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

    • bobbified on 17/01/2019 - 19:04
      +1

      … or cocaine?

      Hello Mr Big Spender!

      • [Deactivated] on 18/01/2019 - 12:01

        8 ball baller.

  • qwerty on 17/01/2019 - 15:26
    +2

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

    • buckster on 17/01/2019 - 15:38
      +1

      Good luck pooping!

      • [Deactivated] on 18/01/2019 - 12:02
        +1

        You could probably use those bricks to build apartments. Less likely to have cracks.

  • [Deactivated] on 17/01/2019 - 15:28
    +3

    Arnold Schwarzenegger recommends 1 gram of meat protein for every pound of bodyweight.

    • Neverpayretail on 17/01/2019 - 20:35
      +1

      For the average Joe Slob 250 grams is ridiculous and potentially even dangerous as excess protien causes kidney damage. You need to remember that was when arnie was a body builder.

      • trapper on 18/01/2019 - 14:33

        For people of healthy weight…

        If you're 250 pounds of muscle then 250g of meat is hardly going to touch the sides. If you're 250 pounds of average joe slob then half of your bodyweight is fat so you only need half that amount of meat.

        • ozmma on 19/01/2019 - 10:16

          Still it's 125g not 14

          • trapper on 22/01/2019 - 14:19

            @ozmma: The point being that 14g is ridiculous

            • Neverpayretail on 24/01/2019 - 09:10

              @trapper: No its not 250 grams of protein is almost 3 times what is recommended for an ELITE athlete. For an average person its around 50g and people forget Bread, vegetables, nuts, milk and eggs all have protein in them.

              Just out of curiousity I decided to check the protein content of my lunch, ingredients bread and peanut butter.

              Bread Lawsons Settlers Grain 2 slices = 11.9 grams of protien or 23% of RDI of protien
              Peanut butter Mayvers Dark Roasted 1 Tablespoon = 5 grams of protein

              Total Sandwichs worth of protein 16.9 grams and if I have my normal two sandwich lunch I get 33.8 grams of protein and thats assuming I go light on the peanut butter. That means Two Peanut butter sandwiches contain 67.6% of my daily protein intake.

              Thats before eggs (12 grams) and cerial (4.3 grams) for breakfast

              Holy shit I just added 33.8 +12 grams + 4.3 and I am already Exceeding my daily requirements for protein. Especially when I consider I have a vegetable stir fry prepared for dinner!

              It is ridiculously easy to meet daily protein requirements without meat (altho I do eat it my self). In truth I probably eat too much meat given the high protien nature of the foods I like.

              • trapper on 24/01/2019 - 13:19

                @Neverpayretail: RDI is your minimum requirement not your maximum.

                Eat less than that and you will literally be malnourished.

                • Neverpayretail on 24/01/2019 - 13:59

                  @trapper: Nope.
                  "The Reference Daily Intake (RDI) is the daily intake level of a nutrient that is considered to be sufficient to meet the requirements of 97–98% of healthy individuals in every demographic" The reason 97-98% of healthy individuals is stated is it doesn't count people like elite atheletes who place unusual strain on their bodies but for anyone else any more is EXCESS that is not used by the body.

                  • trapper on 24/01/2019 - 17:35

                    @Neverpayretail: The quote agrees with me lol

                    "RDI is the daily intake level of a nutrient that is considered to be sufficient" - So any less is insufficient, ie malnourishment. Think about it.

                    • Neverpayretail on 24/01/2019 - 18:27

                      @trapper: No you can be below the RDI and still not be malnourished. You can be over an RDI and Still be malnourished "Overnutrition caused by overeating is also a form of malnutrition". You are wrong it is not a matter of minimums it isn't below the RDI you are malnourished and over you are fine. What RDI represent is the area in which you are unlikely to suffer malnourishment either through through a lack of nutrient so RDIs are "padded" to keep fringe cases safe while avioding malnourishment cuased by toxicity levels or complications cuased by not being able to excrete excess safely. The latter is the issue with protein.

                      My point in objecting was your fundamental lack of understanding as to what malnourishment was. I get why you don't understand it we are always shown starving people as examples of malnourishment but the reality it a digestive system can be overworked it loses efficiency and simply stops absorbing nutrients. In many ways this is more dangerous simply becuase it not as obvious. You can definitely have dangerous levels of protein and when you do you do not have a suffienct level of protein you have an excess. That excess is as dangerous as the lack of it. I could go on about body builders often being malnourished becuase of the effects of excess protein or carbs but my point might be lost in the detail.

