Why do people eat food they know isn't good for their health? Why do people continue to buy products from companies that have proven to only sell bad products or engage in scumbag practices?
It turns out in 1961 the American heart Association took bribery money from procter and gamble, who owned and sold "healthier Crisco" cooking oils that weren't high in saturated fat, like beef and other cooking oils were.
The AHA then claimed and pushed that saturated fats caused heart disease.
Problem is, something like 88% of every study done in the past 60 years has found little to no link between heart disease and saturated fats.
So beef, according to most studies, isn't bad for you. The AHA was just crooked and on the take, being paid off to sell Crisco.
Now it is calorie dense and people tend to eat too much of it, but that seems to be a lot of things. Don't eat too much or you get fat. But apparently, you don't have to worry about saturated fats being bad for you.
someone else online summarized the genetics part as the following:
Mandelian randomisation studies show that LDL-c is causative in atherogenic plaques 1 and metabolic ward RCTs show that SFA intakes increase LDL-c, while the decrease in SFAs lead to lower total and LDL-c 2.
But yes, almost all nutrition science is a bit inconclusive because of genetic variation.
Forgive me, because I'm struggling to understand the linked information, but as someone with atherosclerosis this is an issue close to my heart (ha!).
I just want to make sure I understand you.
Your link to the european heart journal says that the causal link between LDL and ASCVD is "unequivocal".
I think the WHO study says (amongst a lot of other complicated stuff) that replacing SFAs with PUFAs and MUFAs is more favourable than replacing SFAs with complex carbohydrates? The strong implication being (although I couldn't see this exactly) that higher SFA intake contributes to heart disease.
effects on the serum lipoprotein profile
of reducing SFA intake by replacing a mixture of SFA with cis-PUFA [...] or cis-MUFA [...] were more favourable than replacing SFA with a mixture of carbohydrates.
I always keep in mind the first doctor to advocate washing hands after handling corpses was laughed out of medicine and died alone in an asylum ironically enough from sepsis.
To that point, the vast majority of research on nutrition is done on the presumption carbohydrates should be the foundation of our diet. Even "low" carb diet studies with have 30% of the calories coming from simple carbs. Oddly enough, the human body works much differently and much better when you don't give it -any- sugar: https://youtu.be/cST99piL71E
I can expand, but briefly, sugar acts like a sandblaster through your heart and shreds the endothelium (the finger-things that move things in and out of the bloodstream). LDL is a repair van that drives around with cholesterol and saturated fat to repair the plaques. (HDL brings empty LDL back to the liver) The entire logic of blaming cholesterol for heart disease is like blaming bandaids for stab wounds. Doctors say eat less fat and more "healthy whole grains" (carbs) and the liver makes more cholesterol. Doctor sees cholesterol is still high because the body needs it and prescribes statins which impair production. This leads to nerve pain because it's what literally every nerve in the body is insulated with.
The problems with cholesterol stem from it sitting in the bloodstream and glycating due to prolonged sugar exposure. Sugar staying in the bloodstream is basically ketoacidosis, so clearing sugar is a priority that results in LDL gumming up and going bad, essentially.
I can expand on this, but basically the human body needs predominantly fat with some protein and actually zero carbs.
I totally agree with your comment but would like to add:
Most of the studies used to vilify Animal sourced foods are observational, based on food frequency questionnaires, the entire cohort is eating high carb, and heavily influenced by healthy patient confounders. At best these are hypothesis generating papers, they should not be used to make diet choices, or set policies.
not just genetics, wasnt there a tokyo study recently linking metabolism to the time of your conceiving? i.e. colder climates equals to slimmer people, whereas a hot climate is breeding grounds for obesity
Because I live in America and there's pretty much no public transportation.
Trust me, if I had a train, I'd fucking use that sucker. Travel into town for my weekly errands AND I don't have to deal with people not using cruise control on a highway? SIGN ME THE FUCK. UP.
Each individual is facing the following choice in life:
sacrifice to save the planet, and fail
or not
People want to immediately jump to “if everyone would just …”
Nobody is looking at an “everyone does X” button. People only have their “I do X” button available.
So that is literally the answer to your question. Very few people would sacrifice the civilization to eat a cheeseburger. But nobody has that choice or that power in their hands. Their choice is eat the cheeseburger or not, and the survival of civilization stays rigidly the same between those two choices.
Best response. Almost everyone alive has a net negative impact on the environment. Maybe that one Indian guy who planted a whole forest by himself gets a pass. We can try to be less negatively impactful depending on our inclinations, resources, and other interests and priorities. Some people may choose vegetarianism, some might buy an electric car or install some solar panels, some might organize politically for a new policy. Some might spend their altruism improving social conditions rather than focusing on the environment. But being ever so slightly less of a negative impact on the environment than your neighbour who has a slightly different set of priorities is hardly a reason to feel morally superior.
There's truth to that. None of us is free of blame, and there's always going to be a cost associated with the luxuries and comforts that many of us enjoy; but it's not about "feeling morally superior", it's about doing the right thing, reducing unwarranted harm and suffering as much as you reasonably can. And changing your diet, eating more fruits and veggies and less meat, is probably one of the least obtrusive ways to do so (save for folks with rare medical conditions, or people who live in an environment without an abundance of arable land). Even if you don't give a shit about the suffering of animals or the environment, you at least ought to care about your own well-being.
I've eaten meat my whole life, still do... but I've cut back a lot, and it really hasn't been that difficult. Every time this conversation comes up, nothing annoys me more than the hive-mind crawling out of the woodwork to dump on vegans for daring to speak out against something that is demonstrably harmful in several ways, and then claim that vegans do it only for the purpose of moral grandstanding. Moreover, the absurd amount of appeals to nature and the lazy "bacon tasty" retorts make all of these people look like fucking dorks.
You don't have to flagellate yourself for eating meat, you don't even have to give up meat entirely... But don't be a jackass about it, acknowledge the harmful reality you're contributing to and you can either accept it for what is, cut back and reduce your contribution, or choose to lead a life that doesn't enable it at all.
The bitter thing is: we could just implement the "Everyone does X" button. By creating according laws. But that doesn't happen either. Because suddenly "I would do it, if everyone else did it too" turns out to be just an excuse.
Same reason we use electricity despite not being 100% green energy and thus being even worse for the earth?
If you actually wanna guilt this question then the fuck are you doing using your coal and gas powered electricity to do it?
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, because the capitalists have seen to it that you will never be permitted to make an ethical choice that would dare compete with what they expect you to choose.
Being a moralizing prick doesn't send any message, what gets people to change is making that change easy, that's why instead of being terminally online fuckwads, british vegangelists spread the good news by hosting free kitchens, volunteering to take people grocery shopping on their own pound, teaching vegan cooking classes, and all other sorts of actually addressing literally any of the actual concerns people have about going vegan instead of being a condescending snob about it.
Using electricity isn't optional, eating beef is. I haven't eaten beef in years. The electricity I use is also 100% renewable but that's just dumb luck (My building has solar panels supplemented by a hydroelectric dam).
So honestly, in your opinion, one of the only ways a vegan can change people's minds is to take them shopping and PAY for their food for them.
Amazing, this is a new level of shitty push the blame away behaviour. Pathetic.
You’re saying that trying to motivate people positively to move on from meat is “push the blame away” behavior. But I think tut-tutting individuals who eat meat is pushing the blame away.
While there are some people who believe that eating meat is an absolute moral wrong no matter where or when it takes place in human history, a lot of people who feel eating meat is immoral feel this way because of what the meat industry does, both to the animals and to the planet. Five thousand years ago, people weren’t supporting the meat industry and all its wrongs by eating meat.
So considering it to be pathetic to try to effect real reduction in people’s meat consumption because the methods shift blame away from the individual meat eater seems really ironic to me, as well as completely counterproductive, if your goal is less meat consumption in the world.
There is no positive motivation to move people away from meet. Health maybe?
Did...did you just admit that you people don't actually believe your own propaganda about why going vegan is better?
Also, pretty objectively shame doesn't actually do anything, lecturing at people about why they're wrong doesn't convince them of anything, at best they just write you off as that ass who's lecturing at them, more often they take it as a fight signal and shut down to you completely.
Going vegan IS better. And I'm saying that as a non vegan (I'm not vegetarian either).
Sure, plenty of vegans are obnoxious about it, but it's not "propaganda". I'm totally weirded out by people who think "I eat dead animals and wreck the environment in the process" is a flex.
Yeah like how you're pretty clearly motivated to suck at actually spreading the message because then you get to keep your feelings of moral superiority all to yourself.
Not everyone has the time and resources to commit to every 'good' fight under the sun especially when the systemic problems are as deeply rooted in our society as they are.
Which device did you post from? Did you vet it wasn't made with slave labor? You might need to go recycle all your devices and unfortunately that will cut you off from getting your message out to the world.
Your post does more harm to your cause than good because it just makes everyone angry at you.
Potatoes, pasta, bread, legumes, nut butters, vegetables, fruits, jelly, jam; all things that many people already eat with some regularity.
Time and resources are hardly an excuse, you don't have to spend two hours a night preparing some 5 Michelin star meal with the most organic, non-GMO, [insert buzzword] ingredients in order to make better dietary choices, at least not in the first world where we have ample options... Shit, even just reducing your meat intake by 10% is a net harm reduction that adds up.
The slave labor thing is valid to an extent, but not entirely analogous. For better or for worse, modern society is increasingly dependent on technology; folks rely on it, in some form, to find/perform work, pay the bills, stay in contact with friends and family, survive the climate they live in, travel, etc... This isn't typically the case with meat, it's often just carnal desire which results in the death of something to the tune of ~80 billion (with a "B") animals every year that didn't really need to be slaughtered.
People absolutely should be upset about the conditions of workers being exploited anywhere in the world and advocate on their behalf where possible, but our position shouldn't be: "Oh, some bad shit happened over here, so I guess it's fine to allow this bad shit over here to proliferate as well"... just sayin'.
I's often just carnal desire which results in the death of something to the tune of ~80 billion (with a "B") animals every year that didn't really need to be slaughtered.
I'm genuinely curious: what's the vegans' answer to the question of "what happens to the cattle and other livestock if everyone on the planet turned vegan tomorrow?". It's not like they can just be let loose...
Realistically the amount of livestock is not sustainable and they'd need to be culled in gargantuan numbers so that they don't go from a "managed" ecological disaster to an "out of control" ecological disaster. And then you get the slaughter without the benefit of feeding billions of hungry people.
I'm not vegan, but this does not follow from the premise you set out with.
Most animals are slaughtered after around one year. Calf/piglet/lamb is taken away early so the mother can become pregnant. She becomes pregnant through artificial means in most cases, or at the least in an organized fashion.
These 'gargantuan' numbers of animals we need to cull would not be more than we slaughter at present, if everyone went vegan. No more mechanical pregnanies, no more offspring, and no need for culling beyond the first thirteen months.
Of course, I have never heard a vegan talk about changing all meat eaters overnight, so this is an unlikely scenario, but even if that is your premise, it doesn't hold up.
I mean the premise already feels a bit absurd, but I'll play...
I'm not a vegan myself, and I don't really hang out in vegan spaces that much, so my answers may differ from your typical vegan, or not... who knows. But I suppose if the general goal is to preserve life where possible, then you should absolutely try to find some place for the animals to live out their days in peace. If we can manage to stuff them all in neat little boxes on the land we have now, I doubt it's some intractable problem. You don't have to let 'em run free and "out of control" per se, repurpose the land of the now defunct factory farms and slaughterhouses, build a number of sanctuaries all over the place, and plop 'em there. Of course, no one can possibly know all of the variables involved, so I'm not saying this is a well thought out solution, I'm just spitballing... but we're not exactly hurting for land, to my knowledge.
However, suppose I granted you:
Realistically the amount of livestock is not sustainable and they’d need to be culled in gargantuan numbers
Why would that necessitate this outcome?
And then you get the slaughter without the benefit of feeding billions of hungry people.
Veganism isn't some virus that physically prevents you from eating meat, and plenty of vegans have been meat eaters at some point in their lives. If it came down to it, I imagine there would be a steady supply of folks who would opt to revert temporarily instead of letting it go to waste. Vegans may disagree with me here, but I think it's certainly a more ethical choice if the animals are already dead, can't let the sacrifice be for nothing.
The vegan viewpoint on animals really just boils down to eliminating unnecessary suffering and death. Many are fine with the prospect of hunting, fishing, or raising livestock for food when there aren't other options (eg. environments with insufficient crop yields to feed everyone or infrastructure to get other food), the problem arises from the fact that those of us privileged enough to live in a land of abundance continue to needlessly slaughter. Do we need to eat? Of course. Do we need to kill things to do it? Fuck no.
All that said, I think a more realistic transition scenario would be something like the meat industry halting slaughter operations, exhausting their existing supply until either there are no animals left to kill, or there are a small enough quantity to where we can just yeet the rest onto some farms somewhere. Not that vegans would be entirely on board with that, being anti-slaughter and all, but it's at least a reduction in harm and a more believable way for things to play out... I think.
Can you provide some product comparisons that include cost and nutritional value? Take into account dietary restrictions as well. Not for me personally but for anyone in general.
Great! Now someone reading this thread that just learned that beef is bad has a community they can look into.
I actually very rarely eat red meat myself but it's for dietary reasons. Poultry and fish are my biggest source of protein but I still get a good amount from seeds, beans, etc.
