The richer people get, the more meat they eat(spectrum.ieee.org)
spectrum.ieee.org
The richer people get, the more meat they eat
https://spectrum.ieee.org/meat-eater
220 comments
> it's quite clear that humans can happily survive whether they eat animal products or not
Perhaps, but survival is not the only point of eating and shouldn't be the ultimate measure of your success as a human being. A balanced meat-free diet is not easy. You need to be very aware of the compromises you're making and compensate for them either through much more thought put into your food choices or supplementation. The BBC published an interesting article a while ago on the topic [0].
> Whether somebody is vegan or not in the modern world is much more to do with the social situation that they find themselves in, along with the availability of vegan foods that appeal to their tastes than anything to do with chimpanzees.
This seems to be a case of science and culture working around biology. It doesn't really contradict the biological argument.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200127-how-a-vegan-diet...
Perhaps, but survival is not the only point of eating and shouldn't be the ultimate measure of your success as a human being. A balanced meat-free diet is not easy. You need to be very aware of the compromises you're making and compensate for them either through much more thought put into your food choices or supplementation. The BBC published an interesting article a while ago on the topic [0].
> Whether somebody is vegan or not in the modern world is much more to do with the social situation that they find themselves in, along with the availability of vegan foods that appeal to their tastes than anything to do with chimpanzees.
This seems to be a case of science and culture working around biology. It doesn't really contradict the biological argument.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200127-how-a-vegan-diet...
> A balanced meat-free diet is not easy.
I've been vegan for years and I haven't really found this to be the case^. B12 is really the only thing you need to supplement, and a lot of vegan products have it it also. You also read anything online about becoming vegan and they all recommend B12 supplements.
^I also used chronometer for years so I hade a decent understanding of my macron micro nutritional intake.
I've been vegan for years and I haven't really found this to be the case^. B12 is really the only thing you need to supplement, and a lot of vegan products have it it also. You also read anything online about becoming vegan and they all recommend B12 supplements.
^I also used chronometer for years so I hade a decent understanding of my macron micro nutritional intake.
You need to supplement vegetables with many substances that are not required when eating enough animal food.
However, when buying food that is labelled as vegan this is not always obvious, because it might already include various supplements, and also some of the supplements required by vegetable food can be obtained from minerals, so it is easy to get them while avoiding animal sources.
The most important substances that are not contained in adequate quantities in vegetables: vitamin B12, vitamin D, DHA (omega-3 fatty acid), EPA (omega-3 fatty acid), choline, taurine, iodine, calcium, sodium.
While everybody mentions that it is possible to get an adequate intake of proteins by mixing cereals with legumes, what is not usually discussed is that the quantities that must be eaten are quite large.
For example an adequate daily protein intake for a male of my weight is provided by 500 g of wheat floor plus 167 g of lentils per day.
Someone who does heavy physical work might be able to eat so much in a day, but if I would eat this quantity, I would gain weight extremely fast, because wheat floor and lentils contain much more starch than proteins, so they provide too much energy.
So the only way to eat that quantity, is to divide the wheat floor into 2 half portions, use one for home-made bread and the other for making gluten, while dumping the starch from it.
Only by wasting time with making gluten at home, it is possible to eat enough vegan proteins while also spending less money than when eating meat.
In Europe, where I live, the cost of proteins from chicken breast is 3 times the cost of proteins from wheat floor and 2.5 times the cost of proteins from lentils.
So if you buy wheat floor and lentils and you cook them at home, it would be cheaper than buying chicken breast.
If you buy any kind of processed food made from vegetables, you end spending much more for ensuring an adequate protein intake than when buying chicken breast.
Even bread costs 2 to 6 times more per protein content than wheat floor, so only the most basic bread is cheaper than chicken breast. The commercial protein extracts from vegetables, aimed at vegans, have a price many times higher than meat.
In conclusion, I also agree that "a balanced meat-free diet is not easy".
There are only 2 choices to achieve it, either spend much more money than a meat-eater, or spend more time with cooking at home than a meat-eater.
There are also many vegans who do not know how to supplement correctly their food, because they repeat the myth that "only B12 is needed", so they eventually develop various health problems, as also testified in a few of the other comments posted here.
However, when buying food that is labelled as vegan this is not always obvious, because it might already include various supplements, and also some of the supplements required by vegetable food can be obtained from minerals, so it is easy to get them while avoiding animal sources.
The most important substances that are not contained in adequate quantities in vegetables: vitamin B12, vitamin D, DHA (omega-3 fatty acid), EPA (omega-3 fatty acid), choline, taurine, iodine, calcium, sodium.
While everybody mentions that it is possible to get an adequate intake of proteins by mixing cereals with legumes, what is not usually discussed is that the quantities that must be eaten are quite large.
For example an adequate daily protein intake for a male of my weight is provided by 500 g of wheat floor plus 167 g of lentils per day.
Someone who does heavy physical work might be able to eat so much in a day, but if I would eat this quantity, I would gain weight extremely fast, because wheat floor and lentils contain much more starch than proteins, so they provide too much energy.
So the only way to eat that quantity, is to divide the wheat floor into 2 half portions, use one for home-made bread and the other for making gluten, while dumping the starch from it.
Only by wasting time with making gluten at home, it is possible to eat enough vegan proteins while also spending less money than when eating meat.
In Europe, where I live, the cost of proteins from chicken breast is 3 times the cost of proteins from wheat floor and 2.5 times the cost of proteins from lentils.
So if you buy wheat floor and lentils and you cook them at home, it would be cheaper than buying chicken breast.
If you buy any kind of processed food made from vegetables, you end spending much more for ensuring an adequate protein intake than when buying chicken breast.
Even bread costs 2 to 6 times more per protein content than wheat floor, so only the most basic bread is cheaper than chicken breast. The commercial protein extracts from vegetables, aimed at vegans, have a price many times higher than meat.
In conclusion, I also agree that "a balanced meat-free diet is not easy".
There are only 2 choices to achieve it, either spend much more money than a meat-eater, or spend more time with cooking at home than a meat-eater.
There are also many vegans who do not know how to supplement correctly their food, because they repeat the myth that "only B12 is needed", so they eventually develop various health problems, as also testified in a few of the other comments posted here.
Tofu.
Whether tofu is a possible choice depends on where you live.
There are many places where tofu is more expensive than meat, e.g. in Europe, so in such places tofu is not a rational choice.
Even where it is available at a decent price, tofu contains much less proteins than dry legumes or meat, so a proportionally larger quantity of it has to be eaten.
Its only advantage is that it provides little energy, but it is more difficult to combine it with cereals to provide all the needed proteins, because both have a low protein content, so the sum per day of e.g. wheat bread + tofu might need to be more than 1 kilogram.
Achieving an adequate intake with bread + tofu + dry legumes is somewhat easier, because the dry legumes have a higher protein content, but one still has to eat much more tofu than the meat that would have been needed in the same combination.
There are many places where tofu is more expensive than meat, e.g. in Europe, so in such places tofu is not a rational choice.
Even where it is available at a decent price, tofu contains much less proteins than dry legumes or meat, so a proportionally larger quantity of it has to be eaten.
Its only advantage is that it provides little energy, but it is more difficult to combine it with cereals to provide all the needed proteins, because both have a low protein content, so the sum per day of e.g. wheat bread + tofu might need to be more than 1 kilogram.
Achieving an adequate intake with bread + tofu + dry legumes is somewhat easier, because the dry legumes have a higher protein content, but one still has to eat much more tofu than the meat that would have been needed in the same combination.
I think you're overestimating the amount of protein that's required to be healthy, it's around 0.8g/Kg body weight^. So for a 75Kg person that's only 60g, 240 Calories.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-much-protein-do-you-...
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-much-protein-do-you-...
it's really not that hard that's just meat propaganda. Been vegan 10 years and still somehow manage to boulder at a high level without even thinking about my diet
Your argument is basically "it's meat propaganda, here's my personal anecdote to prove it".
Here's my anecdote: I was vegetarian (not even vegan!) for a whole year. I was careful to eat a balanced diet, a lot of beans, legumes, veggies, green leaves. Very little sugar and alcohol. I was constantly tired (I thought it would go away after a month or 2), had many physical injuries and was irritable, where I'm usually quite calm.
I decided vegetarianism was not for me. Now I still care about my diet but not enough to actually try to balance nearly as much. I eat a lot more sugar (trying to reduce but it's hard when you have a sweet tooth) and even the occasional alcohol. I'm a lot older than then, and yet I'm generally more rested, stronger, have better focus and injuries don't take as long to recover.
Does that prove vegetarianism is bad and eating meat is the only way? Is vegetarianism just anti-meat propaganda? Absolutely not.
Here's my anecdote: I was vegetarian (not even vegan!) for a whole year. I was careful to eat a balanced diet, a lot of beans, legumes, veggies, green leaves. Very little sugar and alcohol. I was constantly tired (I thought it would go away after a month or 2), had many physical injuries and was irritable, where I'm usually quite calm.
I decided vegetarianism was not for me. Now I still care about my diet but not enough to actually try to balance nearly as much. I eat a lot more sugar (trying to reduce but it's hard when you have a sweet tooth) and even the occasional alcohol. I'm a lot older than then, and yet I'm generally more rested, stronger, have better focus and injuries don't take as long to recover.
Does that prove vegetarianism is bad and eating meat is the only way? Is vegetarianism just anti-meat propaganda? Absolutely not.
That’s great for you, but it’s quite common for vegans to suffer from b12 deficiency. And that’s just a commonly tested one but meat also contains iron, taurine, creatine, and a lot more that is hard to get from non meat sources. Personally I went low meat (not even close to vegan) and suffered. My b12 was low normal, yet I definitely felt the effects.
Just want to add that I eat mostly vegetarian/vegan and bouldering at v4 level. Also very easily gaining muscle and not thinking too much about my diet. Just paid for every possible blood test that my doctor could provide and everything was in healthy ranges.
Truth is… taking a b12 vitamin a few times per week and having some vegan protein shakes a few times per week is super easy.
Truth is… there a lot of vegans that just don’t have super basic knowledge about the diet. But it’s actually super easy to figure it out if you put in maybe 1-2 days of research.
Also, something like one third of all Americans have low-normal b12 levels. A lot more people should be supplementing in general.
Also, something like one third of all Americans have low-normal b12 levels. A lot more people should be supplementing in general.
> But it’s actually super easy to figure it out if you put in maybe 1-2 days of research.
Vegans always say this. It is not true, or it is only half true, because you may gain the knowledge but very often still not have any options. I am vegetarian (cheese is my protein source because though I love the bean, it is a bitch to prepare). I am terrible at vegetarianism, but it isn't my fault. Nearly everything available has some animal byproduct in it, and nearly everything available is also not all that healthy, filled with sugar and salt. It takes something like a detective's mind and drive to sift through a grocery store and find things that are actually good for you unless you prepare every meal from its most basic constituents. On the road? Good luck finding vegan or vegetarian meals. I honestly find it offensive that everything everywhere is based on the meat eater's diet with either one single or no decent alternative menu item, which is just as likely to be mac and cheese.
It is terribly annoying and difficult to eat healthy and vegetarian, let alone vegan, especially in the South and in the sticks. It takes virtuous dedication and extreme vigilance, while carnivores need take no effort whatsoever. I don't understand why there isn't a vegan/vegetarian national chain restaurant, and one without bazaar menu items no one's ever heard of. Veggie fast food is a great idea, would draw crowds, but it simply does not exist. Why isn't half the frozen section filled with vegetarian and healthy TV dinners? Why isn't the free market pouncing on providing healthy, simply healthy, food? Basic, square, vegetarian food is all I am after, and not finding it means I am pretty much starving myself and settling for meals that really aren't all that nutritious.
Vegans always say this. It is not true, or it is only half true, because you may gain the knowledge but very often still not have any options. I am vegetarian (cheese is my protein source because though I love the bean, it is a bitch to prepare). I am terrible at vegetarianism, but it isn't my fault. Nearly everything available has some animal byproduct in it, and nearly everything available is also not all that healthy, filled with sugar and salt. It takes something like a detective's mind and drive to sift through a grocery store and find things that are actually good for you unless you prepare every meal from its most basic constituents. On the road? Good luck finding vegan or vegetarian meals. I honestly find it offensive that everything everywhere is based on the meat eater's diet with either one single or no decent alternative menu item, which is just as likely to be mac and cheese.
It is terribly annoying and difficult to eat healthy and vegetarian, let alone vegan, especially in the South and in the sticks. It takes virtuous dedication and extreme vigilance, while carnivores need take no effort whatsoever. I don't understand why there isn't a vegan/vegetarian national chain restaurant, and one without bazaar menu items no one's ever heard of. Veggie fast food is a great idea, would draw crowds, but it simply does not exist. Why isn't half the frozen section filled with vegetarian and healthy TV dinners? Why isn't the free market pouncing on providing healthy, simply healthy, food? Basic, square, vegetarian food is all I am after, and not finding it means I am pretty much starving myself and settling for meals that really aren't all that nutritious.
> Veggie fast food is a great idea, would draw crowds, but it simply does not exist.
You should find a decent selection of ready-to-eat vegetarian fast and frozen foods in any Indian grocery store. Most significant American towns, even out in the sticks, have at least one Indian store these days.
You should find a decent selection of ready-to-eat vegetarian fast and frozen foods in any Indian grocery store. Most significant American towns, even out in the sticks, have at least one Indian store these days.
Well.. I have never been to the South but I have been mid-west and I did feel a bit of the pain but I still didn't have much trouble in grocery stores - even smaller scale grocery stores.
Perhaps I have a palate that is more conducive to the vegan/vegetarian diet, but here are the proteins I eat that I can find just about anywhere with zero issues. Some random combinations of stuff but everything below can be mixed and matched.
- Rice and beans (1 cup of brown + 200g of black beans == ~22g of protein)
- Rice and lentils (1 cup of brown rice + 200g of lentils == ~20g of protein)
- gnocchi and super firm tofu (1 cup gnocchi + 150g tofu == ~27g of protein)
- Lentil spaghetti + super firm tofu (~30g of protein)
- Peanut butter and jelly sandwich (~18g of protein)
- Pita pocket with chickpeas (~17g for just one sandwich - assuming you're really chocking that pocket full of chickpeas :P. Curry chickpeas goes well here, mmmm)
Adult men need about 56g of protein per day while women need about 46g.
I only buy canned beans/lentils since they are the easiest to prepare - and tofu and lentil spaghetti are also just basic items to prepare. As you can see these items all supply at least 1/3 of the protein that most people need in one day. If combined properly they can provide 1/2 of the protein that is needed in just one meal, or you could simply just increase the serving sizes.
