We must face facts - meat is the problem

[K.I.T.T.23]

I don't understand your argument here. Are you saying that it's unethical to eat plants?


All of them.

It could be! What makes it ethical to eat them? Do we make the assumption they do not feel pain? Is pain what we want to prevent? While plants do not feel pain the same way mammals do, they do feel a sensation similar to pain. So, if we want to eliminate "pain" from our food, plants would be off the menu. This would leave us only milk and honey as ethical foods as no pain (though it is probably aggravating for the bees).

As for which have the right to live, ok, nothing that swims or walks shold suffer and die? Do you support the use of pesticides on plant food? Because that kills a LOT of animals.

To be clear: I am not saying we need to not do these things, but before we condemn meat eaters, maybe we should reflect on our reasoning.

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

Here is another one that threw me for a loop. Mushrooms (genetically), are closer in relation to humans and the animal kingdom than they are related to plants. Ok, so do we say they are off the menu? We are very similar, probably why we would say mushrooms are meaty in texture and flavor. Some more food for thought (pun intended).

For reference, an oldie but a good one:

Rearranging the Branches on a New Tree of Life

 

[mspohr]

It could be! What makes it ethical to eat them? Do we make the assumption they do not feel pain? Is pain what we want to prevent? While plants do not feel pain the same way mammals do, they do feel a sensation similar to pain. So, if we want to eliminate "pain" from our food, plants would be off the menu. This would leave us only milk and honey as ethical foods as no pain (though it is probably aggravating for the bees).

As for which have the right to live, ok, nothing that swims or walks shold suffer and die? Do you support the use of pesticides on plant food? Because that kills a LOT of animals.

To be clear: I am not saying we need to not do these things, but before we condemn meat eaters, maybe we should reflect on our reasoning.

Mark Twain

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

lol!!! calling me an idiot in a round about way. Well done sir.

When presented with facts and logical fallacies with their arguments, most ideologues will resort to ignoring, name-calling, or other childish anecdotes.

Enjoy your echo chamber. I hope some day you explore beyond your comfort zone.

 

[JRP3]

lol!!! calling me an idiot in a round about way. Well done sir.

When presented with facts and logical fallacies with their arguments, most ideologues will resort to ignoring, name-calling, or other childish anecdotes.

Enjoy your echo chamber. I hope some day you explore beyond your comfort zone.

The issue is you've presented nothing new. You're conflating philosophical arguments against eating animals with the environmental benefits of not raising and killing animals for food. It's simply an inefficient process which is not sustainable in the long term.

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

The issue is you've presented nothing new. You're conflating philosophical arguments against eating animals with the environmental benefits of not raising and killing animals for food. It's simply an inefficient process which is not sustainable in the long term.

You are right, my points are not new, and they don't correlate with the title of this thread, but they do correlate with the discussions.
I also agree, our current meat production, while super efficient and unbelievably cheap (relatively) are not sustainable long term. Also, along those lines; with a population between 9-11 billion (likely our pop cap) a non-localized vegetarian food source may also not be sustainable (we just don't know for sure yet). This is compounded further if the population was fully vegetarian.

The solution IMHO is lab-grown meats, en-mass, along with other technological changes. The solution isn't the promotion of going vegan, vegetarian, or any other superficial dietary change. When available I would absolutely jump on the band wagon of unethical treatment of animals and even plant life! But until then I will continue to have chicken for lunch, a steak on the weekends, and vegetables constantly.

Ethics change as technology changes. Currently, it is ethical to kill animals and plant life to sustain other life. It is a natural process that has been around since the first single cell organisms started to realized it was more efficient to "eat the other guy" than synthesize their own fuel (I know, a gross over-simplification).

Currently, raising/slaughter of animals as efficiently and humanely as possible to provide proteins is also ethical. It is efficient, it is sustainable in the short term, and until an alternative is available; it is what we will do as a population.

On a humorous side: I do thank the vegan and vegetarian population for their contribution to keeping my protein cost down!

 

[JRP3]

The solution isn't the promotion of going vegan, vegetarian, or any other superficial dietary change.

Hardly superficial when it completely eliminates the problem. This has all be covered in the other 30 pages of this thread you obviously haven't read.