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn't work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: ![email protected]
I'm pretty sure more animals got killed by you turning off people against the movement than I ever cause by eating beef my whole life. I barely eat beef in the first place, and most of what I eat comes from small scale local farmers. So congrats, I guess, for killing more cows than me.
Then so is half of mother nature. It least we usually kill our food before we eat it. We could do something like rip out their guts and unborn calves while they're still alive and start chowing down on them like a hyena.
Ha ha can you imagine if the vegans get into government and enact a law that says we can only eat meat if we kill it ourselves, so we all just start doing this like fuckin deranged hyenas 😂
Where I live the beef is local and cheap. I'm not able to obtain enough protein without meat, as confirmed by a doctor and a nutritionist when I tried to go vegetarian. With food costs so high it's cheaper to buy cow than anything else, but when I have the money I opt for fish or turkey. I looked into hunting but it's prohibitively expensive for me with permits, tags, guns, licenses, days off and transportation.
I tried fishing for myself as well, but whenever I get time to do it, there are warnings about eating fish in the area. When there aren't I never catch anything big enough to legally be allowed to keep.
I'd like to get chickens if/when local government ever lifts the bylaws preventing it.
I'm not able to obtain enough protein without meat
How does that work? Isn't egg white pure protein? Surely eating a pile of boiled eggs would give you the same amount of protein as a steak, not counting stuff like cheese and legumes.
Oh gee I didn't try eggs or dairy in the months I felt like shit after going veggie, and neither the doctor nor nutritionist suggested that either. You solved all my dietary needs and I can give up meat now after years of trying to figure out the most sustainable diet I can manage.
Sorry about that, it's the internet.
I'm not a doctor, but it was explained to me that proteins from different sources are not all the same and, while I can process protein from a variety of foods, I don't do it as efficiently as with muscle proteins. The nutritionist I spoke to - who was a vegan and a vegan activist - said people like me need about 1-2 chicken breasts per week. It's not uncommon, a lot of people who try to go veggie and can't hack it just go back to meat without trying to figure out why they felt sick and tired.
Other people have said it's genetic based on your ancestors, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence to support that. Other sources point to evidence you can alter the way your body processes things by following specific diet plans, but I'm not prepared to feel that shitty again to figure it out.
I and others are over here with soy, egg and gluten allergies that restrict pretty heavily what I can eat. But go off since you have it all figured out, king.
Sorry about your issues, I never meant to diminish them. I was genuinely curious about how one can become so limited in ones protein intake, but clearly worded my question poorly.
I don't have that option. Big Ole difference. Maybe give everyone Lyme disease so they develop red meat allergies and we can talk
Okay. You want me to double down? I won't eat at vegan places most of the time. Here's the thing: vegetables are delicious. So why?
Vegans will support a vegan place no matter what and will talk it up as being amazing even if it sucks. I've been burned being told, "oh. That place is so good" and it's just a matter of vegans circling the wagons and propping up a place that serves a lazy impossible burger with fake plastic cheese on it. Y'all ain't accountable and it makes it difficult taking vegan food seriously. No wonder y'all's food has an inferiority complex
No corporation pollutes except to produce goods or services for human consumption, or for other businesses that provide goods or services for human consumption.
Every gallon of gas burned is to power a vehicle to move you, or the goods you purchase.
Every natural gas line leads to a house, of a business that sells things to houses.
Theres no such thing as a corporation without consumers, we are where the buck is created, and where the buck stops.
Theres no such thing as a corporation without consumers, we are where the buck is created, and where the buck stops.
Absolutely correct, glad to have read your comment. People need to start realizing they play a role in what's to come. It's a terrible mentality to think we don't all have our effect on the future.
The reason why the top polluters in the world are oil and gas companies is because you buy oil and gas directly to drive your car or heat your house, or you buy electricity generated by oil and gas. The metals in your vehicle? Mining companies pollution. The food on your plate? Agricultural companies polluting. Even the shirt on your back burned bunker fuel to get from Bangladesh to your house.
If you think you aren't directly responsible for corporate pollution, you're a fucking moron.
We use oil and gas because it's the option that has been made most available to us. This isn't an individual problem. As long as the alternatives are prohibitively expensive for the average person, in terms of time, money, availability, etc, then we're going to always have the bulk of people choosing the easiest option.
We all have so much to worry about each day, trying to fit biking to my job a 45 minute drive away just isn't feasible. The options for changing that are either we go fuckin full on anarchy, burn the system down, and start anew, or slowly, systematically. Set an easily achievable baseline the average person can work to adopt, encourage it via subsidization and education, and give it time.
You're thinking about this wrong, you choose your lifestyle.
You simply aren't willing to give up your lifestyle to avoid emissions. It's clearly possible to live a less polluting lifestyle, there are billions of people polluting almost nothing compared to Western averages, their lifestyle just doesn't have as many conveniences as yours.
There are North American people who have chosen to live ultra-simplistic lives who pollute almost nothing as well.
That's a choice YOU make. It may not feel like you made a choice, but you do so every day by not changing your behaviors.
You're right. At the end of the day, your lifestyle is your choice. I'm merely pointing out that there are a LOT of pressures keeping people stuck in the lifestyle they're in. Those pressures are real, and if you want to effect change, it's better to target them, rather than the individual.
The pressures are not real, they're entirely social constructs.
The easiest fix is for the government to just tax carbon emissions, like Canada, and turn turn the cost way up. The market (Corporations) will change very quickly if it's cheaper not to pollute.
Will it hurt people? Yes. Costs will go up, but pollution will go down. That's the tradeoff.
Oh yeah I'll just stop driving my car in this world they manufactured to be unsustainable to travel in without a car.
If you think you can do ethical consumption by eating the avocados that fund latin american cartels to mutilate and rape the children of anyone who doesn't just sit there and take their shit instead of some beef from a cow raised by some kid doing their 4H project, you're the moron here.
You realize there are people in North America who do not own cars, right?
I made ethical consumption choices by looking at my three largest personal (and family) pollution sources.
First is Home heating/cooling. If you rank pollution sources, this is the single largest for most north American people. Now here I got lucky, my area uses almost 100% hydro electric power, so I switched to using a heat pump from a natural gas furnace. Now I no longer directly burn fossil fuels, and my grid is almost 100% pollution free as well. If I had not lived in this area, I would have chosen to install solar panels to offset my energy use as much as possible, and possibly participated in a green energy purchase program. It costs more, but the whole point is that if this were easy, it would already be done. You need to give something up to reduce your pollution, and in this case that thing you're giving up is some extra money.
Heat pumps are a no-brainer in this category, Smaller homes pollute less, multi-family homes with shared walls pollute less, homes with better insulation pollute less. There's choices here for everyone. They just either cost extra money, or give up some of your lifestyle.
2nd most pollution, transportation, I bought an EV a few years ago, which while it does have pollution for production over it's lifespan will have significantly fewer emissions than an equivalent ICE vehicle. Again, my electricity here is almost 100% green, or could be in almost every area.
I wasn't willing to go car free because of how far I live outside of a city, and I accept the pollution that results from my choice here. When I lived in the city, I used to have a bus pass AND a car, and I'd frequently leave the car in the driveway to take the bus for many trips.
Transportation can be addressed in so many ways, moving closer to the things you need, mass transit, EVs, etc. Again, Money or Lifestyle costs.
3rd most pollution, food, I cook with significantly less meat than average, we aren't vegetarian, but we almost never eat beef(which is a massive pollution source even compared to other meats) and our portion size for meat from pork and chicken is more for flavor than nutrition. A single pack of bacon in a lentil/vegetable stew covers 10 dinner servings, compared to a single 5 person breakfast, and I bulk out the protein with the lentils. We eat tofu 4-5 times a month, prepared in various ways, etc. Using less meat actually saves you money, alternative protein sources like beans, tofu(which is beans), and lentils are FAR cheaper. We also buy a lot of our produce from our local area(less transportation pollution) and preferably with less fertilizers (heavy pollution source)
Overall, does it cost more money or reduce your lifestyle to pollute less? Yes. That's the choice that consumers make.
You want to have no pollution AND keep your lifestyle the exact same, but it doesn't work like that. Pollution makes things cheaper, that's why companies do it. They wouldn't bother if it was more expensive. Nobody is sitting in a boardroom going: "Man, this coal costs far more, but we need to fuck the environment a little harder so lets keep using it"
The thing about individual action is that if it works, it all adds up. But if people all blame the corporations, individual action makes no dent in the over 50% of emissions that individuals help make; a self-fulfilling prophecy. And yes, over 50%. Politifact goes into detail about how most emission indeed comes from consumption instead of corporate production.
The original study did not include emissions from land use, land use change or forestry, or from sources such as landfills, agriculture and farming. It also did not include data on indirect emissions, which come from purchased energy such as heating and electricity, citing concerns about double-counting emissions attributable to corporations.
The study relied on data collected by the Carbon Majors Database, which focuses on greenhouse gas emissions data from the largest company-related sources. In other words, The data derives from records of carbon dioxide and methane emissions relating to fossil fuel (oil, gas and coal) and cement producers dating back to 1854.
...
t’s difficult to discern how much total global emissions can be attributed to the top 100 polluting corporations, but there are ways to get a ballpark idea.
If you use the total global emissions calculated by the Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, an average of around 60% of global emissions can be traced back to those 100 companies from 1990 to 2015.
The real issue is one of attribution. "Traced to" isn't the same as "responsible for". I have a hard time blaming Saudi Aramco for massive volume of oil consumption in the US. Yes the oil companies are eco terrorists too but the binary take is absurd.
Because corporations make things based on the demand of those individual people. They don't exist in a vacuum. And they're not going to change because someone on the internet rants about them. Their only incentive is profit
It's a bit of both. We started out just liking beef, for all the reasons above - easy to grow, good bioavailability, tasty, etc. From there, we built our society up, became capitalists, and started really honing in on efficiency, because more efficiency is more money. Now cows are everywhere and beef is cheap.
Right now beef is pretty much the cheapest protein option readily available, and that I actually know how to prepare. Both of those come from the supply being huge, our culture being built around meat eating, it just kinda being the way we are.
This isn't an individual problem to solve. No amount of vegans voting with their wallet is going to redirect the monumental ship that is our culture. We need subsidization on non-meat options, more ubiquitous supply, and more practice with the style of cuisine if we ever hope to make changes that stick.
Right. Part of my point. We have taken great efforts to make beef cheap, and to bolster the supply. With all of this effort, it really isn't a surprise your average person is going to choose beef.
I'd propose slowly increasing subsidies to beef alternatives, and then once those are to the same level of affordableness and you've got some adoption, start cutting beef subsidies. Make the transition slow and painless, more people will stick to it.
I always hear people talking about how beef is so cheap and I wonder how that could be when it costs twice as much as pork in my grocery store. I never thought about subsidies in other countries.
Outside of the fact that a single cows life provides about 900 meals for humans, and the scraps left over make boots that last for a decade and also feed our cats and dogs. Plus, it's delicious.
Yeah so, the amount of meals is correct. But that's about it. I mean, I can't say about the taste, to each their own, but one kg of cow meat needs two dozen kg of grain.
That's about as inefficient as it gets.
As for the leather, the industry doesn't like products that last a decade, so it isn't actually using the leather in such a way. Industrial leather boots last a year tops.
Finally, pet food is made out of discarded cuts of meat, the uglies, etc. But also lots of cereals, and vegetables.
So we could really afford eating less meat. It isn't good for anything. Not for us, not for the other species (certainly not for the cows, that get often half assed butchered in a hasty way because of quotas and profit), and absolutely not for the ecosystem.
If we had the same size, I could be wearing my grandfather's steeltoes that are probably a solid 40 years old. People really underestimate how long good footwear lasts when you take care of it.
I can make hey dude's last 9 months. If OP can't make the cheapest leather boots last more than a year, they are using them wrong, or they should buy high end boots for whatever they're doing.
Seriously. I bought some dirt cheap full grain leather biker boots 3 years ago; I have given them exactly 0 care, abused the snot our of them daily, and they are still holding up strong. These weren't even boots meant for working and they still survived trudging through the various slops of all 4 minnesotan seasons for 3 years.
As long as you are buying actual leather and not "genuine leather" then whatever you buy should easily last several years even if not cared for. Well cared for leather goods can last decades.
So, OK, I'm willing to learn: please show me good brands then.
They need to resist to mud (thick mud, the kind with a ton of suction that will keep your soles when you try and move), seawater, rocks and sand, and pretty dense vegetation.
They also need to have steel toe caps, good soles (vibram or equivalent if possible) that don't slip, and that aren't too hard (wet stone is enough of a female dog as it is), and to go higher than my ankle.
The best brand I tried so far was caterpillar, but they lasted only 3 years. That's a far cry from "a decade or more".
Whatever their food is, 1kg of beef requires 24kg of grain's worth of energy. This is something they teach in high-school biology now. The higher the food chain, the more energy is lost. Stopping such production would be pretty beneficial to the environment, but whether we should is a complicated question.
But as I pointed out, many cattle are ranched on land that cannot grow grain. They can't grow the sorts of crops that humans eat, only the sorts of crops that cattle eat. If cattle weren't being ranched on those lands they wouldn't be producing edible grain instead, or any other food that humans could eat. So the inefficiency is moot when it comes to the amount of nutrition produced, removing the cattle from that land would simply reduce the total amount of food we have available.
Sure, if you remove the cattle then wild animals could come in to replace them, but we should make sure that's not going to result in starvation and poverty if we do that. Many areas of the world have subsistence ranching by the locals.
Are we just going to ignore the millions of acres of vast grasslands that supported like 50 million buffalo in the US 200 year ago? Healthy grassland ecosystems and ruminants are a thing.