This list doesn't even capture the full amount of protein that a meal has.. I usually add a slice of bread to the side, or maybe I'll wrap the rice and beans in a flour tortilla. Maybe I'll have a side of almond or soy milk. Maybe I'll sprinkle some pumpkin seeds or other nut into the wrap.. After everything is said and done, do you see why this doesn't actually need much thought? Getting enough protein is easy.
Also, these things are CHEAP. Rice and beans? Cheap. Tofu? Cheap. Gnocchi is super easy to make yourself, especially with dried potato flakes. The most expensive thing here is probably the specialty lentil/bean pastas, but if you buy those in bulk then you can still save a lot of money compared to animal meat.
The trick to making these items tasty is usually the seasonings, veggies and prep methods. Those take some practice but I usually just stick to tried and true sauces and seasoning blends.
As for vegan fast food - anything at taco bell can be made vegan by asking for "fresco style". Chipotle also has good vegan options with "sofritas"
Perhaps I have a palate that is more conducive to the vegan/vegetarian diet, but here are the proteins I eat that I can find just about anywhere with zero issues. Some random combinations of stuff but everything below can be mixed and matched.
- Rice and beans (1 cup of brown + 200g of black beans == ~22g of protein)
- Rice and lentils (1 cup of brown rice + 200g of lentils == ~20g of protein)
- gnocchi and super firm tofu (1 cup gnocchi + 150g tofu == ~27g of protein)
- Lentil spaghetti + super firm tofu (~30g of protein)
- Peanut butter and jelly sandwich (~18g of protein)
- Pita pocket with chickpeas (~17g for just one sandwich - assuming you're really chocking that pocket full of chickpeas :P. Curry chickpeas goes well here, mmmm)
Adult men need about 56g of protein per day while women need about 46g.
I only buy canned beans/lentils since they are the easiest to prepare - and tofu and lentil spaghetti are also just basic items to prepare. As you can see these items all supply at least 1/3 of the protein that most people need in one day. If combined properly they can provide 1/2 of the protein that is needed in just one meal, or you could simply just increase the serving sizes.
This list doesn't even capture the full amount of protein that a meal has.. I usually add a slice of bread to the side, or maybe I'll wrap the rice and beans in a flour tortilla. Maybe I'll have a side of almond or soy milk. Maybe I'll sprinkle some pumpkin seeds or other nut into the wrap.. After everything is said and done, do you see why this doesn't actually need much thought? Getting enough protein is easy.
Also, these things are CHEAP. Rice and beans? Cheap. Tofu? Cheap. Gnocchi is super easy to make yourself, especially with dried potato flakes. The most expensive thing here is probably the specialty lentil/bean pastas, but if you buy those in bulk then you can still save a lot of money compared to animal meat.
The trick to making these items tasty is usually the seasonings, veggies and prep methods. Those take some practice but I usually just stick to tried and true sauces and seasoning blends.
As for vegan fast food - anything at taco bell can be made vegan by asking for "fresco style". Chipotle also has good vegan options with "sofritas"
Appreciated, and I love rice and beans, and I honestly could eat that and only that for the rest of my life, if, you know, it was handed to me. Now this is going to make me sound lazy, but here is the problem. Let's say you've got an empty kitchen, and you're hungry now. You hit the grocery for rice and beans. You can make the rice and eat that, but the beans won't be ready to cook until tomorrow at the earliest. The point here I think is that it takes a plan and a routine; you have to know that though you bought the beans today that you can't cook and eat them before they soak a day.
Bad excuse. Honestly, I have never done it, and that is probably the only issue. I have no experience with the bean (other than frozen cut green beans), and thus it somehow terrifies me. It's like anything. What if something goes wrong?
I'm just not adventurous with food. I know how to make pasta, create my own dishes with it. I might pour a can of lentil soup over pasta, usually pretty bland even with all the salt Progresso uses, and who knows what else. I doubt many would find my meals palatable, but it prepares in 15 minutes or less depending on the type of pasta.
Anything more complicated or that takes more than 45 minutes to prepare is like rocket science to me. I never understood how my mother could cook 4 things at once and everything is ready at the same time within an hour. Sorcery.
Bad excuse. Honestly, I have never done it, and that is probably the only issue. I have no experience with the bean (other than frozen cut green beans), and thus it somehow terrifies me. It's like anything. What if something goes wrong?
I'm just not adventurous with food. I know how to make pasta, create my own dishes with it. I might pour a can of lentil soup over pasta, usually pretty bland even with all the salt Progresso uses, and who knows what else. I doubt many would find my meals palatable, but it prepares in 15 minutes or less depending on the type of pasta.
Anything more complicated or that takes more than 45 minutes to prepare is like rocket science to me. I never understood how my mother could cook 4 things at once and everything is ready at the same time within an hour. Sorcery.
>It is terribly annoying and difficult to eat healthy and vegetarian, let alone vegan, especially in the South and in the sticks.
One of the things I find frustrating about so many vegetarian / vegan products on the market and/or recipes is the way they substitute in a chemical shitstorm. As in, too often it feels like I'm taking out meat (which I'd call a "known" product - I know what it is and I buy it from ranchers I know) and the substitute is some kind of heavily processed vegetable or grain concoction. It leaves me wondering about the proposed health and environmental benefits.
One of the things I find frustrating about so many vegetarian / vegan products on the market and/or recipes is the way they substitute in a chemical shitstorm. As in, too often it feels like I'm taking out meat (which I'd call a "known" product - I know what it is and I buy it from ranchers I know) and the substitute is some kind of heavily processed vegetable or grain concoction. It leaves me wondering about the proposed health and environmental benefits.
I feel this frustration. I also live in the south and sometimes even the salads all have meat at restaurants.
What's funny is that there's also a fad of vegan restaurants that serve extremely fatty, highly processed "vegan junk food" for lack of a better description. They are greasy and lacking in protein.
This should be really simple. Minimally processed vegetables with tofu, tempeh, seitan, or lentils. But no restaurant here does it.
What's funny is that there's also a fad of vegan restaurants that serve extremely fatty, highly processed "vegan junk food" for lack of a better description. They are greasy and lacking in protein.
This should be really simple. Minimally processed vegetables with tofu, tempeh, seitan, or lentils. But no restaurant here does it.
What vegan shake you have?
Currently using Orgain Peanut Butter and Vega Chocolate. The Vega one has some extra minerals and vitamins which is nice. Both are super delicious.
Tip... add a splash of vegan creamer to the shake before mixing. I like to add Trader Joe's brown sugar oat creamer and it makes it heavenly.
Tip... add a splash of vegan creamer to the shake before mixing. I like to add Trader Joe's brown sugar oat creamer and it makes it heavenly.
Cool. Gotchya. I’m not vegan but I drink Huel vanilla for breakfast which is vegan.
The point from the article that I'm really concerned with is:
> It is well to keep this biological fact in mind when considering outlandish claims about the imminent victory of veganism.
And while 'victory' is loosely defined, appears to come from the idea that:
> much of the world is trending towards plant-based eating
My point is exactly that if the "work around" (as you put it) works then the argument that biological history will necessarily prevent veganism from becoming more popular no longer really holds, precisely because we can "work around" it.
I don't really take issue with the idea that biology has to one degree or another helped to shape dietary habits today, just that the historical trend may not hold in the future in the face of social (which I take to include scientific) change.
> It is well to keep this biological fact in mind when considering outlandish claims about the imminent victory of veganism.
And while 'victory' is loosely defined, appears to come from the idea that:
> much of the world is trending towards plant-based eating
My point is exactly that if the "work around" (as you put it) works then the argument that biological history will necessarily prevent veganism from becoming more popular no longer really holds, precisely because we can "work around" it.
I don't really take issue with the idea that biology has to one degree or another helped to shape dietary habits today, just that the historical trend may not hold in the future in the face of social (which I take to include scientific) change.
The thing is that you can’t look at evolution and sexual selection from the perspective of ”this particular thing makes the most sense or seems to be the optimum, and so of course nature has made things such”.
An urge can be very strong and provide just a little benefit, and still remain. It can be weak and enormously beneficial, and still just be prevalent in a small part of the population. It can even be not beneficial at all, and just be a remnant from when it was, or even a byproduct of something else.
So you can’t discount biology, especially when looking at the wider population, just because you think that for whatever reason whatever the thing that caused the evolutional pressure for the behavior you’re observing isn’t valid anymore. And even if that’s true, you’re probably lagging a few hundred, thousand or tens of thousands of years behind.
An urge can be very strong and provide just a little benefit, and still remain. It can be weak and enormously beneficial, and still just be prevalent in a small part of the population. It can even be not beneficial at all, and just be a remnant from when it was, or even a byproduct of something else.
So you can’t discount biology, especially when looking at the wider population, just because you think that for whatever reason whatever the thing that caused the evolutional pressure for the behavior you’re observing isn’t valid anymore. And even if that’s true, you’re probably lagging a few hundred, thousand or tens of thousands of years behind.
I tried going almost meat free for a good decade (largely thanks to huel, which allow you to eat enough protein to workout).
Everything was fine until I hit 30s.
I started having serious stomach issues that doctors blamed on "stress" or the misteries of the gut. Over two years I dropped huel, gradually went back to meat, dairy and vegetables and grains.
I still had painful, bloody and explosive episodes.
I started eating a carnivore diet and all the symptoms disappeared in a week. I also lost 7kg.
This made me revaluate everything I believed in nutrition. I realised that the reasons for introducing a vegetarian diet as part of USDA was pretty much baseless and that USDA backpedaled on fat consumption being bad.
At this point I frankly doubt much of the research on nutrition and I'm not sure if I buy the reasons to avoid meat.
Is there really a link between meat and cancer and cardio diseases or are you just trying to sell me some preprocessed vegan crap?
Everything was fine until I hit 30s.
I started having serious stomach issues that doctors blamed on "stress" or the misteries of the gut. Over two years I dropped huel, gradually went back to meat, dairy and vegetables and grains.
I still had painful, bloody and explosive episodes.
I started eating a carnivore diet and all the symptoms disappeared in a week. I also lost 7kg.
This made me revaluate everything I believed in nutrition. I realised that the reasons for introducing a vegetarian diet as part of USDA was pretty much baseless and that USDA backpedaled on fat consumption being bad.
At this point I frankly doubt much of the research on nutrition and I'm not sure if I buy the reasons to avoid meat.
Is there really a link between meat and cancer and cardio diseases or are you just trying to sell me some preprocessed vegan crap?
You do realise you were eating a glorified protein powder and not a balanced diet? I think this is the problem you were experiencing, and has nothing to do with it being vegan or otherwise.
> Yet even in those rich countries in which the consumption of meat has reached new heights [...] it has led to no demonstrable ill effects on health
The article doesn't mention environmental pressures: as we grapple with climate change, we'll necessarily have to reduce CO2 emissions, and meat is a huge contributor to global CO2 emissions. The health consequences of meat are hard to argue with certainty, we really have only a rudimentary understanding of health science.
We have a far better understanding of global warming, and we can say with certainty that eating less meat will reduce global CO2 emission. Whether that means the price of meat goes up over time (i.e. due to a carbon tax), or laws curb it, that's a factor which may overwhelm the article's thesis that "more global wealth = more meat eaten"
The article doesn't mention environmental pressures: as we grapple with climate change, we'll necessarily have to reduce CO2 emissions, and meat is a huge contributor to global CO2 emissions. The health consequences of meat are hard to argue with certainty, we really have only a rudimentary understanding of health science.
We have a far better understanding of global warming, and we can say with certainty that eating less meat will reduce global CO2 emission. Whether that means the price of meat goes up over time (i.e. due to a carbon tax), or laws curb it, that's a factor which may overwhelm the article's thesis that "more global wealth = more meat eaten"
I suggest that those who are campaigning for livestock reduction should first ask for the complete reduction of household pets as they also emit methane and perform less of a productive function in society than livestock which produces meat, eggs, milk and a host of other products.
It is not, it is only recycling plants into methane that changed to co2 and that is then captured by plants again. Ffs
Dude India and China are the biggest contributors. I’ll take these comments seriously when people start pointing at real root causes
The most populous countries which are also the world's factory? Yes.
But if you look at emissions per capita, it's not China we should look at. It's a country that outsources most of its manufacturing and still manages to top the chart.
I feel like people say "but China" to avoid taking any responsibility.
But if you look at emissions per capita, it's not China we should look at. It's a country that outsources most of its manufacturing and still manages to top the chart.
I feel like people say "but China" to avoid taking any responsibility.
It would only make sense to look at emissions per capita if emissions were driven by individuals rather than by industry.
You can't have that argument both ways. China is building the world's crap, and still has less emissions per capita than the US with its service industry.
That's because China doesn't care about the environment when they make things. If the US and China made the same quantity of the same good, I expect China would produce a lot more emissions in the process.
China manufactures a hell of a lot more than the US
Meat contributes literally zero to global CO2 emissions. After all, it's recycled grass.
Maybe meat faming methods contribute CO2 emissions, but that's a reason to stop those farming methods, not stop eating meat.
Similar to people who hate aircon, people who argue that we should stop eating meat simply reveal themselves as regressives (hating advanced human civilisation, wanting a decrease in energy usage of humanity, which necessarily implies regression and mass death).
(Some people argue that beef contribute methane emissions, which is true however methane is a cycle and contributes nothing to the long-term anthropogenic carbon emissions, the entirety of which is coming from fossil fuels; yet still, the correct response is improving agricultural practices, not banning meat.)
Btw I fully support a carbon tax, as long as it's non-discriminatory (i.e. taxes all fossil fuel usage equally, not meat and/or other "sinful" activities more).
Maybe meat faming methods contribute CO2 emissions, but that's a reason to stop those farming methods, not stop eating meat.
Similar to people who hate aircon, people who argue that we should stop eating meat simply reveal themselves as regressives (hating advanced human civilisation, wanting a decrease in energy usage of humanity, which necessarily implies regression and mass death).
(Some people argue that beef contribute methane emissions, which is true however methane is a cycle and contributes nothing to the long-term anthropogenic carbon emissions, the entirety of which is coming from fossil fuels; yet still, the correct response is improving agricultural practices, not banning meat.)
Btw I fully support a carbon tax, as long as it's non-discriminatory (i.e. taxes all fossil fuel usage equally, not meat and/or other "sinful" activities more).
If you keep emitting that methane, then it continues to persist and leads to problems with climate change. Unfortunately this can only reduced a bit with changes to farming practices in the meat industry
> people that argue that we should stop eating meat simply reveal themselves as regressives (hating advanced human civilisation, wanting a decrease in energy usage of humanity, which necessarily implies regression and mass death).