 

[David_Cary]

To give a possible middle ground. Going vegan doesn't eliminate the damage of too many humans. It appears to reduce it by about 70% give or take. So I wouldn't call it "completely eliminating" the problem.
But a 70% reduction is really nothing to sneeze at. At that point and with other changes, it is very possible that 10 billion can be done sustainably. I think we can all agree that 10 billion people eating a US like diet is not sustainable.
And there are really 2 issues - quantity and meat focus. The most egregious thing is to eat more than you need and since we are running about 70% of US adults are overweight, we really need to work on that.

Pesticides is a very foolish argument in favor of meat consumption. The really only rational argument is that you like to eat meat.

Even if you feel that plants have feelings and we should ethically only eat as few as possible, you should eat them directly rather than the inefficient process of feeding them to an intermediary and then eating that intermediary. If you think meat protein is cheap (and therefore efficient), please price out protein from dry beans/lentils or soy. In bulk you can buy black beans at about $1.50 a pound which has 100 grams of protein - which is more than the average person needs in a day. The calories would be a bit light but rice is pretty cheap also. $.50 could easily fill that need.

Now, you don't want to live on rice and beans. I get it. And for that, you want to make some argument that ethically you should eat steak?

Of course humans are not best served by eating rice and beans. But the primary essential nutrients of protein, carbs and fiber needs are met. Sure, you do need a tiny amount of oil (and you don't need the carbs) but that is so small to be a rounding error on destruction of the environment. Obviously, there is some fruit and vegetable consumption no matter how you get your protein and calories. And you should source those as locally as possible which I suspect any environmental vegan would do.

Waiting until everything can be grown in a lab to do the right thing is a rather selfish, self-serving viewpoint.

 

[GoVols!]

Meat is not the problem, humans are. Literally stop having kids if you want to save the environment. Less humans, less environmental damage. I travel all over Central America and forests are cleared to make way for vegetables and fruits. Animals and all the little creatures that forage on and in the ground are killed or displaced. Then fertilizers are used, etc.etc. I will never stop eating grass fed beef, the best is in Argentina and Costa Rica. So damn good and natural. Seriously, I am all for protecting the environment but stop screaming from the roof tops and move yourself off the grid and stop having children. You all are a bunch blathering hypocrites.

Edit update: I will add that people could eat less “crap” meat and start eating more organic grass-fed as a better meat alternative. The stuff they feed cows,pigs and poultry is pretty nasty and you’re consuming it. Also, farmed fish is horrible.

 

[JRP3]

Seriously, I am all for protecting the environment but stop screaming from the roof tops and move yourself off the grid and stop having children. You all are a bunch blathering hypocrites.

Hardly, since you are obviously making assumptions about people you don't know. I have no kids and don't plan to, so I never "started" having children.

Edit update: I will add that people could eat less “crap” meat and start eating more organic grass-fed as a better meat alternative. The stuff they feed cows,pigs and poultry is pretty nasty and you’re consuming it. Also, farmed fish is horrible.

What you fail to understand is that "organic grass-fed" is in no way scalable for the planet, we consume as much meat as we do because factory farming makes it possible. Grass fed takes even more land so you'd see even more clearing of land to meet the demands. Currently livestock takes up about 77% of agricultural land, a small fraction of that would be used by just growing plants for direct human consumption.

Chart Shows What the World’s Land Is Used For … and It Explains Exactly Why So Many People Are Going Hungry

Extensive research by Our World in Data shows us how the planet’s land is being used, and as one might expect, industrialized animal agriculture is inefficiently using the world’s land.

www.onegreenplanet.org

You don't know what you're talking about and are simply making excuses to keep doing what you're doing.

 

[Midpack]

Meat is not the problem, humans are. Literally stop having kids if you want to save the environment. Less humans, less environmental damage. I travel all over Central America and forests are cleared to make way for vegetables and fruits. Animals and all the little creatures that forage on and in the ground are killed or displaced. Then fertilizers are used, etc.etc. I will never stop eating grass fed beef, the best is in Argentina and Costa Rica. So damn good and natural. Seriously, I am all for protecting the environment but stop screaming from the roof tops and move yourself off the grid and stop having children. You all are a bunch blathering hypocrites.

Edit update: I will add that people could eat less “crap” meat and start eating more organic grass-fed as a better meat alternative. The stuff they feed cows,pigs and poultry is pretty nasty and you’re consuming it. Also, farmed fish is horrible.

Ultimately the problem is population growth, whether it's meat, environmental, food supply, climate change or whatever. We have finite space and resources, so more users can only stress the status quo. Efforts to reduce impacts only forestalls the inevitable outcome.

