• Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      133
      arrow-down
      39
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Vegans consume fewer plants than anyone else. It takes a LOT of plants to raise a cow, pig, or chicken. From an economic point of view, meat is a way of refining mountains of cheap, plentiful, safe plant products into a scarce, harmful and addictive luxury product. This comes up a lot, you’d be amazed how many plants rights activists your average vegan runs into.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        the same plants that are being fed to animals are the plants that we eat too. animals are mostly said crop seconds or parts of plants the people can’t or won’t eat.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Wouldn’t you need to decimate the population of cows, pigs, and chickens in order to reduce their environmental impact? This argument always invokes an image of Thanos wiping out half the universe in order to ‘save’ it, but the people making this argument never seem to be receptive to acknowledging this point and just hand wave this step away.

        • Holomew@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          The population of livestock is artificially high because of meat industries. Additionally, all animals in a meat producing farm will be killed already. That’s the entire purpose. Simply slowing the reproductive rate of the industry would reduce the populations on a fairly short timeline. I’m a meat eater myself, but using the killing of animals as an argument AGAINST slowing meat production is not very logical.

        • Landsharkgun@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          Which would you prefer? A thousand people living freely or a hundred thousand people living in cages too small to stand up in?

          Get outta here with pretending that big number = better. Those animals are raised in horrifying conditions explictly to be slaughtered. They wouldn’t exist in the first place except for the cruelty and greed of the meat industry. We routinely acknowledge that there are ‘fates worse than death’ for people, but when it comes to animals people seem to forget that. With the ending of the meat industry, fewer animals would exist, but they would be much better cared for.

          • Cypher@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            Ending the meat industry would result in the extinction of breeds we have engineered for meat and milk production.

            Ending factory farming would significantly reduce numbers and increase quality of life for the animals.

        • anar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Meat eaters are already decimating populations, they are Thanos with a universe conveyor belt, clicking every second.

      • fsxylo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        64
        ·
        2 months ago

        Vegans: we’ll have only a little vegetable cruelty, as a treat.

        Whatever keeps the high horse fed.

        • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          39
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          You’re going to have to unpack this a bit more for me.

          Edit: Ohhhh, you’re another one of those plant rights activists. Buddy, I eat plants for breakfast. You know what? Now I’m going to eat twice as many plants, just because it upsets you.

          • fsxylo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            28
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Oh no, you’re not better than anyone! Tragic.

            Assholes like wiping shit off. Which is what the block button does to you.

            • antiabed@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              2 months ago

              Dumbest person on the internet today award goes to…… YOU!!! Congratulations 🎉🏆🎉

              • fsxylo@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                15
                ·
                2 months ago

                Either that’s true, and I can’t read your comment anyways, or it’s not and you’re a dipshit.

                • copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Real classy of you to do the toddler thing of sticking your fingers in your ear and going “la la la I can’t hear you”. (It’ll be an honor to share a spot on your block list with these other two fellas.)

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        35
        ·
        2 months ago

        Unless you count grass and non-human consumables and non-potable water…sure…until then that’s bullshit.

        • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          51
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          How is that bullshit? I am not vegan, but that’s just a scientific consensus and a major reason why plant diet is way lower carbon than a meat diet. If you need to grow plant food for your animal food, eventually you have to grow way more plant food.
          Most animals raised for meat consumption are fed with crops, notably soy, not wild grass.
          Thinking animals raised for meat only consume resources (land (first cause of biodiversity loss), plants, water, energy) that would not be useful to humans anyway is undoubtedly wrong.

          Researchers Poore and Nemecek are a great source of meta-analysis information about those subjects. Check this summary here for example: http://environmath.org/2018/06/17/paper-of-the-day-poore-nemecek-2018-reducing-foods-environmental-impacts/

          Let me know if I misunderstood your point.

          • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s less important that such arguments be factually accurate than that they are superficially convincing enough to distract the person giving the argument from thoughts and feelings they are unwilling to process.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            26
            ·
            2 months ago

            https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/50901500/px-based_v3.2/educ-matrls/pdfs/HO_what-cows-eat.pdf

            We do not feed them food we can eat, it would be such a waste to do so. We literally feed them shit we cannot consume. Feeds are made from roots/stalks/inedible plants.

