We must face facts - meat is the problem

[K.I.T.T.23]

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.

yep, still missing your point. Maybe... it is because you didn't get mine. I will make some brief bullets that should cover it:

• As much as we may like, the planet will not go vegetarian, let alone vegan. It isn't feasible, stop trying to sell it.
• There is nothing unethical about eating meat... avoid gluttony, but outside of that we are fine.
• Different people have different dietary needs. Not all can be met by a vegetarian diet.
• Vegan mentality is hypocritical, when logic/science is brought it, it makes no sense.
• Stop making the subject of your argument your audience. It makes the argument seem personal and (likely) unintentionally aggressive.
• At some point, someone with brilliance and passion will solve our food issues.

Did that get it across? I understand the chemistry (though I would refer to biology specifically) if that is your point I would need more specifics. I see these trends like Ice-age alarmism in 1979... I am slow to buy the hype. I need more data, I am part of the small minority that isn't swayed by emotional arguments.

 

[JRP3]

I didn’t waste my time reading your comment.

Of course, bury your head in the sand to avoid facts you don't like.

 

[JRP3]

I need more data, I am part of the small minority that isn't swayed by emotional arguments.

All your "arguments" are nothing but emotional. All the relevant data exists, much of it in this thread, you, emotionally, choose to ignore it. Much like the people who say EV's won't work or are no better than ICE ignore all the data to the contrary. They are afraid of change to their existing way of doing things and facts can't penetrate their defenses.

 

[GoVols!]

Of course, bury your head in the sand to avoid facts you don't like.

Lol! Nah, I just don’t listen to red herring dribble. Just like your idols with “facts” said the coastlines/lower states would be underwater and North Pole melted by 2016. Now it’s 2026 or 2035, I can’t get all the BS straight, so politicians, enviro.scientists trying to keep the govt. funding rolling in and make money by scaring you to spend more of your tax dollars. You want to change the environment, don’t exist and you’ll have nothing to worry about. I’m sure you’re a lot of fun at parties. I believe most people want to protect the environment the best way possible, but when scientists are caught lying. You’re so concerned about the environment, why don’t you take a trip along the border and see what the illegals are doing to the forest and dessert land. It’s pretty disgusting the amount of trash and human waste that is left behind. Please show us all how much you care and volunteer to clean up the heavily traveled areas. Cows are the least of the problem right now. Indian and China literally dump trash in rivers, including toxins. Cruise ships dump waste out in the ocean when you’re sleeping. You have a big mouth but I actually travel for contract work in places that would make you realize how absolutely absurd your comments are and what you’re worried about. Enjoy your bubble.

 

[mspohr]

Lol! Nah, I just don’t listen to red herring dribble. Just like your idols with “facts” said the coastlines/lower states would be underwater and North Pole melted by 2016. Now it’s 2026 or 2035, I can’t get all the BS straight, so politicians, enviro.scientists trying to keep the govt. funding rolling in and make money by scaring you to spend more of your tax dollars. You want to change the environment, don’t exist and you’ll have nothing to worry about. I’m sure you’re a lot of fun at parties. I believe most people want to protect the environment the best way possible, but when scientists are caught lying. You’re so concerned about the environment, why don’t you take a trip along the border and see what the illegals are doing to the forest and dessert land. It’s pretty disgusting the amount of trash and human waste that is left behind. Please show us all how much you care and volunteer to clean up the heavily traveled areas. Cows are the least of the problem right now. Indian and China literally dump trash in rivers, including toxins. Cruise ships dump waste out in the ocean when you’re sleeping. You have a big mouth but I actually travel for contract work in places that would make you realize how absolutely absurd your comments are and what you’re worried about. Enjoy your bubble.

I think you are straying from the topic of this thread.
It might be better if you contributed to a more appropriate thread. Perhaps the climate change denial thread.

 

[mspohr]

E coli from meat behind half a million UTIs in the US every year, study suggests

Meat bacteria are the likely cause of over half a million urinary tract infections (UTIs) in the US every year, a new study has found, with one of its authors warning that deaths from UTI-driven bloodstream infections could be on the rise.While UTIs are often considered no more than a painful annoyance, Price said the bladder can act as a gateway to the bloodstream for E coli, via the kidneys, causing much greater risks. In the US, E coli bloodstream infections kill between 36,000 and 40,000 people every year. In the UK, BSAC describes UTIs as “the leading source of bacterial bloodstream infections” and a “chronically neglected area of infectious diseases”.

