5 ms·

Given that there are significantly cheaper, healthier and more efficient alternatives to eating animals isn't it more accurate to say that they're feeding the a

• andriy_koval 6mo ago
  > Given that there are significantly cheaper, healthier and more efficient alternatives to eating animals this statement is very disputable. What alternatives are available in your opinion?
  • Teever 6mo ago
    Producing and eating less animals. I don’t mean to sound glib but that’s all there is to it. The juice from animal husbandry just isn’t worth the squeeze if you look at the cascading consequences of environmental and health consequences of a meat heavy diet. I eat meat. A lot of meat. Far too much, but I acknowledge that it isn’t good and that I need to change.
    • andriy_koval 6mo ago
      > health consequences of a meat heavy diet. my research and lots of experiments on myself say that there are positive consequences, and there is no much negative consequences if focus on lean unprocessed meat. As for "cascading consequences of environmental", I also think there is a way to grow meat with reduced consequences.
      • Teever 6mo ago
        This is very true, but unfortuantely most people don't have portion control and they don't eat the right lean unprocessed meat. I'm skeptical that we can grow meat with significantly reduced environmental consequences. Like unless you're talking about some technologically advanced and not yet ready for mass production lab grown meat kind of thing it will always be more ecologically friendly and cheaper to just grow food that humans eat instead of growing food for animals to eat which are then eaten by animals. That thermodynamic reality just isn't going to change.