12 ms·

Rather than conflating waste with animal products, how about tackle the reasons for waste, and perhaps the other 90% of emissions, before trying to take away my

Rather than conflating waste with animal products, how about tackle the reasons for waste, and perhaps the other 90% of emissions, before trying to take away my steak and eggs? Please and thank you. It would be nice to get rid of factory farming, and have community farms focused on regenerative agriculture and sustainability, but I will violently oppose anyone who tries to make me eat veggie burgers ever again. -Former vegetarian, who tried for years to eat that way for ecological & ethicalreasons, and who switched to a 80% meat-based diet and will never look back to what I view is naive in hindsight.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
eggsmediumrare 5y ago
Why is it naive?
- anonymouswacker 5y ago
  It's naive to think that my eating vegetarian made a difference in the grand scheme. Much of what I ate was still requiring needless death and destruction of the environment--it just was invisible to me. Now I accept it, and try to eat from local farms (less fossil fuel waste), and organic (less destruction of the soil). I'm not going to risk affecting my health so that I can call myself a vegetarian. I think the most ecologically sound way of eating is to make your own food (hunting & killing it for carnivores, or growing it for vegetarians) yourself.
patates 5y ago
> 80% meat-based diet That can't be right, is that a typo or you mean the percentage of meals that have some animal products?
- shafyy 5y ago
  Unfortunatly, they mean probably exactly what they said. Look up Carnivore Diet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotrophic_diet#Carnivore_diet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotrophic_diet#Carnivore_die...
- anonymouswacker 5y ago
  Sorry, I should have said animal-based rather than meat, to include milk, eggs, brains, organs, etc. And yes, I eat basically nose-to-tail now, mostly pastured, and feel a hell of a lot better than I did before
  - TollingSteady 5y ago
    Setting aside any ecological/moral argument, this kind of diet is high in class-2 carcinogens implicated in heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. What did your vegetarian diet look like?
    - anonymouswacker 5y ago
      Sorry for late reply. You'll find very low cancer rates in cultures that eat predominately meat -- of course they also tend to hunt and are therefore more active, get more sun, live less stressful lives, etc. Combining a high animal diet with processed food seems to be much worse than just a high animal diet. My vegetarian diet was mostly vegetables and minimal processed food, besides faux meat when trying to socialize. I tried going vegan for a year and had so much brain fog that I can barely remember anything that happened. I was eating a lot of home-made cheese, salads, raw foods, and supplementing with B-12 and lots of pea protein. Now I eat high protein, mostly animal, work out, and intermittently fast. I find it works for me. I will keep an eye out on cancer but my vitals are very good and I don't yet see much research on my particular niche diet.
      - TollingSteady 5y ago
        I'd be very interested in reading more about high-meat countries having lower cancer. That contradicts my current understanding, but I'd definitely be willing to revise my position if it turns out meat isn't involved in colorectal cancer. It's interesting to me that you had such problems on plant-based diets if you were eating balanced meals. I wonder what nutrient you could've been missing? Thanks for sharing your personal experience, though! (Also, not to steal your line, but sorry for the late reply.)
TollingSteady 5y ago
Animal agriculture produces more carbon waste than the entire transportation sector. "Regenerative" animal agriculture is a myth, as fields can only sequester a small percent of the carbon emissions produced by ruminants, and they eventually reach a saturation point where they stop sequestering any. Additionally, factory farms are pretty much the only option to make animal products available anywhere close to the quantity required. Community farms have significantly lower output at a higher cost, and therefore animal products prices would presumably skyrocket. There are plenty of delicious and easily available vegan recipes that require 0 veggie burgers, if you're interested in reducing your carbon footprint. Obviously your actions are up to you, but community farms like you suggest just aren't feasible at scale.
- msandford 5y ago
  The great plains of 100 years ago would beg to differ. It was very common for black soil to be 4 plus feet deep. If that wasn't a lot of sequestered carbon I don't know what is. Ironically all that sequestered carbon was released back to the air by intensive cropping not by ruminant animals.
  - TollingSteady 5y ago
    I completely agree, natural habitats with native flora and fauna tend to settle into balanced ecosystems. As far as I can tell, that's not what you're arguing for, though, as that is not at all what modern animal agriculture is similar to. As far as crops, the majority of what we grow is fed to animals. For example, according to the USDA, approximately 70% of U.S. soy is used as animal feed. If you're interested in reducing crop farming, go vegan. (Source: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...) As far as the limited abilities of carbon sequestering, "Grazing management could potentially, and under very generous assumptions, offset between 20-60% of annual average emissions from the grass-fed only sector," meaning that even all grass fed beef is still going to involve horrifying amounts of GHG emissions, completely ignoring the cost/land use that would make it otherwise unfeasible. (Source: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-grazing-livestock-climate-impact.html https://phys.org/news/2017-10-grazing-livestock-climate-impa...) Bonus link for more info on ruminants and carbon sequestering: "https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal/article/abs/mitigating-the-greenhouse-gas-balance-of-ruminant-production-systems-through-carbon-sequestration-in-grasslands/75C37264D0DBC0B6175DFA61574E3A6D https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal/article/abs/m..."
chanmad29 5y ago
Don't want to be trolling but if there is anything naive about your stance, it is the diet switch.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

eggsmediumrare 5y ago

Why is it naive?

