Could/would you eat only 14g of meat a day?

deanspn on 17/01/2019 - 13:13
Last edited 18/01/2019 - 09:37

I read some articles today on how a “planetary health diet” is needed to ensure that Earth remains sustainable and healthy for habitation. A large part of the diet is to get people to eat a lot less meat and a lot more beans and vegetables.

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/16/new-plan…

Their guideline is each person should eat no more than 14g (fourteen grams) of meat a day.

Out of curiosity, is that something that you could or would do?

Edit: your responses have been interesting! I eat meat occasionally (once or twice a month) and stick to mostly whole food, plant based these days for health reasons. It’s been easier and tastier than expected.

Also a reminder to stay civil in the comments to each other; most of the comments are pretty funny but come on, it’s not that hard to be polite.

Poll Options

  • 288
    No, I would struggle to cut back because meat is too important to me
  • 146
    Yes, I eat more than that now but could/would cut back
  • 125
    Yes, I already eat 14g or less of meat a day
  • 55
    No, I really don’t care
Food & Grocery

Comments

  • QW3RTY on 17/01/2019 - 13:14
    +66

    Bring on cultured meat. Let's see the vegans complain about my murder-free triple bacon hamburger.

    • HighAndDry on 17/01/2019 - 13:22
      +10

      Don't understand the negs, but arguably it'd have to be a:

      triple bacon* ham**burger.

      *not actually bacon

      **not actually ham

      • idonotknowwhy on 17/01/2019 - 13:25
        +23

        Don't understand the negs

        I'd guess
        - Farmers afraid to lose their jobs.
        - Vegans afraid to lose a justification for their beliefs.
        - Probably some of the "GMO is evil" group too.

        But really, it's this part lol

        Let's see the vegans complain

        • HighAndDry on 17/01/2019 - 13:36
          +20

          To be fair, most vegans (that I know in real life) are fairly reasonable. It's the ones like thevofa who give vegans a bad name by being both disproportionately outspoken (redundant wording?) and just utterly unreasonable.

          I think there might also be an element of self-selection bias in that: reasonable vegans are more likely to have real life friends to begin with. Unreasonable ones are more likely to be vocal and outspoken.

          • payton on 17/01/2019 - 15:04
            +4

            @HighAndDry:

            Unreasonable ones are more likely to be vocal and outspoken

            thats's because the interweb is pretty much the only place they have to spread their religion
            aka no one gives them the time of day in real life, nor do rational people share the extremism
            thus the angst and inability to live their own life without trying to dictate what other people do

        • Scrooge McDuck on 18/01/2019 - 01:34
          +10

          - Probably some of the "GMO is evil" group too.

          What's evil about a chicken with 4 legs?

          That'd save countless family arguments worldwide!

          • roguescholar on 18/01/2019 - 11:16
            +9

            @Scrooge McDuck: I'm pretty sure they're twice as hard to catch.

            • Scrooge McDuck on 18/01/2019 - 11:51
              +8

              @roguescholar: Not if you orient the legs to oppose each other so the damn thing doesn't know whether it's coming or going but instead has to shuffle sideways like a crab.

              • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 12:24
                +2

                @Scrooge McDuck: Thanks for the nightmare fuel…

              • Cheapo Moose on 18/01/2019 - 12:44
                +2

                @Scrooge McDuck:

                Not if you orient the legs to oppose each other so the damn thing doesn't know whether it's coming or going but instead has to shuffle sideways like a crab.

                I got stares when I almost choked on my coffee when reading this.

                Well played.

        • gromit on 19/01/2019 - 11:07

          Farmers really don't fear lab grown meat, most farmers are pretty versatile and will switch to growing whatever is profitable. Hell most farmers care more for animal welfare than your average vegan as the average vegan is usually just a hypocritical Ahole that likes to preach to others.

          • callum9999 on 19/01/2019 - 22:39
            +2

            @gromit: Well that's clearly utter rubbish… Despite extensive animal welfare laws, many animals (chickens immediately spring to mind) are raised in pretty awful conditions. I dread to think what it would be like without those laws.

            The average vegan also doesn't preach to anyone - all the vegans I know have only informed me if I've offered them something non-vegan to eat. While I find many of the "annoying vegan" jokes to be funny (though many of them are just tedious rehashes), the vitriol from people like you is bizarre and rather pathetic.

