef a week. I'm buying free range chicken and turkey, sustainable fish, free range egg and cheese. This supports the cause. We are on the same side.
  - andbberger 7y ago
    > This supports the cause. We are on the same side. No definitely not you're delusional.
    - komali2 7y ago
      Personal attacks? Seriously? This is no true Scotsman or some version of it. I don't get to be an environmentalist because I'm not a vegan? Nevermind the composting, bicycling, lobbying, donations, volunteering, picking up of trash, lack of a car, love of nature. What if I turned this argument around? What if I claimed you can't be an environmentalist if you ever purchase petroleum based products (plastics)? And then I called you delusional for thinking otherwise? How would you feel?
  - trymas 7y ago
    > No weightlifters. I've suspected that you'll write this. https://www.riseofthevegan.com/blog/only-male-us-weightlifter-in-olympics-is-vegan https://www.riseofthevegan.com/blog/only-male-us-weightlifte... Why do you think that 1kg of free range chicken is more ecofriendly [0] than the factory farmed one? I'd agree free range chicken is better from the ethical stand-point, but from pure efficiency of producing 1kg of chicken from available resources, I'd speculate that free range is not more ecological. We are talking about the fact that people are not fitting on this globe anymore and some sacrifices need to be made. Why are we destroying forests to make land to grow crops to produce meat with 10% efficiency versus if we'd use that land to feed ourselves directly? Growing animals just to slaughter them sounds extremely inefficient, land and resource consuming. 10% efficiency is pretty shitty efficiency when we are low on resources. [0] in terms of CO2 required, in terms of land required to grow same amount of animal meat, in terms of clean water required, etc.