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

All your "arguments" are nothing but emotional. All the relevant data exists, much of it in this thread, you, emotionally, choose to ignore it. Much like the people who say EV's won't work or are no better than ICE ignore all the data to the contrary. They are afraid of change to their existing way of doing things and facts can't penetrate their defenses.

So, I normally would not humor such an accusation, as I think you are gaslighting... but hey! Our correspondence has been civil, and I am curious, so... which point is a hypothesis/fact/statement based in emotional persuasion? Just so we are using words/phrases that mean the same thing:

An emotional argument: an argument typically not based on facts, meant to appeal to ones emotions. Example: This statement is true. Think of how bad you will feel if it's not true.
Logic based argument: an argument based on objective or even subjective facts, typically testable or citable, resulting in an A+B=C type of argument. Example: Dogs are canines, canines are mammals, therefore all dogs are mammals.

Each has its place, emotional arguments are used in the court room, logic typically for science; which is why I would use logic in this particular discussion about the science of "is meat bad?"

My response assuming we are using the same verbiage:
Your statement that all my "arguments" (am I arguing though?) are emotional would assume that I am attempting to appeal to your emotions. Ok, so which one asks for you to respond emotionally? Let's break it down a bit:

• As much as we may like, the planet will not go vegetarian, let alone vegan. It isn't feasible, stop trying to sell it.
  -- No.. not here. Just a statement of fact. No marketing strategy will cause this.
• There is nothing unethical about eating meat... avoid gluttony, but outside of that we are fine.
  -- Ethics... this one is close. ethics can be emotional, and they are subjective... however, I am not appealing to your (the reader's) emotions, so I would say close, but not quite.
• Different people have different dietary needs. Not all can be met by a vegetarian diet.
  -- Nope. If I added "have pity on those that require meat to sustain themselves, look at their emotional pain!!!" maybe, but no, this is just a fact about physiology.
• Vegan mentality is hypocritical, when logic/science is brought it, it makes no sense.
  -- This is literally about science... so... sorry bud. Nope.
• Stop making the subject of your argument your audience. It makes the argument seem personal and (likely) unintentionally aggressive.
  -- Just trying to help you discuss things online more productively. Might sink in, probably not
• At some point, someone with brilliance and passion will solve our food issues.
  -- This is a historical fact. Most recently I would reference Norman Borlaug.

Sorry JRP3, your statement is objectively false.

 

[mspohr]

Your statement that all my "arguments" (am I arguing though?) are emotional would assume that I am attempting to appeal to your emotions. Ok, so which one asks for you to respond emotionally? Let's break it down a bit:

• As much as we may like, the planet will not go vegetarian, let alone vegan. It isn't feasible, stop trying to sell it.
  -- No.. not here. Just a statement of fact. No marketing strategy will cause this.
• There is nothing unethical about eating meat... avoid gluttony, but outside of that we are fine.
  -- Ethics... this one is close. ethics can be emotional, and they are subjective... however, I am not appealing to your (the reader's) emotions, so I would say close, but not quite.
• Different people have different dietary needs. Not all can be met by a vegetarian diet.
  -- Nope. If I added "have pity on those that require meat to sustain themselves, look at their emotional pain!!!" maybe, but no, this is just a fact about physiology.
• Vegan mentality is hypocritical, when logic/science is brought it, it makes no sense.
  -- This is literally about science... so... sorry bud. Nope.
• Stop making the subject of your argument your audience. It makes the argument seem personal and (likely) unintentionally aggressive.
  -- Just trying to help you discuss things online more productively. Might sink in, probably not
• At some point, someone with brilliance and passion will solve our food issues.
  -- This is a historical fact. Most recently I would reference Norman Borlaug.

These are all emotional opinions. No facts, just your opinion.

