6 ms·

They came to a fairly solid conclusion that we’re looking at an elevation of spillover events two to three times more than what we saw 40 years earlier. That co

They came to a fairly solid conclusion that we’re looking at an elevation of spillover events two to three times more than what we saw 40 years earlier. That continues to increase, driven by the huge increase in the human population and our expansion into wildlife areas. The single biggest predictor of spillover events is land-use change—more land going to agriculture and more specifically to livestock production. It was avian influenza in the 2000s. What you saw with avian influenza was a direct consequence of how much poultry was being produced to feed people So meat eating is not only a big driver in climate change and antibiotic resistance but is also dramatically increasing the likelihood of these crossover pandemics. It's time for us to quit our toxic addiction to meat.

rmdashrfstar 7y ago
How does one do so without missing essential nutrients that are only found in meats, if we're requiring realistic quantities for daily consumption, and not an absurd volume of food. For instance, there are certain things you find in large quantities in meat or fish, where the non meat aubsistute would require completely unrealistic amounts to be consumed to receive anywhere near the same amount. If this could be concretely addressed, I think that'd convince a lot of people on the fence to switch.
- prox 7y ago
  It’s totally possible and is half as hard as you think. Some concrete example, this is the diet of 6 time world F1 champion Lewis Hamilton: https://www.businessinsider.nl/lewis-hamilton-diet-everything-he-eats-and-drinks-2018-11?international=true&r=US https://www.businessinsider.nl/lewis-hamilton-diet-everythin... You do need to take care in having good diet, like taking care of protein intake, B12, omega-3. I personally prefer a flexitarian diet, where meat is rare, mostly vegetarian and vegan when I want to. Thing is, you don’t need meat every day, and just halving it makes a great difference already with minimum effect on your health.
- dinglejungle 7y ago
  Being less vague about which nutrients you're talking about would be a good start.
- cageface 7y ago
  The only nutrient that can not be found in plants is B12 which is easily supplemented. The official position of the American Dietetics Association is that diets completely free of animal products are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 We're killing ourselves and the planet just because we like the way animals taste.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    What about animal fats?
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Animal fats are not essential nutrients afaik.
  - hyperdunc 7y ago
    We are not killing the planet, but we are putting ecosystems under pressure. And evolution has given us tastes for things that are highly nutritious but were difficult to come by. Shall we deny ourselves these pleasures because they become problematic at scale? If so, what else should we ban by the same logic? Perhaps the main problem is that there are too many of us. Or maybe we should be putting more effort into growing meat in vats. Whatever we end up doing, I doubt it'll end in some kind of sustainable balance. Rather, we'll continue to multiply and consume as much as our technology allows and the environment can bare.
    - uxcolumbo 7y ago
      Have you tried eating raw pig or cow meat? What gives meat the taste are the spices and the way we prepare it. We now have great plant based alternatives (Impossible Food, Beyond Meat, and more coming on the market) that are getting better and better and which are less harmful to our biosphere. But even without those alternatives, there are so many great dishes that don't require meat and they are delicious and nutritious. Just have to have an open mind and explore what's out there. RE: Shall we deny ourselves these pleasures because they become problematic at scale? There are so many studies (some of which I posted further above). Science confirms that our current way of life is not sustainable. So what is more important? A) That we don't put our ecosystem under immense pressure as we are doing now B) The pleasure you derive from eating chopped up animals EDIT: formatting / typos
- adrianN 7y ago
  A good first step is reducing meat consumption. Americans eat about 100kg of meat per year. Europeans eat 30% less. Indians eat only 5kg per year.
nikofeyn 7y ago
meat eating is pretty low on the things causing all of our problems. for example, population growth, which is directly mentioned in the quote you provided, is a serious issue.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Meat consumption can be reduced much faster than population.
  - hu3 7y ago
    Can it? Looking around I find it hard to believe.
mirimir 7y ago
To me, this indicates that zoonotic diseases are feedback to human population exceeding the planet's carrying capacity.
- cageface 7y ago