            • gromit on 20/01/2019 - 17:52
              -1

              @callum9999: Ahhhh so it is fine to tar the average farmer with the animal abuse because of a few bad eggs, but how dare we tar the average vegan because of the few aholes (some of whom have shown up in this thread).

      • serpserpserp on 17/01/2019 - 14:28
        +3

        Steamed Hams I think he meant.

      • callum9999 on 19/01/2019 - 22:47
        -3

        Cultured pork would still be bacon or ham.

        I'd also imagine it had negs because many people are sick of vegans being abused for being morally superior. This board really makes Australia look like it's full of neanderthals sometimes!

        (And no, you can't use this as an example of a preachy vegan as I'm not vegan - though I do admire them so perhaps that's just as bad!).

        • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 09:55

          I guess the negs on your comment show that people don't dislike vegans, people dislike moral preachiness from anyone.

      • HighAndDry on 17/01/2019 - 13:54
        +38

        Translation for the confused: Vegans don't care what you eat so long as you only eat what we think you should be eating.

      • k-rokfm on 17/01/2019 - 14:12
        +7

        You do realise in the production and farming of your food animals have to be killed to prevent crops from being destroyed?

        • afoveht on 17/01/2019 - 14:36
          +4

          You do realise that farming animals involves an order of magnitude more plant farming just to feed the animals?

          You do realise that while animals are seen as resources that there will never be a conviction to protect them but if we renew our attitudes to see them as having the right to not suffer intentional harms by our infliction we may actually progress to find farming methods which cause less collateral damage?

          • Scrooge McDuck on 18/01/2019 - 01:02
            +6

            @afoveht: Animals are resources, that includes humans. Have you never heard of HR?

            If humans have to suffer, why should all the other animals get a pass?

            • resisting the urge on 19/01/2019 - 18:04

              @Scrooge McDuck: Who was saying animals weren't resources?

              However given there is literally nowhere on this planet that (other) animals are not suffering (or have suffered extinction already) for little more than enabling human greed or power, saying other animals shouldn't get a pass (because humans 'suffer too') is nothing short of extreme

              If we weren't over-running the planet and poisoning everything, let alone destroying every other species (other than the few that live on our refuse), you might have some room to wiggle on that, but the metrics are not good for any of us

              • Scrooge McDuck on 19/01/2019 - 19:50
                +1

                @resisting the urge:

                Who was saying animals weren't resources?

                The guy I replied to:

                @thevofa:

                You do realise that while animals are seen as resources that there will never be a conviction to protect them

                • resisting the urge on 19/01/2019 - 20:16

                  @Scrooge McDuck: So thevofa wasn't saying they weren't, just that they are seen as resources- and perhaps, that this was a pretty subjective thing. It seems in your view they are, in my mind it depends on context. We may all be resourceful, but that doesn't mean that we are always a resource. So sometimes we might be. But that doesn't make humans, animals, sentinent beings, more or less 'resources' than others among us. Or that we should get a pass, or be forced to accept needless suffering for anybody's choice of reason.

          • Bargain80 on 18/01/2019 - 14:15
            +3

            @afoveht: Plants are also live being. They also have rights to not suffer.

            • afoveht on 18/01/2019 - 14:37
              +5

              @Bargain80: Cool. Stop mowing your lawn.

            • trapper on 18/01/2019 - 18:38
              +7

              @Bargain80: At least we only eat meat that is dead… vegetarian and vegans eat plants while they are still alive!

              • wolomolo on 23/01/2019 - 22:35

                @trapper: animals dont need to die in the first place

        • Ibz on 19/01/2019 - 04:22
          +7

          I hate how people use scientifically incorrect 'facts' to try and beat down vegans. I'm not a vegan, I love meat. I eat meat every day. But you know what, it's still important to know what the cost of eating the meat is.