 

[mspohr]

The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

A leaked draft revealed how the meat industry is obstructing efforts to curb climate change

qz.com

Micheal Thomas, who writes the climate newsletter Distilled, outlined the shift in wording driven by Brazil and Argentina, countries with large and influential beef industries. As Thomas points out, the IPCC report’s authors initially recommended a shift to plant-based diets, stating that “plant-based diets can reduce GHG emissions by up to 50% compared to the average emission-intensive Western diet,” according to a draft leaked by Scientist Rebellion.In the published report, the line was changed to “balanced, sustainable healthy diets acknowledging nutritional needs,” skirting a direct mention of beef and dairy, what a sustainable diet actually looks like, or any reference to the Western and largely wealthy countries that should most urgently start eating less meat.While Monday’s IPCC report was the result of synthesizing years of research, Brazil and Argentina have been diligently pushing to delete references to “plant-based diets,” meat as a “high-carbon” food, and “Meatless Mondays” for years, according to a previous draft leaked in 2021 and analyzed by Unearthed, Greenpeace’s investigative outlet.

 

[David_Cary]

Hard to try to keep up but...

What I meant was that eating vegan diet is about 70% less destructive than a more mixed diet. That was the 70%. Going vegan doesn't make food magically have zero impact but I think 70% reduction is about right (A recent reference for carbon has .7 for vegan and 3.0 for keto but the unit escapes me). That would be the middle ground - going vegan is not 100% - only dying gets you there. So maybe not a middle ground but I was agreeing with you on one point - a classic technique.
It does so happen that 70% is also the number of overweight people in the US. And while excess protein is not the only or typical cause, it isn't like carbs/fat come from magic land. So the overconsumption is a very big problem. As someone who works with obesity, I can tell you that many also eat a lot of protein. It isn't all sugar (although mostly).
I don't subscribe to there being this huge genetic variety of how people are built and thus they need varying diets. I don't think you can find any science on that. There are various differences but they aren't very different that 100 years ago when a lot less meat was eaten.

You say that "vegan mentality is hypocritical" and say that is science based? I think you can find various scientific references for vegan diet and increased lifespan, less cardiovascular disease etc. The people that I know that are vegan do it for health reasons primarily. Doesn't hurt that they are all physicians.

To clarify, I am not a vegan. Since you seem to think vegans are yelling at you. I certainly think the overconsumption of meat is one of the sources of enviromental destruction that we have. It is also fairly easy to reduce compared to some other things.

We can't realistically and ethically reduce the population by 50% over the next decade or two. It is also a biologic imperative to have children. Doesn't mean it can be toned down but it is nature. Environmentalists all agree that population is a problem so saying that is the problem isn't all that helpful. There is no harder transition than the one for an aging demographic. Reducing the consumption of meat is a ton easier for a society.

It really is interesting how a lot of the same arguments for EV vs ICE fit together with dietary choices. All I can think of is a caveman ripping flesh off a bone sitting next to a fire grunting. He probably just forced a female to have sex with him also with his big club (which is sort of like a gun....)

 

[JRP3]

Sorry JRP3, your statement is objectively false.

As others have already covered it I'll just say your idea of "objective", "fact", and "science" are inaccurate.

 

[JRP3]

More on topic, the first vegan burger from 70K years ago?

The research, published in Antiquity, adds to mounting evidence of plant consumption by both early modern humans and Neanderthals, in addition to meat. Wild nuts and grasses were often combined with pulses, such as lentils, and wild mustard.

Oldest cooked leftovers ever found suggest Neanderthals were foodies

Pancake/flatbread with a ‘nutty’ taste is first evidence of complex cooking and food culture

www.theguardian.com

 

[mspohr]

‘Like you’re in a horror movie’: pollution leaves New Zealand wetlands irreversibly damaged

The birds of Whangamarino, a freshwater wetland covering 7,000 hectares in Waikato, in New Zealand’s North Island, are being killed by a botulism outbreak, a consequence of mass fish deaths, which in turn are prompted by flooding, algal blooms and high levels of pollutants including heavy nutrient load from farming. This summer, the birds died in their thousands: swans, ducks, geese, spoonbills. As the season drew to a close, teams of volunteers fished the feathered bodies from the water and piled them hundreds-high in boats and pickup trucks. The Waikato region is considered the dairy powerhouse of New Zealand, producing more than 25% of the country’s milk supply. That industry has been long connected to high levels of nitrogen in waterways – runoff from the fertiliser used to cultivate year-round grass, and the effluent of the cows that graze it.