                      My point being to have more than what is suffient is dangerous and its not just about minimums as you put it as malnourishment exists where excess is found also.

                      Edit: Also you can be below RDIs for months for some nutrients as your body stores them long term. Just becuase you are below your RDI doesn't equal malnourishment.

    • [Deactivated] on 18/01/2019 - 12:02

      How many times a day?

  • altomic on 17/01/2019 - 15:50
    +4

    haven't eaten meat in 25 years.

    edit - "consciously/deliberately" eaten meat.

    • Ms Bargainer on 17/01/2019 - 16:09
      +4

      I have not eaten meat in 37 years.

      • ihbh on 17/01/2019 - 16:58

        How do you maintain a balanced diet without the meat?

      • HighAndDry on 17/01/2019 - 17:08
        +1

        Now now, it's not a competition…

    • ihbh on 17/01/2019 - 16:58

      How do you maintain a balanced diet without the meat?

      • altomic on 17/01/2019 - 18:08
        +3

        you sound like an American who asks - "How do you maintain freedom without the guns?"

        because you don't need to eat meet.

        • ihbh on 17/01/2019 - 18:22
          +1

          I mean do you have to take B12 supplements, eat more beans/nuts etc? Just questions from a relative newbie.

          • altomic on 17/01/2019 - 18:35
            +1

            @ihbh: sorry, I assumed a "sarcastic" tone.

            no supplements.

            red kidney beans and chick peas are regularly part of my diet - but that's because of their taste and convenience (annalisa cans are currently 60cents @ IGA).

            occasionally nuts - cashews or pistachios - not a dietary requirement, I just love the taste- eat pistachios until your fingers are raw from opening shells and you feel ill from excessive consumption.

            my evening meals may consist of:
            curries (indian + thai) - with or without rice
            various pastas + various sauces
            home made pizza
            "gourmet" sandwiches
            vegie burgers
            various steamed vegies - with a finishing sauce or butter
            mi goreng noodles
            stirfry veges
            fried rice
            risotto
            eggs - omelettes. quiche, boiled eggs

            I'll keep thinking of things

            I occasionally use tofu in my cooking

            • ihbh on 17/01/2019 - 19:20

              @altomic: Is it just you that's meatless or the whole family? It's much harder with just one.

              I have 4 main go to meals at the moment:

              • oats and flaxseed with seasonal fruit (breakfast and sometimes lunch as well)
              • veg/fruit smoothie (usually morning and arvo)
              • bean and veg stew (throughout day)

              • sometimes bowls of salad (throughout day)

              • nuts and peanut butter thoughout day but not as a meal - I love it too.

              I leverage off the brown/black rice and stir fried veges (and other meals) of wife and kids, who also have meat but it's reducing. I have a big pressure cooker of bean and veg stew that I have to remake ever couple of days that I eat 2-3 meals a day in addition. The family usually leverages 1 meal off my stew each day.

              I also have Burgen wholemeal bread with EVOO, avocado spread etc, when I feel like it. Also eat lots of additional fruit and veg (e.g. corn).

              The rest of the family will gradually move towards your kind of meals, which will be much more synergistic for all of us.

              • altomic on 18/01/2019 - 00:20
                +4

                @ihbh: both mrs altomic and myself are vegetarian. our middle child is vegetarian -her choice from 5 years old. our eldest and youngest (3 kids in total) may eat chicken if they want. we never verbally discouraged eating meat, but never actively "cooked" meat for our kids. we would heat/oven bake fish fillets or chicken fillets - the crumbed ones. If we were out at a restaurant or at someone elses house and they wanted meat then no problem.

                the oldest and youngest profess to be vegetarian but they may still eat chicken (and possibly other animal). it's their choice. i will never say they can't eat meat. though I don't like to store unfrozen meat products in my fridge.

                both my eldest and middle children are in the top 95th percentile for height for their age - so being vegetarian (or mostly vegetarian) has not impaired growth/development. my youngest takes after her mother who was always "slight" and is "average" height for her age

                your diet sounds a lot more "balanced" than mine. those are some good options. I should incorporate them in to my diet.

                the smoothies are good. My father in law has a daily smoothy consisting of 3 heaped spoons of greek yogurt, 1 banana, 2 scoops of unflavoured protein powder - bamix it. has the consistency of a thick shake. filling and nutritious.

                my menu today was-
                breakfast -4 espressos
                lunch - 150grams of corn chips & tub of aldi hummus
                dinner - "thai green" curry - which was pretty good.