How does saying the meat industry is a problem "hating human civilization"? It certainly does not mean regression and mass death as it would decrease the amount of land, cropland, and resources to grow food since we wouldn't need to grow so much feed nor clear so much land for pastures
"If we would shift towards a more plant-based diet we don’t only need less agricultural land overall, we also need less cropland"
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
> people that argue that we should stop eating meat simply reveal themselves as regressives (hating advanced human civilisation, wanting a decrease in energy usage of humanity, which necessarily implies regression and mass death).
How does saying the meat industry is a problem "hating human civilization"? It certainly does not mean regression and mass death as it would decrease the amount of land, cropland, and resources to grow food since we wouldn't need to grow so much feed nor clear so much land for pastures
"If we would shift towards a more plant-based diet we don’t only need less agricultural land overall, we also need less cropland"
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
[deleted]
I agree that there's potential for sustainable husbandry in grasslands you cannot use otherwise. But it's very small and could not sustain today's mean consumption at all. Meat production relies heavily on farmed feed, with very low efficiency (25kg of feed for 1kg of beef). For growing that feed you need a lot of farmland which is a driving factor for the destruction of carbon sinks like the rain forest. Here in Europe for instance we are not able to produce enough feed for our animals, so we heavily import from the Americas.
Also your argument against methane emissions is not very well thought through. You could argue the same against any CO2 emissions, by arguing that at some point they will be stored by CCS again.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/feed-required-to-produce-...
Also your argument against methane emissions is not very well thought through. You could argue the same against any CO2 emissions, by arguing that at some point they will be stored by CCS again.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/feed-required-to-produce-...
> Meat contributes literally zero to global CO2 emissions. After all, it's recycled grass.
Do you genuinely not understand that these animals are bred for humans consumption? They wouldn't exist otherwise.
If you can nurture a human with X amount of plant food, but instead use X+Y amount of plant food (and extra water, fertilizer, fossils fuels etc.) to raise cattle to nurture the same amount of humans, you've absolutely increased carbon emissions as compared to the first option.
I sincerely do not get how one can miss this point??
Do you genuinely not understand that these animals are bred for humans consumption? They wouldn't exist otherwise.
If you can nurture a human with X amount of plant food, but instead use X+Y amount of plant food (and extra water, fertilizer, fossils fuels etc.) to raise cattle to nurture the same amount of humans, you've absolutely increased carbon emissions as compared to the first option.
I sincerely do not get how one can miss this point??
> If you can nurture a human with X amount of plant food, but instead use X+Y amount of plant food (and extra water, fertilizer, fossils fuels etc.) to raise cattle to nurture the same amount of humans
The key points you're missing are that the plants that cows eat aren't suitable for human consumption, and the land that said plants grow on isn't suitable for growing any plants that are suitable for human consumption.
The key points you're missing are that the plants that cows eat aren't suitable for human consumption, and the land that said plants grow on isn't suitable for growing any plants that are suitable for human consumption.
The vast majority of cow's feed is grain & soy, both of which humans can eat directly. Current levels of meat consumption both in value and cost wouldn't even be remotely sustainable if everyone only ate pasture raised, grass fed cows.
Not to mention that existing biotopes are being destroyed in order to create more pasture; it's very much a self-made problem.
Not to mention that existing biotopes are being destroyed in order to create more pasture; it's very much a self-made problem.
Assuming that 25 kg of grain/soy is needed to make 1kg of meat (just picked a number from a poster here), are you really sure that 25 kg of grain/soy is better nutritionally than 1 kg meat ?
Isn't grass still a big part of what cows eat? As for grain and soy, I thought the parts of them we fed to cows were what was left over after we harvested the parts that we can eat.
Water is a cycle and isn't actually consumed. Fertilizer requires energy, as does transport.
If we make plant agriculture "sustainable" (i.e. independent of fossil fuels) then we will also make meat agriculture sustainable.
If we make plant agriculture "sustainable" (i.e. independent of fossil fuels) then we will also make meat agriculture sustainable.
Independence from fossil fuel use is far from the only factor determining sustainability of our agriculture, though, sadly.
Land use is a huge concern, given we already use half of the world’s habitable land for our agriculture [1], putting immense pressure on ecosystems and biodiversity due to this habitat loss.
Organic agriculture is less intensive, meaning for the same total food production, it must be more extensive — it requires more land [2].
That’s not to say there aren’t very good reasons to shift to organic agriculture. Fertilizer runoff leads to vast ocean dead zones, such as that in the Gulf of Mexico [3]. Further, we have an estimated 60 years of farming left if soil depletion continues at its current pace [4].
If we are to both curtail our land use and switch to regenerative farming methods, we must curtail meat production.
It takes around 100 times as much land to produce 1 calorie of beef or lamb versus plant-based alternatives (similar for the same quantity of protein) [5], such that we could reduce our land use for farming from 4 billion to 1 billion hectares and still feed the whole world on plant-based diets.
I’m not sure if I’ve connected the dots here especially well, but I hope I’ve at least conveyed that sustainability is multi-dimensional, and goes far beyond just getting off fossil fuels — even though that is a vital step.
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
[2]: https://ourworldindata.org/is-organic-agriculture-better-for...
[3]: https://oceantoday.noaa.gov/deadzonegulf-2021/welcome.html
[4]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-...
[5]: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
Land use is a huge concern, given we already use half of the world’s habitable land for our agriculture [1], putting immense pressure on ecosystems and biodiversity due to this habitat loss.
Organic agriculture is less intensive, meaning for the same total food production, it must be more extensive — it requires more land [2].
That’s not to say there aren’t very good reasons to shift to organic agriculture. Fertilizer runoff leads to vast ocean dead zones, such as that in the Gulf of Mexico [3]. Further, we have an estimated 60 years of farming left if soil depletion continues at its current pace [4].
If we are to both curtail our land use and switch to regenerative farming methods, we must curtail meat production.
It takes around 100 times as much land to produce 1 calorie of beef or lamb versus plant-based alternatives (similar for the same quantity of protein) [5], such that we could reduce our land use for farming from 4 billion to 1 billion hectares and still feed the whole world on plant-based diets.
I’m not sure if I’ve connected the dots here especially well, but I hope I’ve at least conveyed that sustainability is multi-dimensional, and goes far beyond just getting off fossil fuels — even though that is a vital step.
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
[2]: https://ourworldindata.org/is-organic-agriculture-better-for...
[3]: https://oceantoday.noaa.gov/deadzonegulf-2021/welcome.html
[4]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-...
[5]: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
Of course the long term answer is to stop having so many damn babies!
People in the developed world are having too few babies.
> Do you genuinely not understand that these animals are bred for humans consumption? They wouldn't exist otherwise.
In the United States we actually destroyed an equivalent biomass of Bison and replaced them with cattle. Though perhaps you celebrate the Bison eradication, too.
In the United States we actually destroyed an equivalent biomass of Bison and replaced them with cattle. Though perhaps you celebrate the Bison eradication, too.
I can directly influence what I buy in the supermarket. I have very little influence on what methods a farmer on the other side of earth uses, whether he lets his cows graze on land that used to be rain forest, or just uses many times more fuel to produce the crop needed to feed his pigs than would be required to produce the same amount of calories as vegan food. So for now, I’m very selective in any meat I buy, and most often abstain.
And methane stays in the atmosphere only a decade or so, so the day we stop release huge amount of it the effect will disappear much faster. But as long as we continue to let methane out in the atmosphere, it will have disproportionate effect on the climate disaster. Which happens right now! Not in some unspecified remote future.
And methane stays in the atmosphere only a decade or so, so the day we stop release huge amount of it the effect will disappear much faster. But as long as we continue to let methane out in the atmosphere, it will have disproportionate effect on the climate disaster. Which happens right now! Not in some unspecified remote future.
Meat contributes zero new CO2 IF the crops they are eating weren't grown with fertilizer ultimately made from natural gas. Do you know a country where this is true?
> that's a reason to stop those farming methods, not stop eating meat.
Presumably it would also be a reason to stop eating meat grown using those farming methods. Which would be the majority of meat consumed as it stands.
Presumably it would also be a reason to stop eating meat grown using those farming methods. Which would be the majority of meat consumed as it stands.
Yeh sure, matter is neither created nor destroyed. The problem here is that massive amounts of carbon sequestered over millions of years, is being released, just to create the feed for these livestock. This isn't like a small group of cattle, grazing on natural prairies.
Sure, let's stop making fertilizer out of fossil fuels. That doesn't require us to stop eating meat.
There's plenty of reasons to at least reduce meat consumption. Should we ban it globally? Of course not. However, it should be more of a special occasion, as it has been historically. Eating red meat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner isn't doing anyone any favors. Except maybe healthcare companies.
The only carbon tax that makes sense would be one that targets fossil fuel production. Extracting oil from the ground? Hella taxed. Extracting natural gas? Super taxed.
If people can find a good way to create fossil fuels from atmospheric CO2 then they shouldn't have any fossil fuel punishments in their way.
If people can find a good way to create fossil fuels from atmospheric CO2 then they shouldn't have any fossil fuel punishments in their way.
I haven't read the article yet (and I will), but it would be a great gift to the future of humanity if we could develop sustenance that was devoid of suffering and murder.
I am no partisan for the cause (and will order anything from a menu that strikes my fancy), but there is a certain mark of savagery in what and who we eat that (I feel) it is our destiny to overcome.
For us to solve as many problems as we can now will give our progeny more focus on what they are tasked to do, and they will thank us for it.
I am no partisan for the cause (and will order anything from a menu that strikes my fancy), but there is a certain mark of savagery in what and who we eat that (I feel) it is our destiny to overcome.
For us to solve as many problems as we can now will give our progeny more focus on what they are tasked to do, and they will thank us for it.
Every coin has two sides.
Vegans are implicitly promoting genocide of cows, chicken and pigs. There's no chance these animals can survive in nature, they're so numerous exclusively because they're bred by humans for food. Is one-time genocide better or worse than continuous perpetual murder? This essay argues that it's worse.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/11/acc-is-eating-meat-a-n...
Vegans are implicitly promoting genocide of cows, chicken and pigs. There's no chance these animals can survive in nature, they're so numerous exclusively because they're bred by humans for food. Is one-time genocide better or worse than continuous perpetual murder? This essay argues that it's worse.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/11/acc-is-eating-meat-a-n...
Additionally, the only way to lower emissions from animals is to genocide them. It's not just that they are likely to die if left to their own devices, leaving them to roam freely in nature results in them emitting the exact same amount of carbon as when they were farmed for meat (which is net zero, but that's besides the point).
> Vegans are implicitly promoting genocide of cows, chicken and pigs.
Nonsense.
> Is one-time genocide better or worse than continuous perpetual murder?
1) False dichotomy, nobody is asking for "genocide".
2) Even if, the answer is absolutely yes.
What a disingenuous and ridiculous stance.
Nonsense.
> Is one-time genocide better or worse than continuous perpetual murder?
1) False dichotomy, nobody is asking for "genocide".
2) Even if, the answer is absolutely yes.
What a disingenuous and ridiculous stance.
There is not one shed of science that can suggest with any amount of confidence that eliminating livestock will make a difference with global warming meaningful enough to justify not being able to eat the food that we developed to subsist on.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that meat production at present doesn't add something to the system, but CO2 and methane emitted by the process isn't exactly new. Whether it's corn or grass that's being fed on, the carbon being belched out by cows comes from the carbon the plants captured from the atmosphere before being eaten. While inevitably some carbon is going to be consumed from the ground, it is minuscule compared to all the other minerals that the plants need to consume. Why would they need to get carbon from the ground when photosynthesis already necessitates using atmospheric carbon? And yes, methane eventually degrades into carbon over around a decade or so.
Also, there were far more large grass eating ruminants on planes like the North American continent, before humans killed the vast majority of them, than there are cows being raised as livestock now. We don't even have more cows being raised than a decade ago. So trying to reduce meat consumption is not only fighting against the atmosphere's own carbon cycle, but the same cycle that was occurring in nature at a greater abundance before man showed up.
We're better off just not releasing carbon that's trapped in the earth's crust, which is what we're doing when we're burning fossil fuels, because that wouldn't really be happening at such a rapid rate in nature. But no one wants to talk about that. We have nuclear, but the hand waving never stops. I don't really know what to tell people who think that we need to stop eating meat because of global warming when they refuse to advocate for nuclear energy.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that meat production at present doesn't add something to the system, but CO2 and methane emitted by the process isn't exactly new. Whether it's corn or grass that's being fed on, the carbon being belched out by cows comes from the carbon the plants captured from the atmosphere before being eaten. While inevitably some carbon is going to be consumed from the ground, it is minuscule compared to all the other minerals that the plants need to consume. Why would they need to get carbon from the ground when photosynthesis already necessitates using atmospheric carbon? And yes, methane eventually degrades into carbon over around a decade or so.
Also, there were far more large grass eating ruminants on planes like the North American continent, before humans killed the vast majority of them, than there are cows being raised as livestock now. We don't even have more cows being raised than a decade ago. So trying to reduce meat consumption is not only fighting against the atmosphere's own carbon cycle, but the same cycle that was occurring in nature at a greater abundance before man showed up.
We're better off just not releasing carbon that's trapped in the earth's crust, which is what we're doing when we're burning fossil fuels, because that wouldn't really be happening at such a rapid rate in nature. But no one wants to talk about that. We have nuclear, but the hand waving never stops. I don't really know what to tell people who think that we need to stop eating meat because of global warming when they refuse to advocate for nuclear energy.
> There is not one shed of science that can suggest with any amount of confidence that eliminating livestock will make a difference with global warming meaningful enough to justify not being able to eat the food that we developed to subsist on.
As long as that gas continues to go into the atmosphere, it's going to keep causing problems for climate change. It accounts for 14.5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions[1] and a phase out presents a massive opportunity to sequester carbon.
> We show that, even in the absence of any other emission reductions, persistent drops in atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide levels, and slower carbon dioxide accumulation, following a phaseout of livestock production would, through the end of the century, have the same cumulative effect on the warming potential of the atmosphere as a 25 gigaton per year reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, providing half of the net emission reductions necessary to limit warming to 2°C. The magnitude and rapidity of these potential effects should place the reduction or elimination of animal agriculture at the forefront of strategies for averting disastrous climate change.
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/07/20-meat-...
As long as that gas continues to go into the atmosphere, it's going to keep causing problems for climate change. It accounts for 14.5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions[1] and a phase out presents a massive opportunity to sequester carbon.