Interesting. However, a search says that feeding all the grass (or whatever) to cattle takes that food away from existing ecosystems in dry areas and potentially allow exotic weeds to take over land. So we probably don't want this to expand to the point where we intrude on dry ecosystems.
It's just a matter of land management. Many of those grassland areas used to have other large grazing animals on them, so as long as the cattle herds aren't bigger than those old herds it should be sustainable.
Billions of trees every year get cut down to make space for cattle pastures, now tell me how destroying entire ecosystems that have been there for potentially thousands of years is worth some particular meat.
Or even land that is suitable for growing grain, but they're kept being fed almost entirely on grass, for better quality, better health (and less cow farts, lol), rather than cost cutting nasty to bulk them up.
Well, if we're talking pure food-production efficiency, then if the land is capable of growing grain then it's probably better to grow grain there and feed the grain directly to humans.
But upvote anyway for responding to a year-and-a-half-old thread, this is the oldest necro response I've received yet on the Fediverse. :)
Well, if we’re talking pure food-production efficiency, then if the land is capable of growing grain then it’s probably better to grow grain there and feed the grain directly to humans.
Well in that case perhaps we should do just algae and worms.
Or maybe we should consider more than "pure food-production efficiency" in such a crude manner.
Perhaps we should consider nutrition and health (of those eating the food, and the environment), more than just crude bulk quantity.
Grain based diet would ruin our immune systems, and the health of the soil, without animal fertilizer.
I haven't at any point in all of this argued that we should only eat grains or only eat meat. In fact, I pointed out that some land is only good for meat production via ranching. So you could raise cattle on that land and grow grain on the other land and literally everyone wins.
sure but a very small amount compared to what people eat. around 50% of american land is just used to grow crops for cattle. if we opted to reduce that, think of how much forest and natural land we could bring back.
Humans are animals, and the type of animals we are is omnivores. Not herbivores.
Yup. Mostly better suited more leaning to the carnivore and fruitarian side of omnivore.
Man cannot live on grass.
Also, getting enough protein and creatine and other vitamins as a vegan is a hell of a lot of work and doesn’t taste as good.
I tried hard, for a decade, and never managed to fully do it, even with a lot of hemp kernels (1-4 cups) every day.
Health bouncing back since going keto-carn. Mostly beef. (Grass fed).
So simple, so easily healthy.
Contrast to the complex chemistry juggling jigsaw of trying to have a vegan diet.
Maybe blood type matters. Maybe other blood types than mine have an easier time of vegan (or at least vegetarian, or just pescetarian). Or other genetic, evolutionary, environmental factors.
There's no need to "torture" cattle to get meat from them. Indeed, meat from animals that are experiencing stressful conditions tastes worse. Not to mention simply having lower productivity. A farm with happy cows is going to be more profitable than one with stressed ones, all else being equal.
Guess you didn't get to grow up watching the discovery Channel before all their shows were about crab fishing and animal rescue. Would you rather I go rip a gazelle apart and start eating it's insides while it keeps trying to stand up with only two front legs?
Not everybody agrees that beef is bad for you and the environment. We were talking about human health, it's hard to find a more of bioavailable source of nutrition than animal protein and fat
While I acknowledge the concept of a "carbon footprint" is complete BS, beef production does have a very high impact on climate change. Just want to point out that fact. I still eat it from time to time though. Yes, beef is high in protein and tasty.
As an aside, I believe as environmentalists, we shouldn't shame people for doing the "wrong" things IMHO as even the best of us still contribute to the problem in some way. Everyone has their own reasons for doing what they do, and shame doesn't often change minds. Personally, I try to take my own small steps, but I'm not prepared to live like a hermit. I do try to eat meat less often, and I volunteer a considerable amount of time to lobby for more climate friendly policies. This course of action is what works well for me.
Multigenerational farms, organic, traditional, grass fed, sustainable, etc, is radically different to industrially clear-cut ancient forest just for a few years of farming, and grain feeding, and/or factory farming.
Carnivore is fantastic for those who need to heal from health issues. It's expensive if you don't know what you're doing, but it's worth it once you study it.
If you consider nutrient bio-availability, eating meat is order of magnitudes cheaper for the nutrition we're getting. It's a no-brainer if only people would give it a go.
Humans make methane too, btw, if we eat vegetables. Much, much less on carnivore in my personal experience, and I've not found any studies on environmental impact that even attempt to factor this in.
I've been attempting to fix that as well. The biggest contributor, I think, is linoleic acid in seed oils. Once you get through that hurdle, everything else should fit into place (cutting the soy, gluten and cow's milk if autistic, refined sugars, and of course, seed oils).
I'd like to test reintroducing cow's milk, as not pasteurized, raw. No source here though, afaik. Tried Jersey cow's milk once, and it was fine, tried it a second time, and it was a hard fail. Goat and sheep, meh.
Your mention of "if autistic", has me wonder about my fairly large ghee consumption.
I happened to be legitimately autistic myself (diagnosed as such). Cow's milk and gluten will not treat someone with autism very well, gluten due to leaky gut, and cow's milk due to how it's structured. Goat's milk and sheep's milk will do very well for those with autism (I can attest to that, as I consume goat's milk in a butter from Meyenberg I use a lot).
As for ghee, that's also okay, as it's just the casein (both A1 and A2, whereas the A1 is your "lactose intolerance") stripped out. Lactose too, though, again, that's A1 casein.
How would not tolerating look like? Let's start with you as an example, maybe your loved ones too. And maybe look at the horrors of a one child policy in China before we start following that idea again.
I did try to reduce the impact of what I eat, but I haven't found a replacement for using chicken with a slow cooker. Beef also tastes good, especially when I eat at a restaurant.
I have stopped making hamburgers on my own (and replaced them with fish or soup), but I haven't put more effort into reducing my impact recently.
I mean going vegetarian or vegan by definition reduces your options.
That said, there are lots of delicious slow cooked vegan foods. Despite what the other commenter says, there certainly are flavours & textures available that are not easily accessed on the hob, even eating plant based.
Humans can be weird about these facts or simply indifferent to the known effect that raising these animals for meat has on the environment. Additionally, I think the antagonistic message of a few vocal vegans triggered a powerful foolishness in the heads of certain people who are prone to acting hedonistically upon being told not to do something. A combination of apathy, chasing profits, taste for beef, and spite which fuels the industrialized beef production business. Another issue is that most of us simply won't be around to experience the consequences of the unchecked corporations responsible for this willful harm the meat industry is causing Earth's climate and surrounding environment. I believe in moderation, eating as little of all the meats as possible (those industries have a big impact on the environment). As an American, I see a weird pride that certain people have about eating as much meat as possible; loudly shunning and making fun of those who have either a mostly plant-based, vegetarian, or vegan diet. It's such a selfish outlook that happens in societies that focus on the individual over the many.
Another issue is that most of us simply won’t be around to experience the consequences
I think most people middle-aged or younger will experience the consequences (in fact, we already are with the increased frequency of severe weather events) it's just that those consequences will get worse over time.
The youngest of people certainly will be I could have worded this thought better, but I didn't. Severe weather is certainly a consequence as well as increased extremes in temperature which are currently happening. Everyone already feels the impact of irresponsible environmental decisions made by the oil industry and industrial agriculture/animal husbandry. Millennials, Gen X and Gen Z will be around to experience the worsening of conditions on Earth. I do genuinely believe that people don't consider the fact that they aren't going to experience the climate outcomes based on irresponsible decisions. However, based on the current growing political instability of the USA; I wonder if people are beginning to feel a desire to indulge as they don't know if they'll come out unscathed from the blowup which is bound to happen at some point. A bad outlook to have in a way as that will only magnify future issues, however, humans aren't always rational! 🤪
Why is killing people wrong, but ok in war? Why do we still kill animals even though we know it's wrong? Why is killing wrong in the first place? I bet you can't find a single rational reason. That is because ethics isn't based on reason, but instead on emotion. Given that, I don't find it very surprising that it's often very hypocritical.
Ethics may not be fully objective, but claiming that they're fully based on emotion is a ridiculous thing to say. You can make ethical arguments based in reason. Pointing to the war and saying "see, ethics aren't real" is an incredibly naïve conclusion to draw.
I think it's rather self evident, but I'll share a logical outline which resonates with me. To be sussinct: Most sentient beings kinda like being alive. Where possible, it's morally preferable to let them continue in that state.
It's basically an application of the golden rule. You can get in to game theory or utilitarianism for more thorough arguments to show that killing is generally wrong, but it then still has to come back to life having value which is quite hard, if not impossible, to logically prove.
So then you need to refer back to philosophy to find arguments that life has intrinsic value. I personally prefer using Camus' acceptance of the absurd as a basis for intrinsic value, but there are lots of other potential arguments that lead to the same conclusion.
Ultimately, though, it's impossible to even prove that other beings simply exist (e.g. solipsism) or have experiences, but at some point we mostly all look at the evidence and accept that they do.
The issue I see with these theories is that this idea of inherent value they all arrive at is very abstract in a way. What does it even mean for something to have inherent value, and why is it wrong to destroy it?
Another problem is that we talk about destroying life without even fully understanding it in the first place. What if life (in the sense of consciousness) is indestructible?
The way I see it, people accept that life has some inherent value because our self preservation instinct tells us that we don't want to die and empathy allows us to extend that instinct to other living beings. Both are easily explained as products of evolution, not rational or objective, but simply evolutionarily favourable. All these theories are attempts to rationally explain this feeling, but they all inevitably fail, as they're (in my opinion) trying to prove something that simply isn't objectively true.
Anyways, I feel like even if you accepted any individual theory that seems to confirm our current understanding of morality and stuck with it fully, you would come to conclusions which are completely conflicting with it. For example in the case of utilitarianism, you could easily come to the conclusion that not donating most of your money to charity is immoral, as that would be the course of action which would result in the largest total amount of pleasure.
I think the inverse problem is more troubling. If you accept that nothing has inherent value, then isn't everything morally permissible? Maybe it is an emotional decision, or perhaps a leap of faith, but I find that idea so repugnant, I couldn't believe it and continue functioning as a person.
I think in terms of consciousnes, Occam's razor leads me to suspect that it's tied to brain function, and when that ceases, so does it. Of course, once again, things like this are very hard to prove. I do think, though, that science and philosophy will eventually unravel it. (Incidentally, there's actually a book by Dan Dennett I've been meaning to read about this topic which was suggesting we're quite a bit closer to figuring it out than most people think.)
One of the problems with philosophy is that there's never any smallest part, beyond perhaps Descartes's "cogito, ergo sum". You can reduce any argument more and more and they all start to not make sense and eventually crumble. You can pick at their semantic foundation or the thousands of years of preceding thought until they unravel, then that nice sweater is now just a bunch of fibres. If you refuse to view philosophical arguments as a whole, then there's nothing there to view.
It's like an actual sweater. Does it even exist in the first place? After all, it's just a bunch of stuff arranged in a particular way, and it's called a sweater because it has some sort of human utility and we decided to give it a name. You could go about your life and believe that sweaters don't exist, and it'd be quite hard to prove you wrong.
Or you can accept that it's a useful human construct, so they do. Maybe you could even go further, and believe there's some idealised concept of sweaterness that exists in some meta-reality, which all sweaters share a property of.
I think this is essentially the realist viewpoint.
And you could be right, maybe all our current moral theories do run into contradictions, so perhaps they're all wrong.
Heck, we're running into similar problems in astrophysics. When we learn more about our universe, and things stop adding up. But that just means we go back to the drawing board and find a better model until they make sense.
Same for philosophy. When you reach a contradiction, you go back and come up with better ideas. It's a process of slowly uncovering the truth.
After a few years of philosophy in university, I think it's like software development. You can always go to a lower level but doing so won't bring you forward in most cases.
You can ask these meta questions on every single argument but there are no satisfying results. Don't get me wrong, I still think it's fun :D
Yes, I agree it seems scary, but all it really means is that morality is not universal but specific to humans. You could say everything is inherently morally permissible in the sense that there is no higher power which will punish you for your actions, so essentially there is nothing preventing you from committing them. In short, the universe doesn't give a shit what you do.
Still, your actions do have consequences, and you are inevitably forced to live with them (pretty much Sartre's viewpoint). Because of this, doing things you think are wrong is often bad for you, because it causes you emotional pain in the form of guilt and regret, and also usually carries along negative social repercussions which outweigh the value of the immoral act in the first place. You could say that people are naturally compelled to act in certain ways out of completely selfish reasons. In this sense, I prefer to look at morality more as a "deal" between the members of a society to act in a certain mutually beneficial way (which is fueled by our instincts, a product of evolution), than something universal and objective.
The reason I doubt in our current understanding of consciousness is because I find its distinction between what is conscious and what isn't quite arbitrary and problematic. At which point does an embryo become conscious, and how can something conscious be created from something unconscious? The simplest explanation I can imagine is that consciousness is present everywhere and cannot be created nor destroyed. This view (called panpsychism) is absolutely ancient, but seems to be gaining some recognition again, even among neuroscientists.
As you mentioned, "cogito, ergo sum" might be the only real objective truth that philosophy has uncovered so far. I am an optimist in that I believe surely more than one such truth must exist. If it was only discovered 400 years ago, surely there is more to be found. Maybe it is possible to collect some of these small fragments and build some larger philosophical theory from them, one that will be grounded in fact and built up using logic. I guess only time will tell.
And yes, of course some abstraction is beneficial in order to make sense of the world, even if it isn't completely correct or objective.
