4 ms·

Facts: - The meat over-production has a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions - Humans naturally didn't eat the amounts of meat which we consume today - H

Facts: - The meat over-production has a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions - Humans naturally didn't eat the amounts of meat which we consume today - Humans don't need to eat large quantities of meat for any health of fitness reasons - Eating large amounts of meat increase the chances of certain cancers Therefore, given that there is nothing natural about eating meat at the current levels and given that there is no health benefit of eating this much meat and even has some negative impact and given that the meat production is contributing to the demise of our planet, it's only logical to drastically reduce our meat consumption. Laws need to be drafted. Taxes on meat need to be risen, etc. All those fatsoes which claim they couldn't live without meat should be treated like smokers: a dying breed of humans inflexible of understanding the above logic. There's always going to be some fat guy who thinks that eating McDonals burgers every day is normal, but the reality is that it's not and one day these people will be dead and new generations will have grown up in a world where it's normal to eat more veg & fruit and will think "how weird is it that people once ate an entire cow just for breakfast", just like kids today think "how weird is it that someone was allowed to light up a cigarette on an airplane where the smoke is affecting everyone around them and where open fire is generally considered a risk".

jotm 7y ago
I'll quit meat completely (already eating less than 1 lbs/week, so it's easy) if someone else starts buying new devices only when the battery starts failing? Because that infuriates me to no end, "lololol I still have my S7, but the S8 looks better, and my laptop is out of storage space".
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  And then you will move the goalposts and nothing will change. Many people do that... Anyway, the point is to not strike at consumers, but the producers. Taxation and environmental targets are the way to do it.
  - jotm 7y ago
    What goalposts though? I can safely say "I'm doing my part". But overall it's nothing, not even a blip. There's more spoiled meat and broken phones in the local dump than I'd ever use. This only works if everyone does it, production will fall of there's no demand. Although that would bring economic problems in the current system... Taxation may work, but the best way is to change the culture. The alcohol and tobacco tax has skyrocketed, yet people still drink and smoke a lot. I think the mindset of "not smoking is better, I'd rather never start" worked better than the taxes.
masklinn 7y ago
While you're completely right on the "calories available per energy expended" point, nutrition has come around to thinking that meat is a source of "fatsoes" (what with being mostly protein and fat), and > - Humans naturally didn't eat the amounts of meat which we consume today Humans "naturally" ate whatever was available and edible, in northernly latitude they certainly ate ridiculous amounts of meat what with most of the food available outside of high summer being hunted or fished. Humans are not a vegetarian species, and their survival on a strictly vegetarian diet is non-trivial. Furthermore, our staple cereal carbs literally didn't exist in the "natural" diet timespan, the sources of carbs would have been fruits (where and when available at all) and fibrous and starchy tubers, so your appeal to nature isn't exactly helpful to feeding the world while solving climate change. Finally: 1. not all meats are equal, poultry has an FCR of about 2 (that is 2 units of feed will produce 1 unit of chicken or eggs), rabbits and pigs are around 3.5~4 and beef cattle is ~6. 2. of note, dairy is worse than beef on an FCR basis. 3. OTOH not all feed are equal and I don't know that FCR takes this in account (cattle being fed raw roughage while poultry or fish is fed concentrate) 4. feed can be a side-product of other food production (e.g. straws) or it might be produced on lands otherwise inclement to human food production, or as part of a rotation scheme
- dustinmoris 7y ago
  > Humans "naturally" ate whatever was available and edible, in northernly latitude they certainly ate ridiculous amounts of meat what with most of the food available outside of high summer being hunted or fished. Humans are not a vegetarian species, and their survival on a strictly vegetarian diet is non-trivial. For the most part of our existense we didn't eat much or any meat. Only when humans invented the farming of livestock we started our journey to the (over) consumption of meat. Our teeth, nails and inability to easily digest raw meat and other physical properties are also a testament to the fact that we were not designed to hunt and eat meat as much as we think we do.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    > Our teeth, nails and inability to easily digest raw meat and other physical properties are also a testament to the fact that we were not designed to hunt and eat meat as much as we think we do. I don't know where you got that idea. Our teeth are pretty standard omnivorous and we have archaeological evidence of hunting long predating modern humans (we're talking >2MYA). > Our teeth, nails and inability to easily digest raw meat As opposed to our ease of digesting raw beans, grains and tubers, which at best we literally can't do and at worse are actively toxic unless extensively prepared?
moltar 7y ago
Please provide citations for your claims.
- dustinmoris 7y ago
  I think you can use google yourself, but I honestly hope that we can conduct a conversation with a certain expectation of common knowledge. I hope I don't have to provide links that gravity exists when I tell you that when I throw a rock it will hit the floor. None of these claims are new or controversial. They have been researched and proven to death by now.
  - ps101 7y ago
    Here's what you've done in this thread so far: "These are facts: ..." (baseless claims with no justification) "I hope I don't need to explain why they're are true" (no justification or actual argument) "None of these are controversial" (apart from people disputing them here) "They have been proven" (without presenting proof)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ghsertoz 7y ago
These are ideological driven oversimplifications, not facts. However it's not that hard to play this game The Plant-based milks,grains, pasta, breads, Industrial Seed Oils, flours, cereals over-production has a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions Humans don't need to eat large quantities of Plant-based milks, grains, pasta, breads, Industrial Seed Oils, flours, cereals for any health of fitness reasons Humans naturally didn't eat the amounts of Plant-based milks, grains, pasta, breads,Industrial Seed Oils, flours, which we consume today - Eating large amounts of meat increase the chances of certain cancers (Based on epidemiological/observational/rat studies)
- Toine 7y ago
  How is that ideological ? You sound like every meat lover who just can't stop eating his steak
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
maxerickson 7y ago
There's not really any meaningful definition of "natural" that is useful in the context you are using it. You are arguing that people eating what they like isn't natural!