  We are overpopulated but that's not changing any time soon so we all need to find ways reduce our ecological footprint now. Cutting way back on or eliminating animal products from your diet is one of the best and easiest ways to do this.
  - Izkata 7y ago
    > We are overpopulated but that's not changing any time soon so Not to be too grim, but that may well be changing right now...
    - mirimir 7y ago
      Not by more than 1% or so. Or a few percent at most. If Africa totally melts down, perhaps more.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22577127 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22577127
- elcomet 7y ago
  It doesn't have anything to do with the planet carrying capacity. This is only about the speed of viruses to spread, which is higher in dense and connected areas (and the quantity of meat we eat since diseases often come from meat).
  - mirimir 7y ago
    I disagree. In TFA, there's the argument that human invasion of more and more wildlife habitat has increased the risk for zoonosis: > Yes. EcoHealth Alliance, an NGO, and others, looked at all reported outbreaks since 1940. They came to a fairly solid conclusion that we’re looking at an elevation of spillover events two to three times more than what we saw 40 years earlier. That continues to increase, driven by the huge increase in the human population and our expansion into wildlife areas. The single biggest predictor of spillover events is land-use change—more land going to agriculture and more specifically to livestock production. And about meat, there are two issues. One is about impacts of livestock production, and the other is about wildlife consumption.
exclusiv 7y ago
Sugar and simple carbs are more dangerous. But anyway, you'll have to pry the meat from my cold dead fingers.
dntbnmpls 7y ago
Livestock production is far more efficient use of land than agriculture to feed vegans which requires far more land to feed the human population far less efficiently. We can use low quality land for livestock grazing or feed. Something that you can't use for human vegetation. > So meat eating is not only a big driver in climate change and antibiotic resistance but is also dramatically increasing the likelihood of these crossover pandemics. The human population grew from 250 million in the 1800s to 7 billion today thanks to meat consumption, oil, etc. Blaming meat, oil, etc isn't going to get you very far because facts and reality are hurdles that you just can't overcome. > It's time for us to quit our toxic addiction to meat. The only truly toxic thing is vegetation because plants release toxins to prevent being eaten. https://www.sciencealert.com/plants-can-hear-themselves-being-eaten-researchers-have-discovered https://www.sciencealert.com/plants-can-hear-themselves-bein... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivor... Not to mention the amounts of pesticides and chemicals that you have to use on vegetation for human consumption.
- cageface 7y ago
  This is just laughably incorrect. You couldn't come anywhere close to meeting current demand for meat with free foraging animals. If that were the case why do we have CAFO farms? The level of delusion and misinformation on this issue is tragic and mindboggling but go ahead and enjoy your selfish tech bro lifestyle.
  - dntbnmpls 7y ago
    > You couldn't come anywhere close to meeting current demand for meat with free foraging animals. Where did I say this? I'm used to straw man arguments from vegans but not this blatant. > The level of delusion and misinformation on this issue is tragic and mindboggling You are just using talking points that you just use when you are confronted with reality. > but go ahead and enjoy your selfish tech bro lifestyle. The most selfish, privileged people I've come across are vegans. A vegan diet is a wealthy privileged diet and an unnatural one at that. A diet that relies on globalism and can't be sourced locally. People can eat an omnivore diet from local sources. Nobody on earth can eat a vegan diet from local sources. Not a privileged swedish vegan, not a privileged brazilian vegan or a innuit vegan if there is such a thing. The worst diet for the environment is the vegan diet. Think about it or go learn a thing or two about agriculture. Instead of delusional vegan propaganda. The worst diet for humans is a vegan diet. Ever notice why there has been no vegan society in human history? Because humans aren't herbivores. We aren't cows. But privileged and selfish vegans can exploit globalism to get vegetation from all over the world to feed their selfish privileged existence and of course pop them pills to poorly sustain yourself as you cling on to your faux moral high ground. One cow feeds a bunch of people. One vegan dish has thousands of dead animal parts in it. You might want to read about how many insect, rodent, etc parts is in your salad. You might want to read about how many poor farmers are killed to get you that avocado and how many animals are killed to sustain your selfish privileged diet. A person eating a steak knows one animal died for his meal. A vegan eating a salad knows thousands of animals died for his meal but instead pretend to be the moral superior.