 

[JRP3]

This guy is good, he often does a deep dive into debunking much of the misinformation out there regarding meat consumption. He actually goes through and reads obscure studies that are often misrepresented. This is his latest:

 

[mspohr]

This guy is good, he often does a deep dive into debunking much of the misinformation out there regarding meat consumption. He actually goes through and reads obscure studies that are often misrepresented. This is his latest:

Good information and a fun presentation.
Fish, rice (grains) and veggies!
(I have a rule of thumb for salt... Look at the number of calories per serving and the number of mg of sodium... A larger sodium number than calories is a danger sign... 2000 mg sodium a day is plenty.)

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

These are all emotional opinions. No facts, just your opinion.

read your quote friend.

 

[mspohr]

read your quote friend.

Sorry, yes, I broke my Mark Twain rule (and I regret it).

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

Hard to try to keep up but...

What I meant was that eating vegan diet is about 70% less destructive than a more mixed diet. That was the 70%. Going vegan doesn't make food magically have zero impact but I think 70% reduction is about right (A recent reference for carbon has .7 for vegan and 3.0 for keto but the unit escapes me). That would be the middle ground - going vegan is not 100% - only dying gets you there. So maybe not a middle ground but I was agreeing with you on one point - a classic technique.
It does so happen that 70% is also the number of overweight people in the US. And while excess protein is not the only or typical cause, it isn't like carbs/fat come from magic land. So the overconsumption is a very big problem. As someone who works with obesity, I can tell you that many also eat a lot of protein. It isn't all sugar (although mostly).
I don't subscribe to there being this huge genetic variety of how people are built and thus they need varying diets. I don't think you can find any science on that. There are various differences but they aren't very different that 100 years ago when a lot less meat was eaten.

You say that "vegan mentality is hypocritical" and say that is science based? I think you can find various scientific references for vegan diet and increased lifespan, less cardiovascular disease etc. The people that I know that are vegan do it for health reasons primarily. Doesn't hurt that they are all physicians.

To clarify, I am not a vegan. Since you seem to think vegans are yelling at you. I certainly think the overconsumption of meat is one of the sources of enviromental destruction that we have. It is also fairly easy to reduce compared to some other things.

We can't realistically and ethically reduce the population by 50% over the next decade or two. It is also a biologic imperative to have children. Doesn't mean it can be toned down but it is nature. Environmentalists all agree that population is a problem so saying that is the problem isn't all that helpful. There is no harder transition than the one for an aging demographic. Reducing the consumption of meat is a ton easier for a society.

It really is interesting how a lot of the same arguments for EV vs ICE fit together with dietary choices. All I can think of is a caveman ripping flesh off a bone sitting next to a fire grunting. He probably just forced a female to have sex with him also with his big club (which is sort of like a gun....)

Thank you for replying with facts.
-- I am not sure about the 70% less destructive number, and I have seen those carbon references as well, also I don't know the source/unit but I wouldn't contest that they are at least in the general vicinity of reality. Meat eating does require more energy to produce and is less efficient. They do not refer to "vegan' diets, but "vegetarian" diets, also typically include consumption of insect/fish protein. No issue there IMHO, but it would not qualify as Vegan.
-- I think we are on the same page with obesity. As you said, MOST individuals that fall in this category do consume protein.,.. however, their obesity is, in the majority of cases, caused by sugar/carbohydrate consumption. Just like with meat protein, good luck getting fat on vegies. It just isn't going to happen. Could you get fat on fruits? maybe, but you would have to work on it.
-- The science for "eating for your body type" is definitely where Keto and protein diets were decades ago. It needs to be fleshed out. That said, we do know, without question, that different people react to different macro nutrients. Ever heard someone say "I just can't build muscle" or "I can eat anything and not gain weight!" ? There are also the opposite. Is it gut biome? Maybe. Is it exercise/activity levels? Maybe (I put stock in this one). But to say there is one diet that will work for all is unlikely. I did do some digging for a scholarly article referencing a study on dietary requirements and I couldn't find anything that did an actual study (god the marketing and crap out there...) in order to prove or disprove physiology and it's impact on dietary requirements.
-- Hypocrisy and Veganism. I don't think you and I share the same definition here, and ensuring words mean the same thing to people ensures a productive discussion. Vegetarianism: Eats a primarily plant based diet. The purpose is to be healthy. Veganism: induce morality into vegetarianism, think PITA. We are now concerned about pain and our understanding of animal consciousness. When we cross the line between just being healthy to morality of animal consciousness we are beset by a catch 22. Do we kill the rat and starve the crow that wants to eat our crops? If so, how does that fit into our morality? Do we use pesticides to kill insects and do we care about their consciousness?
-- Yep, overconsumption (I called it gluttony) is bad. 100% agree with you and the OP on this one.
-- I am not sure what you are saying about ethical population reduction. The decline of the human population in the relative near future is a scientific thing. Here is a scholarly source, though there are MANY more: https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x003e1ec8.pdf
-- Correlation to ICE vs EV. Yes!! I agree here, but your analogy is funny and just so... wrong. Over simplification of pre-historic man and the assumption of cognitive simplicity is such an egocentric modern viewpoint... I digress, let's stay on point: what I am saying, in short is "We will stop eating meat due to technological advancement, and it's impact on the environment will be a non-issue". My interpretation of the OP and JRP3 is "we need government mandates and forced meat consumption reduction". I have seen, through multiple examples, such progress will naturally occur and is typically stifled and perverted by mandates. The best example of this NOT being the case is the dawn of electricity, railroads, and oil (past and present). The best examples of my hypothesis being correct is the current EV movement, GMO development, and computer progress.