Because not everyone agrees that it's terrible for Earth. And even some of those that do may not consider it so terrible for Earth that it's not worth the tastiness.
You're wasting electricity running a computer right now, when we know that electricity generation is terrible for Earth. Why are you doing that?
I literally just called the uninformed position of "bad for the earth" out a little bit, and even have an anecdote of my positive personal experience eating meat. I get the sentiment for those who do eat meat, and get bullied just because they want to be healthy (while those who eat plants tend to have a lot of health issues, and can be overwight or obese by refined sugars, gluten, soy, seed oils and/or cow's milk that's GMO'd [a correlation some don't seem to get]).
Glad to see someone's on a similar page about it, as that's just some sort of silly thing to me.
I think post WW2 there was a drive towards the idea that we'd never need to go without. This combined with lifestyle changes (more people working longer hours) gave birth to the rise of fast convince foods and the mass growth of places like McDonalds and Burger King.
Why don't people just stop? Ideas within society have a lot of momentum, they take a lot of energy to get started and a lot to turn or stop again.
This might not be a "stupid" question, but it sure is a loaded and leading one that for sure isn't in good faith. Welcome to my block list, enjoy your stay.
That's what I thought as well. It's disgusting when someone leads and loads up a question with people who don't understand critical thinking sometimes.
It’s ingrained into our capitalistic culture. Fast food ads every 20 minutes on tv. Grilling on weekends. Tailgating. A WackDonald’s on every corner. Not to mention big Dairy.
Cost. I mainly eat rice. But I'll take meat when I can get it. Chicken, beef, mongolian wookie meat. Doesn't matter. Humans are omnivorous. We require protein to function.
I have made a pottage of carrots, potatoes, onions, and sweet potatoes today. It's all about cost for me.
Eating beef (or any meat for that matter) isn't harmful but "excessive consumption" of "industrially produced meat" is. And you shouldn't cut out meat from your diet — our bodies need those nutrients.
That's because, if done right and from the right source, certain meats are actually good for the human body.
Anybody who thinks that heart disease comes from eating meat does not understand that, despite the amount of research on it, meat cannot be considered to be bad for anyone's health. Those that do have some research on it are going based upon flukes, fraud and lies, likely spread by witches and warlocks. I personally eat organic meat myself, and I have no health issues because of what I eat.
As they say... "you are what you eat". Also, I eat meat so vegans and vegetarians can have an easier time not eating meat. In a way, I'm helping them in some sense (as far as I'm aware, but I could be wrong on that).
It's nutritious. Instead of carefully observing some diet you can eat some beef and buckwheat or cabbage or beans, and you're good.
That said, I eat meat so rarely that my relatives worry, mainly because it takes some time to cook if you boil it, and I'm lazy and unorganized, and frying it has the potential of, eh, leaving the kitchen for 5 minutes which turn out to be half an hour and returning for the smell.
Other than that people can't care about every problem at once.
1 the amount of beef I eat is not a major contributer to the problem. No matter how hard I try. The actual major contributors what to distract people by telling them that they can make the difference. They can't.
2 I don't like plants...
3 the way the grow plants for food is also terrible for earth
Plants actually cause a lot of health problems. For example...
Wheat and other forms of gluten happened to strip Vitamin B3, causing schizophrenia.
Seed oils mess up your brain in ways I can't even imagine.
Cow's milk is unnecessary due to the way it's pasteurized, as unpasteurized, raw milk (goat's milk is really fantastic for my needs) is actually good for you (which is why it's banned in some countries).
Soy is good at kickstarting the transgendering process, as it alters the estrogen-testosterone balance (for males, it ups estrogen, where testosterone is upped for females who eat soy a lot)
Refined sugars actually cause a lot of issues, like diabetes (it dries up the liver), cancer (refined sugars are an excellent food source for parasites and polyps), obesity (sugar gets turned into visceral fat, and causes one to gain that), and a myriad of other issues.
Do we see why I tend to eat beef a lot, and avoid these feed ingredients whenever I eat certain plants?
The major contributors only sell what people buy. They won't stop so long as there's money to be made. And most plants grown for food go to feed animals.
I would get them to end all subsidies for the beef industry if I could. Unfortunately I'm not in control of that, all I can do is bring up discussion, and I got you to comment, so I succeeded.
Because it tastes good and because people are so far removed from where their food comes from. Why eat vegetables that use illegal immigrants as workers and are treated harshly?
I appreciate your question, but I think "we know" is problematic:
who is "we"?
how do we "know"?
can some people know one thing while others know the opposite?
I'm not trolling, either, just asking questions from a philosophical point of view. I've changed my mind about several things I took very seriously and thought I was 100% right about. Could others be dealing with similar changing-mind-through-time processes? Could you?
Carnivore diet is a weird way to phrase it, it really depends on the consistency of the food, but I do mostly eat meat because it causes the least problems.
Beef's not terrible for the earth. ... or are there many things I'm overlooking?
Beef supports grassland, helping cooling and cleaning the air, and keeping the microbiome rich and robust.
Very high nutritional completeness and nutritional density, both per acre, and per lb. Especially if done in a sensible organic way. Even more so if we make sure to use every part (including leather too! Very long lasting, very low waste, very robust, very healthy, very respecting the animal).
Unlike when coerced and forced to give the cattle Bovaer, poisoning them, weakening them, preventing their ability to properly digest food, under the misguided over-focus on preventing cow farts, as if that's even an issue at all when feeding them properly, or, even when not, as if the miniscule amount of methane they produce holds more weight of relevance or sensibleness to remedy compared to the dozen other sources of man made methane that are dozens and dozens of times greater.
Gee, it's almost like it's a ploy, to destroy the food supply, from those who promote the idea of eugenics and depopulation [~ remember the Georgia Guidestones top line? Imagine 20 people you know. To meet the georgia Guidestones target, 19 of them must die]. Almost like they'd rather maintain their monopolistic power over us all, keeping us dependent on inferior polluting technology that they can extract rents from, impoverishing us by, than stop sitting on (and outright secreting) patents that could emancipate the world with non-polluting rents-free technologies.
The USA has abundant farmland and the ability to feed its own citizens with its existing agriculture. Beef is tasty and I'm glad we have so many cows we can eat. If the rest of the world doesn't like that they are free to eat as many bugs as they want.
I only eat beef on special occasions a handful of times per year and, if I'm buying, make sure it is as local as possible. Bonus points if it's from a farm that has land that's otherwise crap for vegetable/staple farming (which is a lot here in mountainous Japan)
Ruminants like cows repair our depleating topsoil via regenerative farming (our current approach of using petroleum-based fertilisers is not sustainable)
A single cow's life can feed a human for 1 to 2 years, compared to the many incidentally killed animals (insects, rodents, frogs, birds, etc.) during the growing and harvesting of crops, plus the destruction of entire ecosystems to create the mono-crop farms in the first place
Humans need to eat lots of fat to be physically and mentally healthy, and beef provides lots of fat (the low-fat high-carbohydrate diets recommended by various agencies — starting with the US's department of agriculture in the late '70s via the food pyramid — are making us sick, with once-rare diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, depression, and dementia now commonplace)
This is ignoring the fact that raising a cow for consumption requires ~10 times the amount of crops per calorie compared to just eating the crops directly. Also, I don't think I've heard a single health expert recommend eating more beef - the universal understanding is that red meat consumption is generally a net negative in terms of overall health.
Because my partners are picky eaters and I literally cannot get them to even try vegetarian meals. If it doesn't have beef, pork, or chicken then they won't touch it. >_<
What does what your ancestors did have to do with what we now know about modern factory farming? The question was about still eating beef despite what we know today, what does that have to do with your ancestors? Is your comment not the very definition of a strawman?
The future will absolutely not look down on cultures that have to rely on animals for food. Do we look at native Americans as horrible people because they had to slaughter animals, in a controlled, and relatively well thought out manner?
Personally I believe the most likely alternative will be bugs. Do bugs not count as an animal? Or would you say bugs shouldn't be eaten either
They would drive animals off cliffs. That would cause horror if they were to repeat it today yes.
Just stop eating living animals it's that simple, but if you want to eat bugs, knock yourself out.
I think we'll find "plagues" of species more common and end up harvesting as many as possible then so that "locust" is the primary protein source for that year.
Its not that simple. I can see why you believe it is, and it probably helps contribute to why you have little empathy even for those who show you they physically cant.
Same, I just like how it tastes. I'd rather not eat any meat than not drink milk. I do know that both are bad for the environment and for the cows but quitting is not easy
Because it tastes good.
Why do people eat food they know isn't good for their health? Why do people continue to buy products from companies that have proven to only sell bad products or engage in scumbag practices?
They all have the same answer.
It turns out in 1961 the American heart Association took bribery money from procter and gamble, who owned and sold "healthier Crisco" cooking oils that weren't high in saturated fat, like beef and other cooking oils were.
The AHA then claimed and pushed that saturated fats caused heart disease.
Problem is, something like 88% of every study done in the past 60 years has found little to no link between heart disease and saturated fats.
So beef, according to most studies, isn't bad for you. The AHA was just crooked and on the take, being paid off to sell Crisco.
Now it is calorie dense and people tend to eat too much of it, but that seems to be a lot of things. Don't eat too much or you get fat. But apparently, you don't have to worry about saturated fats being bad for you.
WHO report
someone else online summarized the genetics part as the following:
Forgive me, because I'm struggling to understand the linked information, but as someone with atherosclerosis this is an issue close to my heart (ha!).
I just want to make sure I understand you.
Your link to the european heart journal says that the causal link between LDL and ASCVD is "unequivocal".
I think the WHO study says (amongst a lot of other complicated stuff) that replacing SFAs with PUFAs and MUFAs is more favourable than replacing SFAs with complex carbohydrates? The strong implication being (although I couldn't see this exactly) that higher SFA intake contributes to heart disease.
I don't think it tries to compare carbohydrates to any UFAs, but the implication is indeed that SFAs significantly contribute to heart disease.
Ah, thanks, I've missed that.
I always keep in mind the first doctor to advocate washing hands after handling corpses was laughed out of medicine and died alone in an asylum ironically enough from sepsis.
To that point, the vast majority of research on nutrition is done on the presumption carbohydrates should be the foundation of our diet. Even "low" carb diet studies with have 30% of the calories coming from simple carbs. Oddly enough, the human body works much differently and much better when you don't give it -any- sugar: https://youtu.be/cST99piL71E
I can expand, but briefly, sugar acts like a sandblaster through your heart and shreds the endothelium (the finger-things that move things in and out of the bloodstream). LDL is a repair van that drives around with cholesterol and saturated fat to repair the plaques. (HDL brings empty LDL back to the liver) The entire logic of blaming cholesterol for heart disease is like blaming bandaids for stab wounds. Doctors say eat less fat and more "healthy whole grains" (carbs) and the liver makes more cholesterol. Doctor sees cholesterol is still high because the body needs it and prescribes statins which impair production. This leads to nerve pain because it's what literally every nerve in the body is insulated with.
The problems with cholesterol stem from it sitting in the bloodstream and glycating due to prolonged sugar exposure. Sugar staying in the bloodstream is basically ketoacidosis, so clearing sugar is a priority that results in LDL gumming up and going bad, essentially.
I can expand on this, but basically the human body needs predominantly fat with some protein and actually zero carbs.
Poor Semmelweis he deserved better
I totally agree with your comment but would like to add:
Most of the studies used to vilify Animal sourced foods are observational, based on food frequency questionnaires, the entire cohort is eating high carb, and heavily influenced by healthy patient confounders. At best these are hypothesis generating papers, they should not be used to make diet choices, or set policies.
Absolutely. Great video on the matter: https://youtu.be/xDgzgDSInt0
This is a great video, I havent seen it before.
I like this cited document on the subject as well: https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat
There is a [email protected] community here if your interested.
not just genetics, wasnt there a tokyo study recently linking metabolism to the time of your conceiving? i.e. colder climates equals to slimmer people, whereas a hot climate is breeding grounds for obesity
And not a source to be found
You seriously comment on a like 2 year old posting to bitch about citations in a comment thread?
I gave you all the information you'd need to find sources. Go do it yourself, fuckhead.
Hahahaha speaking of bitching
Why do people drive when they know it's bad for the planet
Because I live in America and there's pretty much no public transportation.
Trust me, if I had a train, I'd fucking use that sucker. Travel into town for my weekly errands AND I don't have to deal with people not using cruise control on a highway? SIGN ME THE FUCK. UP.
why do people live in America
Because they don't have the money and the requisite professions to leave.
Why do people buy from Amazon/Walmart when they know it's making their country poorer?
Why do poor people vote for millionares when they know they don't care about the poor?
Some of us work multiple part time jobs to barely make it.
I'd probably stay in the basement if I didn't need to pay my landed lord their monthly tribute.
buy some cheap sliver of land and park a bus on it. save up and find a better sliver of land and plan from there.
the nearest available cheap sliver of land is 400miles from the city
Is it capitalism?
Do you think people in non-capitalist societies only eat the healthiest of foods?
Each individual is facing the following choice in life:
People want to immediately jump to “if everyone would just …”
Nobody is looking at an “everyone does X” button. People only have their “I do X” button available.
So that is literally the answer to your question. Very few people would sacrifice the civilization to eat a cheeseburger. But nobody has that choice or that power in their hands. Their choice is eat the cheeseburger or not, and the survival of civilization stays rigidly the same between those two choices.
