10 ms·

People are kinda stupid when it comes to eating meat. The current scale of meat consumption [1] is just mind boggling. Yet even this comment has to be a throwaw

People are kinda stupid when it comes to eating meat. The current scale of meat consumption [1] is just mind boggling. Yet even this comment has to be a throwaway because people can't handle someone telling them they shouldn't eat meat 2x a day. It's bad for the environment, it's bad for individual health, it's bad for collective health (breeding drug resistance and causing pandemics), and all that is before we even talk about the mass scale of needless suffering inflicted on other sentient beings. I don't know what the solution is, because as soon as you mention eating less meat people laugh at you or get super defensive. "What, do you care about the animals?" is something I've had people say to me in all seriousness. When I gave it up it felt similar to giving up cigarettes, you get depressed and feel exiled from a joy you used to share with others. But that's what addiction does to you and once you get to the other side you wonder how you even participated in such negative behavior in the first place. My fantasy solution is everyone needs to go get a meat consumption license by going to a farm and killing an animal with a knife in their hands every, say, 10 years. If you can't do it, then you have no business participating in consuming it. Bonus points if you're a regular hunter. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/animals-slaughtered-for-meat https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/animals-slaughtered-for-m...

typicalrunt 3y ago
> People are kinda stupid when it comes to eating meat. The current scale of meat consumption [1] is just mind boggling. Yet even this comment has to be a throwaway because people can't handle someone telling them they shouldn't eat meat 2x a day. I'm sensing a lack of empathy in this comment. Calling people stupid or attaching any label to them will only hinder your attempt to sway their minds. Portraying black and white thinking (splitting), when we know the world is shades of grey, also hinders your ability to change minds. It's great that you found benefits to moving to a non-meat diet. This helps others see what they could benefit from. Continue from here.
- bogle 3y ago
  I don't think the OP was trying to sway minds when they described meat consumption as stupid, they were simply stating the obvious.
  - gropo3 3y ago
    [dead]
  - bluefirebrand 3y ago
    There is absolutely no call for this.
- beedeebeedee 3y ago
  This is the same issue as an abolitionist speaking to a slaveholder. The moral problem is so overwhelming for the abolitionist that it is exceedingly frustrating, difficult and ineffective trying to persuade the slaveholder. > I'm sensing a lack of empathy in this comment That is what is frustrating- to have to show more empathy for the feelings of the slaveholder than the slaveholder has for their slaves.
  - kelipso 3y ago
    Lol, I get what you're saying but comparing meat eating to slavery makes you seem even more unreasonable.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      If — and I recognise that it is an "if" given the current lack of any sufficient testable definition of subjective consciousness awareness of self — if farm animals are self-aware, then slavery would be several steps up from their current existence. We only stopped feeding cows to other cows because of a fear humans might get prion diseases. Coming at it from the other direction, "what if humans were food?" is a horror trope, be it vampires, zombies, werewolves, or psychopath cannibals.
    - beedeebeedee 3y ago
      > comparing meat eating to slavery makes you seen even more unreasonable I think that is an attitude that our culture will be ashamed of in the near future, just like we are ashamed of slavery now. The agricultural practices are almost identical (different mammal). The major difference is that we consume the flesh of one, and the produce of another. The only reason for saying that the enslavement of other animals is ok, while the enslavement of humans is not, is if we can come up with a reason that makes us special and those other animals not. There is only shaky ground for any of those possible reasons, and believing them puts blinders on what we can know. I.e., we will not recognize things that do not fit our conceptions, which has big implications for our biological science, psychology and philosophy. The fact is that meat eating, like slavery, is not reasonable. It is just something we grew up doing (individually and as a species). Any argument advocating it is as superficial and misleading as antebellum racial theorists. That is an uncomfortable truth.
- goaheaddownvote 3y ago
  I'm not trying to sway any minds, the majority of people aren't going to change their meat consumption habits at all and honestly I'm fine with that. I never said in my comment that everyone should be vegetarian. Being vegetarian requires a lot of thoughtfulness, especially if you're at all athletic (I train muay thai and ashtanga yoga), and most people don't have the time for it (or think they don't). People become exceedingly defensive when they're asked to confront the reality of their habits, and honestly I think it's probably too much for people to even begin to consider. I have deep empathy for that as a fellow human as I've been through it too and have experienced both sides of it multiple times (meat eating -> veg -> meat eating -> and now back to veg for good).
- pasquinelli 3y ago
  imagine they were talking the same way about something you're not so sensitive about, something you agree with them on.
andersentobias 3y ago
> My fantasy solution is everyone needs to go get a meat consumption license by going to a farm and killing an animal with a knife in their hands every, say, 10 years. I have heard this repeated from so many vegans / animal activists at this point, including my own sister. Where did you get it from? Who is the original author? I am seriously asking. An argument involving only my individual health (I am into fitness stuff) plus effect on the environment - repeated enough times - would sway me. To be completely honest: I do not appreciate being told that I am an immoral human being for X (X = eating meat). Been told that too many times already during my lifetime. It is a cultural constant. That formula is just too tiresome to hear yet again at this point.
- CaptainNegative 3y ago
  I don't get it. In most circumstances, if one doesn't want to be called immoral for performing an objectively cruel act, the standard course of action would be to stop doing it. Why would one who inflicts or remunerates mistreatment, slavery, and death upon animals expect to be shielded from criticism on the count of it potentially hurting their feelings?
  - flatline 3y ago
    There’s a huge difference between killing animals and eating their meat. Likewise there’s a world of difference between industrial scale livestock and smaller, organic, free-range farming - on many levels. Yes, animal slaughter is require for meat production, and by eating meat we contribute to said slaughter. But there’s a ton of nuance in between, and people know this. It’s a really disingenuous argument to pretend these are exactly the same thing from an ethical standpoint. In Buddhist ethics, for example, intention is key: monks cannot kill an animal but they may eat meat if offered. People who cry about the moral or ethical basis of some decision often make uninformed arguments believing an issue is black and white. Ethics is gray all the way down.