          Here's some perspective

          In Julian Cribb’s book, The Coming Famine (p.190), he calculated that using the same land area, you can obtain 12 times more food from vegetables than from legumes and 5 times more food than from cereals. If you factor in the amount of grain needed to produce meat, a single hectare of land can produce 29 times more food in the form of vegetables than in the form of chicken meat, 73 times more than pork…

          Here's some real science from the csiro.
          This study used life cycle assessment to investigate impacts from grass-finished beef production in eastern Australia to the farm gate, reporting impacts per kilogram of liveweight (LW) produced. Mean fossil fuel energy demand was found to vary from 5.6 to 8.4 MJ/kg LW, mean estimated fresh water consumption from 117.9 to 332.4 L/kg LW and crop land occupation from 0.3 to 6.4 m2/kg LW. Mean greenhouse gas emissions ranged from 10.6 to 12.4 kg CO2-e/kg LW (excluding land use and direct land-use change emissions) and were not significantly different (P > 0.05) for export or domestic market classes. Enteric methane was the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions…

          And lastly, your argument. If we have to kill animals to grow plants, do you realise how many plants we need to grow to feed the cattle? In America it takes 7kg of feed per kilo of beef. Less may be fed to Australian cows but you'd be dreaming if you think it's worse to grow veggies. I'm not trying to bring up a moral or philosophical argument. I'm not bringing up false facts. This is the reality.

          Here's another good article
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367646/

          Notice I'm not using biased sources like ecowatch or something. This is what scientific bodies and governments know to be true.

          • resisting the urge on 19/01/2019 - 18:11
            -1

            @Ibz: This is the Internet, and the Luddites with nothing better to do are nearly all online now.

            The proportion of every minority, (even red-necked bacon-lovers) is peaking and thinks it alone has the ascendancy. Don't go looking for sense here, we are little more than a mob of chimps screaming in the forest before the chain-saws arrive

          • LlamaOfDoom on 20/01/2019 - 11:15
            +2

            @Ibz:

            In Julian Cribb’s book, The Coming Famine (p.190), he calculated that using the same land area, you can obtain 12 times more food from vegetables than from legumes and 5 times more food than from cereals. If you factor in the amount of grain needed to produce meat, a single hectare of land can produce 29 times more food in the form of vegetables than in the form of chicken meat, 73 times more than pork…

            Not all farm land is suitable for growing vegetables.
            Only recently (with changes in genetics and weedicides) has some farm land been suitable for legumes.
            Some farm land is only suitable for grazing pasture.
            Those assumptions all need water.

            Dunno if you've noticed how last few years have gone rainfall wise.
            Have you ever looked at an average rainfall contour map of Australia?

          • trapper on 22/01/2019 - 14:18
            -1

            @Ibz: 7kg of veggies for 1kg of beef actually sounds like a pretty good trade

      • Seedy seed on 17/01/2019 - 14:45
        +10

        You dont seem to have any original thoughts or self-awareness. Can i eat you?

      • [Deactivated] on 17/01/2019 - 17:39
        +7

        How do you know if somebody is a vegan.

        Don't worry, they'll tell you.

          • [Deactivated] on 18/01/2019 - 11:46
            +7

            @Scantu: I'm a minority in many ways.

            When I meet someone I don't have the compulsion to announce my financial standings (certainly much less common than being a vegan based on percentile), my ethnicity (also rarer than a vegan in Australia), my occupation (also rarer than a vegan)…

            Vegans are actually not all that unique. Sorry to burst your bubble.

            • Scrooge McDuck on 18/01/2019 - 12:50
              +4

              @[Deactivated]: Batman?

              • [Deactivated] on 18/01/2019 - 13:59
                +2

                @Scrooge McDuck: One does may choose one's profession and perhaps even vocation but a calling chooses you.

                Batman is my calling.

                Veganism is not.

            • Scantu on 18/01/2019 - 20:29

              @[Deactivated]: Yes… That was my point, as a minority it is a fairly common phenomenon, and therefore not unique to this certain minority.

              What's with the "bubble" crap, the only bubble here is yours built off the fact that you evidently think everyone who doesn't think the same as you is wrong.

              • [Deactivated] on 19/01/2019 - 00:54
                +1

                @Scantu: I think all that nutrient deficit must have made you miss the mark a fair bit.

                • Scantu on 19/01/2019 - 01:26
                  +1

                  @[Deactivated]: I mean… It's not up to you or I, the most offensive part of that argument you're making is how not-researched it is. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure out you get all the same nutrition. Been through this one a thousand times… Next.