> We show that, even in the absence of any other emission reductions, persistent drops in atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide levels, and slower carbon dioxide accumulation, following a phaseout of livestock production would, through the end of the century, have the same cumulative effect on the warming potential of the atmosphere as a 25 gigaton per year reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, providing half of the net emission reductions necessary to limit warming to 2°C. The magnitude and rapidity of these potential effects should place the reduction or elimination of animal agriculture at the forefront of strategies for averting disastrous climate change.
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/07/20-meat-...
Again cows don't emit completely new gas into the atmosphere; all gas they emit originally came from the atmosphere. So their emissions are not in anyway a problem, as it's really just recycled atmosphere.
You'd might argue that they change the composition (eg changing it to methane gas), but methane also breaks down in the stratosphere. Sure it takes like 100+ years to happen, but it's temporary. You can set a population of cows, and keep it steady, and the amount of methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere attributed to the cows won't change after some period of time. Now, growing the population of cows will grow this temporary store of gas, but cows bodies also are carbon sinks themselves which offsets it somewhat. And likewise, as you cite, reducing the population of cows and livestock would decrease their temporary contribution of gas. But this temporary store of methane isn't the root of our problems.
The real problem, is taking carbon from underground, and burning it. For nature to naturally reverse this process, takes millions of years. The only real solution is to stop burning fossil fuels, and/or to reverse the natural process faster somehow (like by repeatedly burying trees and growing new ones).
You'd might argue that they change the composition (eg changing it to methane gas), but methane also breaks down in the stratosphere. Sure it takes like 100+ years to happen, but it's temporary. You can set a population of cows, and keep it steady, and the amount of methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere attributed to the cows won't change after some period of time. Now, growing the population of cows will grow this temporary store of gas, but cows bodies also are carbon sinks themselves which offsets it somewhat. And likewise, as you cite, reducing the population of cows and livestock would decrease their temporary contribution of gas. But this temporary store of methane isn't the root of our problems.
The real problem, is taking carbon from underground, and burning it. For nature to naturally reverse this process, takes millions of years. The only real solution is to stop burning fossil fuels, and/or to reverse the natural process faster somehow (like by repeatedly burying trees and growing new ones).
As long as the methane stays in the atmosphere it does warming. Taking 100+ year to reach equilibrium concentrations still means having massive amounts of methane in the atmosphere doing warming, just at an equilibrium.
Because it breaks faster than CO2 is why we should really reduce the emissions today because it presents us a great opportunity to save more warming effect in the future
> Nevertheless, while methane may have a short atmospheric lifetime, its effects are not ephemeral provided the source of the methane continues to exist. For as long as livestock continue to be farmed, methane continues to exert a warming effect upon the climate.
> As such the argument that since methane’s impacts are temporary, they do not matter, is wrong. Its effects will in practice be permanent, unless ruminant production is halted.
> Methane emissions also increase the risk of us ‘overshooting’ the 1.5°C/2°C target, potentially tipping us into unknown climatic territory, with possibly devastating effects on agriculture, wildlife’s ability to adapt, heat stress in humans and animals, and more
https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/fcrn_gnc...
Because it breaks faster than CO2 is why we should really reduce the emissions today because it presents us a great opportunity to save more warming effect in the future
> Nevertheless, while methane may have a short atmospheric lifetime, its effects are not ephemeral provided the source of the methane continues to exist. For as long as livestock continue to be farmed, methane continues to exert a warming effect upon the climate.
> As such the argument that since methane’s impacts are temporary, they do not matter, is wrong. Its effects will in practice be permanent, unless ruminant production is halted.
> Methane emissions also increase the risk of us ‘overshooting’ the 1.5°C/2°C target, potentially tipping us into unknown climatic territory, with possibly devastating effects on agriculture, wildlife’s ability to adapt, heat stress in humans and animals, and more
https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/fcrn_gnc...
Besides fossil fuel derived fertilizers used for feed, as sibling commenters have mentioned, you’re neglecting the impact animal agriculture has on forests.
2.1 million hectares (5.2 million acres) of tropical forest is destroyed every year to make way for beef herds [1]. That’s 41% of all tropical deforestation (which is where 95% of the deforestation occurs).
This is a disaster both in terms of the vast stores of carbon being released, and the destruction of habitat in the world’s most precious and biodiverse ecosystems.
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/what-are-drivers-deforestation
2.1 million hectares (5.2 million acres) of tropical forest is destroyed every year to make way for beef herds [1]. That’s 41% of all tropical deforestation (which is where 95% of the deforestation occurs).
This is a disaster both in terms of the vast stores of carbon being released, and the destruction of habitat in the world’s most precious and biodiverse ecosystems.
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/what-are-drivers-deforestation
As if said impacts are not shared by plant agriculture? Where do you think your vegetables come from? They need vast amount of space to grow, they need to kill animals that would otherwise inhabit the space, they need to spray large quantities of pesticide from above, fertilizer is necessary and fossil fuels are burned in that process, and fossil fuels need to transport the crops.
> 2.1 million hectares (5.2 million acres) of tropical forest is destroyed every year to make way for beef herds [1]. That’s 41% of all tropical deforestation (which is where 95% of the deforestation occurs).
What are the economic incentives to destroy tropical forest? Meat is by no means the only thing that land can be used for, first of all, but there is no requirement that cows be raised on land that was previously tropical forest. Go check out the Great Plains where most of the United States' cows are raised, because you won't find a tropical forest, deforested or not, for thousands of miles. And yet, somehow, meat continues to be produced.
No, I don't want forests to be destroyed, but it's a separate issue. Forests have been destroyed for countless reasons that have nothing to do with meat. Deforestation sucks, but that really isn't a the best reason to conclude that there's a problem with eating meat when deforestation isn't an issue. That is unless you have a problem with the non-forested land that cattle farms occupy, and most people don't because tropical forests are more interesting.
As I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, if we clean up where we get our energy, these arguments mostly disappear because, regardless of the end product, fossil fuels are currently still being burned. Doesn't matter if you're eating beef or soy.
> 2.1 million hectares (5.2 million acres) of tropical forest is destroyed every year to make way for beef herds [1]. That’s 41% of all tropical deforestation (which is where 95% of the deforestation occurs).
What are the economic incentives to destroy tropical forest? Meat is by no means the only thing that land can be used for, first of all, but there is no requirement that cows be raised on land that was previously tropical forest. Go check out the Great Plains where most of the United States' cows are raised, because you won't find a tropical forest, deforested or not, for thousands of miles. And yet, somehow, meat continues to be produced.
No, I don't want forests to be destroyed, but it's a separate issue. Forests have been destroyed for countless reasons that have nothing to do with meat. Deforestation sucks, but that really isn't a the best reason to conclude that there's a problem with eating meat when deforestation isn't an issue. That is unless you have a problem with the non-forested land that cattle farms occupy, and most people don't because tropical forests are more interesting.
As I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, if we clean up where we get our energy, these arguments mostly disappear because, regardless of the end product, fossil fuels are currently still being burned. Doesn't matter if you're eating beef or soy.
> As if said impacts are not shared by plant agriculture
Absolutely, and use of pesticides and fossil-fuel-derived fertilizers in crop production and horticulture is also a huge problem.
Fact is though, the same quantities of calories or protein as beef or lamb require vastly more land and energy to produce than plant-based alternatives: roughly 100 times as much [1]. That’s owing both to pastureland and to the fact that half of all the world’s cereal crops are fed to animals.
Granted, livestock raised purely on marginal (i.e. non-arable) pastureland is relatively low impact in terms of carbon emissions. There’s still the factor that carbon dioxide is converted to methane, which in the short-term (that we actually care about) is much more potent in its warming effect.
That model does not represent most animal agriculture, however.
As for tropical deforestation, the United States is one of the chief importers of Brazilian beef [2], so as a country is absolutely implicated in the practice.
You’re right that clearing land for grazing is not the only economic incentive to destroy forest, but equally it cannot be discounted in its contribution to the trend.
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
[2]: https://eu.wisfarmer.com/story/news/2022/01/05/brazil-ranks-...
Absolutely, and use of pesticides and fossil-fuel-derived fertilizers in crop production and horticulture is also a huge problem.
Fact is though, the same quantities of calories or protein as beef or lamb require vastly more land and energy to produce than plant-based alternatives: roughly 100 times as much [1]. That’s owing both to pastureland and to the fact that half of all the world’s cereal crops are fed to animals.
Granted, livestock raised purely on marginal (i.e. non-arable) pastureland is relatively low impact in terms of carbon emissions. There’s still the factor that carbon dioxide is converted to methane, which in the short-term (that we actually care about) is much more potent in its warming effect.
That model does not represent most animal agriculture, however.
As for tropical deforestation, the United States is one of the chief importers of Brazilian beef [2], so as a country is absolutely implicated in the practice.
You’re right that clearing land for grazing is not the only economic incentive to destroy forest, but equally it cannot be discounted in its contribution to the trend.
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
[2]: https://eu.wisfarmer.com/story/news/2022/01/05/brazil-ranks-...
> Whether it's corn or grass that's being fed on, the carbon being belched out by cows comes from the carbon the plants captured from the atmosphere before being eaten.
I think the main problem is that said plants are grown using fossil fuel-derived fertilizers.
Why they don't use cow dungs to fertilize said plants, I don't know. Maybe a farming specialist can enlighten me why chemical fertilizers are so much more abundanly used than animal waste fertilizers.
Another problem is local buildup of carbon or nitrogen. The Netherlands suffers from a nitrogen crisis: an EU court has ruled that the Netherlands' nitrogen emissions are higher than allowed by treaties, and so we must cut emissions. Emissions are caused for a large part by farming activities. These emissions are a problem because the nitrogen in farm waste products originate from a non-local source. So the nitrogen builds up locally and harms nature.
The Dutch government ordered farmers to cut back on their stock. Now farmers are protesting, blocking roads and setting hay balls on fire.
I think the main problem is that said plants are grown using fossil fuel-derived fertilizers.
Why they don't use cow dungs to fertilize said plants, I don't know. Maybe a farming specialist can enlighten me why chemical fertilizers are so much more abundanly used than animal waste fertilizers.
Another problem is local buildup of carbon or nitrogen. The Netherlands suffers from a nitrogen crisis: an EU court has ruled that the Netherlands' nitrogen emissions are higher than allowed by treaties, and so we must cut emissions. Emissions are caused for a large part by farming activities. These emissions are a problem because the nitrogen in farm waste products originate from a non-local source. So the nitrogen builds up locally and harms nature.
The Dutch government ordered farmers to cut back on their stock. Now farmers are protesting, blocking roads and setting hay balls on fire.
I'm not sure how you can say there's no science to back this up. Livestock are accounted for as contributing nearly 15% of greenhouse gas emissions. And since so much pasture is cleared by razing old growth forest the cost may be even higher. And aside from their primary contribution, livestock place a lot of strain on water resources which are dwindling due to climate change. I'm not anyone has bothered computing the result of a world without livestock because it's so improbable but it would certainly be very significant.
One thing we’re ignoring here is all the fertilizer used to grow animal feed, which is generated from fossil fuels. So it’s not quite all fresh carbon.
We are omnivores, we can subsist on many things, meat being one of them. If you enjoy meat that's one thing, but the "we evolved to eat meat, now give me my steak" mindset is a strange one.
> We are omnivores, we can subsist on many things, meat being one of them.
True, but I personally find it interesting that we have the smallest cecum and shortest digestive tract of the apes. Both of these are more indicative of a carnivorous diet than a herbivorous one.
True, but I personally find it interesting that we have the smallest cecum and shortest digestive tract of the apes. Both of these are more indicative of a carnivorous diet than a herbivorous one.
There is no agreed upon definition of "cecum." The cecum is a pouch-like structure in the lower intestine where the large intestine begins. It is thought to aid in the digestion of plant material, but its exact function is not fully understood. Humans do have a relatively small cecum compared to other apes, but it is not clear if this is due to our diet or our evolutionary history.
There are several possible explanations for why humans might have a relatively small cecum. One possibility is that our diet does not require a large cecum to aid in digestion. Another possibility is that the cecum has shrunk over the course of human evolution as we have adapted to a diet that is less reliant on plant material. Finally, it is also possible that the small size of the human cecum is simply a result of our anatomy and is not related to diet or evolution.
There are several possible explanations for why humans might have a relatively small cecum. One possibility is that our diet does not require a large cecum to aid in digestion. Another possibility is that the cecum has shrunk over the course of human evolution as we have adapted to a diet that is less reliant on plant material. Finally, it is also possible that the small size of the human cecum is simply a result of our anatomy and is not related to diet or evolution.
[deleted]
If you put eat in front of a cow, they'll eat it if they're even modestly hungry. Does that mean that they evolved to eat meat? Of course not.
Mad cow disease wouldn't be a thing if this wasn't true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopat...
https://farmhouseguide.com/do-cows-eat-meat/
> If you enjoy meat that's one thing, but the "we evolved to eat meat, now give me my steak" mindset is a strange one.
It's only strange to for those who are unaware of the evidence.
On the other side of the coin from cows, just because we can eat plants, pass undigested cellulose in our stool, and survive does not mean that we either developed to eat plants, need plants, or operate optimally on plants.
The fact that our ancestors ate mostly meat is not controversial and is even backed up by stable isotope testing. The fact that we lack aspects of an herbivorous digestive system is not controversial. Go look for what's called a cecum. By name, we humans have a "cecum" but in name only since that word means "dead end". Our cecum looks nothing like that of any animal that is herbivorous or obligatively omnivorous. That's just one example. At a higher level, we suck at digesting cellulose, and most available plants before agriculture were very fibrous and lacked the flesh of fruits and vegetables you find at a grocery store.
Moreover, meat contains everything we need to survive and function properly to the exclusion of any plant material at all. If you're wondering about things like Vitamin C, well, I don't really want to spend all day going into such specifics, but long story short there's no need for an abundance of Vitamin C on a diet primarily composed of meat and lacking carbohydrates.
So no, it's not just about making excuses to eat tasty meat. You might find that eating meat and not confounding such a diet with carbohydrates and plant material has real benefits.
EDIT: To further address your point about our supposed omnivorism, we are only as omnivorous as we have to scavenge. As I already mentioned, the kinds of edible plants available to most humans before agriculture were not very digestible or energy dense at all, meaning that to eat plants required a significant energy investment given that we didn't always cook our vegetables. Not only was eating plants not nearly as energy efficient as allowing larger animals to digest those plants first, but most plants in nature arguably aren't that tasty.