Best response. Almost everyone alive has a net negative impact on the environment. Maybe that one Indian guy who planted a whole forest by himself gets a pass. We can try to be less negatively impactful depending on our inclinations, resources, and other interests and priorities. Some people may choose vegetarianism, some might buy an electric car or install some solar panels, some might organize politically for a new policy. Some might spend their altruism improving social conditions rather than focusing on the environment. But being ever so slightly less of a negative impact on the environment than your neighbour who has a slightly different set of priorities is hardly a reason to feel morally superior.
There's truth to that. None of us is free of blame, and there's always going to be a cost associated with the luxuries and comforts that many of us enjoy; but it's not about "feeling morally superior", it's about doing the right thing, reducing unwarranted harm and suffering as much as you reasonably can. And changing your diet, eating more fruits and veggies and less meat, is probably one of the least obtrusive ways to do so (save for folks with rare medical conditions, or people who live in an environment without an abundance of arable land). Even if you don't give a shit about the suffering of animals or the environment, you at least ought to care about your own well-being.
I've eaten meat my whole life, still do... but I've cut back a lot, and it really hasn't been that difficult. Every time this conversation comes up, nothing annoys me more than the hive-mind crawling out of the woodwork to dump on vegans for daring to speak out against something that is demonstrably harmful in several ways, and then claim that vegans do it only for the purpose of moral grandstanding. Moreover, the absurd amount of appeals to nature and the lazy "bacon tasty" retorts make all of these people look like fucking dorks.
You don't have to flagellate yourself for eating meat, you don't even have to give up meat entirely... But don't be a jackass about it, acknowledge the harmful reality you're contributing to and you can either accept it for what is, cut back and reduce your contribution, or choose to lead a life that doesn't enable it at all.
The bitter thing is: we could just implement the "Everyone does X" button. By creating according laws. But that doesn't happen either. Because suddenly "I would do it, if everyone else did it too" turns out to be just an excuse.
Same reason we use electricity despite not being 100% green energy and thus being even worse for the earth?
If you actually wanna guilt this question then the fuck are you doing using your coal and gas powered electricity to do it?
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, because the capitalists have seen to it that you will never be permitted to make an ethical choice that would dare compete with what they expect you to choose.
Being a moralizing prick doesn't send any message, what gets people to change is making that change easy, that's why instead of being terminally online fuckwads, british vegangelists spread the good news by hosting free kitchens, volunteering to take people grocery shopping on their own pound, teaching vegan cooking classes, and all other sorts of actually addressing literally any of the actual concerns people have about going vegan instead of being a condescending snob about it.
Using electricity isn't optional, eating beef is. I haven't eaten beef in years. The electricity I use is also 100% renewable but that's just dumb luck (My building has solar panels supplemented by a hydroelectric dam).
All OP did was stating a simple fact. If you feel the need to outrage over science, then the problem is certainly not OP.
So honestly, in your opinion, one of the only ways a vegan can change people's minds is to take them shopping and PAY for their food for them. Amazing, this is a new level of shitty push the blame away behaviour. Pathetic.
You’re saying that trying to motivate people positively to move on from meat is “push the blame away” behavior. But I think tut-tutting individuals who eat meat is pushing the blame away.
While there are some people who believe that eating meat is an absolute moral wrong no matter where or when it takes place in human history, a lot of people who feel eating meat is immoral feel this way because of what the meat industry does, both to the animals and to the planet. Five thousand years ago, people weren’t supporting the meat industry and all its wrongs by eating meat.
So considering it to be pathetic to try to effect real reduction in people’s meat consumption because the methods shift blame away from the individual meat eater seems really ironic to me, as well as completely counterproductive, if your goal is less meat consumption in the world.
There is no positive motivation to move people away from meat. Health maybe? Shame and forcing self-reflection is one of the few effective tools.
Your last paragraph is just rubbish. That's not what I was calling pathetic.
Did...did you just admit that you people don't actually believe your own propaganda about why going vegan is better?
Also, pretty objectively shame doesn't actually do anything, lecturing at people about why they're wrong doesn't convince them of anything, at best they just write you off as that ass who's lecturing at them, more often they take it as a fight signal and shut down to you completely.
Going vegan IS better. And I'm saying that as a non vegan (I'm not vegetarian either).
Sure, plenty of vegans are obnoxious about it, but it's not "propaganda". I'm totally weirded out by people who think "I eat dead animals and wreck the environment in the process" is a flex.
Key word there is motivation. I know its 10 letters long so I can explain it if I have to.
Yeah like how you're pretty clearly motivated to suck at actually spreading the message because then you get to keep your feelings of moral superiority all to yourself.
Look, you're here to fight not be informed. It's really obvious and I don't care what you think or say.
Man, you are an amazing pro-meat troll.
How about we shift to talking about portion control and be less all or nothing?
How about we don't engage in reasonable, healthy discussion and instead throw shit?
Cow yummy
This has got to be a troll, right?
We have a vegan infestation unfortunately.
Not everyone has the time and resources to commit to every 'good' fight under the sun especially when the systemic problems are as deeply rooted in our society as they are.
Which device did you post from? Did you vet it wasn't made with slave labor? You might need to go recycle all your devices and unfortunately that will cut you off from getting your message out to the world.
Your post does more harm to your cause than good because it just makes everyone angry at you.
Potatoes, pasta, bread, legumes, nut butters, vegetables, fruits, jelly, jam; all things that many people already eat with some regularity.
Time and resources are hardly an excuse, you don't have to spend two hours a night preparing some 5 Michelin star meal with the most organic, non-GMO, [insert buzzword] ingredients in order to make better dietary choices, at least not in the first world where we have ample options... Shit, even just reducing your meat intake by 10% is a net harm reduction that adds up.
The slave labor thing is valid to an extent, but not entirely analogous. For better or for worse, modern society is increasingly dependent on technology; folks rely on it, in some form, to find/perform work, pay the bills, stay in contact with friends and family, survive the climate they live in, travel, etc... This isn't typically the case with meat, it's often just carnal desire which results in the death of something to the tune of ~80 billion (with a "B") animals every year that didn't really need to be slaughtered.
People absolutely should be upset about the conditions of workers being exploited anywhere in the world and advocate on their behalf where possible, but our position shouldn't be: "Oh, some bad shit happened over here, so I guess it's fine to allow this bad shit over here to proliferate as well"... just sayin'.
I'm genuinely curious: what's the vegans' answer to the question of "what happens to the cattle and other livestock if everyone on the planet turned vegan tomorrow?". It's not like they can just be let loose...
Realistically the amount of livestock is not sustainable and they'd need to be culled in gargantuan numbers so that they don't go from a "managed" ecological disaster to an "out of control" ecological disaster. And then you get the slaughter without the benefit of feeding billions of hungry people.
I'm not vegan, but this does not follow from the premise you set out with.
Most animals are slaughtered after around one year. Calf/piglet/lamb is taken away early so the mother can become pregnant. She becomes pregnant through artificial means in most cases, or at the least in an organized fashion.
These 'gargantuan' numbers of animals we need to cull would not be more than we slaughter at present, if everyone went vegan. No more mechanical pregnanies, no more offspring, and no need for culling beyond the first thirteen months. Of course, I have never heard a vegan talk about changing all meat eaters overnight, so this is an unlikely scenario, but even if that is your premise, it doesn't hold up.
I mean the premise already feels a bit absurd, but I'll play...
I'm not a vegan myself, and I don't really hang out in vegan spaces that much, so my answers may differ from your typical vegan, or not... who knows. But I suppose if the general goal is to preserve life where possible, then you should absolutely try to find some place for the animals to live out their days in peace. If we can manage to stuff them all in neat little boxes on the land we have now, I doubt it's some intractable problem. You don't have to let 'em run free and "out of control" per se, repurpose the land of the now defunct factory farms and slaughterhouses, build a number of sanctuaries all over the place, and plop 'em there. Of course, no one can possibly know all of the variables involved, so I'm not saying this is a well thought out solution, I'm just spitballing... but we're not exactly hurting for land, to my knowledge.
However, suppose I granted you:
Why would that necessitate this outcome?
Veganism isn't some virus that physically prevents you from eating meat, and plenty of vegans have been meat eaters at some point in their lives. If it came down to it, I imagine there would be a steady supply of folks who would opt to revert temporarily instead of letting it go to waste. Vegans may disagree with me here, but I think it's certainly a more ethical choice if the animals are already dead, can't let the sacrifice be for nothing.
The vegan viewpoint on animals really just boils down to eliminating unnecessary suffering and death. Many are fine with the prospect of hunting, fishing, or raising livestock for food when there aren't other options (eg. environments with insufficient crop yields to feed everyone or infrastructure to get other food), the problem arises from the fact that those of us privileged enough to live in a land of abundance continue to needlessly slaughter. Do we need to eat? Of course. Do we need to kill things to do it? Fuck no.
All that said, I think a more realistic transition scenario would be something like the meat industry halting slaughter operations, exhausting their existing supply until either there are no animals left to kill, or there are a small enough quantity to where we can just yeet the rest onto some farms somewhere. Not that vegans would be entirely on board with that, being anti-slaughter and all, but it's at least a reduction in harm and a more believable way for things to play out... I think.
Eating beef is expensive, though. I agree with the rest.
But beef is expensive. Everyone has the resources not to eat beef.
Stop eating meat, it's easy, you change your diet and are healthier.
Honestly stop saying "Your post does more harm to your cause than good because it just makes everyone angry at you"
It's a tired and worn out excuse to avoid saying "I'm lazy and selfish"
Can you provide some product comparisons that include cost and nutritional value? Take into account dietary restrictions as well. Not for me personally but for anyone in general.
No, do your own work if you actually care or are you just trying to "gotcha" me?
The 'gotcha' was going to be: "Great information! This is the kind of post that might actually change someone's mind."
But instead we have condescending posts/comments that assume everyone simply has the means to make a significant change in their life.
Well I suggest you go to one of the many places where people are talking about it. I hesitate to share one with you but try
https://lemmy.world/c/veganhomecooks
Great! Now someone reading this thread that just learned that beef is bad has a community they can look into.
I actually very rarely eat red meat myself but it's for dietary reasons. Poultry and fish are my biggest source of protein but I still get a good amount from seeds, beans, etc.
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn't work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: ![email protected]
Yes, they're just trying to "gotcha" you. They could spend five seconds and look up that information on the same device they're posting from.
So could the poster, but you certainly are not accusing him of trying to "gotcha" other people.
OP? Seems like they're asking for anecdotes and wanting to discuss it. The "gotcha" commenter seemed to clearly be insincere.
In what way? He was clearly receptive to the link given by the other guy. The fact that you only see what you want to see is the real problem here.
I'm lazy and selfish
Not that lazy considering it didn't need to be said. You do you though chief. Good luck getting help to change.
I don't need help
I mean you just admitted you are lazy and selfish. Not a great look is it?
Who cares
Meeeeèeee
It's easy when you only need to care about your own needs. Try saying that with a family and kids...based on your comment I suspect you can't.
Raising a family on a vegetarian diet is dead easy. Just leaving out beef is even easier.
Lead by example, or are you too weak to do that?
You could certainly lead by example by not acting like an insufferable asshole and giving the movement a bad look.
You could choose to stop murdering animals, yet here we are.
I'm pretty sure more animals got killed by you turning off people against the movement than I ever cause by eating beef my whole life. I barely eat beef in the first place, and most of what I eat comes from small scale local farmers. So congrats, I guess, for killing more cows than me.
You're just making shit up to try and justify your stance. It's hilarious.
Because it’s a damn good source of creatine and protein. And it tastes good.
OK, but why not eat less beef and more chicken and herring?
In other words, humans are assholes
Yeah but so are preachy vegetablists
Each to their own and all that
Yup. Each one of us, for some reason or another. Welcome to the club, asshole ❤️
Then so is half of mother nature. It least we usually kill our food before we eat it. We could do something like rip out their guts and unborn calves while they're still alive and start chowing down on them like a hyena.
Ha ha can you imagine if the vegans get into government and enact a law that says we can only eat meat if we kill it ourselves, so we all just start doing this like fuckin deranged hyenas 😂
I mean you do you if you think that's decent human behaviour.
Where I live the beef is local and cheap. I'm not able to obtain enough protein without meat, as confirmed by a doctor and a nutritionist when I tried to go vegetarian. With food costs so high it's cheaper to buy cow than anything else, but when I have the money I opt for fish or turkey. I looked into hunting but it's prohibitively expensive for me with permits, tags, guns, licenses, days off and transportation. I tried fishing for myself as well, but whenever I get time to do it, there are warnings about eating fish in the area. When there aren't I never catch anything big enough to legally be allowed to keep. I'd like to get chickens if/when local government ever lifts the bylaws preventing it.
We may have to stop waiting.
How does that work? Isn't egg white pure protein? Surely eating a pile of boiled eggs would give you the same amount of protein as a steak, not counting stuff like cheese and legumes.
Oh gee I didn't try eggs or dairy in the months I felt like shit after going veggie, and neither the doctor nor nutritionist suggested that either. You solved all my dietary needs and I can give up meat now after years of trying to figure out the most sustainable diet I can manage.
Sorry, I was trying to ask a genuine question, I didn't mean to come across in a negative way.
I'd still be very interested in the answer.