It's easier for politicians and activists to wail about reductions, than to address population growth. If we really act to reduce population, our economic assumptions catch up with us very quickly.

And the public still doesn't really care, just look at their consumption habits and how little they've changed - trash cans overflowing every week, and 90% of (wish)recycling going to landfills. Store shelves lined with plastics everywhere, alternatives getting scarcer.

 

[JRP3]

Ultimately the problem is population growth, whether it's meat, environmental, food supply, climate change or whatever.

Ultimately you are correct but that does not change the fact that the environmental impact will be much lower without the current level of meat consumption. Reduction of meat consumption gives us more time to stabilize the population with fewer negative effects in the same way that a shift to EV's over ICE reduces the impact of humanity. Every improvement in efficiency is important.

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

Hardly superficial when it completely eliminates the problem. This has all be covered in the other 30 pages of this thread you obviously haven't read.

I have read some of them, they kind-a seem to repeat. I also have existed for a while, and been through many dietary trends. I remember the days when fats were bad! Now they are... kind-a good? Definitely better than sugar.

I think you may have missed my point in one of my posts, let me re-iterate:
A diet is a personal choice; maybe a vegetarian diet is right for you! And that is great, between your physiology and your mentality it works well. Good for you. On a personal level, it does not work for me. I have tried multiple diets over the past few decades and come down to the one that really works well for me. It is a balance of vegies, meat, and a little grain. It is a VERY sustainable diet... but more importantly, it is what my body needs to feel good and function well.

To give a possible middle ground. Going vegan doesn't eliminate the damage of too many humans. It appears to reduce it by about 70% give or take. So I wouldn't call it "completely eliminating" the problem.
But a 70% reduction is really nothing to sneeze at. At that point and with other changes, it is very possible that 10 billion can be done sustainably. I think we can all agree that 10 billion people eating a US like diet is not sustainable.
And there are really 2 issues - quantity and meat focus. The most egregious thing is to eat more than you need and since we are running about 70% of US adults are overweight, we really need to work on that.

Pesticides is a very foolish argument in favor of meat consumption. The really only rational argument is that you like to eat meat.

Even if you feel that plants have feelings and we should ethically only eat as few as possible, you should eat them directly rather than the inefficient process of feeding them to an intermediary and then eating that intermediary. If you think meat protein is cheap (and therefore efficient), please price out protein from dry beans/lentils or soy. In bulk you can buy black beans at about $1.50 a pound which has 100 grams of protein - which is more than the average person needs in a day. The calories would be a bit light but rice is pretty cheap also. $.50 could easily fill that need.

Now, you don't want to live on rice and beans. I get it. And for that, you want to make some argument that ethically you should eat steak?

Of course humans are not best served by eating rice and beans. But the primary essential nutrients of protein, carbs and fiber needs are met. Sure, you do need a tiny amount of oil (and you don't need the carbs) but that is so small to be a rounding error on destruction of the environment. Obviously, there is some fruit and vegetable consumption no matter how you get your protein and calories. And you should source those as locally as possible which I suspect any environmental vegan would do.

Waiting until everything can be grown in a lab to do the right thing is a rather selfish, self-serving viewpoint.

Interesting middle ground, seems like you are in strong support of one side! No problem though, I appreciate a logical perspective.

I am not sure of your point and where 70% comes from. 70% of what? Overweight Americans? I am confused.

The "American Diet" is a strange one... we are known for fast food, and eating tons of sugar. Agreed, it would be great if it went away. I am not a fan. that said, until the food industry changes and fast food isn't cheaper/easier to get than good food it isn't going anywhere and is spreading quickly through the world.
Interesting that you mention overweight Americans. So, globally, we account for roughly 4% of the population. Many statistics like to point out that we, ~4-5% of the planet consume 24% of the energy... which is not just food... that statistic, while food is part of it (we consume about double the caloric intake of other modern countries) includes things like electricity and fossil fuels. let's stay out of that rabbit hole as that introduces another debate.
Bottom line: protein doesn't make you fat. American obesity is not a factor for this discussion.

Pesticides are not an argument to eat meat, it is an argument against the morality of veganism.

Again, regarding plants, you are missing the point. It was an argument against the morality of veganism. Again, I would like to cite Dr. Tyson and his book "Starry Messenger". Check it out, he has some good ideas/concepts in there.

