> That there is sufficient evidence that red meat causes cancer in humans

By a barely measurable amount. No-one is ever going to die of cancer caused by eating red meat. You are far more likely to die of heart disease than any sort of cancer, and after that you are far more likely to die in a car accident because you were distracted by your phone (doesn't matter if you were driving the car, or walked out in front of a car because you were too busy scrolling on your phone, in this case). Cancer is waaaay down the list.

> You also have to consider that you eating meat does quite a lot of harm to the animal

Yeah, bit of a shame that. You have to give them the best life you possibly can. But, without livestock farming there is no arable farming, so what are you going to do?

> Have you tried dog meat?

No, because dogs are carnivores and carnivores tend to taste bad.

▲

auggierose 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> No, because dogs are carnivores and carnivores tend to taste bad.

Interesting! If that's true, maybe it is because carnivores are less healthy.

	▲	ErroneousBosh an hour ago \| parent [-]
		No, if anything plant-eaters are less healthy because they have a less diverse diet. Ideally animals with a fairly high energy budget need to be omnivores, like for example humans. If you look at animals of comparable weight, all the herbivores are ruminants, or woefully unsuccessful. Even fairly small horses, for example, have a really bad time trying to get enough nutrition from their diet and if they eat a tiny bit too much or too little they pretty much just die an agonising death from stomach problems. This is after thousands of years of us trying to breed the strongest healthiest horses we can, incidentally - the very earliest horses were the size of cats and lived for a year or two at most judging by the fossil record. Even at the dawn of agriculture horses were horribly fragile creatures.