                I've convinced my parents (traditional meat and 3 veg people) to move towards more veg + less meat. My Father-in-law is a beef farmer also has switched to a more vegetarian-oriented diet - at least less meat-centric.

      • Beanvee on 17/01/2019 - 19:47
        +1

        Eggs, beans, nuts, tofu, milk, cheese, that kind of stuff. I don't eat meat not because of veganism or anything but because I just don't really like it, but there's still plenty of ways to get protein intake.

  • ozhunter on 17/01/2019 - 16:01

    Hmmm, would be hard to on the carnivore diet.

  • klonky on 17/01/2019 - 16:07
    +3

    I only eat meat when I eat out. No need to eat it every day.

    • doodo477 on 17/01/2019 - 21:16
      +1

      Once a week for me, though rather atlantic salmon.

  • Heracles26 on 17/01/2019 - 16:11
    +7

    Proud vegetarian here and more than willing to be arrogant and claim the moral high ground (except in the presence of vegans)

    Come at me intellectually inferior carnivores

    Factory farming is untenable
    Future generations will look at our current practices the same way we look at slavery today

    • [Deactivated] on 17/01/2019 - 16:15
      +7

      What have you got against full stops?

      • Seraphin7 on 17/01/2019 - 16:20
        +2

        Eating them for sustenance.

      • Heracles26 on 17/01/2019 - 16:21
        -1

        Don't get me started!

        • [Deactivated] on 17/01/2019 - 16:23
          +2

          Are you intellectually gifted in the non-subjective sciences, or just the preachy personal choices?

      • HighAndDry on 17/01/2019 - 17:09
        +1

        Giving us "intellectually inferior carnivores" a handicap?

    • HighAndDry on 17/01/2019 - 17:11
      +3

      No jokes - carnivores in the natural biosphere play an important role in keeping numbers of animals lower than them on the food chain down to sustainable numbers. When any biosphere loses or has a shortage of apex predators, numbers of their prey species tend to get out of control, thereby unbalancing the environment.

      Given this, how do you support your apparent position (correct me if I'm wrong) that humans despite being natural omnivores (I don't think anyone is actually a carnivore) and being top of the food chain, shouldn't eat animals which are lower than them on that same food chain?

      • Heracles26 on 17/01/2019 - 18:12
        +4

        We cannot look to nature for or morals, that is the naturalistic fallacy. Rape and violence occur in nature, it doesn't mean they are good or right.

        • fantombloo on 17/01/2019 - 20:30
          +3

          Rape and violence

          you just described dairy

        • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 12:16
          -2

          But you're applying morals to an issue involving utterly amoral subjects (animals have no notion of morals).

          • manlol on 18/01/2019 - 12:20

            @HighAndDry: Oh ok, so animal cruelty is a non-issue? Do you have pets?

            • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 12:21

              @manlol: I support the ethical killing of animals for meat. I wouldn't wish the added suffering or expense of causing unnecessary pain to my food. The stress hormones that releases into the meat are also not ideal.

              • manlol on 18/01/2019 - 12:29
                -3

                @HighAndDry: Suffering and expense are generally inversely correlated when you treat a sentient being as a commodity, as in our current system.

                Is it ok for me to slowly kill a litter of kittens, as long as I get some enjoyment out of it and it doesn't lead to violence towards humans?

                I'm pretty sure you don't actually believe this.

                • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 12:31

                  @manlol:

                  Is it ok for me to slowly kill a litter of kittens, as long as I get some enjoyment out of it and it doesn't lead to violence towards humans?

                  Right. You're one of those. Have a good day.

              • Ms Bargainer on 18/01/2019 - 21:25
                +1

                @HighAndDry: There is no such thing as "ethical killing of animals for meat". Seeing, hearing and feeling the horrors inside an abattoir will confirm this. Such a belief is one held by some people to ease their conscience.

                Sorry, you were not meant to be tagged @HighAndDry.

                • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 23:48

                  @Ms Bargainer: It's far better than what would happen in nature - faster, less painful deaths.

      • olkicom on 17/01/2019 - 18:20
        +6

        It's difficult to consider humans part of the natural biosphere in modern society. Most - if not all - meat that people consume comes from farming. That is, animals that we eat do not come from their natural habitat. Therefore, I don't see how farming keeps the environment from unbalancing. On the contrary, it is animal farming that is one of the causes of environmental imbalance.

        • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 12:17

          On the contrary, it is animal farming that is one of the causes of environmental imbalance.

