7 ms·
Plenty to improve in food production, sure, but the current move towards hyper processed foods is dumb. They can take the animal meat (and eggs, and dairy prod
by mvdwoord 4y ago
Plenty to improve in food production, sure, but the current move towards hyper processed foods is dumb.
They can take the animal meat (and eggs, and dairy products) from my cold dead hands..
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deepsun 4y agoRelax, no one is really considering meat foods to go away in the next 100 years or so. It's all about the access to the vegetarian and vegan foods to those who want it, and it happens to become more popular, so market adapts. But you present it like someone tries to take your food.
- jiggywiggy 4y agoMaybe not with you. But in most modern cities they are actively campaigning against meat, they are mostly using the moral card: you are destroying the planet. How fun.
- bwb 4y agoIt isn't a 0 or 1, prob good for you health wise and for the planet to eat a little less meat and a bit more veg. Just look at the data out there. This last year I am really decreasing how much meat I eat (ill never give it up although I am excited about ground cricket meat and trying that). I am doing it for my health, costs, and because its good for the planet long term.
- jiggywiggy 4y agoData is sort of wildcard argument. Doesn't has any value if you don't point to specific. Cashew cheese really is not better for the planet the local organic milk cheese. In north of Holland there huge patches of land only cow can grace the land and nothing else grows, and there is an abundance of the water. Yet everyone complains about milk and meat taking too much wayer, and that growing plants would be more efficient. It all depends, you cant just say "data". Same with health. You really can't claim fried soya or pea protein is healthier then ground beef from a cow that spends his summers outside.
- bwb 4y agoSure, but buying a locally raised cow that is fed on local farmland is a lot better for the environment than steak from Argentina most of the time. The data around that is pretty solid. I don't think cashew cheese grows in nature, i would never consider it vegetables and I am not advocating for processed foods. Merely stating that cutting down on how much meat you eat and eating more veg is better for your health and the planet. Well backed by data.
- jiggywiggy 4y agoWell backed by data? What does that mean.
- bwb 4y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
- jiggywiggy 4y agoYou missed the conclusion step
- bwb 4y agoSorry bit confused, you asked what data was and I sent you a big explanation? Sorry I am a bit literal at times, what are you requesting that you can't find on Google?
- kelipso 4y agoLol, at any rate you are saying a bunch of statements that seem pretty shaky, saying they are backed by data, and not linking any sources. I guess the data is in another dimension or something.
- 4y ago
- nunodonato 4y agowhat destroys the planet is not meat or non-meat. Its mass production of [insert food here]. I have fun listening the vegan arguments until they are shown how their over-consumption of avocados or soy-based foods has devastating or exploiting effects on ecosystems and people.
- matsemann 4y agoBut people (including you it seems) don't really understand the scale at which meat production harm the environment compared to vegetables. Yes, every mass production have problems, but with meat you need multiple times the amount of everything, because you first need to produce the food the cow or whatever eats, and then the meat production. For instance, it's multiple times less co2 impact for me eating an avocado here in Norway that's been shipped half the globe around from south america, compared to eating meat from the local farm. The scales are just so incredibly different in production (vs transportation) that it's not to "gotcha" many believe to claim that something imported is automatically bad.
- jiggywiggy 4y agoYou can't honestly claim buying avacado's is better for the planet, it's wreaked social & ecological havoc in multiple south American countries with dried up rivers, gangs and lack of diversification of the income of a country. Next to that it's not always Plants vs meats. In many places only cattle can graze but not much of value can grow. The CO2 issue is really a terrible comparison. Everything cows put out has been put in from the air. The airplanes are excreting new/old CO2 taken from fossil fuels. Some claim cows are still worse because of methane, but they forget to mention methane only had 12 years lifespan in the atmosphere.
- myaccountonhn 4y ago> it's wreaked social & ecological havoc in multiple south American countries with dried up rivers, gangs and lack of diversification of the income of a country. The produce to feed the cattle is often detrimental to the environment too. They're not cutting down rain forests in Brazil to produce soy for meat substitutes but rather for produce to feed animals. But it's absolutely important to eat local and if you're gonna eat meat ensure that the animal was fed local produce too.
- arlcode 4y agoI live in a quite progressive modern city (in central Europe though) and at least here it can't be very widespread as I've never noticed anything like that. I've got a few friends who are vegan but it's mostly me doing the questioning as I'm curious about developments in that field (and agtech)
- deepsun 4y agoCampaigning (for anything) is good, I see nothing wrong about it. Active people will (and should) win, that's the law of nature.
- profeaturo 4y agoWe’re only a few disasters away from the government deciding that the climate crisis requires drastic measures, including a severe rationing of meat and other products considered harmful to the environment. It’s clear from the rhetoric that this is the direction we are moving in, and it’s also clear that a great percentage of the population will comply and even celebrate such restrictions.