                  • [Deactivated] on 19/01/2019 - 09:18

                    @Scantu: Being able to get the same nutrition and actually getting the same nutrition is two different things. Anyone with one brain cell knows that.

                    You seem easily butt hurt. Must be missing more nutrients than initially thought.

                    • Scantu on 19/01/2019 - 10:03

                      @[Deactivated]: Sure. Not butthurt, you've just been rude.

                      • [Deactivated] on 19/01/2019 - 10:08

                        @Scantu: Says the one that threw the first rock.

                        Easy to dish but calls rude when served. Wonder where I've seen that behaviour before?

                        • Scantu on 19/01/2019 - 10:55

                          @[Deactivated]: Where? You literally replied to me.

                          What implication are you trying to make? Please tell me because I honestly have no clue. Or don't be a coward and say it outright.

                          • [Deactivated] on 19/01/2019 - 11:22
                            +3

                            @Scantu: Let's see, you say that being vegans is being unique although the compulsion to advertise isn't, which makes it okay.

                            It's because people who are just like you never need to tell you they are any different. Because they aren't.

                            Well, I demonstrated that people "like" me can be different because I'm not defined by the many minority categories I fall under. Ie, the idea that being a minority defines oneself is one concluded from ignorance of other minorities - a bubble.

                            You're response was to call my polite reply

                            What's with the "bubble" crap

                            Very defensive if not outright rude. Well, it is just outright rude.

                            Anyone with two brain cells to rub together

                            This is just backhanded calling someone "stupid".

                            You literally replied to me.

                            A reply isn't being rude. It is a reply. You posted an opinion, I posted mine and at that point, they were both cordial. Although from that response, I understand a reply with an opposing viewpoint is considered "rude".

                            What implication are you trying to make?

                            That vegans are generally quick to attack but seem easily wounded. Case in point.

                            • Scantu on 19/01/2019 - 11:52

                              @[Deactivated]: Your first reply ends with "Sorry to burst your bubble". Pretty rude. I said it was crap because it was, that's calling it as it is.

                              Unfortunately you're not going to be able to fit me into your preconception of what I should be. Enjoy being ignorant :)

                              • [Deactivated] on 19/01/2019 - 12:00
                                +3

                                @Scantu: I did fit you in. You fit well.

                                • Scantu on 19/01/2019 - 12:02

                                  @[Deactivated]: Just because you say it doesn't make it true. Nice try at gaslighting.

                                  • [Deactivated] on 19/01/2019 - 12:05
                                    +3

                                    @Scantu: Like a glove.

                                    • Scantu on 19/01/2019 - 12:10

                                      @[Deactivated]: Only to someone who is so blinded by what they want to see that that is all they will see :)

          • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 12:25
            +4

            @Scantu: Please speak just for yourself and don't embarrass other minorities by playing the perpetual victim card.

            • Scantu on 18/01/2019 - 20:27
              -1

              @HighAndDry: How am I playing the victim card, enlighten me? I'll speak as I please.

      • ozmma on 17/01/2019 - 23:25
        -7

        Killing a plant is ok? Why because it doesn't move like an animal?

        • Speckled Jim on 18/01/2019 - 09:05
          +10

          A plant is not a sentient being. It lacks brain, brain-stem and spinal cord.

          What does straddle the fauna/flora boundary is fungii. Mycoprotein (as registered by Quorn) is a type of edible fungus they fashion as a meat substitute.

          Plants don't have to die post-harvest either, but this depends on the plant. The fruit and veges aren't their heart or brain, but the equivalents of testicles and sperm (you're welcome).

          • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 12:30
            +1

            @Speckled Jim:

            A plant is not a sentient being. It lacks brain, brain-stem and spinal cord.

            That seems rather chordata-centric. What makes you so sure that the lack of a central nervous system precludes sentience?

            • Speckled Jim on 18/01/2019 - 13:14
              +3

              @HighAndDry: Vegetation reacts to light and temperature. But without neurons, they're excluded from the sentience quotient.

              The farthest we can reach in our "communication" with vegetation is when we plant, water, or fertilize it
              - Freitas

              Find a single neuron and we'll talk.

              • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 13:18

                @Speckled Jim: Again, that's rather chordata-centric to assume that thoughts cannot exist in the absence of neurons.

                https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-d…

                It's possible that they think and feel, just dissimilarly to animals and in much slower terms.