Sorry about that, it's the internet. I'm not a doctor, but it was explained to me that proteins from different sources are not all the same and, while I can process protein from a variety of foods, I don't do it as efficiently as with muscle proteins. The nutritionist I spoke to - who was a vegan and a vegan activist - said people like me need about 1-2 chicken breasts per week. It's not uncommon, a lot of people who try to go veggie and can't hack it just go back to meat without trying to figure out why they felt sick and tired. Other people have said it's genetic based on your ancestors, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence to support that. Other sources point to evidence you can alter the way your body processes things by following specific diet plans, but I'm not prepared to feel that shitty again to figure it out.
Thanks, hadn't heard about that before.
I'd advise you proof read future questions then. Your initial question came across as very dismissive and condescending.
Thanks, I'll try to be mindful of that! English isn't my first language, so there is surely some nuance to be learned.
Their all just using very personal examples to try and prove you wrong. You're not.
I and others are over here with soy, egg and gluten allergies that restrict pretty heavily what I can eat. But go off since you have it all figured out, king.
Sorry about your issues, I never meant to diminish them. I was genuinely curious about how one can become so limited in ones protein intake, but clearly worded my question poorly.
You know who else has restrictions on their food? Vegans. You'd have thought you'd be more sympathetic, but nah, you're negativeyoda.
By choice, dingus.
I don't have that option. Big Ole difference. Maybe give everyone Lyme disease so they develop red meat allergies and we can talk
Okay. You want me to double down? I won't eat at vegan places most of the time. Here's the thing: vegetables are delicious. So why?
Vegans will support a vegan place no matter what and will talk it up as being amazing even if it sucks. I've been burned being told, "oh. That place is so good" and it's just a matter of vegans circling the wagons and propping up a place that serves a lazy impossible burger with fake plastic cheese on it. Y'all ain't accountable and it makes it difficult taking vegan food seriously. No wonder y'all's food has an inferiority complex
Egg and dairy allergies are among the most common food allergies, so I'd guess that something like that might be the issue?
The real question is, why should we try to not eat beef for the environment, when corporations make 90% of all pollution in the world.
Maybe focus on the 90% of the problem and not the individual people who but meat?
the beef industry wouldnt be razing down the amazon forest if no one was buying and eating it, would they?
No corporation pollutes except to produce goods or services for human consumption, or for other businesses that provide goods or services for human consumption.
Every gallon of gas burned is to power a vehicle to move you, or the goods you purchase.
Every natural gas line leads to a house, of a business that sells things to houses.
Theres no such thing as a corporation without consumers, we are where the buck is created, and where the buck stops.
Absolutely correct, glad to have read your comment. People need to start realizing they play a role in what's to come. It's a terrible mentality to think we don't all have our effect on the future.
There is no ethical consumption in capitalism.
Nah, you just don't give a shit to believe you have any control over reality.
Ah, yes, the ol' victim blame schtick. GTFO with that juvenile shit. This isn't some timeless chicken/egg quandary, son.
The reason why the top polluters in the world are oil and gas companies is because you buy oil and gas directly to drive your car or heat your house, or you buy electricity generated by oil and gas. The metals in your vehicle? Mining companies pollution. The food on your plate? Agricultural companies polluting. Even the shirt on your back burned bunker fuel to get from Bangladesh to your house.
If you think you aren't directly responsible for corporate pollution, you're a fucking moron.
We use oil and gas because it's the option that has been made most available to us. This isn't an individual problem. As long as the alternatives are prohibitively expensive for the average person, in terms of time, money, availability, etc, then we're going to always have the bulk of people choosing the easiest option.
We all have so much to worry about each day, trying to fit biking to my job a 45 minute drive away just isn't feasible. The options for changing that are either we go fuckin full on anarchy, burn the system down, and start anew, or slowly, systematically. Set an easily achievable baseline the average person can work to adopt, encourage it via subsidization and education, and give it time.
You're thinking about this wrong, you choose your lifestyle.
You simply aren't willing to give up your lifestyle to avoid emissions. It's clearly possible to live a less polluting lifestyle, there are billions of people polluting almost nothing compared to Western averages, their lifestyle just doesn't have as many conveniences as yours.
There are North American people who have chosen to live ultra-simplistic lives who pollute almost nothing as well.
That's a choice YOU make. It may not feel like you made a choice, but you do so every day by not changing your behaviors.
You're right. At the end of the day, your lifestyle is your choice. I'm merely pointing out that there are a LOT of pressures keeping people stuck in the lifestyle they're in. Those pressures are real, and if you want to effect change, it's better to target them, rather than the individual.
The pressures are not real, they're entirely social constructs.
The easiest fix is for the government to just tax carbon emissions, like Canada, and turn turn the cost way up. The market (Corporations) will change very quickly if it's cheaper not to pollute.
Will it hurt people? Yes. Costs will go up, but pollution will go down. That's the tradeoff.
Oh yeah I'll just stop driving my car in this world they manufactured to be unsustainable to travel in without a car.
If you think you can do ethical consumption by eating the avocados that fund latin american cartels to mutilate and rape the children of anyone who doesn't just sit there and take their shit instead of some beef from a cow raised by some kid doing their 4H project, you're the moron here.
You realize there are people in North America who do not own cars, right?
I made ethical consumption choices by looking at my three largest personal (and family) pollution sources.
First is Home heating/cooling. If you rank pollution sources, this is the single largest for most north American people. Now here I got lucky, my area uses almost 100% hydro electric power, so I switched to using a heat pump from a natural gas furnace. Now I no longer directly burn fossil fuels, and my grid is almost 100% pollution free as well. If I had not lived in this area, I would have chosen to install solar panels to offset my energy use as much as possible, and possibly participated in a green energy purchase program. It costs more, but the whole point is that if this were easy, it would already be done. You need to give something up to reduce your pollution, and in this case that thing you're giving up is some extra money.
Heat pumps are a no-brainer in this category, Smaller homes pollute less, multi-family homes with shared walls pollute less, homes with better insulation pollute less. There's choices here for everyone. They just either cost extra money, or give up some of your lifestyle.
2nd most pollution, transportation, I bought an EV a few years ago, which while it does have pollution for production over it's lifespan will have significantly fewer emissions than an equivalent ICE vehicle. Again, my electricity here is almost 100% green, or could be in almost every area.
I wasn't willing to go car free because of how far I live outside of a city, and I accept the pollution that results from my choice here. When I lived in the city, I used to have a bus pass AND a car, and I'd frequently leave the car in the driveway to take the bus for many trips.
Transportation can be addressed in so many ways, moving closer to the things you need, mass transit, EVs, etc. Again, Money or Lifestyle costs.
3rd most pollution, food, I cook with significantly less meat than average, we aren't vegetarian, but we almost never eat beef(which is a massive pollution source even compared to other meats) and our portion size for meat from pork and chicken is more for flavor than nutrition. A single pack of bacon in a lentil/vegetable stew covers 10 dinner servings, compared to a single 5 person breakfast, and I bulk out the protein with the lentils. We eat tofu 4-5 times a month, prepared in various ways, etc. Using less meat actually saves you money, alternative protein sources like beans, tofu(which is beans), and lentils are FAR cheaper. We also buy a lot of our produce from our local area(less transportation pollution) and preferably with less fertilizers (heavy pollution source)
Overall, does it cost more money or reduce your lifestyle to pollute less? Yes. That's the choice that consumers make. You want to have no pollution AND keep your lifestyle the exact same, but it doesn't work like that. Pollution makes things cheaper, that's why companies do it. They wouldn't bother if it was more expensive. Nobody is sitting in a boardroom going: "Man, this coal costs far more, but we need to fuck the environment a little harder so lets keep using it"
I think your argument works if someone is stealing the beef.
If they are buying it then that is directly funding that "90%".
The thing about individual action is that if it works, it all adds up. But if people all blame the corporations, individual action makes no dent in the over 50% of emissions that individuals help make; a self-fulfilling prophecy. And yes, over 50%. Politifact goes into detail about how most emission indeed comes from consumption instead of corporate production.
Your own source disputes what you say.
The real issue is one of attribution. "Traced to" isn't the same as "responsible for". I have a hard time blaming Saudi Aramco for massive volume of oil consumption in the US. Yes the oil companies are eco terrorists too but the binary take is absurd.
Because corporations make things based on the demand of those individual people. They don't exist in a vacuum. And they're not going to change because someone on the internet rants about them. Their only incentive is profit
It's a bit of both. We started out just liking beef, for all the reasons above - easy to grow, good bioavailability, tasty, etc. From there, we built our society up, became capitalists, and started really honing in on efficiency, because more efficiency is more money. Now cows are everywhere and beef is cheap.
Right now beef is pretty much the cheapest protein option readily available, and that I actually know how to prepare. Both of those come from the supply being huge, our culture being built around meat eating, it just kinda being the way we are.
This isn't an individual problem to solve. No amount of vegans voting with their wallet is going to redirect the monumental ship that is our culture. We need subsidization on non-meat options, more ubiquitous supply, and more practice with the style of cuisine if we ever hope to make changes that stick.
Beef would be much more expensive if not for the huge subsidies, it's artificially cheap. Maybe we just stop doing that and see how it goes.
Right. Part of my point. We have taken great efforts to make beef cheap, and to bolster the supply. With all of this effort, it really isn't a surprise your average person is going to choose beef.
I'd propose slowly increasing subsidies to beef alternatives, and then once those are to the same level of affordableness and you've got some adoption, start cutting beef subsidies. Make the transition slow and painless, more people will stick to it.
I always hear people talking about how beef is so cheap and I wonder how that could be when it costs twice as much as pork in my grocery store. I never thought about subsidies in other countries.
Corporation polluter the planet, therefore we should be allowed to torture animals. You got it boy
This rage bait question could be reworded as...
Why do people consume when we know it's bad for the earth.
I think it's valid that he chose the #1 food source problem to talk about first. Once we fix that, let's discuss #2.
What a loaded question.
Outside of the fact that a single cows life provides about 900 meals for humans, and the scraps left over make boots that last for a decade and also feed our cats and dogs. Plus, it's delicious.
Yeah so, the amount of meals is correct. But that's about it. I mean, I can't say about the taste, to each their own, but one kg of cow meat needs two dozen kg of grain.
That's about as inefficient as it gets.
As for the leather, the industry doesn't like products that last a decade, so it isn't actually using the leather in such a way. Industrial leather boots last a year tops.
Finally, pet food is made out of discarded cuts of meat, the uglies, etc. But also lots of cereals, and vegetables.
So we could really afford eating less meat. It isn't good for anything. Not for us, not for the other species (certainly not for the cows, that get often half assed butchered in a hasty way because of quotas and profit), and absolutely not for the ecosystem.
But I guess the taste is all that matters.
With respect, you're buying awful boots.
If we had the same size, I could be wearing my grandfather's steeltoes that are probably a solid 40 years old. People really underestimate how long good footwear lasts when you take care of it.
I can make hey dude's last 9 months. If OP can't make the cheapest leather boots last more than a year, they are using them wrong, or they should buy high end boots for whatever they're doing.
Seriously. I bought some dirt cheap full grain leather biker boots 3 years ago; I have given them exactly 0 care, abused the snot our of them daily, and they are still holding up strong. These weren't even boots meant for working and they still survived trudging through the various slops of all 4 minnesotan seasons for 3 years.
As long as you are buying actual leather and not "genuine leather" then whatever you buy should easily last several years even if not cared for. Well cared for leather goods can last decades.
So, OK, I'm willing to learn: please show me good brands then.
They need to resist to mud (thick mud, the kind with a ton of suction that will keep your soles when you try and move), seawater, rocks and sand, and pretty dense vegetation.
They also need to have steel toe caps, good soles (vibram or equivalent if possible) that don't slip, and that aren't too hard (wet stone is enough of a female dog as it is), and to go higher than my ankle.
The best brand I tried so far was caterpillar, but they lasted only 3 years. That's a far cry from "a decade or more".
Cows are not all fed on grain. A lot of cows are ranched on land that would not be suitable for growing grain crops.
Whatever their food is, 1kg of beef requires 24kg of grain's worth of energy. This is something they teach in high-school biology now. The higher the food chain, the more energy is lost. Stopping such production would be pretty beneficial to the environment, but whether we should is a complicated question.
But as I pointed out, many cattle are ranched on land that cannot grow grain. They can't grow the sorts of crops that humans eat, only the sorts of crops that cattle eat. If cattle weren't being ranched on those lands they wouldn't be producing edible grain instead, or any other food that humans could eat. So the inefficiency is moot when it comes to the amount of nutrition produced, removing the cattle from that land would simply reduce the total amount of food we have available.
Sure, if you remove the cattle then wild animals could come in to replace them, but we should make sure that's not going to result in starvation and poverty if we do that. Many areas of the world have subsistence ranching by the locals.
And of course the land couldn't be used for anything else... like natural ecosystems.
Just because land exists doesn't mean it needs to be pillaged to feed our desires.
Are we just going to ignore the millions of acres of vast grasslands that supported like 50 million buffalo in the US 200 year ago? Healthy grassland ecosystems and ruminants are a thing.
Most ranchland is, in fact, a "natural ecosystem." They just send cattle out to graze on it.
The point I'm making here is about food efficiency, though, not about land use.
Exactly. Nah, we just gotta have man made monoculture everywhere, or a desert, right? So that, in the end, it just amounts to deserts anyway. Yay. 😶
Interesting. However, a search says that feeding all the grass (or whatever) to cattle takes that food away from existing ecosystems in dry areas and potentially allow exotic weeds to take over land. So we probably don't want this to expand to the point where we intrude on dry ecosystems.
It's just a matter of land management. Many of those grassland areas used to have other large grazing animals on them, so as long as the cattle herds aren't bigger than those old herds it should be sustainable.