    - callalex 3y ago
      Until technology advances thee is only one way to make meat: by killing a living creature. You do not get to just remove that step from the conversation because you don’t like it. There is no “huge difference” when the action is a required part of producing meat.
ericmcer 3y ago
I 100% agree with you in most regards (including being able to kill what you eat), but I don't think meat is bad for individual health. I recently did just 3 weeks of a carnivore diet as an experiment and it was boggling how much it affected my strength and recovery. Vegan and vegetarian both have had immediate negative impacts on recovery, even when supplementing protein and other vitamins. From an altruistic perspective yeah, do not touch meat, but it does have health benefits that I have not been able to replicate with vegetarian alternatives. Also a throwaway to say "eating meat is bad?" that isn't a crazy controversial stance haha.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > Also a throwaway to say "eating meat is bad?" that isn't a crazy controversial stance haha. Can't speak for op, but it feels like 50% of the times I bring it up here, even when trying to be careful, my comment fades into low contrast…
- throwaway4PP 3y ago
  Seeing this response so high up makes me a bit sad. There's a lot of ways to eat vegetarian, and all the ones that I can think of that require supplementing protein and vitamins are unhealthy. It should be obvious that eating a way that "had immediate negative impacts on recovery" indicates that what you're eating is not healthy. You see this with a lot of omnivores, they try cutting meat out of their diet and complain. But, the thing is, an omnivore diet without meat is a deficient diet. It sounds a bit intimidating but you really have to rebuild the way you eat if you've been eating meat. Cultures that have a vegetarian tradition (even if not described as such) provide a rich tapestry of foods to make a healthy diet rich in protein and vitamins. Ethiopian, Persian, Indian, Sri Lankian; these are just some of the cultures a successful and healthy vegetarian will take inspiration from. Eat like a world traveler and you can forgo meat without being unhealthy. Quick list of good protein-rich ingredients across cultures: Mushroom Quinoa Eggs Halloumi Chickpeas Green/brown/red lentils Peas Paneer Yoghurt Walnuts/almonds/sunflower seeds/pistachios And forget stews. Roast, broil, saute, crisp, brown! There are flavors unlocked by the family of Maillard reactions - the technical name for the chemical reactions that give rise to browning - that we associate with meat but are common to the process of roasting. Savory vegetarian food is a thing.
yesco 3y ago
Overuse of antibiotics in livestock is certainly a problem, but this is also true for many of the pesticides we use for plant farming and our lack of standardized irrigation water testing (in the US) which has lead to issues like the recent E. Coli outbreak in lettuce. In general modern farming of all kinds has issues that need to be addressed, I don't see any exclusivity in the meat category. I will continue eating meat, I believe it is *good* for both individual health and collective health. In fact the amount of vegans I've met in life who didn't look like they were suffering from some illness has been very rare, only solidifying my position on this. I'm comfortable with meat prices going up if it resolves the antibiotics issue, but I'm unconvinced by the moral arguments you disguise as health arguments.
- foxyv 3y ago
  Every Vegan I know either looks like an underwear model or an athlete. Doesn't mean that all of them are like that though. Although being Vegan definitely stops you from eating at most horrible fast food places. Whenever someone asks me if I feel healthier since cutting out meat I just say "Beer is Vegan." The moral arguments are pretty solid though. The amount of rainforest currently being clear cut to make way for cattle is insane. Ecosystem destruction is being fueled heavily by the demand for meat products. The US used to be covered in huge forests that were clear cut for cattle, way before any of us were born. Use of antibiotics is just one more aspect of why we should probably cut back heavily on beef. The pricing does a good job of this, but I would encourage meat eaters to reduce consumption of beef products as much as possible. Maybe make it an occasional treat instead of the main course of every meal.
  - stametseater 3y ago
    > Every Vegan I know either looks like an underwear model or an athlete That sounds like the vegetarians I know. The vegans I know look like cancer patients.
    - tired-turtle 3y ago
      Veganism can act as cover for disordered eating; perhaps that is what you have observed. Related, I know many “vegetarians” who are what I call effective vegans, meaning they eat vegan ~90% of the time, recognizing purity as a pointless pursuit.
giantg2 3y ago
"I don't know what the solution is" I'll get hate for my comment too, but the answer is less people. Resource consumption (for multiple resources) and freedom are competing interests. You have to trade freedom to restrict resource consumption. But even if you do that for this topic (meat). You have to look at the secondary effects and still need to do that for other topics to make any impact. For example, if you do away with meat, you would also have to do away with egg, milk, etc products. In some cases these products are used in things like formula, vaccines, etc. Every alternative has some trade-off too. Some may be better, some may be worse. If you're still producing eggs or milk for these other purposes, then you still have meat as a byproduct. You'll also end up with people raising their own, which is less efficient and possibly worse for the environment if done on a mass scale. Certainly worse for health impacts is done illicitly in high density areas. I do agree that there are many people who are disconnected from their meat source, among other things (eg people who think hunting is cruel but happily eat mass produced meat, or want their almonds/almond milk). I'm not sure licensing will really fix that. Either it had to come with a wide restriction to local only production to remove many environmental issues and force people to see production issues more visibly, or we slowly reduce population so we can maintain our desired lifestyles. My estimate is that we will see restrictions in historical freedoms and economic pressures on everyday activities. This will led to some natural reduction in population. But it will be precarious because there will be people who don't agree with the restrictions or nations willing to fight for resources. Edit: If you're going to disagree, please say why. Specifically, why is it not true that reducing resource consumption to truly sustainable levels won't require lifestyle restriction or a population decline? And not just that some unknown future tech will save us from out current situation.
glitchc 3y ago
Why is meat bad for individual health? Citation?