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

This guy is good, he often does a deep dive into debunking much of the misinformation out there regarding meat consumption. He actually goes through and reads obscure studies that are often misrepresented. This is his latest:

An interesting video, I watched it and some of it made sense... but then, the propaganda... o lord.
-- The guy eating the McDonald's burgers... 7 patties? wtf is he thinking... that is insane. I do not think there is a world where a McDonald's burger patty is healthy... even if it is vegetable based.
-- Hyper Palatable had to look that up. It means, tastes really good. Ok, our food tastes better today than it did in the past. It took a scientist to figure that one out? interesting.
-- Salts and fats are more addictive and have seen more enhancing than sugar. Well, of course there is more enhanced flavor, carbs are out, and fats/protein is the new "health food", has to be marketed and the competition has begun. Also, how can you make sugar taste stronger/better?! We perfected that in the Victorian era, and did quite well lol. If you "have a sweet tooth" there is no need to strengthen it. Now to get people addicted to other foods, that will take some work. It would be great if we got back to more bland better foods, but good luck selling that.
-- One of my favorites was Dr Atkins "did he die at 258 lbs"? Yes, he did... BUT that was because of the fluids pumped into him weeks before his death. His average weight was 195, which could be considered overweight at best... but far from obese for his height.
-- Also, cholesterol and heart issues. We don't hear much about this beyond the typical change your diet to lower your cholesterol. I can say from personal experience, as well as those I know: cholesterol is genetic. I have hyper low cholesterol (LDLs are normally in the mid 30s). So does my dad. So did my grandfather. We all eat meat, salt, and pay no regard to how our food would "traditionally" impact our cholesterol. Sadly, there is nothing to sell you if it is genetic, you just have to play the cards you are dealt, and that doesn't feed into any agenda.
Some other interesting points presented on how we have changed our meat (marbling and such) which makes sense... I wonder if more fat, aka caloric content is actually better for the environment as less meat is required to feed someone?

I watched this while eating a roast lol. The irony hit me after.

 

[JRP3]

Veganism: induce morality into vegetarianism, think PITA. We are now concerned about pain and our understanding of animal consciousness. When we cross the line between just being healthy to morality of animal consciousness we are beset by a catch 22. Do we kill the rat and starve the crow that wants to eat our crops? If so, how does that fit into our morality? Do we use pesticides to kill insects and do we care about their consciousness?

If you actually look up the definition of "vegan" it says to reduce animal harm as much as practical, acknowledging that there will always be some level of harm that is impossible to avoid. Also you don't have to be vegan to consider morality. I remember years ago my non vegan mother saying she would no longer buy veal because of the cruelty of locking baby cows in a small crate so they can't move much. Similarly you probably wouldn't eat a dog even though they are functionally little different than a cow or pig, so you already impose some morality on your choices.

My interpretation of the OP and JRP3 is "we need government mandates and forced meat consumption reduction".

That's your interpretation, I never said nor even hinted at such. What we certainly do need is to stop government subsidies of the meat and dairy industries.