I'm a forager and have been doing so for well over a decade (long before it was cool), and I have to be honest in that most wild plants don't compare to meat in terms of taste and satiety. The plants that are tasty are usually only around for a short period of the year.
Mad cow disease wouldn't be a thing if this wasn't true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopat...
https://farmhouseguide.com/do-cows-eat-meat/
> If you enjoy meat that's one thing, but the "we evolved to eat meat, now give me my steak" mindset is a strange one.
It's only strange to for those who are unaware of the evidence.
On the other side of the coin from cows, just because we can eat plants, pass undigested cellulose in our stool, and survive does not mean that we either developed to eat plants, need plants, or operate optimally on plants.
The fact that our ancestors ate mostly meat is not controversial and is even backed up by stable isotope testing. The fact that we lack aspects of an herbivorous digestive system is not controversial. Go look for what's called a cecum. By name, we humans have a "cecum" but in name only since that word means "dead end". Our cecum looks nothing like that of any animal that is herbivorous or obligatively omnivorous. That's just one example. At a higher level, we suck at digesting cellulose, and most available plants before agriculture were very fibrous and lacked the flesh of fruits and vegetables you find at a grocery store.
Moreover, meat contains everything we need to survive and function properly to the exclusion of any plant material at all. If you're wondering about things like Vitamin C, well, I don't really want to spend all day going into such specifics, but long story short there's no need for an abundance of Vitamin C on a diet primarily composed of meat and lacking carbohydrates.
So no, it's not just about making excuses to eat tasty meat. You might find that eating meat and not confounding such a diet with carbohydrates and plant material has real benefits.
EDIT: To further address your point about our supposed omnivorism, we are only as omnivorous as we have to scavenge. As I already mentioned, the kinds of edible plants available to most humans before agriculture were not very digestible or energy dense at all, meaning that to eat plants required a significant energy investment given that we didn't always cook our vegetables. Not only was eating plants not nearly as energy efficient as allowing larger animals to digest those plants first, but most plants in nature arguably aren't that tasty.
I'm a forager and have been doing so for well over a decade (long before it was cool), and I have to be honest in that most wild plants don't compare to meat in terms of taste and satiety. The plants that are tasty are usually only around for a short period of the year.
There are a few points to unpack here.
1. Cows are herbivores. They will eat meat in certain situations if you put it in front of them, but it's not good for them. We are not herbivores, we are specifically omnivores.
2. Our ancestors were hunter gatherers, and their diet was by no means mostly meat. In fact, it was only meat when available, which was every few days to weeks.
3. There is evidence that humans are omnivores from both an anatomical and physiological perspective. For example, our teeth are suited for both grinding plant matter and tearing meat, and our intestines are relatively long, which is necessary for digesting plant-based food.
4. Humans can not digest cellulose, this is true. However, heating plant matter breaks down cellulose, so at the very least, ever since we started using fire on food, cellulose is not an issue. Technically, you could even heat grass and eat it, but it wouldn't be very tasty or nutritious.
5. While a diet purely on meat is possible, it's not the best thing for your health. A diet that is high in fat and protein and low in carbohydrates can lead to health problems over time, such as heart disease, stroke, and cancer.
6. Meat is calorically dense, so for hunter gatherers it made a lot of sense to seek this type of food out. In a modern world, this isn't really an issue, we have an absolute overabundance of all types of foodstuff.
1. Cows are herbivores. They will eat meat in certain situations if you put it in front of them, but it's not good for them. We are not herbivores, we are specifically omnivores.
2. Our ancestors were hunter gatherers, and their diet was by no means mostly meat. In fact, it was only meat when available, which was every few days to weeks.
3. There is evidence that humans are omnivores from both an anatomical and physiological perspective. For example, our teeth are suited for both grinding plant matter and tearing meat, and our intestines are relatively long, which is necessary for digesting plant-based food.
4. Humans can not digest cellulose, this is true. However, heating plant matter breaks down cellulose, so at the very least, ever since we started using fire on food, cellulose is not an issue. Technically, you could even heat grass and eat it, but it wouldn't be very tasty or nutritious.
5. While a diet purely on meat is possible, it's not the best thing for your health. A diet that is high in fat and protein and low in carbohydrates can lead to health problems over time, such as heart disease, stroke, and cancer.
6. Meat is calorically dense, so for hunter gatherers it made a lot of sense to seek this type of food out. In a modern world, this isn't really an issue, we have an absolute overabundance of all types of foodstuff.
> A diet that is high in fat and protein and low in carbohydrates can lead to health problems over time, such as heart disease, stroke, and cancer.
I'm going to need a source for the claim that a diet low in carbohydrates leads to health problems. I'm getting serious correlation/causation vibes from this.
I'm going to need a source for the claim that a diet low in carbohydrates leads to health problems. I'm getting serious correlation/causation vibes from this.
I think the claim is more that raising cattle leads to higher methane levels and methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. There are other environmental or social issues with raising animals for meat however (eg inefficient land use, animal welfare, deforestation, zoonotic diseases, etc).
I don’t buy your argument because I think people are just not going to significantly change their behaviours because they are scared by some predicted global warming apocalypse, and carbon taxes seem unlikely to be supported in democracies for the same reason. It seems to me that the only way we will significantly curb CO2 emissions is by the environmentally better option being cheaper than keeping the worse option, possibly with some subsidies to help. It seems this is happening with electricity generation now in the US, which is good.
Personally, I find environmental arguments to be stronger but I expect any declining meat consumption to be driven by animal welfare concerns, cultural changes, availability of alternatives, and possibly vegetarian/vegan food becoming cheaper or meat becoming more expensive (though that feels a bit unlikely currently).
I don’t buy your argument because I think people are just not going to significantly change their behaviours because they are scared by some predicted global warming apocalypse, and carbon taxes seem unlikely to be supported in democracies for the same reason. It seems to me that the only way we will significantly curb CO2 emissions is by the environmentally better option being cheaper than keeping the worse option, possibly with some subsidies to help. It seems this is happening with electricity generation now in the US, which is good.
Personally, I find environmental arguments to be stronger but I expect any declining meat consumption to be driven by animal welfare concerns, cultural changes, availability of alternatives, and possibly vegetarian/vegan food becoming cheaper or meat becoming more expensive (though that feels a bit unlikely currently).
Are there any references covering how much CO2 is generated by a realistic vegan/vegetarian diet?
It would be easy to identify a theoretically low CO2 diet of rice and beans which does not require refrigeration, can be dehydrated for transport, grown easily and dense in calories. However this is not the diet that I generally see vegetarians/vegans eating - or the diet I go for when I eat vegetarian.
I’m suspicious that we look at extremely high quality vegetarian foods when we want to claim health benefits, and then low quality foods when we want to claim environmental efficiency.
It would be easy to identify a theoretically low CO2 diet of rice and beans which does not require refrigeration, can be dehydrated for transport, grown easily and dense in calories. However this is not the diet that I generally see vegetarians/vegans eating - or the diet I go for when I eat vegetarian.
I’m suspicious that we look at extremely high quality vegetarian foods when we want to claim health benefits, and then low quality foods when we want to claim environmental efficiency.
There are decades of research that show that it is entirely possible to live a healthy and extended life on a plant based diet. It then comes down to personal choice and is not an evolutionary argument.
If this is the case, then it makes sense to choose a diet with less embedded violence and which is more globally sustainable.
If this is the case, then it makes sense to choose a diet with less embedded violence and which is more globally sustainable.
In my house growing up as we ascended to lower middle class we progressed from grape jelly, to strawberry spread, to strawberry preserves and buttery spread, to vegetable oil sticks, to real butter sticks.
The evolutionary argument falls short here. We know that you can eat a purely vegan diet and operate at the highest achievable level for humans (see vegan Olympians). So it comes down to personal choice, not what our Neolithic ancestors did.
And if that is a rational argument, then there should be a push to eating the unsavoury bits of the animal as well, generally not consumed in the west, as well as a push to eat other things (tortoise, dog, etc) and not just steak.
And if that is a rational argument, then there should be a push to eating the unsavoury bits of the animal as well, generally not consumed in the west, as well as a push to eat other things (tortoise, dog, etc) and not just steak.
Not surprising. Carbs are a cheap way to feed the masses.
“When you look at Impossible Burger or Beyond Meat, they have 21 or 22 highly processed ingredients. So processed, that you are hard pressed in identifying the difference between those items, versus let’s say, pet food.” [1]
[1] https://twitter.com/ghgguru & https://clear.ucdavis.edu/blog
[1] https://twitter.com/ghgguru & https://clear.ucdavis.edu/blog
This alone makes me avoid these products like the plague. I honestly do not understand why if you desire and need “meat” enough to opt for a highly processed inferior meat analog, why you don’t just eat the real thing.
Is there really any highly processed foodstuff out there that is truly healthy? Doesn’t really seem to be.
Is there really any highly processed foodstuff out there that is truly healthy? Doesn’t really seem to be.
> I honestly do not understand why if you desire and need “meat” enough to opt for a highly processed inferior meat analog, why you don’t just eat the real thing.
Many people would like to eat meat without the environmental impact/killing animals. What is hard to understand about that?
Many people would like to eat meat without the environmental impact/killing animals. What is hard to understand about that?
It just has a strange irony to me. “I don’t want to kill animals, but I am not willing to give up the taste of their delicious flesh”
Giving up food, a cultural and often deep identity-level cornerstone, is hard even when they conflict with your ethics.
Eating fake meat because you disagree with animal slaughter but enjoy the taste is still consistent.
Anyways I don’t think these are the people who deserve our scrutiny. They are more consistent than those of us who are onboard with vegan ethics but still can’t stop eating meat, which is me most weeks of the year unfortunately.
Anyways I don’t think these are the people who deserve our scrutiny. They are more consistent than those of us who are onboard with vegan ethics but still can’t stop eating meat, which is me most weeks of the year unfortunately.
I think we need to be more careful about fake meat.
It is likely to be very processed food and who knows what the nutritional consequences of something invented last year are for your body.
I agree with the ethics of not causing suffering to animals.
People in the future will very probably despise us for how we treat animals.
I don't understand how this is hard to follow:
"Doing X gives me pleasure, it requires doing Y which causes suffering to entities that are not myself. I will avoid doing X and instead do X' which minimizes suffering in the world, even if it's not as good for me"
"Doing X gives me pleasure, it requires doing Y which causes suffering to entities that are not myself. I will avoid doing X and instead do X' which minimizes suffering in the world, even if it's not as good for me"
It’s not hard to follow, it’s just strange to me on a couple of levels:
Approaching from a non-vegan morality perspective, but vegan for health, I don’t understand why you would opt for something so highly processed instead of having something whole and unprocessed.
From a vegan for morality sake…it’s like Westworld, but the food equivalent.
Approaching from a non-vegan morality perspective, but vegan for health, I don’t understand why you would opt for something so highly processed instead of having something whole and unprocessed.
From a vegan for morality sake…it’s like Westworld, but the food equivalent.
It is not like Westworld because the pleasure is not in killing / perceiving suffering in others. It’s just in eating (which for most people raised in cities is completely disconnected from the animal suffering).
I disagree. It’s a way to enjoy an experience that is “outside” of your “moral code” without the moral consequences.
Let me be clear: eating something that tastes like meat is not "outside" of my moral code. Causing animals to suffer is.
Also, I have no idea what are "moral consequences".
Also, I have no idea what are "moral consequences".
> Let me be clear: eating something that tastes like meat is not "outside" of my moral code. Causing animals to suffer is.
No offense, but I don’t recall accusing you specifically of anything. I was speaking conceptually and expressing my opinion. Eat how you want and what you want for whatever reason you want. You may be completely perplexed by my choice of diet as I am by a vegan who eats fake meat. For what it’s worth, I eat strict keto, nearly 90% carnivore, and I have zero qualms about killing and eating animals and don’t care if people find that offensive, perplexing, bad for the environment, or whatever. I may find the vegan diet an odd choice, but I’d never work against it.
> I have no idea what are “moral consequences” Meaning “guilt”
No offense, but I don’t recall accusing you specifically of anything. I was speaking conceptually and expressing my opinion. Eat how you want and what you want for whatever reason you want. You may be completely perplexed by my choice of diet as I am by a vegan who eats fake meat. For what it’s worth, I eat strict keto, nearly 90% carnivore, and I have zero qualms about killing and eating animals and don’t care if people find that offensive, perplexing, bad for the environment, or whatever. I may find the vegan diet an odd choice, but I’d never work against it.
> I have no idea what are “moral consequences” Meaning “guilt”
Since you seem to understand why people might want fake meat, it seems you are really just taking a judgmental position in which you condemn others for not going far enough along an axis in which you don't even take one step.
Humans aren't robots. We can't just align every level of our stimulus response around a single goal. Lots of studies have been done on how complicated the relationship between conscious motivation and eating is, and for the most part have come down on the side of "we have very little control over our base desires when it comes to food."
It's a loss of opportunity cost that reveals how much people actually care about the environment.
Want to sacrifice a bit of taste and save the environment? Yes!
Want to sacrifice the taste of meat to save the environment? Nah.
Want to sacrifice a bit of taste and save the environment? Yes!
Want to sacrifice the taste of meat to save the environment? Nah.
Not all people avoid meat for health reasons. If there’s a market for it, so be it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Is "highly processed" always the same as "bad"?
I would argue for the position of 'not always'. In my opinion it is much the same as GMO plants. The intent and target of the modification matters. A plant that is modified to tolerate deadly chemicals is evil; it must be handled carefully if consumed at all so that the chemicals it tolerates do not poison us. A plant which is modified to have a higher or higher quality (more nutrition?) yield might be good.
Thus the highly processed foods. It depends on what the intent of the process is and how the results are used in the whole. Even if it might be less healthy I sure do love breads and noodles.
Thus the highly processed foods. It depends on what the intent of the process is and how the results are used in the whole. Even if it might be less healthy I sure do love breads and noodles.
Highly processed is almost always synonymous with the types of food that are considered bad for your health.
From WP [0]: "he term ultra-processing refers to the processing of industrial ingredients derived from foods, for example by extruding, moulding, re-shaping, hydrogenation, and hydrolysis. Ultra-processed foods generally also include additives such as preservatives, sweeteners, sensory enhancers, colourants, flavours, and processing aids, but little or no whole food."
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food
From WP [0]: "he term ultra-processing refers to the processing of industrial ingredients derived from foods, for example by extruding, moulding, re-shaping, hydrogenation, and hydrolysis. Ultra-processed foods generally also include additives such as preservatives, sweeteners, sensory enhancers, colourants, flavours, and processing aids, but little or no whole food."