The cost we are referring to here is not fiscal, it is environmental.

Your "rice and beans" argument is interesting, but I disagree (I think, if I get your point)- it is ethical to eat steak. Also pork, chicken, snake, moose, bison... I think verbiage matters here, try this one: (my declarative statement) It is ethical to raise/slaughter livestock. Try not to make declarative statements with a subject that is the reader. Makes things less... aggressively personal? Trust me, it works better. My desires to eat meat or not are not relevant to what is ethical for society, and I don't think you meant to place my feelings in that kind of regard. Try out your own such as "it is unethical to raise/slaughter livestock" and please, share some rational for your stance.

Your statement about carbs is incorrect for some individuals. Some can't live keto. Physiology matters, and dietary needs are different.

Most vegans I know shop at Whole Foods... there isn't enough local supply. While ideal, local supply to support populations isn't feasible or even allowed in some areas (HOAs, county laws, etc). We can't all raise chickens or have an extensive garden for a backyard. Farmer's markets are known to be infiltrated with non-local produce so... we are kind-a stuck. It is a nice idea, but like the whole world going vegetarian; it is a pipe-dream.

I am puzzled by the statement you made, "waiting for technological change" (paraphrasing) is selfish and self-serving. So, panicking is more noble? How about presenting and pushing unrealistic ideas? I would argue that those are more "selfish" as promoting such ideas gives a person a feeling moral superiority. Those of us that have faith in more intelligent people with a passion for (insert issue here) will solve the problem is faith in humanity which I would argue is the opposite of self-serving. Maybe that is you! or the OP! If so; good on you, solve the world's food issues. those of us that are busy with other issues thank you for it.

May have missed it... where is your middle ground exactly?

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

Ultimately the problem is population growth, whether it's meat, environmental, food supply, climate change or whatever. We have finite space and resources, so more users can only stress the status quo. Efforts to reduce impacts only forestalls the inevitable outcome.

It's easier for politicians and activists to wail about reductions, than to address population growth. If we really act to reduce population, our economic assumptions catch up with us very quickly.

And the public still doesn't really care, just look at their consumption habits and how little they've changed - trash cans overflowing every week, and 90% of (wish)recycling going to landfills. Store shelves lined with plastics everywhere, alternatives getting scarcer.

Don't worry about the population growth issue, the numbers are in: The UN predicts 2086 for population decline, other sources say much sooner. We will have a new issue then! I tend to subscribe to the "11Billion max" model, it makes sense imho, but we will see.

 

[GoVols!]

Hardly, since you are obviously making assumptions about people you don't know. I have no kids and don't plan to, so I never "started" having children.

What you fail to understand is that "organic grass-fed" is in no way scalable for the planet, we consume as much meat as we do because factory farming makes it possible. Grass fed takes even more land so you'd see even more clearing of land to meet the demands. Currently livestock takes up about 77% of agricultural land, a small fraction of that would be used by just growing plants for direct human consumption.

Chart Shows What the World’s Land Is Used For … and It Explains Exactly Why So Many People Are Going Hungry

Extensive research by Our World in Data shows us how the planet’s land is being used, and as one might expect, industrialized animal agriculture is inefficiently using the world’s land.

www.onegreenplanet.org

You don't know what you're talking about and are simply making excuses to keep doing what you're doing.

Lol! You are so triggered, it’s hilarious. Less populations, means less environmental impact…Period! You obviously haven’t left your bubble to know what other countries are doing to make livestock and forest sustainable “coexist”. Take a trip to Costa Rica and you’ll see cows foraging in overgrowth with little impact to its surrounding environment. I lived in CR “La Fortuna” for a few years while traveling “working” throughout Central America. You learn a lot more being in said area instead of googling from your couch and mouth breathing nonsense. Yes, you can’t scale up to serve all current meat eaters grass-fed steak. However, the simple fact you’re protesting from your computer, iPhone while using electricity and taking up land with your home is a rabbit hole you won’t go down. Look inward to your own impact before running around with your hair caught on fire. Seriously, look at your current surroundings and in your cabinets, the food in your fridge…all of if effects the environment, including you typing away to comments. Lol!!!

 

[JRP3]

I have read some of them, they kind-a seem to repeat. I also have existed for a while, and been through many dietary trends. I remember the days when fats were bad! Now they are... kind-a good? Definitely better than sugar.