jotm 7y ago

I'll quit meat completely (already eating less than 1 lbs/week, so it's easy) if someone else starts buying new devices only when the battery starts failing? Because that infuriates me to no end, "lololol I still have my S7, but the S8 looks better, and my laptop is out of storage space".

AstralStorm 7y ago
And then you will move the goalposts and nothing will change. Many people do that... Anyway, the point is to not strike at consumers, but the producers. Taxation and environmental targets are the way to do it.
- jotm 7y ago
  What goalposts though? I can safely say "I'm doing my part". But overall it's nothing, not even a blip. There's more spoiled meat and broken phones in the local dump than I'd ever use. This only works if everyone does it, production will fall of there's no demand. Although that would bring economic problems in the current system... Taxation may work, but the best way is to change the culture. The alcohol and tobacco tax has skyrocketed, yet people still drink and smoke a lot. I think the mindset of "not smoking is better, I'd rather never start" worked better than the taxes.

masklinn 7y ago

While you're completely right on the "calories available per energy expended" point, nutrition has come around to thinking that meat is a source of "fatsoes" (what with being mostly protein and fat), and > - Humans naturally didn't eat the amounts of meat which we consume today Humans "naturally" ate whatever was available and edible, in northernly latitude they certainly ate ridiculous amounts of meat what with most of the food available outside of high summer being hunted or fished. Humans are not a vegetarian species, and their survival on a strictly vegetarian diet is non-trivial. Furthermore, our staple cereal carbs literally didn't exist in the "natural" diet timespan, the sources of carbs would have been fruits (where and when available at all) and fibrous and starchy tubers, so your appeal to nature isn't exactly helpful to feeding the world while solving climate change. Finally: 1. not all meats are equal, poultry has an FCR of about 2 (that is 2 units of feed will produce 1 unit of chicken or eggs), rabbits and pigs are around 3.5~4 and beef cattle is ~6. 2. of note, dairy is worse than beef on an FCR basis. 3. OTOH not all feed are equal and I don't know that FCR takes this in account (cattle being fed raw roughage while poultry or fish is fed concentrate) 4. feed can be a side-product of other food production (e.g. straws) or it might be produced on lands otherwise inclement to human food production, or as part of a rotation scheme

dustinmoris 7y ago
> Humans "naturally" ate whatever was available and edible, in northernly latitude they certainly ate ridiculous amounts of meat what with most of the food available outside of high summer being hunted or fished. Humans are not a vegetarian species, and their survival on a strictly vegetarian diet is non-trivial. For the most part of our existense we didn't eat much or any meat. Only when humans invented the farming of livestock we started our journey to the (over) consumption of meat. Our teeth, nails and inability to easily digest raw meat and other physical properties are also a testament to the fact that we were not designed to hunt and eat meat as much as we think we do.
- masklinn 7y ago
  > Our teeth, nails and inability to easily digest raw meat and other physical properties are also a testament to the fact that we were not designed to hunt and eat meat as much as we think we do. I don't know where you got that idea. Our teeth are pretty standard omnivorous and we have archaeological evidence of hunting long predating modern humans (we're talking >2MYA). > Our teeth, nails and inability to easily digest raw meat As opposed to our ease of digesting raw beans, grains and tubers, which at best we literally can't do and at worse are actively toxic unless extensively prepared?

moltar 7y ago

Please provide citations for your claims.

dustinmoris 7y ago
I think you can use google yourself, but I honestly hope that we can conduct a conversation with a certain expectation of common knowledge. I hope I don't have to provide links that gravity exists when I tell you that when I throw a rock it will hit the floor. None of these claims are new or controversial. They have been researched and proven to death by now.
- ps101 7y ago
  Here's what you've done in this thread so far: "These are facts: ..." (baseless claims with no justification) "I hope I don't need to explain why they're are true" (no justification or actual argument) "None of these are controversial" (apart from people disputing them here) "They have been proven" (without presenting proof)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ghsertoz 7y ago

These are ideological driven oversimplifications, not facts. However it's not that hard to play this game The Plant-based milks,grains, pasta, breads, Industrial Seed Oils, flours, cereals over-production has a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions Humans don't need to eat large quantities of Plant-based milks, grains, pasta, breads, Industrial Seed Oils, flours, cereals for any health of fitness reasons Humans naturally didn't eat the amounts of Plant-based milks, grains, pasta, breads,Industrial Seed Oils, flours, which we consume today - Eating large amounts of meat increase the chances of certain cancers (Based on epidemiological/observational/rat studies)

Toine 7y ago
How is that ideological ? You sound like every meat lover who just can't stop eating his steak
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

maxerickson 7y ago

There's not really any meaningful definition of "natural" that is useful in the context you are using it. You are arguing that people eating what they like isn't natural!