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food
Capitalism doesn't optimise for health, it optimises for addiction, profit, and lower costs (a.k.a. lower quality).
So, yes, the more processed a food is, the more aligned it is to capitalistic motives, the less healthy it is.
So, yes, the more processed a food is, the more aligned it is to capitalistic motives, the less healthy it is.
That's why I eat beans
This is a false dichotomy. Plenty of people do whole foods plant-based diets without those. Additionally, it's also often replacing highly processed meats
Does anybody actually believe the world is about to turn vegan?
Because you got to be really delusional to believe so.
Edit: title was changed, it was "Ignore the hype that the world is about to turn vegan", and my comment was an answer to it.
Because you got to be really delusional to believe so.
Edit: title was changed, it was "Ignore the hype that the world is about to turn vegan", and my comment was an answer to it.
The billionares are investing massively in fake lab grown food, so they will obviously also pour billions into marketing and pushing fake "lab grown food is good for you" studies just like the tobacco industry did.
It might not be real meat, but it is real food.
[deleted]
theres a lot of shit thats "real food" but aint good for us. french fries in seed oils and a sugary coke is "real food" technically.
well yeah, you can make a substitute for pretty much any food with a starch, artificial coloring and artificial flavoring. it will even taste "good" if you fry it in an ungodly amount of oil, just like all these asian insect snacks that are brought up as an example of bugs being a perfectly good food - soaked in oil and seasonings, the only way to mask their disgusting taste and smell
The thing is, we all know that processed meat is bad to our health, and its the core of many health issues in the wealthy countries.
So what do you call fake meat?, super duper processed food? And why should it be called meat in the first place if it has no meat in it?,
It should be called manufactured meat-like... Thing.
Also is it more healthy than normal meat? Or will we discover it has some long term side a effect that nobody noticed until it was too late?
So what do you call fake meat?, super duper processed food? And why should it be called meat in the first place if it has no meat in it?,
It should be called manufactured meat-like... Thing.
Also is it more healthy than normal meat? Or will we discover it has some long term side a effect that nobody noticed until it was too late?
our young global elites do, rather insistently.
there's no sacrifice they aren't willing us to make.
there's no sacrifice they aren't willing us to make.
Currently developing countries are enormous carnivores. Veganism is mostly SWPL hipster thing from my observations.
Veganism is growing in popularity in Thailand and India, two countries I'm familiar with, both which have a long Hindu and Buddhist history of vegetarianism. Actually traditionally vegetarian in Thailand meant vegan because cow milk was not popular and eggs are seen as meat in Buddhism and Hinduism.
This flamebait material does not belong to ieee.org and to HN
our household reduced meat and dairy by 95%, its not hard or a hardship.
The world will never go horseless. The richer one gets, the more horses one owns. And the whole world is getting richer. Therefore the world will be filled with horses soon.
The world is not getting richer, some few are getting richer. The vast majority is going light years away from getting a horse
in the West, the quality of life has been steadily declining for the past 50 years. in India, China and Southeast Asia, where two thirds of humans reside, it has been steadily improving. things aren't great, but much better than they used to be.
China, for example, is facing a slow exodus of Western capital, because it is no longer cheap to manufacture things there, with median income approaching Eastern European levels.
> the West, the quality of life has been steadily declining for the past 50 years
Based on what metric? Because on measures of health, wealth and happiness it's bee a good half century.
Based on what metric? Because on measures of health, wealth and happiness it's bee a good half century.
the middle class is rapidly shrinking. that's the most damning metric
the lower classes are worse off now than they were then. home ownership and education are unattainable, healthcare is unaffordable, the overall quality of life is rapidly declining.
the lower classes are worse off now than they were then. home ownership and education are unattainable, healthcare is unaffordable, the overall quality of life is rapidly declining.
> lower classes are worse off now than they were then
This is objectively untrue in terms of real incomes and net financial position. Life expectancy, too, has gone up since the 70s. Consider the quality of life of America’s destitute in 2022 vs. 1972 and the choice is apparent.
This isn’t a roses and sunshine pitch. But believing the West is in decline (versus being caught up to) is a common mistake that leads to predictably bad outcomes.
This is objectively untrue in terms of real incomes and net financial position. Life expectancy, too, has gone up since the 70s. Consider the quality of life of America’s destitute in 2022 vs. 1972 and the choice is apparent.
This isn’t a roses and sunshine pitch. But believing the West is in decline (versus being caught up to) is a common mistake that leads to predictably bad outcomes.
Do you have evidence of this? It seems false on its face. https://intellectualtakeout.org/2018/09/is-the-world-really-...
To each his own
[deleted]
Ignore the hype that there is a hype that the world is about to turn vegan.
I think this submission should take the title of the article rather than the more clickbaity subtitle. (Maybe the article changed since it was linked?)
Ok, we've done that.
It doesn't change the fact that the IEEE made an article about a nonsensical "hype".
I think you guys need to make an argument rather than just shallow dimissals and name-calling like "nonsensical" (both of which are against the site guidelines, btw). Also, please don't just react to the headline. The word 'hype' doesn't appear in the body of the article.
(Authors don't usually write the headlines at media publications.)
(Authors don't usually write the headlines at media publications.)
> Authors don't usually write the headlines at media publications.
Well, this is just sad.
Well, this is just sad.
Indeed it is, but it's been that way for well over a century and it's a product of institutional pressures.
HN is in the sweet spot of not being subject to those pressures (we don't have to optimize for clicks or ads because it's in YC's business interests to fund it for other reasons), so we can take a different approach to headlines. Basically, it's the headline writer's job to sex up the title and our job to knock it down to size. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
HN is in the sweet spot of not being subject to those pressures (we don't have to optimize for clicks or ads because it's in YC's business interests to fund it for other reasons), so we can take a different approach to headlines. Basically, it's the headline writer's job to sex up the title and our job to knock it down to size. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
This actually came up in the Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp trial.
"Heard was also found liable for the headline, which was written by a Washington Post editor."
https://www.insider.com/aclu-wrote-amber-heard-washington-po...
"Heard was also found liable for the headline, which was written by a Washington Post editor."
https://www.insider.com/aclu-wrote-amber-heard-washington-po...
Let's say the article is good and presenting a good argument.... but can I conclude from this that the IEEE is acting like news media and only care about traffic?
Maybe yes. I agree the headline and especially the subtitle are disappointing from them.
But we can't do anything about that, and we've learned a long time ago not to judge media articles just by their headlines. Nor by the general quality of the site, actually [1], although that point isn't so relevant here.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
But we can't do anything about that, and we've learned a long time ago not to judge media articles just by their headlines. Nor by the general quality of the site, actually [1], although that point isn't so relevant here.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
Got it, thanks for your efforts, my comments weren't against you btw.
Others will describe this better, but the author of this article, Vaclav Smil, is a Czech-Canadian academic known for hard-nosed data analysis on social and environmental issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaclav_Smil
You can like or dislike it, but please respond to the arguments in the article, not the baity title or the provocative topic. Otherwise we'll just end up with a bunch of shallow-indignant comments and that's not an interesting thread.
Past mentions of Smil on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaclav_Smil
You can like or dislike it, but please respond to the arguments in the article, not the baity title or the provocative topic. Otherwise we'll just end up with a bunch of shallow-indignant comments and that's not an interesting thread.
Past mentions of Smil on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I thought about adding the author wikipedia link with the article link to the email to my carnivore/omnivore friends but removed it because it does not matter, data don't lie.
It reminds me of the transition of eminence based medicine to evidence based medicine. Even the latter has had its troubles, just look at science publishing and questioning of the peer review framework.
Being vegan is a choice not a religion or cult. However much benefit I get from eating plants over animals and their products, I don't expect others to easily 'see the light'. Thankfully my eating behavior was influenced by others, slowly and with patience waay before the hype and this article.
Vegan promoters really need to work on their PR.
It reminds me of the transition of eminence based medicine to evidence based medicine. Even the latter has had its troubles, just look at science publishing and questioning of the peer review framework.
Being vegan is a choice not a religion or cult. However much benefit I get from eating plants over animals and their products, I don't expect others to easily 'see the light'. Thankfully my eating behavior was influenced by others, slowly and with patience waay before the hype and this article.
Vegan promoters really need to work on their PR.
This article does not read like it came from someone who was doing a thoughtful analysis. It lacks a concrete point and makes contradictory arguments.
Is meat eating our evolutionary destiny or a recent trend driven by wealth? Is it something we are "built" to do or something that literally at least a fifth of the entire species does without?
Never mind correlating health outcomes with broad trends in meat eating while also pointing out increasing wealth and pretending that's not likely to be a confounding factor in itself.
Like, the conclusion could be right here but this article is a mess.
Is meat eating our evolutionary destiny or a recent trend driven by wealth? Is it something we are "built" to do or something that literally at least a fifth of the entire species does without?
Never mind correlating health outcomes with broad trends in meat eating while also pointing out increasing wealth and pretending that's not likely to be a confounding factor in itself.
Like, the conclusion could be right here but this article is a mess.
Yes, that's why I posted my comment - one needs to consider this in the context of his larger body of work (edit: sorry, that's not really what I meant to say - see downthread). This isn't an internet flamethrower, or at least not just that.
It's a good test for HN. Must the community have a headless chicken reaction to every provocation, or can we sometimes remain organized enough for an interesting conversation?
Edit: I don't think your description of the article is fair. It may be right or wrong but it is far from vapid. If you've found fallacies in it, showing how they are fallacies would be a better contribution to an HN thread. You've done that with your point about wealth being a possibly confounding factor (good), but you broke the HN guidelines with your first and last sentences (bad). Your reaction to Smil as not-a-person-who-does-any-kind-of-serious-analysis is a classic shallow dismissal. That's something the HN guidelines ask commenters to avoid:
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
Also: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's a good test for HN. Must the community have a headless chicken reaction to every provocation, or can we sometimes remain organized enough for an interesting conversation?
Edit: I don't think your description of the article is fair. It may be right or wrong but it is far from vapid. If you've found fallacies in it, showing how they are fallacies would be a better contribution to an HN thread. You've done that with your point about wealth being a possibly confounding factor (good), but you broke the HN guidelines with your first and last sentences (bad). Your reaction to Smil as not-a-person-who-does-any-kind-of-serious-analysis is a classic shallow dismissal. That's something the HN guidelines ask commenters to avoid:
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
Also: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> one needs to consider this in the context of his larger body of work.
That seems odd and it feels like you are defending it out of agreement with the author.
If this is a poor article, why can't it be criticized as such? If Shakespeare, who for this analogy is considered a great respected author, wrote a lazy and uninspired play, one should just endure just because it's Shakespeare and "one needs to consider this in the context of his larger body of work"? That's unnecessary and fallacious.
That seems odd and it feels like you are defending it out of agreement with the author.
If this is a poor article, why can't it be criticized as such? If Shakespeare, who for this analogy is considered a great respected author, wrote a lazy and uninspired play, one should just endure just because it's Shakespeare and "one needs to consider this in the context of his larger body of work"? That's unnecessary and fallacious.
No, you're right - I didn't put that well. (I've been posting hastily trying to prevent this thread from devolving into a tedious flamewar and haste is bad for precision!)
On HN we definitely try to go by article quality (past explanations from a slightly different angle: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...).
I guess what I meant to say was more like: don't judge this article (or any article) by just the headline! and also, if you're pattern-matching this article to garden-variety flamebait, it would be good to know who the author is, because the priors here are totally different than how they appear.
On HN we definitely try to go by article quality (past explanations from a slightly different angle: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...).
I guess what I meant to say was more like: don't judge this article (or any article) by just the headline! and also, if you're pattern-matching this article to garden-variety flamebait, it would be good to know who the author is, because the priors here are totally different than how they appear.
Ad hominem cuts both ways. If he wants to make a good argument here he should do so, but there's basically nothing in this article to talk about except how much of a mess it is.
How often are you in a controversial post's comments advocating for people to read the author's other work to justify the poor quality of the posted article? I've been around a long time and I've literally never seen you do this before. Have you considered the possibility that you're the one with the wrong read here?
How often are you in a controversial post's comments advocating for people to read the author's other work to justify the poor quality of the posted article? I've been around a long time and I've literally never seen you do this before. Have you considered the possibility that you're the one with the wrong read here?
I don't agree with that description of the article. I think both it, and Smil, deserve better than shallow dismissals and name-calling. He's writing about a particular prediction that is commonly made, and showing reasons to doubt whether that particular prediction is true. I don't see anything wrong with that, although the underlying topic is a hot one.
You're the one bringing his reputation into this though? Until you started interjecting, everything was about the article. That it was about how poor the article is doesn't make it ad hominem, it's a product of the lack of substance and direction of the article itself. Sometimes things people write aren't very good.
And I said in a fair amount of detail why I can't find anything in this article to argue about other than its quality: I can't reconcile those questions to find a point to argue with. If I argue against the evolution-is-destiny part then the counterargument is wealth and vice-versa.
I really suggest you re-read this article with a more critical eye because I honestly can't see what you see in it, and I don't think you really believe "people should read the author's other work" is a sustainable basis for submission quality.
And I said in a fair amount of detail why I can't find anything in this article to argue about other than its quality: I can't reconcile those questions to find a point to argue with. If I argue against the evolution-is-destiny part then the counterargument is wealth and vice-versa.
I really suggest you re-read this article with a more critical eye because I honestly can't see what you see in it, and I don't think you really believe "people should read the author's other work" is a sustainable basis for submission quality.
> Until you started interjecting, everything was about the article
Until then, everything was about the headline.
(And mostly still is, considering that few commenters so far have been talking about the specific points in the article body.)
Until then, everything was about the headline.
(And mostly still is, considering that few commenters so far have been talking about the specific points in the article body.)
I read through the article and is it cutoff? It ends for me with “chorizo…” and then a reference to the print article this was published as.
If that’s the whole article what was the argument they were making? They showed that meat consumption went up a lot in poorer countries and down a little in some rich countries, and consistent in rich meat loving countries.
If the only argument is that, no the world is not about to become vegan, then ok they showed evidence for that, but it doesn’t seem like a long enough article to have much of a discussion over.
I’m not sure this couldn’t become flame bait when there’s so little to discuss
If that’s the whole article what was the argument they were making? They showed that meat consumption went up a lot in poorer countries and down a little in some rich countries, and consistent in rich meat loving countries.
If the only argument is that, no the world is not about to become vegan, then ok they showed evidence for that, but it doesn’t seem like a long enough article to have much of a discussion over.