- arboghast 3y ago
  It isn’t, in fact it’s more nutrient dense per calories than vegetables and legumes and rich in amino-acids necessary to maintain muscle mass which is increasingly important as you age. It’s just something the anti-meat crowd parade, while omitting that: - These beliefs come from epidemiological studies without regards for other life habits such as smoking or dietary choices such as sugar intake. - Often when saying meat is bad, what is actually referred to is processed meat packed with salt and nitrites. Eating chicken, pork or beef that you buy raw and cook yourself is healthy. How much you eat of anything matters too. Don’t eat anything in excess and move.
  - hombre_fatal 3y ago
    > more nutrient dense per calories than vegetables I'm not sure how this meme started, but it's not actually true. You can plug foods into Cronometer.com and see for yourself. e.g. carrots (vitamin A) or kale (vitamin K1) give you the RDA with few calories. I mean, the cocoa powder I added to my smoothie this morning had 100% RDA copper and 45% RDA iron in 57 calories. Similarly, plants and plant-based foods have full amino profiles. Once again, plug anything from soy beans or even broccoli into Cronometer.com and look at the amino acid breakdown. These are some really ancient wives tales about vegetables. > These beliefs come from epidemiological studies without regards for other life habits such as smoking or dietary choices such as sugar intake. This isn't true. Tracking and multivariate adjustment are standard fare for epi studies.
    - arboghast 3y ago
      It's not a meme. If you look at research that look at foods rich in micronutrients, you'll see that meat covers most of them. For example, yes Kale is rich in calcium and vitamin K than meat in general, but beef, pork or chicken covers a higher ratio of micronutrients than Kale. Obviously, one should not only eat meat. But the point was that meat itself does not make you sick (unless in excess, like anything). > Similarly, plants and plant-based foods have full amino profiles. Once again, plug anything from soy beans or even broccoli into Cronometer.com and look at the amino acid breakdown. Full amino acid profile doesn't mean that it contains the same amount, it just means that it's present. Moreover, nutrient absorption is often lower with vegetables than with meat. Again, not saying one should not eat vegetables. One definitely should eat fruits and vegetables. But it's clear that lacking meat in one diet has long term consequences that reveals itself later in life.
yosito 3y ago
> causing pandemics Which pandemic was caused by people eating meat? Much of what you said is true, but some of it is a stretch, and taken altogether it seems like an exaggeration.
- Pxtl 3y ago
  Literally the current one? I mean yes there's the lab leak theory, but still the common explanation is that it first jumped the species gap at a meat market.
- goaheaddownvote 3y ago
  As another comment mentioned, the one we just lived through where I had to be inside for 2 years. It came from a live meat market.
  - yosito 3y ago
    That's so far from being decisively proven that I genuinely forgot it was one of the theories.
- CatWChainsaw 3y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if we get a sufficiently human-transmissible avian flu pandemic within the decade, given how many non-avians the current strain has been killing in addition to birds.
bheadmaster 3y ago
I like meat. Vegetables just don't cut it. Eating meat is one of the few pleasures in my life, and I'm not willing to give it up for some vague ideal. I'd assume a lot of people think the same way. It could be considered somewhat arrogant to demand everyone to give up their personal pleasures for something you believe in. We could solve all world's problems by collectively killing ourselves, but obviously we don't want to do that. Giving up things is somewhere on the spectrum between giving up our life and not giving up anything. Who gets to decide where the line is for everyone?
- goaheaddownvote 3y ago
  I'll just keep saying it in this thread, but not once did I say everyone should give up meat. In fact I said go at it, go hunt and kill and eat it! But the fact that people feel defensive whenever the thought of vegetarianism comes up to me points to the fact that deep down people on an individual level know that it is, to some degree, wrong.
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    You called for introducing meat eating license, which would introduce friction and make people eat less meat. The end game is the same, the mechanism is different. > But the fact that people feel defensive whenever the thought of vegetarianism comes up to me points to the fact that deep down people on an individual level know that it is, to some degree, wrong. Maybe. Or maybe people just feel discomfort because of all the people who are trying to dictate to them what they can and cannot eat.
    - goaheaddownvote 3y ago
      [dead]
    - qqqwerty 3y ago
      No one is forcing you to give up meat, and no one is forcing you to engage in this thread. The status quo of meat consumption is firmly entrenched in our society and if anything getting stronger (see the rise of the carnivore diet for example) and yet when someone on the internet seriously believes in the opposite and laments the hopelessness of the situation, they get bombarded by dozens of meat eaters with comments about how vegans look sick, meat is essential, etc... Can you not see where the OP is coming from? Do you have any sympathy towards them? They seriously believe that meat eating is wrong, and yet when the mention that on the internet in a thread about antibiotic overuse, they got bombarded by pro-meat commenters.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
VoodooJuJu 3y ago
>It's bad for the environment Burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment. A cow eating grass and dying is not. The part of meat production that's bad for the environment is the machinery used to transport and process the meat. Grain, legumes, and vegetable farming also use machinery for transportation and processing. Outside of that, animals and plants are all part of a carbon-neutral cycle, so long as the plants aren't fertilized with Haber-Bosch excrement. >it's bad for individual health This is nearly 100% certainly wrong. We can say with nearly 100% certainty that a human being cannot thrive without regularly eating meat, or at least dairy or eggs. This is evidenced by human beings having eaten meat for millions of years. Eating meat is Lindy. Million-year-old Lindy things, especially biological things like diet, are robust, resilient, antifragile. Diet is a solved problem. It was solved over millions of years of humans, their predecessors, and their extinct offshoots trying and testing various foods/diets. The ones who survived ate and continue to eat meat. Guess what happened to the other ones. >I don't know what the solution is, because as soon as you mention eating less meat people laugh at you or get super defensive Less is pretty relative, and there is no solution, because there is no problem. It's understandable people are going to get defensive when you attack their means to life. Just eat how your ancestors ate. For a Northern European, that means a lot of milk and meat. If you're Mediterranean, follow the Greek Orthodox tradition - periodic meat and vegetable eating. If you're an Eskimo, eat a bunch of fish.