anonymouswacker 5y ago
It's naive to think that my eating vegetarian made a difference in the grand scheme. Much of what I ate was still requiring needless death and destruction of the environment--it just was invisible to me. Now I accept it, and try to eat from local farms (less fossil fuel waste), and organic (less destruction of the soil). I'm not going to risk affecting my health so that I can call myself a vegetarian. I think the most ecologically sound way of eating is to make your own food (hunting & killing it for carnivores, or growing it for vegetarians) yourself.

patates 5y ago

> 80% meat-based diet That can't be right, is that a typo or you mean the percentage of meals that have some animal products?

shafyy 5y ago
Unfortunatly, they mean probably exactly what they said. Look up Carnivore Diet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotrophic_diet#Carnivore_diet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotrophic_diet#Carnivore_die...
anonymouswacker 5y ago
Sorry, I should have said animal-based rather than meat, to include milk, eggs, brains, organs, etc. And yes, I eat basically nose-to-tail now, mostly pastured, and feel a hell of a lot better than I did before
- TollingSteady 5y ago
  Setting aside any ecological/moral argument, this kind of diet is high in class-2 carcinogens implicated in heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. What did your vegetarian diet look like?
  - anonymouswacker 5y ago
    Sorry for late reply. You'll find very low cancer rates in cultures that eat predominately meat -- of course they also tend to hunt and are therefore more active, get more sun, live less stressful lives, etc. Combining a high animal diet with processed food seems to be much worse than just a high animal diet. My vegetarian diet was mostly vegetables and minimal processed food, besides faux meat when trying to socialize. I tried going vegan for a year and had so much brain fog that I can barely remember anything that happened. I was eating a lot of home-made cheese, salads, raw foods, and supplementing with B-12 and lots of pea protein. Now I eat high protein, mostly animal, work out, and intermittently fast. I find it works for me. I will keep an eye out on cancer but my vitals are very good and I don't yet see much research on my particular niche diet.
    - TollingSteady 5y ago
      I'd be very interested in reading more about high-meat countries having lower cancer. That contradicts my current understanding, but I'd definitely be willing to revise my position if it turns out meat isn't involved in colorectal cancer. It's interesting to me that you had such problems on plant-based diets if you were eating balanced meals. I wonder what nutrient you could've been missing? Thanks for sharing your personal experience, though! (Also, not to steal your line, but sorry for the late reply.)

TollingSteady 5y ago

Animal agriculture produces more carbon waste than the entire transportation sector. "Regenerative" animal agriculture is a myth, as fields can only sequester a small percent of the carbon emissions produced by ruminants, and they eventually reach a saturation point where they stop sequestering any. Additionally, factory farms are pretty much the only option to make animal products available anywhere close to the quantity required. Community farms have significantly lower output at a higher cost, and therefore animal products prices would presumably skyrocket. There are plenty of delicious and easily available vegan recipes that require 0 veggie burgers, if you're interested in reducing your carbon footprint. Obviously your actions are up to you, but community farms like you suggest just aren't feasible at scale.

msandford 5y ago
The great plains of 100 years ago would beg to differ. It was very common for black soil to be 4 plus feet deep. If that wasn't a lot of sequestered carbon I don't know what is. Ironically all that sequestered carbon was released back to the air by intensive cropping not by ruminant animals.
- TollingSteady 5y ago
  I completely agree, natural habitats with native flora and fauna tend to settle into balanced ecosystems. As far as I can tell, that's not what you're arguing for, though, as that is not at all what modern animal agriculture is similar to. As far as crops, the majority of what we grow is fed to animals. For example, according to the USDA, approximately 70% of U.S. soy is used as animal feed. If you're interested in reducing crop farming, go vegan. (Source: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...) As far as the limited abilities of carbon sequestering, "Grazing management could potentially, and under very generous assumptions, offset between 20-60% of annual average emissions from the grass-fed only sector," meaning that even all grass fed beef is still going to involve horrifying amounts of GHG emissions, completely ignoring the cost/land use that would make it otherwise unfeasible. (Source: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-grazing-livestock-climate-impact.html https://phys.org/news/2017-10-grazing-livestock-climate-impa...) Bonus link for more info on ruminants and carbon sequestering: "https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal/article/abs/mitigating-the-greenhouse-gas-balance-of-ruminant-production-systems-through-carbon-sequestration-in-grasslands/75C37264D0DBC0B6175DFA61574E3A6D https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal/article/abs/m..."

chanmad29 5y ago

Don't want to be trolling but if there is anything naive about your stance, it is the diet switch.