Meat is murder, tasty, tasty murder . . .

RussellTuring wrote: »

Or if we just cut out the middle man and consume the B12 directly, just as we did before large-scale water sanitation removed it from the water we drink. Sounds a lot less wasteful to me.


I don't deny that my ancestors ate animal products. Fortunately their actions don't determine my dietary choices today, but I wonder why they do yours.


If that's your argument then present it. Specifically, why meat is essential. If you're just going to tell me how it's possible for you to eat meat, I don't see why you think I'm disagreeing.



I find this hard to accept for several reasons. Firstly, because you have yet to show that it is ideal and that (assuming you left out the words "is wrong" or something similar) even if you did, something contributing to a healthy diet doesn't necessarily mean it's the ethical choice. Additionally, I would have thought it went without saying that a tiger doing something doesn't mean I can do it with a clear conscience and I would have hoped most people would feel the same.



I think very few veggies conveniently ignore this, in fact. As I mentioned in the post you quoted, one of the big problems with animal agriculture is the amount of food and land wasted to feed them during their lifetimes as well as the waste they produce (grass-fed beef being a proportionally high contributor). However, all of this crop and grazing land that has to be maintained to feed them means far more unintentional animal deaths than if more people adopted plant-based diets since it takes multiples more in space and effort to extract the same amount of nutrition from animals as it does plants. Abstaining from meat won't eliminate every single animal death, but it's far more effective than actively contributing to them.

At last, some reason debate.

So we agree that our ancestors ate meat (I've lost too much time arguing with people attempting to assert that we are naturally herbivorous). My view (and that of the paleo community) is that our society and culture has evolved much faster than our bodies, meaning that many parts of our modern lifestyle don't suit us, including diet. So a plaeo diet, as well as neccesitating meat and other animal products, means rejected grains and vegetable oils and other novel foods. You say meat is not essential, I say it's essential for an ideal, healthy diet. However, I don't want to get bogged down in that debate as it goes far beyond the whole point of this thread.

As I've stated before, I advocate humanely raised and slaughtered animals. Coming from a farming background, I know that cows (e.g.) in this country are treated like pets. They are fed, watered, sheltered and live a happy life until they are humanely killed. Abatoirs are specially designed to be as stressless as possible to cattle. I don't see what the problem with this is, or what difference there is between raising a cow for milk (which is OK for vegetarians) or raising it for meat (which is not), apart from a small difference in lifespan. Once cows are past milking age, guess what, they are slaughtered.

As for environmental impact of pasture-fed beef - cows in this country live in relative harmony with surrounding animals. Birds, foxes shrews etc.. can live in the same space as cattle. The same could not be said if these fields were replaced with large scale tracts for growing grain. I will agree that corn fed beef in America has much more environmental impact, but I don't eat this nor do I agree with feeding cattle such unnatural (for them) food which makes them fat, sick and practically diabetic

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You say meat is not essential, I say it's essential for an ideal, healthy diet. However, I don't want to get bogged down in that debate as it goes far beyond the whole point of this thread.

I think it's quite relevant to the thread. If you're suggesting that my diet isn't healthy then I'd like to know what it is that I could only get from meat specifically.

As I've stated before, I advocate humanely raised and slaughtered animals. Coming from a farming background, I know that cows (e.g.) in this country are treated like pets. They are fed, watered, sheltered and live a happy life until they are humanely killed. Abatoirs are specially designed to be as stressless as possible to cattle. I don't see what the problem with this is, or what difference there is between raising a cow for milk (which is OK for vegetarians) or raising it for meat (which is not), apart from a small difference in lifespan. Once cows are past milking age, guess what, they are slaughtered.

Livestock are capital and as such it's wise to keep them fed, watered and sheltered since these are their basic needs. They're also easier to handle and kill if they're not overly stressed. My problem isn't necessarily that animals are being poorly treated before they're killed but that they are killed at all, for no good reason that I can see and at quite a cost. I agree that there's little difference between dairy and beef cattle when the former often end up as the latter.

As for environmental impact of pasture-fed beef - cows in this country live in relative harmony with surrounding animals. Birds, foxes shrews etc.. can live in the same space as cattle. The same could not be said if these fields were replaced with large scale tracts for growing grain. I will agree that corn fed beef in America has much more environmental impact, but I don't eat this nor do I agree with feeding cattle such unnatural (for them) food which makes them fat, sick and practically diabetic

The environmental impact I had in mind was the levels of methane that grazing cows produce. It may have less of an immediate impact on local environment but it has one nonetheless, as well as the longer-term effects. Those fed crops are given the diets they are because the one you advocate doesn't scale to the demand for them.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I am sure you are quite healthy. People who are vegetarian have generally taken a conscious decision to change their diet and are more mindful of the food they eat. It's probably possible to eat all the RDAs of various vitamins and minerals, but an important thing to realise is that RDAs are the minimum required amounts to avoid deficiency which is not neccesarily the same as the optimum amount. As well as that, certain nutrients are not very bioavailable in plant form, (iron and zinc for example) so on paper you might be getting enough nutrients, but the actual amount absorbed could be different.

You've still to point out how meat is essential to a healthy diet. Can you support the comment or not?

If you agree that there is not much difference in keeping cattle for dairy and in keeping them for slaughter we are not too much in disagreement. Only in the neccesity of eating animals.

Indeed. And I'm waiting for you to explain how it's necessary and not just an indulgence, which you seem to be avoiding.

As for methane production, rice accounts for 10-20% of global methane, comparable percentages to that of livestock.

If you say so. Although I don't see the relevance as rice is hardly what I'd consider a meat alternative.

That's if you subscribe to the anthropogenic global warming theory, which I don't (at the moment).

Right. So you have no problem following a diet with highly questionable assumptions but the idea that humans are at all responsible for climate change is far-fetched.

If you are really interested in my diet I can see if I can dig up some studies.

I'm not that interested in the Paleo diet: I've read about it and it seems to be based on very flimsy assertions about the dietary habits of prehistoric humans. But do you avoid all plants and animals that weren't extant before the Agricultural Revolution? Do you hunt and forage all of the food you do eat or take advantage of agriculture? Do you cook?