I’m not sure this couldn’t become flame bait when there’s so little to discuss
A running list of some fallacies for those interested:
1) Natural selection is the description of a process that happens spontaneously. Natural selection does not actively “form” us. Life forms itself via natural selection and the entire point is adaptability in the face of environmental constraints (i.e. earth’s carrying capacity for livestock)
2) Chimpanzees may be our closest relatives, but so what? They’re hirsute and have complex grooming rituals to remove parasites; we do not, among many other differences. Using chimps as a “natural model” of human behavior is not grounded in scientific thought. (EDIT: there’s also the “closest extant relative” fallacy. There were plenty of great apes closer to us than modern chimps, they just died out. If in 100 years we cause the extinction of chimps and bonobos [highly likely on current trajectory], then is the natural model for humans the Gorilla, who mostly eats plants and very rarely will also eat invertebrates?)
3) The author states that increasing meat consumption has led to no negative health effects (by only focusing on heart disease), but the countries with the two largest increases (US and China) have myriad health problems mostly related to rising obesity rates. Heart disease is a poor measure of meat-related health because a) it’s highly correlated with smoking b) we’ve gotten way better at treating it.
Overall, it’s the classic “trap” for HN. A solid (usually) publication, a highly charged topic, and loose data interpretation.
1) Natural selection is the description of a process that happens spontaneously. Natural selection does not actively “form” us. Life forms itself via natural selection and the entire point is adaptability in the face of environmental constraints (i.e. earth’s carrying capacity for livestock)
2) Chimpanzees may be our closest relatives, but so what? They’re hirsute and have complex grooming rituals to remove parasites; we do not, among many other differences. Using chimps as a “natural model” of human behavior is not grounded in scientific thought. (EDIT: there’s also the “closest extant relative” fallacy. There were plenty of great apes closer to us than modern chimps, they just died out. If in 100 years we cause the extinction of chimps and bonobos [highly likely on current trajectory], then is the natural model for humans the Gorilla, who mostly eats plants and very rarely will also eat invertebrates?)
3) The author states that increasing meat consumption has led to no negative health effects (by only focusing on heart disease), but the countries with the two largest increases (US and China) have myriad health problems mostly related to rising obesity rates. Heart disease is a poor measure of meat-related health because a) it’s highly correlated with smoking b) we’ve gotten way better at treating it.
Overall, it’s the classic “trap” for HN. A solid (usually) publication, a highly charged topic, and loose data interpretation.
Anyways, regardless of the rest of this I edited the first sentence to more directly state my thesis and not make claims about him (though I think you should consider your role in bringing his personality into this discussion). That said, I stand by everything I've said about the quality of this article.
> one needs to consider this in the context of his larger body of work.
No, actually, one doesn't. That's the same underlying error as ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority. If he has a point, he can actually make that point, and if he doesn't, a larger body of work doesn't change that.
No, actually, one doesn't. That's the same underlying error as ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority. If he has a point, he can actually make that point, and if he doesn't, a larger body of work doesn't change that.
Yes. Sorry. I didn't put that properly and I agree with you.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32288733
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32288733
My problem with this article is that there aren't many arguments used in the first place. It's mostly a loosely connected set of facts, with not much of a unifying thesis.
If the thesis is "meat consumption is growing", what's the relevance of chimpanzee's diet or health outcomes?
Those two side-points make me think the thesis is actually "it is normal and okay that meat consumption is growing", but if that is the case it is woefully underargued. I think the issues with comparing the diet of a different species is obvious, and another commenter already mentionned the correlation between wealth and health. But crucially the article itself doesn't engage at all with issues of climate change or animal rights.
I don't know who Smil is. I'm just responding to this article.
If the thesis is "meat consumption is growing", what's the relevance of chimpanzee's diet or health outcomes?
Those two side-points make me think the thesis is actually "it is normal and okay that meat consumption is growing", but if that is the case it is woefully underargued. I think the issues with comparing the diet of a different species is obvious, and another commenter already mentionned the correlation between wealth and health. But crucially the article itself doesn't engage at all with issues of climate change or animal rights.
I don't know who Smil is. I'm just responding to this article.
[deleted]
This is rehashing obvious information and complete nonsense. That's why companies like beyond meat, impossible foods, etc. exist. It's becoming "vegan" without giving up on "meat". Yes, I know it isn't the same. The goal is to get it "good enough" and affordable. Once it's there, a lot of meat eaters will reduce "actual meat" intake and that's "effectively vegan".
Veganism is a growing trend in most places I go. But it will probably not cross the chasm without fake meat. That's the story.
Veganism is a growing trend in most places I go. But it will probably not cross the chasm without fake meat. That's the story.
Please don't take HN threads into flamewar on predictably divisive topics. It leads to predictably shallow-indignant threads—the opposite of the curious conversation we're trying for here.
Smil may be a provocateur but he's a smart and informed one and his arguments deserve specific responses, not generic dismissals.
Smil may be a provocateur but he's a smart and informed one and his arguments deserve specific responses, not generic dismissals.
Serious question, can you see why people are angry here?
They actually like to see wisdom and well written articles from this kind of institutions.
People are angry here for good reason.
They actually like to see wisdom and well written articles from this kind of institutions.
People are angry here for good reason.
Absolutely, I can see why people are angry – but the reactive style of post that it's leading to is against the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), and I think this is an interesting test case to make that point about.
Say that to the author of the flamebait article.
I don't think that's an accurate read of Smil. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32288434.
I haven't read much of him, mind you, but I don't suppose most people angrily dismissing his arguments have either.
More generally: HN commenters need to stick to the site guidelines regardless of provocation. Would you guys mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html? They're pretty clear about cases like this:
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
More generally: HN commenters need to stick to the site guidelines regardless of provocation. Would you guys mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html? They're pretty clear about cases like this:
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
Fake meat is the e-cigarette of the food world.
It's a tool that can be used to transition from a bad thing to a less bad thing or even a good thing.
Maybe in the future the Beyond Meats of the world are cheaper and clearly better for the environment than meat, but for now they are good tools to prove the doubters that not every meal needs to have a dead animal in it.
We are at the point where an average non-meat option in a burger is better than a bad meat burger. The alternative options can't beat a premium burger though - not yet.
It's a tool that can be used to transition from a bad thing to a less bad thing or even a good thing.
Maybe in the future the Beyond Meats of the world are cheaper and clearly better for the environment than meat, but for now they are good tools to prove the doubters that not every meal needs to have a dead animal in it.
We are at the point where an average non-meat option in a burger is better than a bad meat burger. The alternative options can't beat a premium burger though - not yet.
>Fake meat is the e-cigarette of the food world.
>It's a tool that can be used to transition from a bad thing to a less bad thing or even a good thing.
It works well as a transition, but I don't think the end result is going to be "okay now we drop fake meat" -- there's nothing inherently unhealthy about fake meat.
There are a number of things unhealthy about fake meat; soy is an endocrine disruptor, some of the oils they use are hydrogenated.
Black beans are less of an endocrine disruptor and pea protein even better.
Black beans are less of an endocrine disruptor and pea protein even better.
Neither the impossible or beyond burgers use hydrogenated oils. The beyond burger doesn’t use soy protein.
I think within a decade most of us will be eating whatever calories are in front of us and glad to have them. Especially as, like most of the cornerstones of modern civilization, the way we eat now is mathematically unsustainable.
actually it's very sustainable for ppl in America. we export a shitton of food (and through that water), we just gotta stop. were one of the less dense countries and have plenty of arable land etc.
i do feel for the rest of the world tho, they prolly gonna have to take a downgrade in they standard of living.
source: https://www.agfoundation.org/common-questions/view/does-the-...
were a net exporter by $ and a lot of what we import is expensive shit without much calories (cofee, chocolate) not actually calories.
i do feel for the rest of the world tho, they prolly gonna have to take a downgrade in they standard of living.
source: https://www.agfoundation.org/common-questions/view/does-the-...
were a net exporter by $ and a lot of what we import is expensive shit without much calories (cofee, chocolate) not actually calories.
Any source for this claim of unsustainability of current food production?
Current food production relies heavily on fossil fuels, so it’s inherently unsustainable. Which is not to say that it can’t be changed to become sustainable, I’d say the jury is still out on that question.
the rainforests are burned for our food production
our society has historically been poor, for centuries at end but only recently in the past 30 odd years, "wealth" has seen our doors and that has somehow changed the whole scenario.
in the past, when no one had any money, cooking oil was a luxury and having oily food was a public display of your "considerable wealth so many generations grew around the notion of "oily food is a status symbol". fast forward it to today coming from the last 30 years, when everyone could now afford cooking oil, the idea in the minds of old people stuck around.
we still find the old generation in offices and shops eat "oily food" because their wives at home who prepare the food still imagine if "someone sees non-oily food that they would think they are poor".
i personally know people who have become obese and developed related diseases because of being fed "extra oily food" during their lunch-tiffin.
in the past, when no one had any money, cooking oil was a luxury and having oily food was a public display of your "considerable wealth so many generations grew around the notion of "oily food is a status symbol". fast forward it to today coming from the last 30 years, when everyone could now afford cooking oil, the idea in the minds of old people stuck around.
we still find the old generation in offices and shops eat "oily food" because their wives at home who prepare the food still imagine if "someone sees non-oily food that they would think they are poor".
i personally know people who have become obese and developed related diseases because of being fed "extra oily food" during their lunch-tiffin.
Are haakh, lotus root, kohlrabi (sorry forgot words for the last two) still considered poor people food?
Nope. Haakh has historically been associated with good income because it was never cheap. Haakh-batte is sign of good fortunes even if people might indicate they are not.
Lotus roots are like 300-350 inr /kg. That is more expensive than chicken which is around 200 and cottage cheese (pander) which is also at around 250.
Lotus roots is called nadru (nadur) while the last one I can't place.
Potatoes are very cheap, food for the masses. Like 20/kg. And it has been there for ever. Onions and tomatoes get seasonal price hikes but they are also generally affordable.
I am talking about a time when Kashmiris used to have meat once a year and that was not some 200 year old story but just 50 short years ago. The oil was being bought at the quantity of 50-100ml on a daily/weekly basis because no one could afford a litre or 5 of it at once. (Til veain) or oil sellers used to sell oil like currently our milk retailers do.
Lotus roots are like 300-350 inr /kg. That is more expensive than chicken which is around 200 and cottage cheese (pander) which is also at around 250.
Lotus roots is called nadru (nadur) while the last one I can't place.
Potatoes are very cheap, food for the masses. Like 20/kg. And it has been there for ever. Onions and tomatoes get seasonal price hikes but they are also generally affordable.
I am talking about a time when Kashmiris used to have meat once a year and that was not some 200 year old story but just 50 short years ago. The oil was being bought at the quantity of 50-100ml on a daily/weekly basis because no one could afford a litre or 5 of it at once. (Til veain) or oil sellers used to sell oil like currently our milk retailers do.
> while the last one I can't place
Munj, apparently
Munj, apparently
monji-haakh are a single dish so they are counted together as such
edit: while there is still a lot "confusion" of what the western name of our local "haakh" is, we have settled at kale for now because the pictures suggest it is similar to that species. so haakh=kale and monji=kale roots/stems. the potato shaped roots
edit: while there is still a lot "confusion" of what the western name of our local "haakh" is, we have settled at kale for now because the pictures suggest it is similar to that species. so haakh=kale and monji=kale roots/stems. the potato shaped roots
You don’t have word for ganth gobi?
When people say biology causes x, what's usually happening is
Another commenter mentioned fake-meat, and I think this indeed will be what breaks the chains. But I want to take it one step further. Not just imitation but rather superstimuli[0]. Something that is more meat than meat itself. If we can create superstimuli in so many other categories, then why not meat?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus
biology -> a -> b -> c -> x
Another commenter mentioned fake-meat, and I think this indeed will be what breaks the chains. But I want to take it one step further. Not just imitation but rather superstimuli[0]. Something that is more meat than meat itself. If we can create superstimuli in so many other categories, then why not meat?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus
I wonder how much this accounts for obesity
Yeah... i doubt it. My bet would still go to carb rich diets with sugar and processed foods...
>This probably explains the obesity crisis too
>Meat is much more calorie dense compared to vegetable
>I wonder how much this accounts for obesity
From my experience, probably very little. I've been hard-core keto for almost 10 years now. I initially lost 100lbs and I've easily maintained a healthy weight ever since. The vast majority of my diet is meat and fat and I do not count calories.
>I wonder how much this accounts for obesity
From my experience, probably very little. I've been hard-core keto for almost 10 years now. I initially lost 100lbs and I've easily maintained a healthy weight ever since. The vast majority of my diet is meat and fat and I do not count calories.
I agree it would be quite hard to get obese from eating a diet rich in meat, because protein is very satiating and expensive to digest.
If you are obese, eating more protein (including meat) is a good idea, and doing a lot of strength training, to get your metabolism working.
It is very easy to become obese from eating bread, pasta, dairy, and sugar in processed foods, I have done that.
that has opposite correlation with wealth, atleast in the west.
I thought the article did a reasonably good job of addressing most of the confounding factors I thought of. My first guess was that this would be like population growth which is low when countries are poor (due to high infant mortality or things that correlate with being poor like civil wars), high as countries are getting richer (combining high fertility with lower infant mortality), and lower in developed countries (apart from immigration; fertility may be below replacement rate). But then we see the US continuing to eat more meat per capita into recent times. My other guess would then be that the US is consuming more food per capita (obesity and suchlike) but this doesn’t really line up with the relatively poorer Spain eating similar amounts of meat.
It may still be possible that the peak was recent (the data given isn’t so fine-grained) and so we don’t see a decline from 1970 levels or that there are other confounding factors, eg maybe Spain’s statistics are including meat consumed by tourists. Tourism has increased a lot since 1970, I think, and tourists seem likely to eat a lot of meat.
But it certainly doesn’t seem that falling meat consumption is anywhere near as universal as falling fertility as countries get/remain rich.
It may still be possible that the peak was recent (the data given isn’t so fine-grained) and so we don’t see a decline from 1970 levels or that there are other confounding factors, eg maybe Spain’s statistics are including meat consumed by tourists. Tourism has increased a lot since 1970, I think, and tourists seem likely to eat a lot of meat.
But it certainly doesn’t seem that falling meat consumption is anywhere near as universal as falling fertility as countries get/remain rich.
Not surprised. Meat tastes good and bio-availability of animal protein is unmatched by any plant protein.
Apart from minor vegan delusion in the Western nations, meat eating is not going away and it's not even reached its peak.
Apart from minor vegan delusion in the Western nations, meat eating is not going away and it's not even reached its peak.