Billions of trees every year get cut down to make space for cattle pastures, now tell me how destroying entire ecosystems that have been there for potentially thousands of years is worth some particular meat.
Yeah. Different issue.
Cant paint all beef with that bad brush.
And billions of acres of pasture could never support trees
Or even land that is suitable for growing grain, but they're kept being fed almost entirely on grass, for better quality, better health (and less cow farts, lol), rather than cost cutting nasty to bulk them up.
Well, if we're talking pure food-production efficiency, then if the land is capable of growing grain then it's probably better to grow grain there and feed the grain directly to humans.
But upvote anyway for responding to a year-and-a-half-old thread, this is the oldest necro response I've received yet on the Fediverse. :)
Well in that case perhaps we should do just algae and worms.
Or maybe we should consider more than "pure food-production efficiency" in such a crude manner.
Perhaps we should consider nutrition and health (of those eating the food, and the environment), more than just crude bulk quantity.
Grain based diet would ruin our immune systems, and the health of the soil, without animal fertilizer.
And we haven't even started on the effects of Glyphosate yet!
I haven't at any point in all of this argued that we should only eat grains or only eat meat. In fact, I pointed out that some land is only good for meat production via ranching. So you could raise cattle on that land and grow grain on the other land and literally everyone wins.
If you're doing it [very] wrong.
Inefficient?
Cows eat grains that humans can't digest, or if they can, it takes energy to transform them to something human can eat.
we use some of the most fertile lands in the midwest that could be used to grow literally anything else to grow vast amounts of soy and corn for cows.
And in those specific cases, sure, you could do more efficiently by getting rid of the cattle.
The point I'm making is that there's plenty of cattle raised in places that aren't like that.
sure but a very small amount compared to what people eat. around 50% of american land is just used to grow crops for cattle. if we opted to reduce that, think of how much forest and natural land we could bring back.
Imagine how many people you could feed if we would just eat what we fed the animals!
Ah yes, good old hay ... delicious!
We can't live on hay and corn. Cows need several stomachs to do it.
Also, getting enough protein and creatine and other vitamins as a vegan is a hell of a lot of work and doesn't taste as good.
Humans are animals, and the type of animals we are is omnivores. Not herbivores.
Yup. Mostly better suited more leaning to the carnivore and fruitarian side of omnivore.
Man cannot live on grass.
I tried hard, for a decade, and never managed to fully do it, even with a lot of hemp kernels (1-4 cups) every day.
Health bouncing back since going keto-carn. Mostly beef. (Grass fed).
So simple, so easily healthy.
Contrast to the complex chemistry juggling jigsaw of trying to have a vegan diet.
Maybe blood type matters. Maybe other blood types than mine have an easier time of vegan (or at least vegetarian, or just pescetarian). Or other genetic, evolutionary, environmental factors.
You start.
Let me know how a diet of grass works out for you, your digestive system, your immune system, and overall health.
Well I've been vegan for a long time and am healthier than many animal abusers, so it's going quite well for me :)
I don't believe you know enough animal abusers to make such a claim
Of course I can, everyone around me is eating animals ;)
that's not abuse
Right, the systematic torture of millions of animals is absolutely not animal abuse.
Can you finish this documentary: https://watchdominion.org/ (YouTube)
Or will you keep your eyes closed?
It's delicious, therefore we should torture it and eat it. People are the worst.
There's no need to "torture" cattle to get meat from them. Indeed, meat from animals that are experiencing stressful conditions tastes worse. Not to mention simply having lower productivity. A farm with happy cows is going to be more profitable than one with stressed ones, all else being equal.
Guess you didn't get to grow up watching the discovery Channel before all their shows were about crab fishing and animal rescue. Would you rather I go rip a gazelle apart and start eating it's insides while it keeps trying to stand up with only two front legs?
Because it tastes great and it's today, and not tomorrow.
Not everybody agrees that beef is bad for you and the environment. We were talking about human health, it's hard to find a more of bioavailable source of nutrition than animal protein and fat
While I acknowledge the concept of a "carbon footprint" is complete BS, beef production does have a very high impact on climate change. Just want to point out that fact. I still eat it from time to time though. Yes, beef is high in protein and tasty.
As an aside, I believe as environmentalists, we shouldn't shame people for doing the "wrong" things IMHO as even the best of us still contribute to the problem in some way. Everyone has their own reasons for doing what they do, and shame doesn't often change minds. Personally, I try to take my own small steps, but I'm not prepared to live like a hermit. I do try to eat meat less often, and I volunteer a considerable amount of time to lobby for more climate friendly policies. This course of action is what works well for me.
Not all beef production is alike.
Multigenerational farms, organic, traditional, grass fed, sustainable, etc, is radically different to industrially clear-cut ancient forest just for a few years of farming, and grain feeding, and/or factory farming.
It tastes good and I’m a carnivore.
omnivore, but i agree
Carnivore is fantastic for those who need to heal from health issues. It's expensive if you don't know what you're doing, but it's worth it once you study it.
Helping heal me. Yup.
Expensive?
Turns out cheaper in my experience. Not buying all the rest of that low nutrient cruft.
If you consider nutrient bio-availability, eating meat is order of magnitudes cheaper for the nutrition we're getting. It's a no-brainer if only people would give it a go.
Humans make methane too, btw, if we eat vegetables. Much, much less on carnivore in my personal experience, and I've not found any studies on environmental impact that even attempt to factor this in.
I've been attempting to fix that as well. The biggest contributor, I think, is linoleic acid in seed oils. Once you get through that hurdle, everything else should fit into place (cutting the soy, gluten and cow's milk if autistic, refined sugars, and of course, seed oils).
Indeed, good shortlist.
I'd like to test reintroducing cow's milk, as not pasteurized, raw. No source here though, afaik. Tried Jersey cow's milk once, and it was fine, tried it a second time, and it was a hard fail. Goat and sheep, meh.
Your mention of "if autistic", has me wonder about my fairly large ghee consumption.
Actually autistic, btw.
I happened to be legitimately autistic myself (diagnosed as such). Cow's milk and gluten will not treat someone with autism very well, gluten due to leaky gut, and cow's milk due to how it's structured. Goat's milk and sheep's milk will do very well for those with autism (I can attest to that, as I consume goat's milk in a butter from Meyenberg I use a lot).
As for ghee, that's also okay, as it's just the casein (both A1 and A2, whereas the A1 is your "lactose intolerance") stripped out. Lactose too, though, again, that's A1 casein.
Ground beef and eggs can be quite reasonable when purchased in bulk from wholesale sources! Keeps my cost down
Why do vegans always think they have the moral high ground?
The average human has much more of a negative effect on the environment than a cow. So, shouldn’t the question be why we tolerate so many people?
You beat me to it.
How would not tolerating look like? Let's start with you as an example, maybe your loved ones too. And maybe look at the horrors of a one child policy in China before we start following that idea again.
Maybe start with people like you who take things on the Internet too seriously
Don't ya just love when scumbags try to make ecofascism woke?
Go back to being a terrible dad Ra'as AlGhoul.
You’re really sensitive, huh?
Because most of the people eat the same kind of food their parents have been eating.
I did try to reduce the impact of what I eat, but I haven't found a replacement for using chicken with a slow cooker. Beef also tastes good, especially when I eat at a restaurant.
I have stopped making hamburgers on my own (and replaced them with fish or soup), but I haven't put more effort into reducing my impact recently.
? I think you can safely get rid of a slow cooker as there is no need for this when you cool with veggies...
Then I can't eat all the wide variety of delicious meals that are only possible with a slow cooker.
I mean going vegetarian or vegan by definition reduces your options.
That said, there are lots of delicious slow cooked vegan foods. Despite what the other commenter says, there certainly are flavours & textures available that are not easily accessed on the hob, even eating plant based.
Humans can be weird about these facts or simply indifferent to the known effect that raising these animals for meat has on the environment. Additionally, I think the antagonistic message of a few vocal vegans triggered a powerful foolishness in the heads of certain people who are prone to acting hedonistically upon being told not to do something. A combination of apathy, chasing profits, taste for beef, and spite which fuels the industrialized beef production business. Another issue is that most of us simply won't be around to experience the consequences of the unchecked corporations responsible for this willful harm the meat industry is causing Earth's climate and surrounding environment. I believe in moderation, eating as little of all the meats as possible (those industries have a big impact on the environment). As an American, I see a weird pride that certain people have about eating as much meat as possible; loudly shunning and making fun of those who have either a mostly plant-based, vegetarian, or vegan diet. It's such a selfish outlook that happens in societies that focus on the individual over the many.
I think most people middle-aged or younger will experience the consequences (in fact, we already are with the increased frequency of severe weather events) it's just that those consequences will get worse over time.
The youngest of people certainly will be I could have worded this thought better, but I didn't. Severe weather is certainly a consequence as well as increased extremes in temperature which are currently happening. Everyone already feels the impact of irresponsible environmental decisions made by the oil industry and industrial agriculture/animal husbandry. Millennials, Gen X and Gen Z will be around to experience the worsening of conditions on Earth. I do genuinely believe that people don't consider the fact that they aren't going to experience the climate outcomes based on irresponsible decisions. However, based on the current growing political instability of the USA; I wonder if people are beginning to feel a desire to indulge as they don't know if they'll come out unscathed from the blowup which is bound to happen at some point. A bad outlook to have in a way as that will only magnify future issues, however, humans aren't always rational! 🤪
Why is killing people wrong, but ok in war? Why do we still kill animals even though we know it's wrong? Why is killing wrong in the first place? I bet you can't find a single rational reason. That is because ethics isn't based on reason, but instead on emotion. Given that, I don't find it very surprising that it's often very hypocritical.
Ethics may not be fully objective, but claiming that they're fully based on emotion is a ridiculous thing to say. You can make ethical arguments based in reason. Pointing to the war and saying "see, ethics aren't real" is an incredibly naïve conclusion to draw.
Come on, I'd love to hear some, also the stakes are still up if you can give me a rational argument why killing is wrong.
I think it's rather self evident, but I'll share a logical outline which resonates with me. To be sussinct: Most sentient beings kinda like being alive. Where possible, it's morally preferable to let them continue in that state.
It's basically an application of the golden rule. You can get in to game theory or utilitarianism for more thorough arguments to show that killing is generally wrong, but it then still has to come back to life having value which is quite hard, if not impossible, to logically prove.
So then you need to refer back to philosophy to find arguments that life has intrinsic value. I personally prefer using Camus' acceptance of the absurd as a basis for intrinsic value, but there are lots of other potential arguments that lead to the same conclusion.
Ultimately, though, it's impossible to even prove that other beings simply exist (e.g. solipsism) or have experiences, but at some point we mostly all look at the evidence and accept that they do.
The issue I see with these theories is that this idea of inherent value they all arrive at is very abstract in a way. What does it even mean for something to have inherent value, and why is it wrong to destroy it?
Another problem is that we talk about destroying life without even fully understanding it in the first place. What if life (in the sense of consciousness) is indestructible?
The way I see it, people accept that life has some inherent value because our self preservation instinct tells us that we don't want to die and empathy allows us to extend that instinct to other living beings. Both are easily explained as products of evolution, not rational or objective, but simply evolutionarily favourable. All these theories are attempts to rationally explain this feeling, but they all inevitably fail, as they're (in my opinion) trying to prove something that simply isn't objectively true.
Anyways, I feel like even if you accepted any individual theory that seems to confirm our current understanding of morality and stuck with it fully, you would come to conclusions which are completely conflicting with it. For example in the case of utilitarianism, you could easily come to the conclusion that not donating most of your money to charity is immoral, as that would be the course of action which would result in the largest total amount of pleasure.
I think the inverse problem is more troubling. If you accept that nothing has inherent value, then isn't everything morally permissible? Maybe it is an emotional decision, or perhaps a leap of faith, but I find that idea so repugnant, I couldn't believe it and continue functioning as a person.
I think in terms of consciousnes, Occam's razor leads me to suspect that it's tied to brain function, and when that ceases, so does it. Of course, once again, things like this are very hard to prove. I do think, though, that science and philosophy will eventually unravel it. (Incidentally, there's actually a book by Dan Dennett I've been meaning to read about this topic which was suggesting we're quite a bit closer to figuring it out than most people think.)
One of the problems with philosophy is that there's never any smallest part, beyond perhaps Descartes's "cogito, ergo sum". You can reduce any argument more and more and they all start to not make sense and eventually crumble. You can pick at their semantic foundation or the thousands of years of preceding thought until they unravel, then that nice sweater is now just a bunch of fibres. If you refuse to view philosophical arguments as a whole, then there's nothing there to view.
It's like an actual sweater. Does it even exist in the first place? After all, it's just a bunch of stuff arranged in a particular way, and it's called a sweater because it has some sort of human utility and we decided to give it a name. You could go about your life and believe that sweaters don't exist, and it'd be quite hard to prove you wrong.
Or you can accept that it's a useful human construct, so they do. Maybe you could even go further, and believe there's some idealised concept of sweaterness that exists in some meta-reality, which all sweaters share a property of.
I think this is essentially the realist viewpoint.
And you could be right, maybe all our current moral theories do run into contradictions, so perhaps they're all wrong.
Heck, we're running into similar problems in astrophysics. When we learn more about our universe, and things stop adding up. But that just means we go back to the drawing board and find a better model until they make sense.
Same for philosophy. When you reach a contradiction, you go back and come up with better ideas. It's a process of slowly uncovering the truth.