          But if, instead of farming, we went and hunted for our meat requirements, we would wipe out just about every species worth eating almost immediately. In that way, isn't farming preferable?

          • vvvvv on 18/01/2019 - 14:19

            @HighAndDry: What are our 'meat requirements'? As far as I'm aware we can live a perfectly healthy life without eating meat.

            • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 14:21

              @vvvvv: I think Lysine is a commonly mentioned nutrient that's hard to get from a vegan/vegetarian diet. "Can" is not the same as "is practical to".

              To use your logic, "we can live a perfectly healthy life without using man-made products." But I'm sure no one would want to actually try that.

          • macrocephalic on 18/01/2019 - 16:55

            @HighAndDry:

            But if, instead of farming, we went and hunted for our meat requirements, we would wipe out just about every species worth eating almost immediately. In that way, isn't farming preferable?

            You're correct, the numbers that we have bred to are completely unsustainable from wild game.
            But given the points already mentioned against animal farming, isn't eating less meat preferable?

            I'm not a vegetarian, but I do agree that it's more environmentally sustainable, and leads to less animal cruelty. I know I'm a hypocrite.

            • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 17:11

              @macrocephalic: I mentioned this in the straw thread too. I'm not opposed to eating less meat. I'm opposed to the notion that people think they have any right to tell others to eat less meat, or worse still, judge others for not eating less meat.

              Having said that - I personally am not going to reduce my meat intake because to me, the benefits (not just to myself, but even overall) of eating less meat isn't worth the drawbacks in terms of enjoyment and having to find other sources of protein.

              • vvvvv on 19/01/2019 - 15:36

                @HighAndDry: What are your thoughts on things like anti smoking ads? A smoker could easily apply the exact same arguments that you just made to smoking. Do you think people making these ads also have no right to tell people how to act?

      • jimburns4u on 17/01/2019 - 18:31
        +2

        That argument only only works for hunting species in the wild, not mass farming. If anything, if all humans turned to veganism billions of animals that had once been raised by humans for consumption will no longer be needed and will soon be endangered.

    • spiff on 17/01/2019 - 18:36

      Why so combative? No one cares about your lifestyle choice.

      • Heracles26 on 17/01/2019 - 18:50
        +3

        Yes but they should care. Over 60 BILLION animals are killed each year in factory farms. Think of the suffering we are inflicting on these sentient, non-human animals.

        • ozhunter on 17/01/2019 - 20:53

          Over 60 BILLION animals are killed each year in factory farms.

          Would they all survive if they weren't in farms?

          How many are killed outside the factory farms?

        • spiff on 17/01/2019 - 23:00
          +1

          No they shouldn't care. Stop projecting.

        • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 12:17

          Holy sh** you're serious. I thought your comment was just high level satire.

        • [Deactivated] on 18/01/2019 - 16:17

          Over 60 billion sentient beings are chemically killed each year in the grounds of vegetable farms and fruit orchards.

  • ozhunter on 17/01/2019 - 16:32

    I eat 3 or so eggs a day plus whatever chicken/seafood/red meat that is available. Feels weird not to eat any meat.

  • lltravel on 17/01/2019 - 17:54
    -1

    lol vegans are just as bad as the anti vaxers and the flat earthers. Bunch of idiots.

    Nature has always won. We as humans are meant to eat meat.
    You can't tell a lion or tiger not to kill another animal can you.

    • Heracles26 on 17/01/2019 - 18:16
      +4

      That is not a fair comparison at all. Most people, if they are being intellectually honest, completely accept the arguments of vegetarianism/veganism but don't make the subsequent behavioural changes

      Do a bit of reading on the naturalistic fallacy, you're argument is the easiest of all to refute. Humans are capable of higher conscious thought, we can reflect on our actions and their impacts etc. A lion or tiger cannot, they are not open to reasons.

      You give me the awful impression of someone who has not read any of the arguments against your position…

      • [Deactivated] on 17/01/2019 - 18:36
        -1

        "you're" in that context? I think you just refuted primary school grammar.

        • Heracles26 on 17/01/2019 - 18:51
          +6

          Game over, my argument has been refuted, I have failed, well done, pack it up vegan boys and girls, time to go home

          • [Deactivated] on 17/01/2019 - 18:56

            @Heracles26: You should be able to walk before you try running. Intellectually.

      • CJ31 on 17/01/2019 - 19:30
        +2

        You are an animal that places yourself outside of nature……….

      • lltravel on 17/01/2019 - 21:36
        +3

        now this vegan can claim he tried to reason with a lion or tiger. LOL this keeps getting better.