                • Speckled Jim on 18/01/2019 - 13:56

                  @HighAndDry: Daniel Chamovitz (from your link):

                  "humor me while I anthropomorphize"

                  …

                  "Just as a plant can’t suffer subjective pain in the absence of a brain, I also don’t think that it thinks."

                  Daniel Chamovitz not only has a book to shill, he happens to agree with me. There's your (2012 — really? Nothing newer?) answer.

                  Harvest those tommies people!

                  • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 13:58
                    +1

                    @Speckled Jim: Well no, he says that but he agrees with me that:

                    but maybe that’s where I’m still limited in my own thinking!

                    It's very limited to approach everything from an anthropocentric point of view, especially when you're expressly trying to advocate for wider empathy for different species. Why does your empathy stop only at animals but no further?

          • Bargain80 on 18/01/2019 - 14:18
            -1

            @Speckled Jim: so by the same logic, vegan should be able to eat unfertilised eggs and drink milk?

            • afoveht on 18/01/2019 - 14:39
              +3

              @Bargain80: Perhaps consider where these secretions come from and who is exploited and killed in getting them.

            • Speckled Jim on 18/01/2019 - 17:01

              @Bargain80: You're confusing veganism with vegetarianism. Think about the definitions of each and there's your answer.

              For the record, in answer to your question, no.

          • ozmma on 18/01/2019 - 23:45

            @Speckled Jim:

            The fruit and veges aren't their heart or brain, but the equivalents of testicles and sperm

            I thought fruit/seed is embryo and it can produce new plant. As Milk for offspring, Fruit pulp is to nourish the seed.

            We could be food too, if not for our intelligence.

      • greater mimic on 18/01/2019 - 14:19
        +7

        The only bad thing about being vegan is knowing I share common values with someone so annoying.

        • afoveht on 18/01/2019 - 14:28
          -1

          share common values

          Apparently not.

          • greater mimic on 18/01/2019 - 14:44
            +4

            @afoveht: Yeah you're right, I'm not a preachy arrogant (profanity) who relishes in making a bad name out of veganism just to try and keep the moral high ground. You need to rethink how to argue/debate, or even how to converse with people. You're not doing anyone any favours… just stuck in your little bubble.

            • afoveht on 18/01/2019 - 15:13
              -3

              @greater mimic: Enjoy your plant based diet as you remain silent on the intentional killing of 60 billion warm blooded and over a trillion other animals per year. Cheers!

              • greater mimic on 18/01/2019 - 16:26
                +11

                @afoveht: What does preaching about it do if it's not helping put an end to it? Like you're even preaching to me right now and I don't eat meat, so what are you trying to accomplish here apart from inflate your ego? All you're doing is polarising the discussion and making people take sides. People like you are not helping, you're actually making things worse.

                • [Deactivated] on 18/01/2019 - 23:48
                  +4

                  @greater mimic: 50% Martyr complex, 50% Gnashing

              • [Deactivated] on 19/01/2019 - 10:25
                +3

                @afoveht: Is there no issue with killing cold blooded animals or are they just lower on the list of consideration?

    • Diji1 on 17/01/2019 - 15:06
      -4

      Vegans are hypocrites unless they avoid grains given that mechanized farming slaughters millions of animals living in the fields every harvest.

      • afoveht on 17/01/2019 - 16:30
        -2

        Perhaps you have no understanding of the motivations and intents of vegans.

        Why don't you elucidate the particular claim made by vegans that makes us hypocrites?

        (In any event, vegans are hardly a homogeneous group, but I'll defend the particular position I expect you want to attack.)

      • olkicom on 17/01/2019 - 18:30
        +20

        Vegans aim to minimise harm to animals to an extent that is practical. Living in modern society, it is near impossible to lead a lifestyle that completely eliminates the killing of animals. More crops are required to feed animals (that then feed humans) than if we just used those crops to feed ourselves. More crops = more animals slaughtered. That is in addition to the cows, pigs, etc. that get slaughtered on top of that.

        • ozhunter on 17/01/2019 - 18:32
          -3

          So if humans didn't kill animals, they would all eventually breed like crazy. Then what?