After a few years of philosophy in university, I think it's like software development. You can always go to a lower level but doing so won't bring you forward in most cases. You can ask these meta questions on every single argument but there are no satisfying results. Don't get me wrong, I still think it's fun :D
Yes, I agree it seems scary, but all it really means is that morality is not universal but specific to humans. You could say everything is inherently morally permissible in the sense that there is no higher power which will punish you for your actions, so essentially there is nothing preventing you from committing them. In short, the universe doesn't give a shit what you do.
Still, your actions do have consequences, and you are inevitably forced to live with them (pretty much Sartre's viewpoint). Because of this, doing things you think are wrong is often bad for you, because it causes you emotional pain in the form of guilt and regret, and also usually carries along negative social repercussions which outweigh the value of the immoral act in the first place. You could say that people are naturally compelled to act in certain ways out of completely selfish reasons. In this sense, I prefer to look at morality more as a "deal" between the members of a society to act in a certain mutually beneficial way (which is fueled by our instincts, a product of evolution), than something universal and objective.
The reason I doubt in our current understanding of consciousness is because I find its distinction between what is conscious and what isn't quite arbitrary and problematic. At which point does an embryo become conscious, and how can something conscious be created from something unconscious? The simplest explanation I can imagine is that consciousness is present everywhere and cannot be created nor destroyed. This view (called panpsychism) is absolutely ancient, but seems to be gaining some recognition again, even among neuroscientists.
As you mentioned, "cogito, ergo sum" might be the only real objective truth that philosophy has uncovered so far. I am an optimist in that I believe surely more than one such truth must exist. If it was only discovered 400 years ago, surely there is more to be found. Maybe it is possible to collect some of these small fragments and build some larger philosophical theory from them, one that will be grounded in fact and built up using logic. I guess only time will tell.
And yes, of course some abstraction is beneficial in order to make sense of the world, even if it isn't completely correct or objective.
Because not everyone agrees that it's terrible for Earth. And even some of those that do may not consider it so terrible for Earth that it's not worth the tastiness.
You're wasting electricity running a computer right now, when we know that electricity generation is terrible for Earth. Why are you doing that?
I literally just called the uninformed position of "bad for the earth" out a little bit, and even have an anecdote of my positive personal experience eating meat. I get the sentiment for those who do eat meat, and get bullied just because they want to be healthy (while those who eat plants tend to have a lot of health issues, and can be overwight or obese by refined sugars, gluten, soy, seed oils and/or cow's milk that's GMO'd [a correlation some don't seem to get]).
Glad to see someone's on a similar page about it, as that's just some sort of silly thing to me.
Tastes gud
In my country at least beef consumption peaked around 2012 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/24/uk-meat-consumption-lowest-level-since-record-began-data-reveal)
I think post WW2 there was a drive towards the idea that we'd never need to go without. This combined with lifestyle changes (more people working longer hours) gave birth to the rise of fast convince foods and the mass growth of places like McDonalds and Burger King.
Why don't people just stop? Ideas within society have a lot of momentum, they take a lot of energy to get started and a lot to turn or stop again.
Simple. I like beef, so I eat beef.
I eat beef (occasionally) due to its excellent flavor, versatility in cuisine, and high complex protein density.
This might not be a "stupid" question, but it sure is a loaded and leading one that for sure isn't in good faith. Welcome to my block list, enjoy your stay.
That's what I thought as well. It's disgusting when someone leads and loads up a question with people who don't understand critical thinking sometimes.
It’s ingrained into our capitalistic culture. Fast food ads every 20 minutes on tv. Grilling on weekends. Tailgating. A WackDonald’s on every corner. Not to mention big Dairy.
Cost. I mainly eat rice. But I'll take meat when I can get it. Chicken, beef, mongolian wookie meat. Doesn't matter. Humans are omnivorous. We require protein to function.
I have made a pottage of carrots, potatoes, onions, and sweet potatoes today. It's all about cost for me.
Just reminded me of the protein content of stinging nettles.
Maybe we should be growing fields of it. And have a diet of mostly nettles.
Sounds like a joke, but probably not the one it seems like. (You cook the sting out of it).
It'd do wonders for male hormone balance. At least.
Beef is one of the least-woke proteins. /s
What if rolling coal were a sandwich?
We only eat the fascist cows. And the homophobic chickens at Chick-fil-A.
THOSE COWS ARE NOT FASCIST!
THEY'RE HINDU!
Different swastika.
;D
Eating beef (or any meat for that matter) isn't harmful but "excessive consumption" of "industrially produced meat" is. And you shouldn't cut out meat from your diet — our bodies need those nutrients.
That's because, if done right and from the right source, certain meats are actually good for the human body.
Anybody who thinks that heart disease comes from eating meat does not understand that, despite the amount of research on it, meat cannot be considered to be bad for anyone's health. Those that do have some research on it are going based upon flukes, fraud and lies, likely spread by witches and warlocks. I personally eat organic meat myself, and I have no health issues because of what I eat.
As they say... "you are what you eat". Also, I eat meat so vegans and vegetarians can have an easier time not eating meat. In a way, I'm helping them in some sense (as far as I'm aware, but I could be wrong on that).
Why aren't you living out in the woods eating nuts and berries? Whatever device you're using to post this, it's terrible for Earth!
Meat yummy
Cause beef is good Cows taste good
It's very, very simple. It's cuz shit's tasty AF and most people care more about themselves and their tastebuds than climate.
It's nutritious. Instead of carefully observing some diet you can eat some beef and buckwheat or cabbage or beans, and you're good.
That said, I eat meat so rarely that my relatives worry, mainly because it takes some time to cook if you boil it, and I'm lazy and unorganized, and frying it has the potential of, eh, leaving the kitchen for 5 minutes which turn out to be half an hour and returning for the smell.
Other than that people can't care about every problem at once.
It's almost like being extremely antagonistic and smug doesn't convince people of your arguments and just puts them off...
It also doesn't work if you're not "antagonistic and smug". People don't like to change, so they aren't going to change their eating habits.
It has nothing to do with how people talk to you and everything to do with you just liking meat.
1 the amount of beef I eat is not a major contributer to the problem. No matter how hard I try. The actual major contributors what to distract people by telling them that they can make the difference. They can't. 2 I don't like plants... 3 the way the grow plants for food is also terrible for earth
Plants actually cause a lot of health problems. For example...
Do we see why I tend to eat beef a lot, and avoid these feed ingredients whenever I eat certain plants?
The major contributors only sell what people buy. They won't stop so long as there's money to be made. And most plants grown for food go to feed animals.
You don't like plants because you're a big baby.
So yeah, your arguments suck.
because not every country produce beef like you westerner. and not everyone eat beef everyday.
go make your government ban beef like you ban palm oil if you really care about earth.
I would get them to end all subsidies for the beef industry if I could. Unfortunately I'm not in control of that, all I can do is bring up discussion, and I got you to comment, so I succeeded.
So you did nothing that won't get lost in the maelstrom of the internet...congrats.
🤣
If you're going to do something so foolish as that, could you at least try offset it with something wise, like restoring cannabis?
Or maybe just do the wise thing, without doing the foolish thing.
Some people don't seem to realize they're sitting high, on the branch they're seeking to saw off.
Begging the question
Cause, I wanna. Moooo = Yummo.
Oh, that's an easy one to answer. It's because it's fucking delicious and easy to grow.
The same reason they still have children.
It's life, Jim.
Because it tastes good and because people are so far removed from where their food comes from. Why eat vegetables that use illegal immigrants as workers and are treated harshly?
Tasty
Cigarette smokers must really baffle you too
I appreciate your question, but I think "we know" is problematic:
I'm not trolling, either, just asking questions from a philosophical point of view. I've changed my mind about several things I took very seriously and thought I was 100% right about. Could others be dealing with similar changing-mind-through-time processes? Could you?
"We" are informed individuals who care about proven scientific facts.
"Know" is the fact that methane is a strong greenhouse gas.
No, when it comes to something factually proven time and time again. Anyone can "know" anything but that doesn't mean they're correct.
I've gone through many mind changing events in my life time, so has everyone else.
"We know better than you" has never been an effective way to change other peoples' minds, in my experience.
I have a eating disorder so most vegetables make me retch, so I kind of don't have a choice.
Also companies do way more emissions than I ever will, yet I'm asked to stop.
I have food sensitivities which make it so that I can't eat most leafy greens, most legumes, mushrooms, large amounts of carbs....
I'd be on the toilet 24 hours a day if I went vegan.
I take it you're on a carnivore diet of some sort due to your eating disorder?
Carnivore diet is a weird way to phrase it, it really depends on the consistency of the food, but I do mostly eat meat because it causes the least problems.
Question carries likely erroneous premise.
Beef's not terrible for the earth. ... or are there many things I'm overlooking?
Beef supports grassland, helping cooling and cleaning the air, and keeping the microbiome rich and robust.
Very high nutritional completeness and nutritional density, both per acre, and per lb. Especially if done in a sensible organic way. Even more so if we make sure to use every part (including leather too! Very long lasting, very low waste, very robust, very healthy, very respecting the animal).
Unlike when coerced and forced to give the cattle Bovaer, poisoning them, weakening them, preventing their ability to properly digest food, under the misguided over-focus on preventing cow farts, as if that's even an issue at all when feeding them properly, or, even when not, as if the miniscule amount of methane they produce holds more weight of relevance or sensibleness to remedy compared to the dozen other sources of man made methane that are dozens and dozens of times greater.
Gee, it's almost like it's a ploy, to destroy the food supply, from those who promote the idea of eugenics and depopulation [~ remember the Georgia Guidestones top line? Imagine 20 people you know. To meet the georgia Guidestones target, 19 of them must die]. Almost like they'd rather maintain their monopolistic power over us all, keeping us dependent on inferior polluting technology that they can extract rents from, impoverishing us by, than stop sitting on (and outright secreting) patents that could emancipate the world with non-polluting rents-free technologies.
Almost like. /s
Edit: PS: Restoring cannabis would go a long way.
Beef makes money. Just like cars, oil makes money.
The margins on good beef are slim (to non existent, and in need of subsidizing).
Verrrrry different beast to oil.
eating beef is not terrible for the earth
The USA has abundant farmland and the ability to feed its own citizens with its existing agriculture. Beef is tasty and I'm glad we have so many cows we can eat. If the rest of the world doesn't like that they are free to eat as many bugs as they want.
I only eat beef on special occasions a handful of times per year and, if I'm buying, make sure it is as local as possible. Bonus points if it's from a farm that has land that's otherwise crap for vegetable/staple farming (which is a lot here in mountainous Japan)
A classic burger is delicious! Just watch The Menu
Its a cultural thing for my wife and her family. Pretty much every meal she learned to cook when she was a beef meal.
Big money involved
You really triggered some folks 🤣
Good, discussion has gotten stale as fuck on the internet. I don't want to see Lemmy become some censored smooth brained shit pool like Reddit.
Because:
This is ignoring the fact that raising a cow for consumption requires ~10 times the amount of crops per calorie compared to just eating the crops directly. Also, I don't think I've heard a single health expert recommend eating more beef - the universal understanding is that red meat consumption is generally a net negative in terms of overall health.
Kind of, kind of not. If fed corn, yes. If pasture raised, no. Humans can't eat grass. Cows convert grass into food.
Perhaps better to measure digestible protein than calories.
Because people are selfish, stuck in their ways, and speciesist. Some are also ignorant
Because my partners are picky eaters and I literally cannot get them to even try vegetarian meals. If it doesn't have beef, pork, or chicken then they won't touch it. >_<
Because we are carnivores and that's how nature works?
Dumb fucks who fall for propaganda on every platform.
I'm a native whose culture have hunted and eaten meat for millennia, what propaganda were my ancient ancestors being shown?
What does what your ancestors did have to do with what we now know about modern factory farming? The question was about still eating beef despite what we know today, what does that have to do with your ancestors? Is your comment not the very definition of a strawman?
Who are you to come to my continent, judge me and tell me my culture is wrong?
The future mate, the future.
The future will absolutely not look down on cultures that have to rely on animals for food. Do we look at native Americans as horrible people because they had to slaughter animals, in a controlled, and relatively well thought out manner?
Personally I believe the most likely alternative will be bugs. Do bugs not count as an animal? Or would you say bugs shouldn't be eaten either
They would drive animals off cliffs. That would cause horror if they were to repeat it today yes. Just stop eating living animals it's that simple, but if you want to eat bugs, knock yourself out.
I think we'll find "plagues" of species more common and end up harvesting as many as possible then so that "locust" is the primary protein source for that year.
Its not that simple. I can see why you believe it is, and it probably helps contribute to why you have little empathy even for those who show you they physically cant.
Along with the other answers:
Because cooked cowflesh smells delicious, and there are companies out there that are willing to capitalize on that.
The bigger question is: why do people still drink cows milk? And the answer to that one is all about politics and power.
Because pouring vodka in my bowls of cinnamon toast crunch is frowned upon by society.
Let 'em frown. You have Cinnamon Toast Vodka now.
Thanks to you, cinnamon toast cocktails are a thing I have just now learned about
Honestly, I like the taste of cow's milk. I drink it because I enjoy it. I'm also a sucker for chocolate and milk.
Same, I just like how it tastes. I'd rather not eat any meat than not drink milk. I do know that both are bad for the environment and for the cows but quitting is not easy
Because they're lazy and comfortable and stupid and they don't give a shit about anything.
You haven't made vegan food free yet. Make vegan food free, and people will naturally eat more of it. Plus you solve hunger at the same time.
You do care about reducing beef consumption right? Well start here. Stop spinning your wheels elsewhere