            The vegan industry doesn’t like this, so they say well that land could be used for other things, when in reality it’s already being used for the food that we eat.

            • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              21
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              They are also fed grains and soy in varying percentage depending on regions and countries.
              There is also still the use of land, energy, fresh water and the methane emissions typical of cows.

              This is another break down of the above-mentioned study: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

              You can see that indeed, the USA does better than other countries on not dedicating crops to animal feed, but it is still about 14%, while the world average is around 40%. Isn’t that a lot that could be earned back?

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                2 months ago

                The majority of the land used for cattle grazing is not suitable for farmland. It’s either to hilly or rocky or just plain doesn’t have great soil. Not to mention the level of crops it would require to feed people and the amount of people who just cannot sustain on a all vegan diet. There is a reason we are omnivores and not herbivores.

                • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  This is also covered by the study and the article I shared above. It would require using more lands for crops that feed people, but that’s ridiculously small compared to the land that would be regained from stopping animal agriculture, which is 75%. Just removing cows would do the vast majority of that.

                  Crops for feed can be regained and if most pasture land is inappropriate for crops, some are, so we would gain from freeing those too. Furthermore, this land can be given back to biodiversity, which will also benefit us in the long term, if just protecting biodiversity for the sake of it is not a good argument for you.

                  Again, I am not vegan, I mostly advocate for reducing, not forbidding, consumption proportionally to ecological impact. If some people for medical reason require meat, I’m completely fine with it, this would likely be a small percentage of the current consumption.

                  Omnivore, not obligate carnivore except for a few exceptions maybe, so we could use a low meat diet or a fully plant based diet fine.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    this land can be given back to biodiversity,

                    there is no reason to think this is going to happen. they’ll build a mall or a skyscraper.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    poore-nemecek is based on misreading LCA studies. LCA as a measurement is not transferable between studies. poore-nemececk just went through and did averages. it’s not good science. it’s not even science.

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    This is also covered by the study and the article I shared above. It would require using more lands for crops that feed people, but that’s ridiculously small compared to the land that would be regained from stopping animal agriculture, which is 75%. Just removing cows would do the vast majority of that.

                    Again the majority of the land used for cattle is not suitable for crops. So unless you plan on putting houses on that land it’s not going to be used for anything anyways.

                    Crops for feed can be regained and if most pasture land is inappropriate for crops, some are, so we would gain from freeing those too. Furthermore, this land can be given back to biodiversity, which will also benefit us in the long term, if just protecting biodiversity for the sake of it is not a good argument for you.

                    O it would be great to have more biodiversity, we need all the insects we can get, but cows aren’t killing off our insect populations, growing crops and spraying pesticides are. Which don’t even get me started on organic…they use organic pesticides which are way more devastating to the environment.

                    Again, I am not vegan, I mostly advocate for reducing, not forbidding, consumption proportionally to ecological impact. If some people for medical reason require meat, I’m completely fine with it, this would likely be a small percentage of the current consumption.

                    In honesty, we need vertical farms and lab grown meat. If that could be pulled off then we’d be golden. I’m not against eating plants, but I’m not someone who likes that militant vegans come in and spew bullshit just because they want to feel morally superior to people who eat meat.

                    Omnivore, not obligate carnivore except for a few exceptions maybe, so we could use a low meat diet or a fully plant based diet fine.

                    https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/how-to-maintain-a-balanced-diet-as-a-vegetarian-or-vegan#%3A~%3Atext=Opt+for+vitamin+D-fortified%2CStarting+slowly.

                    The issue isn’t that we can’t, it’s that the majority of people already eat like crap, which meat helps fill in the blanks. If we went to all plant based, people would still eat like crap and be missing vitamin D and protein.

                    Also a good chunk of us are already eating a low meat diet because that shit is expensive.