rmdashrfstar 7y ago

How does one do so without missing essential nutrients that are only found in meats, if we're requiring realistic quantities for daily consumption, and not an absurd volume of food. For instance, there are certain things you find in large quantities in meat or fish, where the non meat aubsistute would require completely unrealistic amounts to be consumed to receive anywhere near the same amount. If this could be concretely addressed, I think that'd convince a lot of people on the fence to switch.

prox 7y ago
It’s totally possible and is half as hard as you think. Some concrete example, this is the diet of 6 time world F1 champion Lewis Hamilton: https://www.businessinsider.nl/lewis-hamilton-diet-everything-he-eats-and-drinks-2018-11?international=true&r=US https://www.businessinsider.nl/lewis-hamilton-diet-everythin... You do need to take care in having good diet, like taking care of protein intake, B12, omega-3. I personally prefer a flexitarian diet, where meat is rare, mostly vegetarian and vegan when I want to. Thing is, you don’t need meat every day, and just halving it makes a great difference already with minimum effect on your health.
dinglejungle 7y ago
Being less vague about which nutrients you're talking about would be a good start.
cageface 7y ago
The only nutrient that can not be found in plants is B12 which is easily supplemented. The official position of the American Dietetics Association is that diets completely free of animal products are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 We're killing ourselves and the planet just because we like the way animals taste.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  What about animal fats?
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Animal fats are not essential nutrients afaik.
- hyperdunc 7y ago
  We are not killing the planet, but we are putting ecosystems under pressure. And evolution has given us tastes for things that are highly nutritious but were difficult to come by. Shall we deny ourselves these pleasures because they become problematic at scale? If so, what else should we ban by the same logic? Perhaps the main problem is that there are too many of us. Or maybe we should be putting more effort into growing meat in vats. Whatever we end up doing, I doubt it'll end in some kind of sustainable balance. Rather, we'll continue to multiply and consume as much as our technology allows and the environment can bare.
  - uxcolumbo 7y ago
    Have you tried eating raw pig or cow meat? What gives meat the taste are the spices and the way we prepare it. We now have great plant based alternatives (Impossible Food, Beyond Meat, and more coming on the market) that are getting better and better and which are less harmful to our biosphere. But even without those alternatives, there are so many great dishes that don't require meat and they are delicious and nutritious. Just have to have an open mind and explore what's out there. RE: Shall we deny ourselves these pleasures because they become problematic at scale? There are so many studies (some of which I posted further above). Science confirms that our current way of life is not sustainable. So what is more important? A) That we don't put our ecosystem under immense pressure as we are doing now B) The pleasure you derive from eating chopped up animals EDIT: formatting / typos
adrianN 7y ago
A good first step is reducing meat consumption. Americans eat about 100kg of meat per year. Europeans eat 30% less. Indians eat only 5kg per year.

nikofeyn 7y ago

meat eating is pretty low on the things causing all of our problems. for example, population growth, which is directly mentioned in the quote you provided, is a serious issue.

adrianN 7y ago
Meat consumption can be reduced much faster than population.
- hu3 7y ago
  Can it? Looking around I find it hard to believe.

mirimir 7y ago

To me, this indicates that zoonotic diseases are feedback to human population exceeding the planet's carrying capacity.