- lkbm 3y ago
  > We can say with nearly 100% certainty that a human being cannot thrive without regularly eating meat, or at least dairy or eggs. This is evidenced by human beings having eaten meat for millions of years. Uh...your second sentence is evidence that you can thrive while regularly eating meat, but not evidence that you can't thrive without it. Meanwhile, your first sentence entails that there's no such thing as a thriving vegan. Maybe eating meat is natural, and healthy, and moral, but you might want to limit your arguments to those that don't deny basic observable facts.
MrMan 3y ago
[dead]
FooBarWidget 3y ago
> My fantasy solution is everyone needs to go get a meat consumption license by going to a farm and killing an animal with a knife in their hands every, say, 10 years That's not a solution. My grandmother's generation (, Chinese) has extensive experience with slaughtering animals. That generation still likes and craves meat. You might have people who chicken out in the short term, but in a couple of years getting a butcher license will become normalized and you're back at square 1.
- goaheaddownvote 3y ago
  That's great! People should be in touch with the foods that they eat, preferably ones that they raise and aren't kept in nightmarish conditions on factory farms. If people in my completely made up fantasy world eat tons of meat then that's fine too, but I do have a suspicion that many people wouldn't be so fine with doing it. I personally could not, so I don't eat animals.
booleandilemma 3y ago
Hi, I'm seeing a lot of people misunderstanding and/or disagreeing with your points so I just wanted to say that I agree with you. I've always liked the taste of meat, but the older I've gotten, the more the idea of killing something, and then consuming it, has increasingly bothered me. It has led me to try stretches of vegetarianism over the past couple years. I definitely wouldn't be able to kill an animal with a knife, unless I was starving. I do agree that part of the problem is that the eating of animals has become so abstracted away (i.e. chicken tenders) that most people aren't even truly aware of what it is they're doing. I like the knife + license idea.
concordDance 3y ago
Downvoting because you insult people without providing the required citations, even though I somewhat agree. Also, this really doesn't work at all: My fantasy solution is everyone needs to go get a meat consumption license by going to a farm and killing an animal with a knife in their hands every, say, 10 years. Humans used to do that for hundreds of thousands of years.
Adverblessly 3y ago
> It's bad for the environment If you are worried about carbon emissions, just tax them directly and use that money to offset them. If meat then becomes uneconomical, then I guess that's that and people will reduce their consumption accordingly. Though honestly I suspect that if we did that we'll magically find new ways to farm meat that will be less carbon intensive (which is just another reason to do it). > it's bad for individual health Eating more meat has actually been great for my individual health, since it has a low glycemic index and high satiation per calorie. Thanks to all the weight I've lost my blood pressure and cholesterol have both really improved. It would've been almost impossible for me without meat. > it's bad for collective health (breeding drug resistance and causing pandemics) That sounds like a case for banning antibiotics in agriculture, not for not eating meat. > and all that is before we even talk about the mass scale of needless suffering inflicted on other sentient beings. I don't mean to sound offensive here, but I suspect that this is the only reason people that care about this actually care about, since every other reason brought out just ends up feeling like an excuse brought forth to strengthen this position even though the solution doesn't actually require forgoing meat. > My fantasy solution is everyone needs to go get a meat consumption license by going to a farm and killing an animal with a knife in their hands every, say, 10 years. If you can't do it, then you have no business participating in consuming it. Bonus points if you're a regular hunter. At the very least you'd have to make an exception for people who are too old/weak/disabled to do it themselves. Also a problem for Kashrut since an animal killed that way would not be Kosher. I believe it would not be Halal either.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Vecr 3y ago
> My fantasy solution is everyone needs to go get a meat consumption license by going to a farm and killing an animal with a knife in their hands every, say, 10 years. If you can't do it, then you have no business participating in consuming it. Bonus points if you're a regular hunter. I'd do it if I could use a gun or a captive bolt pistol, but I've been knocked over by large animals before and I assume they would get more aggressive if they think you are trying to kill them. A farm animal can't pull the trigger of a gun, but they could push a knife back on you. I have body armor and a helmet so I would be wearing them.
Prickle 3y ago
Unfortunately, there are people like my friends who specifically have dietary restrictions forcing them onto Keto (meat) diets. So the "it's bad for individual health" falls apart in the face of a diverse human population. The fantasy solution would probably end in them starving to death, or make them victims of Chronic Unscheduled Intestinal Liquidation. Also, just from an animal cruelty standpoint. Making an amateur kill a live animal, with a knife? That is just incredibly cruel and unethical. I don't think that idea is compatible with the philosophy you espoused earlier. I've been to a camp that made us do that for dinner. It was messy and prolonged the animal's suffering. Some of our more religious fellows also refused to eat it, since the culling wasn't done properly in accordance to their beliefs.
- stcroixx 3y ago
  The specific choice of a knife would definitely increase suffering compared to the more humane standard methods used in small and large scale agriculture. What’s the point here, to make someone inflict pain and suffering as punishment for the transgression of eating meat? If the point is to gross someone out, have them field dress or gut for a few hours.
rendaw 3y ago
Why shouldn't people eat meat 2x a day? The graph you posted seems very reasonable compared to the world population. That's around 10 chickens a person per year, and chickens are one of the most efficient farmed animals per gram of protein. The USDA recommends 65g of protein for me per day per https://www.nal.usda.gov/human-nutrition-and-food-safety/dri-calculator https://www.nal.usda.gov/human-nutrition-and-food-safety/dri... . That's around 200g of cooked chicken, which I'd obviously split into multiple meals and mix with other foods. And other foods don't come close in amount of protein, I'd have to replace vegetables or other things with eggs/yogurt which is not obviously a good move. Edit: A 1.4kg chicken yields 600g cooked meat, so that's a chicken every 3 days. That's around 100 chickens a year for me, personally.
- KptMarchewa 3y ago
  Aren't chickens closer to 3kg now?