Vegan delusions? Meat eating is overrated, most people have never even tried to stop eating meat for just a month. Most dairy things are pretty gross. You can easily live of a 90% plant based diet and eat as little as 12/kg meat a year.
>most people have never even tried to stop eating meat for just a month.
Few people (so you are correct) have done it for decades and learned it the hard way:
https://www.beyondveg.com/
Vegans are IMHO are a deluded lot, while idealism is admirable it does not square up with reality.
Few people (so you are correct) have done it for decades and learned it the hard way:
https://www.beyondveg.com/
Vegans are IMHO are a deluded lot, while idealism is admirable it does not square up with reality.
Why would you assume that everyone shares your tastes? If Dairy is gross it won't be a multibillion dollar business in pretty much any medium sized country
>most people have never even tried to stop eating meat for just a month.
There are few admitting people who have done it for decades and learned it the hard way:
https://www.beyondveg.com/
Vegan are IMHO are a deluded lot, while idealism is admirable it contends with reality.
There are few admitting people who have done it for decades and learned it the hard way:
https://www.beyondveg.com/
Vegan are IMHO are a deluded lot, while idealism is admirable it contends with reality.
> Most dairy things are pretty gross
cheese?
cheese?
Fully agreed. Also I have a feeling the opposite might also be true - the more meat a person eats the bigger their chances to get good levels of energy and cognitive skills required to increase earning potential.
The global trend in meat consumption is clearly upward, as the article says. I presume that global economic development is going to continue along with more meat-eating. There isn't enough land for everyone to consume meat like 20th century Americans if we stick to 20th century meat production techniques.
What remains?
I personally believe that cultivation of hydrogen oxidizing bacteria, and using them as a food chain base for animal feed, may constitute a second Green Revolution [1] for the 21st century. One early company in this space is Solar Foods [2]. Even though Solar Foods is promoting direct use of microbial cultured protein as a human food ingredient, I think that as costs go down and scales go up it will become common for microbial protein to be used in aquaculture and agriculture for feeding traditional food animals which will then be consumed by people.
Hydrogen oxidizing bacteria can convert nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide to protein and other biological macromolecules without relying on photosynthesis. This constitutes a potential revolution in food production because any source of electricity can be used to generate hydrogen from water via electrolysis, and then biomass can be grown using that hydrogen plus carbon dioxide and nitrogen (plus small amounts of other mineral inputs).
Photosynthesis has a very low sunlight-to-food energy conversion ratio. A solar farm feeding hydrogen to microbial synthesis tanks could achieve more than an order of magnitude more food production per hectare than growing crops. Further, microbial synthesis tanks do not require weed control, insect control, or plowing (soil disruption). They require a minute fraction of the water needed to irrigate crops. They could operate on land that is too rocky, dry, hot, cold, or contaminated for farming. They could operate in windy places with little sun if powered by wind farms.
Here's an article focusing on the use of solar power for protein production:
"Solar-powered large scale microbial food production"
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/03/solar-powered-large-s...
Also consider this astonishing recent research report:
"Microbial Protein out of Thin Air: Fixation of Nitrogen Gas by an Autotrophic Hydrogen-Oxidizing Bacterial Enrichment"
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/322827781.pdf
The authors use selection pressure to develop a population of hydrogen oxidizing bacteria that assimilate nitrogen from the air. It potentially renders the Haber-Bosch process [3] unneeded for protein production, replacing a high-pressure, high-temperature industrial process with a room temperature, atmospheric pressure biological process. That would be the greatest sea change in agriculture since the original invention of the Haber-Bosch process more than 100 years ago.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
[2] https://solarfoods.com/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
What remains?
I personally believe that cultivation of hydrogen oxidizing bacteria, and using them as a food chain base for animal feed, may constitute a second Green Revolution [1] for the 21st century. One early company in this space is Solar Foods [2]. Even though Solar Foods is promoting direct use of microbial cultured protein as a human food ingredient, I think that as costs go down and scales go up it will become common for microbial protein to be used in aquaculture and agriculture for feeding traditional food animals which will then be consumed by people.
Hydrogen oxidizing bacteria can convert nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide to protein and other biological macromolecules without relying on photosynthesis. This constitutes a potential revolution in food production because any source of electricity can be used to generate hydrogen from water via electrolysis, and then biomass can be grown using that hydrogen plus carbon dioxide and nitrogen (plus small amounts of other mineral inputs).
Photosynthesis has a very low sunlight-to-food energy conversion ratio. A solar farm feeding hydrogen to microbial synthesis tanks could achieve more than an order of magnitude more food production per hectare than growing crops. Further, microbial synthesis tanks do not require weed control, insect control, or plowing (soil disruption). They require a minute fraction of the water needed to irrigate crops. They could operate on land that is too rocky, dry, hot, cold, or contaminated for farming. They could operate in windy places with little sun if powered by wind farms.
Here's an article focusing on the use of solar power for protein production:
"Solar-powered large scale microbial food production"
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/03/solar-powered-large-s...
Also consider this astonishing recent research report:
"Microbial Protein out of Thin Air: Fixation of Nitrogen Gas by an Autotrophic Hydrogen-Oxidizing Bacterial Enrichment"
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/322827781.pdf
The authors use selection pressure to develop a population of hydrogen oxidizing bacteria that assimilate nitrogen from the air. It potentially renders the Haber-Bosch process [3] unneeded for protein production, replacing a high-pressure, high-temperature industrial process with a room temperature, atmospheric pressure biological process. That would be the greatest sea change in agriculture since the original invention of the Haber-Bosch process more than 100 years ago.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
[2] https://solarfoods.com/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
Past is not indicative of the future when dealing with hugely
Complicated systems. Empirical models are only as good as the data under them. The pricing models used in the infamous mortgage backed securities that brought the world the 2008 Great Recession were trained on data before the SL crisis. Further, fully all of human pollutions until the mid 90s were subsequently surpassed in the emissions from then until now. There just is no reason to argue about these topics with simple graphs and lazy “theories”.
This article is just slightly better than middlebrow drizzle in data. But worse because it promulgates bad ideas.
This article is just slightly better than middlebrow drizzle in data. But worse because it promulgates bad ideas.
When people go to a grocery store does it really make sense to think about evolution and natural selection? Every part of the modern food shopping experience has been designed by humans. Even the food itself. It's strange to consider a chimp's hunting instinct somehow relates to, say, a human's evaluation of what's a good deal in dollar terms.
Evolution and Me: Darwinian Theory has Become an All-Purpose Obstacle to Thought Rather than an Enabler of Scientific Advance. by George Gilder
https://www.discovery.org/a/3631/
"These evolutionary sex wars were mostly unresolvable because, at its root, Darwinian theory is tautological. What survives is fit; what is fit survives. While such tautologies ensure the consistency of any arguments based on them, they could contribute little to an analysis of what patterns of behavior and what ideals and aspirations were conducive to a good and productive society. Almost by definition, Darwinism is a materialist theory that banishes aspirations and ideals from the picture."
Evolution and Me: Darwinian Theory has Become an All-Purpose Obstacle to Thought Rather than an Enabler of Scientific Advance. by George Gilder
https://www.discovery.org/a/3631/
"These evolutionary sex wars were mostly unresolvable because, at its root, Darwinian theory is tautological. What survives is fit; what is fit survives. While such tautologies ensure the consistency of any arguments based on them, they could contribute little to an analysis of what patterns of behavior and what ideals and aspirations were conducive to a good and productive society. Almost by definition, Darwinism is a materialist theory that banishes aspirations and ideals from the picture."
In a sense, it's true that it's tautological, but only in that we often don't know for certain what was fit, or why. And we often can't.
For Darwin's finches, we can make a good guess, but some animal appearances or behaviors (e.g. the most beautiful snakes [1]) we just have to shake our heads. We know the snake's beauty (in our eyes) must have increased fitness since it was conserved, but how?
[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=the+most+beautiful+snake&t=brave&i...
For Darwin's finches, we can make a good guess, but some animal appearances or behaviors (e.g. the most beautiful snakes [1]) we just have to shake our heads. We know the snake's beauty (in our eyes) must have increased fitness since it was conserved, but how?
[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=the+most+beautiful+snake&t=brave&i...
That’s because Darwin’s is an observation of self-replicating systems in general and not an abstract idea or new concept. It’s tautological that the most successful self-replicating systems are the ones most successful at self-replicating. Fitness is by definition being successful at dealing with the environment in regards to self-replication. Darwin’s in the general sense is in my opinion not a theory but a fundamental observation of what is. The only theory is that there’s a continuous lineage of living systems that evolved one into one other. But that’s more of a teleological issue and can be understood as a theory subject to rejection.
Darwin’s theory is that the diversity of life, the nested hierarchy of traits noted by taxonomists before him, can be explained by that fact about replicating systems — and doesn’t require more than that and mutation.
Darwin explained an open question (“why do taxonomies look like this?”) by relating it to fitness and to trait changes via artificial selection (eg, breeding horses and dogs). That’s why it’s about how finches developed traits in nature — because repeated fitness selection in nature like farmers breeding lineages could account for differences in animals.
That the “fit survive” isn’t the theory — just a fact about the world.
Darwin explained an open question (“why do taxonomies look like this?”) by relating it to fitness and to trait changes via artificial selection (eg, breeding horses and dogs). That’s why it’s about how finches developed traits in nature — because repeated fitness selection in nature like farmers breeding lineages could account for differences in animals.
That the “fit survive” isn’t the theory — just a fact about the world.
> That the “fit survive” isn’t the theory — just a fact about the world.
In Darwin's time the idea that "the fit survive" was very much a theory.
A competing idea that we might call "the just survive" was the basis of trial by ordeal and trial by combat, of prayers for healing and rescue, and of holy wars. Many people still believe that God chooses who survives, and thus do not accept survival of the fittest.
In Darwin's time the idea that "the fit survive" was very much a theory.
A competing idea that we might call "the just survive" was the basis of trial by ordeal and trial by combat, of prayers for healing and rescue, and of holy wars. Many people still believe that God chooses who survives, and thus do not accept survival of the fittest.
“Survival of the fittest” is a statistical observation of a population ensemble. You can be otherwise fit and eager to replicate and be hit by a truck. Or you can be sick and almost infertile but got someone pregnant. So Darwin doesn’t explain the human condition and why the just might fall due to sickness or the wicked become rich and prolific. That only Heaven knows.
> So Darwin doesn’t explain the human condition and why the just might fall due to sickness or the wicked become rich and prolific
You're changing the measure. Just-ness is not a measure of Fit-ness. Nor is Wicked-ness a measure of Unfit-ness.
You're changing the measure. Just-ness is not a measure of Fit-ness. Nor is Wicked-ness a measure of Unfit-ness.
I’m saying that “survival of the fittest” and the existence of God can coexist.
If Darwinian theory is tautological, why was it so controversial? Indeed Darwin knew it would be, and so kept it secret for decades after conceiving it. Why does it continue to be controversial to this day in some places, such as the U.S., to the degree that organizations like the one you cited (the Discovery Institute) are dedicated to dismantling it?
The core of Darwinian theory is not "what survives is fit; what is fits survives." The core of it is: 1) Life can multiply extremely rapidly, outstripping the available resources to live on, meaning that only some offspring can survive (this comes from Malthus) 2) There is random variation in the characteristics of offspring, some of which will prove more successful at survival and reproduction than others. 3) The action of (1) and (2), starting from some unknown point of origin of life, can explain all the variation in types of life that we see around us today, from fungi to humans.
None of these are tautologies.
The core of Darwinian theory is not "what survives is fit; what is fits survives." The core of it is: 1) Life can multiply extremely rapidly, outstripping the available resources to live on, meaning that only some offspring can survive (this comes from Malthus) 2) There is random variation in the characteristics of offspring, some of which will prove more successful at survival and reproduction than others. 3) The action of (1) and (2), starting from some unknown point of origin of life, can explain all the variation in types of life that we see around us today, from fungi to humans.
None of these are tautologies.
I think you misunderstood the person you’re responding to. They are saying that the way we take in calories is so far removed from the environment we evolved in that any Darwin comparison is smoke and mirrors. IMHO they are spot on.
Gilder co-founded Discovery so you'd have to assume this essay is somewhat representative of the kind of thinking that inspired its creation. I've read plenty of Gilder and I honestly don't know what his exact views on the origin of life are. I'm sure he has his problems, but doubt they have much to do with whatever the original opposition to Darwin was. The point is very much that it doesn't matter. A purely deterministic and materialistic theory of evolution could be perfectly true, yet one has to concede it cannot possibly give us much of an edge in solving today's problems. The meat article made me think of Gilder's essay because it's a perfect example of trying to employ Darwinian thinking when it cannot possibly help.
Meat is a status thing. In many countries meat was more expensive than veggies pound for pound, so rich people ate more meat.
Poor people ate very plant heavy diets but that was because they had to.
There isn’t really an equivalent reversal of status at the ultra-rich level to dial it back down.
Poor people ate very plant heavy diets but that was because they had to.
There isn’t really an equivalent reversal of status at the ultra-rich level to dial it back down.
Status things that are comfortably within the reach of everyone often cease to be status things.
There are still plenty of poor people who can't afford meat in every meal, even in rich countries. And even with mass meat consumption there is still further delineation like grades of meat that is plenty for rich consumers to differentiate themselves from (most people certainly cannot afford to cook Kobe/Wagyu with every meal)
Yeah, obviously as you say there are reasons to suspect that effect isn't fully applicable (yet?) and to whatever degree it is it hasn't dominated overall. It just seemed relevant enough to share.
Fresh vegetables too, though, I bet. Money gives people access, film at eleven.
'Ignore the hype that the world is about to turn vegan'
I have never heard any of this 'hype' anywhere except from evangelizing vegetarians.
The IEEE is becoming a pretty weird organization with dystopian undertones these days. https://www.ieee.org/about/ieee-strategic-plan.html
I have never heard any of this 'hype' anywhere except from evangelizing vegetarians.
The IEEE is becoming a pretty weird organization with dystopian undertones these days. https://www.ieee.org/about/ieee-strategic-plan.html
there's no way this function from wealth to amount of meat is differentiable
I don’t understand the scope of research and topics the IEEE publishes. I would think it would be electrical engineering topics and things tangential to that.
Anybody have any insight?
Anybody have any insight?
It's also the case that there has been an explosion of choice in vegan foods, particularly meat substitutes, that has really only come around in the last few years. So looking at trends over a 50 year window isn't going to capture that.
I'm not even a vegan, for what it's worth. But this article basically seems to hold up historical trends as immutable facts and extrapolates from there which is not very convincing in the changing situation that we find ourselves in.