I think you may have missed my point in one of my posts, let me re-iterate:
A diet is a personal choice; maybe a vegetarian diet is right for you!

You definitely missed my point so I'll try again. This is not about dietary trends, it's about the least impactful way to feed the planet. Every nutrient in meat initially came from plants, it's just basic chemistry.

 

[JRP3]

Lol! You are so triggered, it’s hilarious. Less populations, means less environmental impact…Period! You obviously haven’t left your bubble to know what other countries are doing to make livestock and forest sustainable “coexist”.

I provided data, you provided anecdote, which is not data. Obviously I understand the population issue, you apparently can't read.

 

[GoVols!]

I provided data, you provided anecdote, which is not data. Obviously I understand the population issue, you apparently can't read.

I didn’t waste my time reading your comment. I know livestock has a big impact on the environment. I will never stop eating meat because it’s good for you in moderation and if it’s 100% grass-fed. I dislike what the current industry is doing to the environment. I think you’ll find most people would agree. But, yelling from the roof tops isn’t going to change minds. If you want to make a difference, live by the sword and get off the grid and move to the forest. But don’t build or eat anything. Why aren’t you doing this now? Or does it make you feel better telling people how they should live and you continue going about your day. Let me guess, you’re a New Yorker or a Californian? Which is it??

 

[mspohr]

Here’s Why Grass-Fed Beef is Just as Bad for the Environment as Grain-Fed

Unfortunately for those chowing down on an artisanal grass-fed burger, there is no evidence that grass-fed beef is better for the environment.

www.onegreenplanet.org

Another debate centers on greenhouse gases, where once again grass-fed beef fails to win the environmental argument. In fact, each pound of grass-fed beef produces 500 percent more greenhouse gases than grain-fed. Grain-fed cows also produce one-third of the methane of grass-fed, partially due to their shorter life span, though both contribute to methane and nitrous oxide emissions.

Unfortunately for those chowing down on an artisanal grass-fed burger on a whole-grain ciabatta bun, there is no evidence that grass-fed beef is better for the environment. This is particularly true if that burger is not labeled organic, because grass-fed or not it is likely to contain antibiotics and hormones. The sad reality is, grass-fed beef and grain-fed beef are equally terrible in their own, unique ways.

Grass-fed cows, on the other hand, can only be fed what is known as “forage.” Forage refers to grass as well as a variety of vegetables and leaves. In addition, they must also be able to access a pasture to graze. This system of raising animals is more akin to the way farms used to look, but it is also highly inefficient in the eyes of the meat industry. Cows raised on factory farm feedlots are able to reach market weight in three to six months (cattle are usually around one year old when they enter feedlots). Grass-fed cattle (the more “sustainable” option) require several years of foraging to reach similar weights.

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

Here’s Why Grass-Fed Beef is Just as Bad for the Environment as Grain-Fed

Unfortunately for those chowing down on an artisanal grass-fed burger, there is no evidence that grass-fed beef is better for the environment.

www.onegreenplanet.org

Another debate centers on greenhouse gases, where once again grass-fed beef fails to win the environmental argument. In fact, each pound of grass-fed beef produces 500 percent more greenhouse gases than grain-fed. Grain-fed cows also produce one-third of the methane of grass-fed, partially due to their shorter life span, though both contribute to methane and nitrous oxide emissions.

Unfortunately for those chowing down on an artisanal grass-fed burger on a whole-grain ciabatta bun, there is no evidence that grass-fed beef is better for the environment. This is particularly true if that burger is not labeled organic, because grass-fed or not it is likely to contain antibiotics and hormones. The sad reality is, grass-fed beef and grain-fed beef are equally terrible in their own, unique ways.

Grass-fed cows, on the other hand, can only be fed what is known as “forage.” Forage refers to grass as well as a variety of vegetables and leaves. In addition, they must also be able to access a pasture to graze. This system of raising animals is more akin to the way farms used to look, but it is also highly inefficient in the eyes of the meat industry. Cows raised on factory farm feedlots are able to reach market weight in three to six months (cattle are usually around one year old when they enter feedlots). Grass-fed cattle (the more “sustainable” option) require several years of foraging to reach similar weights.

I wish we had a facepalm emote, but alas... O well. From my understanding, the purpose of eating grass fed is because it is better for US, there is no logic in eating it for the planet.

That said, I had a vegie burger recently and it was AMAZING!!! Take it over a beef burger any day. Not to save the planet per-say, but if it does; great!