typicalrunt 3y ago

> People are kinda stupid when it comes to eating meat. The current scale of meat consumption [1] is just mind boggling. Yet even this comment has to be a throwaway because people can't handle someone telling them they shouldn't eat meat 2x a day. I'm sensing a lack of empathy in this comment. Calling people stupid or attaching any label to them will only hinder your attempt to sway their minds. Portraying black and white thinking (splitting), when we know the world is shades of grey, also hinders your ability to change minds. It's great that you found benefits to moving to a non-meat diet. This helps others see what they could benefit from. Continue from here.

bogle 3y ago
I don't think the OP was trying to sway minds when they described meat consumption as stupid, they were simply stating the obvious.
- gropo3 3y ago
  [dead]
- bluefirebrand 3y ago
  There is absolutely no call for this.
beedeebeedee 3y ago
This is the same issue as an abolitionist speaking to a slaveholder. The moral problem is so overwhelming for the abolitionist that it is exceedingly frustrating, difficult and ineffective trying to persuade the slaveholder. > I'm sensing a lack of empathy in this comment That is what is frustrating- to have to show more empathy for the feelings of the slaveholder than the slaveholder has for their slaves.
- kelipso 3y ago
  Lol, I get what you're saying but comparing meat eating to slavery makes you seem even more unreasonable.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    If — and I recognise that it is an "if" given the current lack of any sufficient testable definition of subjective consciousness awareness of self — if farm animals are self-aware, then slavery would be several steps up from their current existence. We only stopped feeding cows to other cows because of a fear humans might get prion diseases. Coming at it from the other direction, "what if humans were food?" is a horror trope, be it vampires, zombies, werewolves, or psychopath cannibals.
  - beedeebeedee 3y ago
    > comparing meat eating to slavery makes you seen even more unreasonable I think that is an attitude that our culture will be ashamed of in the near future, just like we are ashamed of slavery now. The agricultural practices are almost identical (different mammal). The major difference is that we consume the flesh of one, and the produce of another. The only reason for saying that the enslavement of other animals is ok, while the enslavement of humans is not, is if we can come up with a reason that makes us special and those other animals not. There is only shaky ground for any of those possible reasons, and believing them puts blinders on what we can know. I.e., we will not recognize things that do not fit our conceptions, which has big implications for our biological science, psychology and philosophy. The fact is that meat eating, like slavery, is not reasonable. It is just something we grew up doing (individually and as a species). Any argument advocating it is as superficial and misleading as antebellum racial theorists. That is an uncomfortable truth.
goaheaddownvote 3y ago
I'm not trying to sway any minds, the majority of people aren't going to change their meat consumption habits at all and honestly I'm fine with that. I never said in my comment that everyone should be vegetarian. Being vegetarian requires a lot of thoughtfulness, especially if you're at all athletic (I train muay thai and ashtanga yoga), and most people don't have the time for it (or think they don't). People become exceedingly defensive when they're asked to confront the reality of their habits, and honestly I think it's probably too much for people to even begin to consider. I have deep empathy for that as a fellow human as I've been through it too and have experienced both sides of it multiple times (meat eating -> veg -> meat eating -> and now back to veg for good).
pasquinelli 3y ago
imagine they were talking the same way about something you're not so sensitive about, something you agree with them on.

andersentobias 3y ago

> My fantasy solution is everyone needs to go get a meat consumption license by going to a farm and killing an animal with a knife in their hands every, say, 10 years. I have heard this repeated from so many vegans / animal activists at this point, including my own sister. Where did you get it from? Who is the original author? I am seriously asking. An argument involving only my individual health (I am into fitness stuff) plus effect on the environment - repeated enough times - would sway me. To be completely honest: I do not appreciate being told that I am an immoral human being for X (X = eating meat). Been told that too many times already during my lifetime. It is a cultural constant. That formula is just too tiresome to hear yet again at this point.

CaptainNegative 3y ago
I don't get it. In most circumstances, if one doesn't want to be called immoral for performing an objectively cruel act, the standard course of action would be to stop doing it. Why would one who inflicts or remunerates mistreatment, slavery, and death upon animals expect to be shielded from criticism on the count of it potentially hurting their feelings?
- flatline 3y ago
  There’s a huge difference between killing animals and eating their meat. Likewise there’s a world of difference between industrial scale livestock and smaller, organic, free-range farming - on many levels. Yes, animal slaughter is require for meat production, and by eating meat we contribute to said slaughter. But there’s a ton of nuance in between, and people know this. It’s a really disingenuous argument to pretend these are exactly the same thing from an ethical standpoint. In Buddhist ethics, for example, intention is key: monks cannot kill an animal but they may eat meat if offered. People who cry about the moral or ethical basis of some decision often make uninformed arguments believing an issue is black and white. Ethics is gray all the way down.
  - callalex 3y ago
    Until technology advances thee is only one way to make meat: by killing a living creature. You do not get to just remove that step from the conversation because you don’t like it. There is no “huge difference” when the action is a required part of producing meat.