          • olkicom on 17/01/2019 - 18:38
            +9

            @ozhunter: That would not happen to farm animals because quite honestly, they would not be able to survive in the wild at any significant population. For centuries, humans have been selectively breeding animals for the purposes of making them as big as possible; for more meat. They have become monstrosities of nature…

            • ozhunter on 17/01/2019 - 18:43

              @olkicom: So you're ok with humans hunting animals in the wild?

              • olkicom on 17/01/2019 - 18:49
                +10

                @ozhunter: Sure, if that's what they need to do to survive. The fact is, most humans do not live in the wild. We have the privilege of living in a modern society, where I can walk down to a supermarket and make diet choices (that minimises harm to animals) that do not risk my survival.

                • ozhunter on 17/01/2019 - 19:01
                  -1

                  @olkicom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w8k7xqCxxY

                  Seems like the dog doesn't need meat to survive, but chooses to eat meat instead.

                  make diet choices (that minimises harm to animals)

                  in the wild those animals would be getting ripped to shreds by other animals though

                  • olkicom on 17/01/2019 - 19:09
                    +10

                    @ozhunter: Humans are much smarter than dogs, a person can look at the impacts that their lifestyle has on other people and/or animals and accordingly, adjust their lifestyle if they choose to. Dogs are obviously incapable of this and know nothing but what tastes good to them. I wouldn't be using them as a guide to my own lifestyle choices.

                    And yeah, you're right. Brutal predation is going to happen in the wild but there's nothing I could (or want) to do about that. But as I see it, that is a better alternative to systematically raising (often in horrible conditions) and slaughtering millions of animals every day.

                    • ozhunter on 17/01/2019 - 20:52
                      -3

                      @olkicom:

                      Dogs are obviously incapable of this

                      Doesn't change the fact they would still kill other animals

                      I wouldn't be using them as a guide to my own lifestyle choices.

                      I don't either. But if you're fine with other animals being carnivores, then you shouldn't have a problem with humans.

                      Brutal predation is going to happen in the wild but there's nothing I could (or want) to do about that.

                      Well, what about if you killed every carnivore?

                      But as I see it, that is a better alternative to systematically raising (often in horrible conditions)

                      I'd support treating farm animals better. I don't have a problem with that.

                      and slaughtering millions of animals every day.

                      If humans don't, then other animals will. I'd say humans are capable of killing them more humanely.

                      • olkicom on 17/01/2019 - 21:49
                        +8

                        @ozhunter:

                        Doesn't change the fact they would still kill other animals

                        Yes. That is true.

                        I don't either. But if you're fine with other animals being carnivores, then you shouldn't have a problem with humans.

                        I believe humans have the ability to make an informed and conscious decision to change their diet in this way that other animals cannot. So to me, there is a distinction between a dog eating meat and a human eating meat.

                        Well, what about if you killed every carnivore?

                        Why would I want to do that?

                        If humans don't, then other animals will. I'd say humans are capable of killing them more humanely.

                        Other animals wouldn't be systematically raising and slaughtering millions of other animals in place of humans.

                        • ozhunter on 17/01/2019 - 22:57
                          -1

                          @olkicom:

                          So to me, there is a distinction between a dog eating meat and a human eating meat.

                          To me, if other animals are allowed to kill to eat meat, then so can humans.

                          Why would I want to do that?

                          Isn't the whole reason you're against eating meat is because you have to kill the animal? If you killed a 100 lions, wouldn't that save thousands of zebras and buffalos?

                          Other animals wouldn't be systematically raising and slaughtering millions of other animals in place of humans.

                          But those animals would still be slaughtering other animals in the millions.

                          Just curious, are you against people having pets? My parents have 2 dogs. Is it ok if I kill other animals so I can feed those dogs?

                          • olkicom on 18/01/2019 - 14:28
                            +9

                            @ozhunter:

                            To me, if other animals are allowed to kill to eat meat, then so can humans.

                            If you think that is a fair rationalisation for eating meat then that is your decision to make. But animals engage in many acts of cruelty that most reasonable people agree to be immoral, e.g. rape and murder. For this reason, I personally tend to avoid using animal behaviours to justify my own.

                            Isn't the whole reason you're against eating meat is because you have to kill the animal? If you killed a 100 lions, wouldn't that save thousands of zebras and buffalos?

