4 ms·
You mean mostly meat and some plants.
by EC1 13y ago
You mean mostly meat and some plants.
- rsl7 13y agoNo. Nobody means mostly meat.
- sethammons 13y agoAside from, you know, those that do. Like the Inuit. According sourced material via Wikipedia, due to the complete and utter lack of any formal agriculture, "[t]raditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30-35% from protein and 15-20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed." Tubers, berries, seaweed and the like make up very little of their diet. From the intro on Wikipedia: According to Edmund Searles in his article "Food and the Making of Modern Inuit Identities," they consume this type of diet because a mostly meat diet is "effective in keeping the body warm, making the body strong, keeping the body fit, and even making that body healthy".
- rsl7 13y agoSo a diet of mostly wild caught raw meat. Sounds totally doable.
- oneeyedpigeon 13y agoHealth aside, for reasons of sustainability, I think that's a bad idea.
- gress 13y agoOnce health is aside, so is sustainability.
- garrettgrimsley 13y agoNo, while the length of the human lifespan consuming a certain product might be reduced the environmental impact that the person's diet had remains. Meat production has very real environmental impacts.[1] Switching to a vegetarian diet, or even to a meat that consumes less resources to produce[3], drastically reduces one's environmental impact.[2] Meat consumption also has direct fiscal impacts by way of the increased cost of treatment for those that consume meat. If the price of grain increases because of an increased demand for meat then the world's poor will be the ones most negatively impacted.[4] Disclaimer: I currently consume all forms of meat, including beef. [1] https://woods.stanford.edu/environmental-venture-projects/consequences-increased-global-meat-consumption-global-environment https://woods.stanford.edu/environmental-venture-projects/co... [2] http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS09-05.pdf http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS09-05.pdf [3] http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-80... [4] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.htm...
- gress 13y agoI see that you are convinced that meat consumption is detrimental to health. Also health and lifespan are not the same thing.
- garrettgrimsley 13y agoMy post was addressed at your claim that "Once health is aside, so is sustainability." I believe that I it made clear that this is not the case. Your view is myopic and selfish, as it ignores the very real effects that a meat-eater diet has on other humans and the environment. I did not imply that health and lifespan are the same, and I even addressed them separately. My beliefs are based in well-documented evidence. Eating meat has a strong positive correlation with increased healthcare costs.[1] Whether or not meat has a negative impact on health only has a bearing on the costs of healthcare for meat-eaters, which is a minor point that I mentioned as an aside. It does not have a bearing on the environmental impacts of a meat-eater diet. You are nitpicking minor details of my post. Perhaps instead of vaguely implying that I'm mistaken you should produce evidence that contradicts me. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2012/03/12/bad-news-for-red-meat-lovers/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2012/03/12/bad-news-...
- WalterSear 13y agoAlso bad for health.
- ekianjo 13y ago> sustainability, I think that's a bad idea. Does not look like it. Humanity and Meat production have scaled pretty well in the 20th century. And we have way less food shortages that we have ever had before.