ericmcer 3y ago

I 100% agree with you in most regards (including being able to kill what you eat), but I don't think meat is bad for individual health. I recently did just 3 weeks of a carnivore diet as an experiment and it was boggling how much it affected my strength and recovery. Vegan and vegetarian both have had immediate negative impacts on recovery, even when supplementing protein and other vitamins. From an altruistic perspective yeah, do not touch meat, but it does have health benefits that I have not been able to replicate with vegetarian alternatives. Also a throwaway to say "eating meat is bad?" that isn't a crazy controversial stance haha.

ben_w 3y ago
> Also a throwaway to say "eating meat is bad?" that isn't a crazy controversial stance haha. Can't speak for op, but it feels like 50% of the times I bring it up here, even when trying to be careful, my comment fades into low contrast…
throwaway4PP 3y ago
Seeing this response so high up makes me a bit sad. There's a lot of ways to eat vegetarian, and all the ones that I can think of that require supplementing protein and vitamins are unhealthy. It should be obvious that eating a way that "had immediate negative impacts on recovery" indicates that what you're eating is not healthy. You see this with a lot of omnivores, they try cutting meat out of their diet and complain. But, the thing is, an omnivore diet without meat is a deficient diet. It sounds a bit intimidating but you really have to rebuild the way you eat if you've been eating meat. Cultures that have a vegetarian tradition (even if not described as such) provide a rich tapestry of foods to make a healthy diet rich in protein and vitamins. Ethiopian, Persian, Indian, Sri Lankian; these are just some of the cultures a successful and healthy vegetarian will take inspiration from. Eat like a world traveler and you can forgo meat without being unhealthy. Quick list of good protein-rich ingredients across cultures: Mushroom Quinoa Eggs Halloumi Chickpeas Green/brown/red lentils Peas Paneer Yoghurt Walnuts/almonds/sunflower seeds/pistachios And forget stews. Roast, broil, saute, crisp, brown! There are flavors unlocked by the family of Maillard reactions - the technical name for the chemical reactions that give rise to browning - that we associate with meat but are common to the process of roasting. Savory vegetarian food is a thing.

yesco 3y ago

Overuse of antibiotics in livestock is certainly a problem, but this is also true for many of the pesticides we use for plant farming and our lack of standardized irrigation water testing (in the US) which has lead to issues like the recent E. Coli outbreak in lettuce. In general modern farming of all kinds has issues that need to be addressed, I don't see any exclusivity in the meat category. I will continue eating meat, I believe it is *good* for both individual health and collective health. In fact the amount of vegans I've met in life who didn't look like they were suffering from some illness has been very rare, only solidifying my position on this. I'm comfortable with meat prices going up if it resolves the antibiotics issue, but I'm unconvinced by the moral arguments you disguise as health arguments.

foxyv 3y ago
Every Vegan I know either looks like an underwear model or an athlete. Doesn't mean that all of them are like that though. Although being Vegan definitely stops you from eating at most horrible fast food places. Whenever someone asks me if I feel healthier since cutting out meat I just say "Beer is Vegan." The moral arguments are pretty solid though. The amount of rainforest currently being clear cut to make way for cattle is insane. Ecosystem destruction is being fueled heavily by the demand for meat products. The US used to be covered in huge forests that were clear cut for cattle, way before any of us were born. Use of antibiotics is just one more aspect of why we should probably cut back heavily on beef. The pricing does a good job of this, but I would encourage meat eaters to reduce consumption of beef products as much as possible. Maybe make it an occasional treat instead of the main course of every meal.
- stametseater 3y ago
  > Every Vegan I know either looks like an underwear model or an athlete That sounds like the vegetarians I know. The vegans I know look like cancer patients.
  - tired-turtle 3y ago
    Veganism can act as cover for disordered eating; perhaps that is what you have observed. Related, I know many “vegetarians” who are what I call effective vegans, meaning they eat vegan ~90% of the time, recognizing purity as a pointless pursuit.

giantg2 3y ago

"I don't know what the solution is" I'll get hate for my comment too, but the answer is less people. Resource consumption (for multiple resources) and freedom are competing interests. You have to trade freedom to restrict resource consumption. But even if you do that for this topic (meat). You have to look at the secondary effects and still need to do that for other topics to make any impact. For example, if you do away with meat, you would also have to do away with egg, milk, etc products. In some cases these products are used in things like formula, vaccines, etc. Every alternative has some trade-off too. Some may be better, some may be worse. If you're still producing eggs or milk for these other purposes, then you still have meat as a byproduct. You'll also end up with people raising their own, which is less efficient and possibly worse for the environment if done on a mass scale. Certainly worse for health impacts is done illicitly in high density areas. I do agree that there are many people who are disconnected from their meat source, among other things (eg people who think hunting is cruel but happily eat mass produced meat, or want their almonds/almond milk). I'm not sure licensing will really fix that. Either it had to come with a wide restriction to local only production to remove many environmental issues and force people to see production issues more visibly, or we slowly reduce population so we can maintain our desired lifestyles. My estimate is that we will see restrictions in historical freedoms and economic pressures on everyday activities. This will led to some natural reduction in population. But it will be precarious because there will be people who don't agree with the restrictions or nations willing to fight for resources. Edit: If you're going to disagree, please say why. Specifically, why is it not true that reducing resource consumption to truly sustainable levels won't require lifestyle restriction or a population decline? And not just that some unknown future tech will save us from out current situation.

glitchc 3y ago

Why is meat bad for individual health? Citation?

