| ▲ | icy 6 days ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | kriops 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| (Implied) invalid generalization, or confirmation bias. This is a good reason to not eat that particular meat. In general, however, meat is an S-tier source of nutrition, vitamins, and minerals. |
| |
| ▲ | progbits 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | How can something which is horribly inefficient for environment (water use, land use, greenhouse emissions from fertilizer) possibly be S tier? | | |
| ▲ | kriops 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | What a weird question, if it was at all genuine. Not only is it not inefficient but, e.g., cows are absolutely unique and amazing for their ability to digest, e.g., grass into something that is highly nutritiously desirable for humans. | | |
| ▲ | progbits 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets What you say is maybe true but irrelevant. We don't have to grow grass. | | |
| ▲ | HDThoreaun 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Crappy grass is the only thing that grows in the upper plains because there isnt any water. | |
| ▲ | kriops 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Asserting ruminants are “irrelevant” tells me nobody should take you seriously on this topic. Replicating their function is the problem to solve if you ever want to make the case you think you are making. |
| |
| ▲ | 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | tomxor 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Meat especially grass fed beef, is not just protein, it's an incredibly dense source of nutritients. You have to eat far higher quantities and ranges of plant based alternatives to acquire the same nutritional value, and they are usually less bioavailable. So from the perspective of the person consuming it, it's very efficient source of nutrients, and also the most satiating food you can eat, so you won't feel the urge to overeat. Abstractly, using land for crops is around an order of magnitude more efficient when considering only calories per unit area, but when considering the total system i.e the humans consuming it, there's an argument to be had that more livestock could be more efficient when considering all the side effects of a huge population of malnourished humans overeating refined hyper-paletable carbs. For either side of this argument, the real issue is industrial agriculture producing both crops and livestock in unsustainable and nutritionally devoid ways, that are incredibly bad for the environment and humans consuming it. | |
| ▲ | jaian 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because that's not what we are talking about. | |
| ▲ | VladVladikoff 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Biodiverse farms with animals and plants, rotating crop fields, are far more ecologically friendly than pure plant farms. |
| |
| ▲ | Pxtl 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Food that eats food isn't ever gonna be good thermodynamics. | | |
| ▲ | jolmg 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Calories isn't the only thing that's needed from food. |
| |
| ▲ | burnt-resistor 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
|
|
| ▲ | analog31 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Don't worry about it. We'll all be allergic to meat eventually thanks to that tick. |
|
| ▲ | inetknght 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Plenty of pests affect crops too. |
|
| ▲ | burnt-resistor 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| (Blue dot in hill country TX here.) Yep. I hear that. <saturday-soap-box> The strictly rational selfish ones are pandemics (virus evolution), antibiotic resistance (bacterial evolution), prion diseases (mad cow), anthropogenic climate change, and air, water, and soil pollution. And that's not even getting to animal cruelty that could never chip away at the hedonism addiction cognitive dissonance and rationalizations. Ben Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, Clint Eastwood, Mark Cuban, GZA, Paul McCartney, ... half of Hollywood. </saturday-soap-box> |
|
| ▲ | edot 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | soulofmischief 6 days ago | parent [-] | | As a non-meat eater I've gotten used to how riled up and defensive people get over the mere suggestion that eating meat in today's industrialized society comes at an ecological and economic cost that we can't afford in the long run. I find much better luck engaging people by suggesting reduced consumption of meat vs. total abstinence. |
|
|
| ▲ | echelon 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | righthand 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Laws and regulation didn’t evolve from mother nature, so we should start killing each other because it’s natural? Or it’s only natural when a non-human species is killed off by another species? | |
| ▲ | zahlman 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > edit: I'm not going to respond to each individual reply calling me a fascist or relating eating to rape or slavery You should not reply to any of them, but just flag them, honestly. | |
| ▲ | tupac_speedrap 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Lovely platitudes but "nature" stops being abstract once it is happening to you, we are talking about mammals being eaten alive here, so that could be you, your family, your pets, cattle...etc. Of course people are going to react to that. | |
| ▲ | wizzwizz4 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes? Horrific things don't stop being horrific, just because they're the status quo. (But this is wildly off-topic.) | | | |
| ▲ | croes 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | By that logic you could argue rape is just nature too. At some point mankind added moral. | | |
| ▲ | delichon 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Of course rape is natural. Orangutans, ducks, geese, and certain dolphin species also rape. That's a problem if you think "natural" justifies human behavior, but why would it? | | |
| ▲ | croes 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Read the edit of parent. And I wrote „just nature“ because parent used it’s nature as a justification.
Hence the moral part. | | |
| ▲ | echelon 6 days ago | parent [-] | | We evolved to eat. We did not evolve to rape. Eating, fundamentally, reduces some other organism's population. All of nature does it. We consume life and the byproducts of life. Even the high energy gas exchange we rely upon is 100% a waste product that we consume. Life is fundamentally about consuming and repurposing the materials of others. You don't need to have sex. You need to eat to survive. Our bodies are naturally adapted to consume wildlife. It is the most natural state for our body plan and biochemistry. Our body cannot make all of the amino acids and metabolites it needs to be healthy. If technology and food fortification vanished one day, we would be forced to eat meat to survive. Non-meat diets are only enabled by technology. Without it, we would not even be having this discussion. | | |
| ▲ | croes 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Your word analogy is wrong. It‘s not eat : rape, it‘s eat: fuck, so for some the equivalent for rape is eating meat or more specific killing animal : rape. We evolved to eat and we evolved to fuck. But like sex doesn’t mean rape so does eating not necessarily mean meat or at least no much and not without consideration who the animal is raised before we kill and eat it. A long time in many societies we didn’t really care what women felt during sex or if they were even willing to. But we evolved further and learned women have the same rights as men and rape is a bad thing. We even redefined what is considered rape. It’s not that long ago that raping your wife was impossible from a legal point of view. We also changed our view on factorial farming, at least many of us. At least we want meat from a happy cow that lived on the pasture and not penned up in the barn without sunshine. The next step isn’t that far, no animal should be killed if nutrition is possible otherwise. We already spare some animals as food. In the west it’s cats and dogs, in India cows. And some include all animals in the don‘t eat category. | |
| ▲ | croes 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You could also say we evolved to lie but nowadays it’s considered a bad habit. The crucial point is the morals of society. Being has was once a sin, now nit so much at least in the western world even if some try to turn that back. We also evolved to kill especially with weapons because our natural one aren’t that great. We kill lots of other humans, of course the evil one is always the other side because killing is bad nevertheless we evolved to do quite effectively. Evolution is a explanation not an justification. | |
| ▲ | hombre_fatal 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | None of that really matters if you just care about nutrition or sentient beings without the story telling. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | burnt-resistor 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
|