cageface 7y ago
We are overpopulated but that's not changing any time soon so we all need to find ways reduce our ecological footprint now. Cutting way back on or eliminating animal products from your diet is one of the best and easiest ways to do this.
- Izkata 7y ago
  > We are overpopulated but that's not changing any time soon so Not to be too grim, but that may well be changing right now...
  - mirimir 7y ago
    Not by more than 1% or so. Or a few percent at most. If Africa totally melts down, perhaps more.
- mirimir 7y ago
  Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22577127 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22577127
elcomet 7y ago
It doesn't have anything to do with the planet carrying capacity. This is only about the speed of viruses to spread, which is higher in dense and connected areas (and the quantity of meat we eat since diseases often come from meat).
- mirimir 7y ago
  I disagree. In TFA, there's the argument that human invasion of more and more wildlife habitat has increased the risk for zoonosis: > Yes. EcoHealth Alliance, an NGO, and others, looked at all reported outbreaks since 1940. They came to a fairly solid conclusion that we’re looking at an elevation of spillover events two to three times more than what we saw 40 years earlier. That continues to increase, driven by the huge increase in the human population and our expansion into wildlife areas. The single biggest predictor of spillover events is land-use change—more land going to agriculture and more specifically to livestock production. And about meat, there are two issues. One is about impacts of livestock production, and the other is about wildlife consumption.

exclusiv 7y ago

Sugar and simple carbs are more dangerous. But anyway, you'll have to pry the meat from my cold dead fingers.

dntbnmpls 7y ago

Livestock production is far more efficient use of land than agriculture to feed vegans which requires far more land to feed the human population far less efficiently. We can use low quality land for livestock grazing or feed. Something that you can't use for human vegetation. > So meat eating is not only a big driver in climate change and antibiotic resistance but is also dramatically increasing the likelihood of these crossover pandemics. The human population grew from 250 million in the 1800s to 7 billion today thanks to meat consumption, oil, etc. Blaming meat, oil, etc isn't going to get you very far because facts and reality are hurdles that you just can't overcome. > It's time for us to quit our toxic addiction to meat. The only truly toxic thing is vegetation because plants release toxins to prevent being eaten. https://www.sciencealert.com/plants-can-hear-themselves-being-eaten-researchers-have-discovered https://www.sciencealert.com/plants-can-hear-themselves-bein... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivor... Not to mention the amounts of pesticides and chemicals that you have to use on vegetation for human consumption.

cageface 7y ago
This is just laughably incorrect. You couldn't come anywhere close to meeting current demand for meat with free foraging animals. If that were the case why do we have CAFO farms? The level of delusion and misinformation on this issue is tragic and mindboggling but go ahead and enjoy your selfish tech bro lifestyle.
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > You couldn't come anywhere close to meeting current demand for meat with free foraging animals. Where did I say this? I'm used to straw man arguments from vegans but not this blatant. > The level of delusion and misinformation on this issue is tragic and mindboggling You are just using talking points that you just use when you are confronted with reality. > but go ahead and enjoy your selfish tech bro lifestyle. The most selfish, privileged people I've come across are vegans. A vegan diet is a wealthy privileged diet and an unnatural one at that. A diet that relies on globalism and can't be sourced locally. People can eat an omnivore diet from local sources. Nobody on earth can eat a vegan diet from local sources. Not a privileged swedish vegan, not a privileged brazilian vegan or a innuit vegan if there is such a thing. The worst diet for the environment is the vegan diet. Think about it or go learn a thing or two about agriculture. Instead of delusional vegan propaganda. The worst diet for humans is a vegan diet. Ever notice why there has been no vegan society in human history? Because humans aren't herbivores. We aren't cows. But privileged and selfish vegans can exploit globalism to get vegetation from all over the world to feed their selfish privileged existence and of course pop them pills to poorly sustain yourself as you cling on to your faux moral high ground. One cow feeds a bunch of people. One vegan dish has thousands of dead animal parts in it. You might want to read about how many insect, rodent, etc parts is in your salad. You might want to read about how many poor farmers are killed to get you that avocado and how many animals are killed to sustain your selfish privileged diet. A person eating a steak knows one animal died for his meal. A vegan eating a salad knows thousands of animals died for his meal but instead pretend to be the moral superior.