arboghast 3y ago
It isn’t, in fact it’s more nutrient dense per calories than vegetables and legumes and rich in amino-acids necessary to maintain muscle mass which is increasingly important as you age. It’s just something the anti-meat crowd parade, while omitting that: - These beliefs come from epidemiological studies without regards for other life habits such as smoking or dietary choices such as sugar intake. - Often when saying meat is bad, what is actually referred to is processed meat packed with salt and nitrites. Eating chicken, pork or beef that you buy raw and cook yourself is healthy. How much you eat of anything matters too. Don’t eat anything in excess and move.
- hombre_fatal 3y ago
  > more nutrient dense per calories than vegetables I'm not sure how this meme started, but it's not actually true. You can plug foods into Cronometer.com and see for yourself. e.g. carrots (vitamin A) or kale (vitamin K1) give you the RDA with few calories. I mean, the cocoa powder I added to my smoothie this morning had 100% RDA copper and 45% RDA iron in 57 calories. Similarly, plants and plant-based foods have full amino profiles. Once again, plug anything from soy beans or even broccoli into Cronometer.com and look at the amino acid breakdown. These are some really ancient wives tales about vegetables. > These beliefs come from epidemiological studies without regards for other life habits such as smoking or dietary choices such as sugar intake. This isn't true. Tracking and multivariate adjustment are standard fare for epi studies.
  - arboghast 3y ago
    It's not a meme. If you look at research that look at foods rich in micronutrients, you'll see that meat covers most of them. For example, yes Kale is rich in calcium and vitamin K than meat in general, but beef, pork or chicken covers a higher ratio of micronutrients than Kale. Obviously, one should not only eat meat. But the point was that meat itself does not make you sick (unless in excess, like anything). > Similarly, plants and plant-based foods have full amino profiles. Once again, plug anything from soy beans or even broccoli into Cronometer.com and look at the amino acid breakdown. Full amino acid profile doesn't mean that it contains the same amount, it just means that it's present. Moreover, nutrient absorption is often lower with vegetables than with meat. Again, not saying one should not eat vegetables. One definitely should eat fruits and vegetables. But it's clear that lacking meat in one diet has long term consequences that reveals itself later in life.

yosito 3y ago

> causing pandemics Which pandemic was caused by people eating meat? Much of what you said is true, but some of it is a stretch, and taken altogether it seems like an exaggeration.

Pxtl 3y ago
Literally the current one? I mean yes there's the lab leak theory, but still the common explanation is that it first jumped the species gap at a meat market.
goaheaddownvote 3y ago
As another comment mentioned, the one we just lived through where I had to be inside for 2 years. It came from a live meat market.
- yosito 3y ago
  That's so far from being decisively proven that I genuinely forgot it was one of the theories.
CatWChainsaw 3y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if we get a sufficiently human-transmissible avian flu pandemic within the decade, given how many non-avians the current strain has been killing in addition to birds.

bheadmaster 3y ago

I like meat. Vegetables just don't cut it. Eating meat is one of the few pleasures in my life, and I'm not willing to give it up for some vague ideal. I'd assume a lot of people think the same way. It could be considered somewhat arrogant to demand everyone to give up their personal pleasures for something you believe in. We could solve all world's problems by collectively killing ourselves, but obviously we don't want to do that. Giving up things is somewhere on the spectrum between giving up our life and not giving up anything. Who gets to decide where the line is for everyone?

goaheaddownvote 3y ago
I'll just keep saying it in this thread, but not once did I say everyone should give up meat. In fact I said go at it, go hunt and kill and eat it! But the fact that people feel defensive whenever the thought of vegetarianism comes up to me points to the fact that deep down people on an individual level know that it is, to some degree, wrong.
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  You called for introducing meat eating license, which would introduce friction and make people eat less meat. The end game is the same, the mechanism is different. > But the fact that people feel defensive whenever the thought of vegetarianism comes up to me points to the fact that deep down people on an individual level know that it is, to some degree, wrong. Maybe. Or maybe people just feel discomfort because of all the people who are trying to dictate to them what they can and cannot eat.
  - goaheaddownvote 3y ago
    [dead]
  - qqqwerty 3y ago
    No one is forcing you to give up meat, and no one is forcing you to engage in this thread. The status quo of meat consumption is firmly entrenched in our society and if anything getting stronger (see the rise of the carnivore diet for example) and yet when someone on the internet seriously believes in the opposite and laments the hopelessness of the situation, they get bombarded by dozens of meat eaters with comments about how vegans look sick, meat is essential, etc... Can you not see where the OP is coming from? Do you have any sympathy towards them? They seriously believe that meat eating is wrong, and yet when the mention that on the internet in a thread about antibiotic overuse, they got bombarded by pro-meat commenters.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

VoodooJuJu 3y ago

>It's bad for the environment Burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment. A cow eating grass and dying is not. The part of meat production that's bad for the environment is the machinery used to transport and process the meat. Grain, legumes, and vegetable farming also use machinery for transportation and processing. Outside of that, animals and plants are all part of a carbon-neutral cycle, so long as the plants aren't fertilized with Haber-Bosch excrement. >it's bad for individual health This is nearly 100% certainly wrong. We can say with nearly 100% certainty that a human being cannot thrive without regularly eating meat, or at least dairy or eggs. This is evidenced by human beings having eaten meat for millions of years. Eating meat is Lindy. Million-year-old Lindy things, especially biological things like diet, are robust, resilient, antifragile. Diet is a solved problem. It was solved over millions of years of humans, their predecessors, and their extinct offshoots trying and testing various foods/diets. The ones who survived ate and continue to eat meat. Guess what happened to the other ones. >I don't know what the solution is, because as soon as you mention eating less meat people laugh at you or get super defensive Less is pretty relative, and there is no solution, because there is no problem. It's understandable people are going to get defensive when you attack their means to life. Just eat how your ancestors ate. For a Northern European, that means a lot of milk and meat. If you're Mediterranean, follow the Greek Orthodox tradition - periodic meat and vegetable eating. If you're an Eskimo, eat a bunch of fish.

lkbm 3y ago
> We can say with nearly 100% certainty that a human being cannot thrive without regularly eating meat, or at least dairy or eggs. This is evidenced by human beings having eaten meat for millions of years. Uh...your second sentence is evidence that you can thrive while regularly eating meat, but not evidence that you can't thrive without it. Meanwhile, your first sentence entails that there's no such thing as a thriving vegan. Maybe eating meat is natural, and healthy, and moral, but you might want to limit your arguments to those that don't deny basic observable facts.