        Humans would not be at this stage if they didn't start eating meat. You should be thanking your ancestors.

        How do you go about reasoning with cavemen? They were humans were they not? They killed and hunted.

        Your logic is flawed and this silly vegan lifestyle isn't doing you any good. Goodluck on having weak children and a weak genetic line.

        • Heracles26 on 18/01/2019 - 05:48
          +1

          Who said anything about the morals of our ancestors? I certainly didn't

        • buckster on 18/01/2019 - 16:06

          *vegetarian actually if you had read the earlier post.

      • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 14:22

        Humans are capable of higher conscious thought, we can reflect on our actions and their impacts etc. A lion or tiger cannot, they are not open to reasons.

        Should humans be enforcing a vegetarian diet on wild lions and tigers?

        • macrocephalic on 18/01/2019 - 16:59

          No, because they are natural carnivores which require an entirely meat diet to survive. We are omnivores and can survive perfectly well on minimal or no meat diets.

      • cille745 on 17/02/2019 - 23:18

        I can somewhat agree with arguments that vegans make, but if they actually cared about anything other than exerting control over what people eat, to no meaningful outcome, they'd spend their time trying to help out with human issues which ends up actually helping people. You can say otherwise, but animals will always be killed for human consumption, whether it's morally right or not. So when vegans try to play the moral high ground card, I tell them to (profanity) off, because it's simply a ploy for them to exert control over me when they could be spending their time helping the less fortunate, instead of trying to save animals that are simply going to get killed anyway

    • Ahbal on 17/01/2019 - 20:16
      -1

      What vegans dont understand is the amount of animals killed to maintain large farms for their "vegan" food.

      First you have animals shot and killed. Second you have pesticides and other substances effecting the local environment, doing further damage.

      • porsche26c on 18/01/2019 - 06:33
        +2

        We as humans only advanced when we started eating meat. The brain develops faster and better with the different proteins and amino acids.

      • vvvvv on 18/01/2019 - 14:21
        +1

        I think the difference is that it's not really possible to avoid eating farmed crops, but it is possible to avoid eating meat. Vegans only try not to exploit animals as far as is practicable. Of course human life has an impact on animals, but the point of veganism is to minimise that.

      • Ms Bargainer on 18/01/2019 - 21:31

        The same size land produces more food from plants than animals raised for meat.

        • Ahbal on 18/01/2019 - 22:48

          Yeh more plants but you need to eat more. 1 steak with a side of veg is enough, whilst with a full vegan meal you will need comparatively more food for 1 meal.

          • Ibz on 19/01/2019 - 05:00

            @Ahbal: "Producing 1 kg of fresh beef may require about 13 kg of grain and 30 kg of hay (17). This much forage and grain requires about 100 000 L of water to produce the 100 kg of hay, and 5400 L for the 4 kg of grain. On rangeland for forage production, more than 200 000 L of water are needed to produce 1 kg of beef"

            David Pimentel, Marcia Pimentel; Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 78, Issue 3, 1 September 2003, Pages 660S–663S, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/78.3.660S

            Also I recall reading somewhere that we could produce 60kg of potato with the same resources used to make 1kg of beef. Veggies use comparatively much fewer resources because cows are inefficient and consume heaps of feed and water. You telling me 60x the veggies wouldn't fill you up as much as a steak?

            Ignoring all the ethical issues, raising cows and pigs especially uses way too much land and water and produces too much pollution. Have a read of this

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367646/

    • RandomFox on 19/01/2019 - 01:02

      smh

  • BrendaEagles on 17/01/2019 - 18:55
    +1

    Soylent Green will solve the meat shortage

  • Dreamcast on 17/01/2019 - 19:42
    +6

    I don't know why people hate vegans. I love them. More meat for me.

  • imurgod on 17/01/2019 - 19:44
    +1

    I love meat. I eat it around once a week or less, but I'll smash a giant steak given the opportunity, and don't start me on burrito and fajita

    • AliensStoleMyMoney on 18/01/2019 - 19:39
      +1

      same id die before i gave up HSP/AB/Yiros

      • imurgod on 19/01/2019 - 09:51
        +1

        Oh yeah…i forgot about that! I'm with you

  • Ghost47 on 17/01/2019 - 20:20
    +2

    Unlike some people in this thread, I understand that we'll probably face a food crisis in the next 50 years at current farming rates and population growth. Would I survive on 14g of meat a day? Probably not. Am I willing to cut back? For sure. If the people at Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat can make an alternative to meat that tastes like meat (that isn't just burgers), I'd go for it.

    • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 12:20

      Why hasten the inevitable if it is inevitable? If I'm going to be down to rationed meat in the future, why would I pre-emptively ration myself now?

      • macrocephalic on 18/01/2019 - 17:00
        +1

        Because by not rationing yourself you're hastening the inevitable. You sound very much like a 'I got mine, (profanity) everyone else' sort of person.

        • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 17:07

          If I do, you're not reading my comments correctly. I don't believe in individual action being able to make a difference in these things, other than to make certain people feel morally superior.

          The biggest driver of meat consumption is not people in developed countries - it's people in developing countries who're experiencing incredibly fast improvements in standard of living. Whole cities effectively who've gone from having meat once a week to now being able to afford it daily.

          • Ghost47 on 18/01/2019 - 17:24

            @HighAndDry:

            I don't believe in individual action being able to make a difference in these things, other than to make certain people feel morally superior.

            I'm sure there are individuals out there who do it not to feel morally superior (although I don't deny that those types don't exist) but because they actually care and want to make a difference, so they start with themselves.

            • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 17:28

              @Ghost47: Sorry, that wasn't my meaning. I mean that doing it individually does not make a difference other than to make some people feel superior. I'm sure many people do it with good intentions.

              • Ghost47 on 18/01/2019 - 17:36

                @HighAndDry: Yes I can see that doing it individually won't make a difference or it will have a very very very little impact, e.g. 0.0000000000000000000000001% impact or something if you could quantify it.

                But the thing is if more individuals were aware of the impact of eating meat (particularly beef) on the environment or whatever and more individuals cut back on meat then eventually it becomes a team effort due to numbers.

              • manlol on 18/01/2019 - 17:47
                +3

                @HighAndDry: Come on mate, I think you know better than to try to make this argument. The human population is comprised entirely of individuals. Individuals matter.

                A supermarket may not reduce their regular daily order of chickens if one person stops buying them, but if 100 people do, they certainly will. Each of those individuals is responsible for that decrease, not just the 100th.

                • HighAndDry on 18/01/2019 - 17:49

                  @manlol: So going back to my previous comment:

                  The biggest driver of meat consumption is not people in developed countries - it's people in developing countries who're experiencing incredibly fast improvements in standard of living. Whole cities effectively who've gone from having meat once a week to now being able to afford it daily.

                  How many people in developing countries do you think are going to give up on meat for environmental reasons?

                  • manlol on 18/01/2019 - 18:03
                    +1

                    @HighAndDry: I actually don't understand your point, it seems like you're deflecting responsibility. You should be able to eat meat every day but not them?

                  • Ghost47 on 18/01/2019 - 18:18
                    +1

                    @HighAndDry:

                    How many people in developing countries do you think are going to give up on meat for environmental reasons?

                    The biggest driver of meat consumption may be developing countries (it'd be nice to get a source on that if you have it), but there are developed countries that consume the most meat per capita, notably the US and Australia. I can't say for certain but I suspect that meat consumption per capita in developing countries is less than developed countries (based on the size of population as well as average wage etc). Overall meat consumption in these countries may be higher (due to sheer population size), but total meat consumption and consumption per capita aren't the same metric. A person who eats 97kg of meat a year could cut back 10kg a year(~10% reduction), but a person who eats 10kg of meat a year probably couldn't cut back 10kg of meat because that's 100% of their meat consumption. Essentially the low hanging fruit are the people who consume lots of meat.

                    And just because people in developing countries may not give up meat easily doesn't mean that people of other countries shouldn't at least consider cutting back, especially considering that average meat consumption per capita can be so high in the countries such as the US, Australia, Argentina, Uruguay etc.

                    There are also exceptions to the whole developing country thing. For instance, India has like what, the second highest population on the planet yet their meat consumption per capita is very low (seems to be ~3-5kg per person from what I've seen) probably because of all the vegetarians they have.

      • Ghost47 on 18/01/2019 - 17:19

        Why hasten the inevitable if it is inevitable?

        Where did I indicate to hasten the inevitable?

        If I'm going to be down to rationed meat in the future, why would I pre-emptively ration myself now?

        I don't know, maybe to get used to not eating as much meat as you normally would when the time comes where you're forced to ration meat. Just because something is going to happen doesn't mean you can't at least prepare yourself for it.

    • trapper on 18/01/2019 - 14:15

      We have more food now than ever before. And food is only going to get more plentiful and cheaper, technology marches on.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join