- rebuilder 4y agoMaybe it’s time we take action to reduce the severity of the crisis before we end up in the scenario you describe.
- profeaturo 4y agoInstitutional science is politics. It’s no longer possible to systemically create the kind of feedback loop necessary to take any kind of intelligent action, nor is there political will. It’s far more politically expedient in the near term for the powers that be to say that whatever measures they’ve implemented do in fact work and then let the networked tribe punish anyone who dissents.
- jna_sh 4y agoI can’t walk about in public wearing a mask for any length of time without getting harassed, despite the continued prevalence of COVID and the worsening picture regarding long term consequences. I have trouble believing “it’s clear” that a great percentage of the population will comply, I think the handling of the early lockdowns has done for that. It seems more clear to me that governments will struggle to get compliance for any such measures at scale, based on attitudes since.
- hammyhavoc 4y agoWhere do you live? I walk around with a mask in the UK with zero issues, same with my partner and family.
- deepsun 4y ago
- ben_w 4y ago100 years is a long time, if they're not seriously considering it, they should. That timeline is long enough to also include the serious possibility of basically any weird currently-just-Sci-Fi option: https://youtu.be/Z_ZGq8Tah0k https://youtu.be/Z_ZGq8Tah0k
- whywhywhywhy 4y agoIf you could remove meat from the supply chain and be the main supplier for the alternative, why wouldn’t you choose to profit from that? The upside for the politicians and suppliers seems too astronomical not to be at least thinking about it.
- nasmorn 4y agoIf you don’t buy them from very traditional read very expensive producers it is also very unnatural. Animals are simply used as self replacing bio reactors that are fed the cheapest inputs like grain and animal remains. Even the vitamin d in milk is mostly there because you just supplement the animals. I visit a small farm on vacation a few times a year and they have a bunch of chicken running around. I have no qualms eating their eggs, they are not even slaughtered in most cases as the fox eats them first. They also have a dozen cows on their meadow. But let’s not pretend that is where most animal products come from.
- nibbleshifter 4y agoIn many parts of Europe buying from the traditional local style of producer is the cheaper way to buy animal products. Supermarket meats often contain a fair bit of water weight IME.
- Eduard 4y ago> In many parts of Europe buying from the traditional local style of producer is the cheaper way to buy animal products. Burden of proof here
- nibbleshifter 4y agoSo in Ireland, supermarket meat is cheap, but usually higher in fat and "wetter". Still decent meat, but you are paying for water IME. At the butcher I pay only slightly more, I know exactly which farm it came from, I know where it was slaughtered and processed, and I can ask for specific cuts/amounts, so less wastage. Its also much higher quality and not as "wet", so its much nicer to cook with (and I'm not paying for water weight). I've saved a metric shitload on my monthly food shopping by using the butchers and greengrocers in my area instead of the supermarkets.
- aaron695 4y ago[dead]
- waihtis 4y agoSame. No-one has yet been able to explain why I should exchange a well-functioning animal-based diet into a vegan one where I need to supplement by default to fulfill human needs. I have respect for those who do it on the basis of animal compassion, but claiming healthiness is obviously a false statement.
- ben_w 4y agoCan't speak for you personally, but the average human today has an unhealthy diet since well before the recent popularity surge of vegan-by-choice in the west, so I don't accept "well-functioning animal-based diet" as a general premise even if you personally can make it work.
- waihtis 4y agoIf you have a bad diet and you remove a significant source of protein and other nutrients from it, how is it a better diet?
- ben_w 4y agoI believe the name for what you're doing there is "begging the question". Vegan diets generally have protein and other nutrients.
- waihtis 4y agoto my original point: > why I should exchange a well-functioning animal-based diet into a vegan one where I need to supplement by default to fulfill human needs applies also in the protein domain, seeing how vegan protein sources lack or have minimal concentrations of some essential amino acids, for instance
- ben_w 4y agoThat issue basically only happens if you eat exactly one plant, not if you eat at least two, because different plants miss different amino acids and most protein rich plants have most amino acids and the differences overlap nicely. This is so easy you're probably doing it already even as a meat eater: Mexican chilli with rice? Beans and rice compensate for each other's weaknesses. Peanut butter on bread? Peanuts and wheat cover each other. There are some things that are technically complete by themselves, but mycoprotein (Quorn) which I think is complete, isn't available for purchase everywhere. Conversely if you do single-foodsource-diet with meat, you can also get problems, most famously protein poisoning and scurvy.
- archon1410 4y ago[flagged]
- ihatepython 4y agoIf we run out of plant food sources, the omnivores can simply eat the vegans. In nature, there is a food chain.
- archon1410 4y agoIt seems you don't understand how this "foodchain" works—there will be nothing, no non-human or human animal, to eat if "we" run of out plant food sources. Everything consumed ultimately comes from plants.