                            I am more concerned with non-violent approaches to influence human choices. 1. Unlike other animals, humans can be reasoned with. 2. Humans have effectively removed themselves from the natural environment and should therefore be held accountable to higher standards than animals in the wild. We can already see this in society which has set up laws that govern how people should live in a civilised society. These laws obviously have no bearing on animals in the wild, nor should they.

                            Lions are carnivores and I can't fault them for killing and eating meat in order to survive. They belong to completely different circumstances to you and me. I'm not an expert but as I understand it, ecosystems operate on a balance of herbivores, carnivores, etc. I suspect that selectively killing carnivores would cause more problems than it would solve.

                            But those animals would still be slaughtering other animals in the millions.

                            Not nearly to the same scale as humans do.

                            Just curious, are you against people having pets?

                            Honestly, I'm on the fence regarding pet ownership. Pets can bring a lot of joy into peoples' lives and people can bring a lot of joy into pets' lives. Although most people care about their pets there are unfortunately so many animals out there that are abused, mistreated and neglected.

                            My parents have 2 dogs. Is it ok if I kill other animals so I can feed those dogs?

                            I don't know much about canine nutrition to really comment on this. But if meat is essential to a dogs' wellbeing, then yes.

                            • ozhunter on 18/01/2019 - 15:16
                              +1

                              @olkicom:

                              I am more concerned with non-violent approaches to influence human choices.

                              What do you mean by this? So it's the act of killing the main reason and not that the animal feels pain? I eat meat because it tastes good and for nutrition, not because I'd have a thrill of killing the animal.

                              Not nearly to the same scale as humans do.

                              Possibly true, but each individual animal would still only be killed once.

                              Do insects hold the same value to you as other animals such as cats, dogs, cows, pigs, etc?

                              • olkicom on 18/01/2019 - 17:59
                                +2

                                @ozhunter:

                                What do you mean by this? So it's the act of killing the main reason and not that the animal feels pain?

                                I believe that I can live just fine without eating meat. Therefore, the act of raising, inflicting suffering and killing them for my food is inhumane.

                                Possibly true, but each individual animal would still only be killed once.

                                Humans force animals into conditions that cultivate unnatural levels of procreation, sometimes through forced impregnation (artificial insemination). The scale at which humans are conducting this is aimed to meet the astronomical demands of people. Animals in the wild do not have the capacity to accomplish this. In other words, ending factory farming means that these animals would not be brought into this world and forced into their often miserable life of captivity for our desires.

                                Do insects hold the same value to you as other animals such as cats, dogs, cows, pigs, etc?

                                No, they lack the mental and physical capacity to perceive emotion or pain to the same extent that cats, dogs, pigs do. Believe it or not but I much value the life of a human over a farm animal's. That doesn't mean that I think I have the right to abuse and kill them because they taste good when I can live just fine otherwise.

            • CJ31 on 17/01/2019 - 18:52
              +1

              @olkicom: Utter nonsense. The bush is overrun with feral camels, feral donkeys, feral goats, feral pigs, feral deer, feral buffalo, feral cattle, feral rabbits, feral horses etc. Much like feral cats and dogs, they survive just fine.

        • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 13:58
          +1

          My view is that it's impractical not to eat meat. What now?

          • olkicom on 18/01/2019 - 14:29

            @HighAndDry: In what ways do you think it is impractical?

            • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 15:04
              +1

              @olkicom: Meat is much more readily available than other sources of certain nutrients, proteins and amino acids (like Lysine).

              • olkicom on 18/01/2019 - 18:20
                +3

                @HighAndDry: I looked up where lysine can be obtained in vegan sources. You can find lysine in foods such as lentils, soy-based foods, beans and nuts. These are available in abundance in supermarkets.

                People don't need as much protein as they often think. This article mentions 0.8 grams of protein per kg body weight. Regardless, I feel this is a common misconception of vegan diets because there are actually many plant-based sources of protein. I haven't personally experienced any symptoms of protein deficiency nor have any of the vegans that I know.

        • trapper on 18/01/2019 - 18:47

          Cows don't need a combine harvester to eat grass.

          Also cows are killed humanely, unlike the millions of small critters torn apart by combine harvesters.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join