MrMan 3y ago

[dead]

FooBarWidget 3y ago

> My fantasy solution is everyone needs to go get a meat consumption license by going to a farm and killing an animal with a knife in their hands every, say, 10 years That's not a solution. My grandmother's generation (, Chinese) has extensive experience with slaughtering animals. That generation still likes and craves meat. You might have people who chicken out in the short term, but in a couple of years getting a butcher license will become normalized and you're back at square 1.

goaheaddownvote 3y ago
That's great! People should be in touch with the foods that they eat, preferably ones that they raise and aren't kept in nightmarish conditions on factory farms. If people in my completely made up fantasy world eat tons of meat then that's fine too, but I do have a suspicion that many people wouldn't be so fine with doing it. I personally could not, so I don't eat animals.

booleandilemma 3y ago

Hi, I'm seeing a lot of people misunderstanding and/or disagreeing with your points so I just wanted to say that I agree with you. I've always liked the taste of meat, but the older I've gotten, the more the idea of killing something, and then consuming it, has increasingly bothered me. It has led me to try stretches of vegetarianism over the past couple years. I definitely wouldn't be able to kill an animal with a knife, unless I was starving. I do agree that part of the problem is that the eating of animals has become so abstracted away (i.e. chicken tenders) that most people aren't even truly aware of what it is they're doing. I like the knife + license idea.

concordDance 3y ago

Downvoting because you insult people without providing the required citations, even though I somewhat agree. Also, this really doesn't work at all: My fantasy solution is everyone needs to go get a meat consumption license by going to a farm and killing an animal with a knife in their hands every, say, 10 years. Humans used to do that for hundreds of thousands of years.

Adverblessly 3y ago

> It's bad for the environment If you are worried about carbon emissions, just tax them directly and use that money to offset them. If meat then becomes uneconomical, then I guess that's that and people will reduce their consumption accordingly. Though honestly I suspect that if we did that we'll magically find new ways to farm meat that will be less carbon intensive (which is just another reason to do it). > it's bad for individual health Eating more meat has actually been great for my individual health, since it has a low glycemic index and high satiation per calorie. Thanks to all the weight I've lost my blood pressure and cholesterol have both really improved. It would've been almost impossible for me without meat. > it's bad for collective health (breeding drug resistance and causing pandemics) That sounds like a case for banning antibiotics in agriculture, not for not eating meat. > and all that is before we even talk about the mass scale of needless suffering inflicted on other sentient beings. I don't mean to sound offensive here, but I suspect that this is the only reason people that care about this actually care about, since every other reason brought out just ends up feeling like an excuse brought forth to strengthen this position even though the solution doesn't actually require forgoing meat. > My fantasy solution is everyone needs to go get a meat consumption license by going to a farm and killing an animal with a knife in their hands every, say, 10 years. If you can't do it, then you have no business participating in consuming it. Bonus points if you're a regular hunter. At the very least you'd have to make an exception for people who are too old/weak/disabled to do it themselves. Also a problem for Kashrut since an animal killed that way would not be Kosher. I believe it would not be Halal either.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Vecr 3y ago

> My fantasy solution is everyone needs to go get a meat consumption license by going to a farm and killing an animal with a knife in their hands every, say, 10 years. If you can't do it, then you have no business participating in consuming it. Bonus points if you're a regular hunter. I'd do it if I could use a gun or a captive bolt pistol, but I've been knocked over by large animals before and I assume they would get more aggressive if they think you are trying to kill them. A farm animal can't pull the trigger of a gun, but they could push a knife back on you. I have body armor and a helmet so I would be wearing them.

Prickle 3y ago

Unfortunately, there are people like my friends who specifically have dietary restrictions forcing them onto Keto (meat) diets. So the "it's bad for individual health" falls apart in the face of a diverse human population. The fantasy solution would probably end in them starving to death, or make them victims of Chronic Unscheduled Intestinal Liquidation. Also, just from an animal cruelty standpoint. Making an amateur kill a live animal, with a knife? That is just incredibly cruel and unethical. I don't think that idea is compatible with the philosophy you espoused earlier. I've been to a camp that made us do that for dinner. It was messy and prolonged the animal's suffering. Some of our more religious fellows also refused to eat it, since the culling wasn't done properly in accordance to their beliefs.

stcroixx 3y ago
The specific choice of a knife would definitely increase suffering compared to the more humane standard methods used in small and large scale agriculture. What’s the point here, to make someone inflict pain and suffering as punishment for the transgression of eating meat? If the point is to gross someone out, have them field dress or gut for a few hours.

rendaw 3y ago

Why shouldn't people eat meat 2x a day? The graph you posted seems very reasonable compared to the world population. That's around 10 chickens a person per year, and chickens are one of the most efficient farmed animals per gram of protein. The USDA recommends 65g of protein for me per day per https://www.nal.usda.gov/human-nutrition-and-food-safety/dri-calculator https://www.nal.usda.gov/human-nutrition-and-food-safety/dri... . That's around 200g of cooked chicken, which I'd obviously split into multiple meals and mix with other foods. And other foods don't come close in amount of protein, I'd have to replace vegetables or other things with eggs/yogurt which is not obviously a good move. Edit: A 1.4kg chicken yields 600g cooked meat, so that's a chicken every 3 days. That's around 100 chickens a year for me, personally.

KptMarchewa 3y ago
Aren't chickens closer to 3kg now?