                • ThoGot@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  The majority of the land used for cattle grazing is not suitable for farmland.

                  But why should land be treated in that binary? How much biodiversity is being destroyed just to keep cattle or some other animals instead of keeping it in its natural state?

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    In it’s natural state bison would have been grazing on it. That also doesn’t solve the gripe that vegans have which is that land could be used for crops, which really destroys the biodiversity of land. At least with cattle, you just let them eat anything that grows. Horses are usually terrible for biodiversity because people mow the land and want nice lush fields, were as cattle farmers don’t, they let the cows eat roughage which is actually healthier for them. They also rotate pastures a lot more than most horse people do.

                • catloaf@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Pretty well, actually. Grasses like corn, wheat, rice, and oats make up a substantial portion of the typical diet.

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Cool, can’t grow that shit where cattle graze. We also…once again do not feed things that we can consume to cows. It literally would be a massive waste of money.

        • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          What figures are you basing your ignorance off of? The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals. Animal ag is one of the largest consumers of fresh (ie “potable”) water. There are ten animals living in human possession for every human on Earth. Without intensive plant agriculture, we could not possibly feed them all. Grass and run-off is not what is producing your food.

          And since we are specifically discussing the hypothetical suffering of plants, why wouldn’t you count grass? You’re triggered.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals

            That’s a lie. 2/3 of the world’s crop calories go directly to people. One third of the world’s crop calories go to livestock, but that’s as the other user is mentioning, mostly crop seconds or parts of plants that we can’t eat.

          • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals.

            It’s not that clear, it depends on the country. See the part about share of cereals dedicated to animal feed in this link, it’s about 15% in the USA and the rest of the feed is byproducts of crops used for human reasons. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            What figures are you basing your ignorance off of? The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals. Animal ag is one of the largest consumers of fresh (ie “potable”) water. There are ten animals living in human possession for every human on Earth. Without intensive plant agriculture, we could not possibly feed them all. Grass and run-off is not what is producing your food.

            No they are not. They eat the shit we cannot eat, they graze the majority of their lives and we use non potable water to water them. The feed we feed them is not made with anything that a human could consume. It’s roots/stalks/inedible plants. This bullshit that keeps being promoted by vegans that everything a cow can eat is bullshit.

            And since we are specifically discussing the hypothetical suffering of plants, why wouldn’t you count grass? You’re triggered.

            Because your entire point was that vegans consume less plants than anyone else, which is basically saying “vegans are still better than meat eaters” it’s more hilarious dick wagging from you chods.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Lol I’m butthurt? Lol you vegans are fucking hilariously ignorant bunch. You’re like religious zealots too, all high and mighty with an ignorant levels of information being spewed to you.

                • swim@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  This is the epitome of projection, FYI. All this wasted energy and impotent vitriol, railing against a non-existent evil (“the vegan industry?” seriously sad), defending the (actually malignant) status quo for free. It’s exhausting feeling so sorry for you

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    What status quo? Lol the majority of your food comes from small farms, not these mega corps that everyone seems to think exist. Farming is a fuck ton of work for little reward, it’s why most younger people are selling their parents farms vs taking over the business.

        • NFord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Are you saying grass aren’t plants? Why would it matter if the plant is consumable by humans if vegans are trying to minimize suffering?

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            22
            ·
            2 months ago

            Because they’re not about minimizing suffering, it’s about being morally superior to meat eaters and letting everyone know about it. The post I replied to, literally made that a point.

      • rtxn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        2 months ago

        I challenge you to make an appetizing meal out of the plants (and specific cultivars!) used as animal feed.

    • inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      75
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      If you think pigs, chickens and cows have the same level of awareness and perception as broccoli, tomatoes or potatoes than you’re the potato.

      Humans have to eat and with the exception of a few minerals like salt, everything edible to humans is alive on some level. Vegansisn is making an ethical choice about reducing what causes the most pain fear and suffering in another. If I were to develop cancer, a tape worm or a virus should I also allow those living things to thrive as well or does “Uh, now what?” also apply to antibiotics?

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you think pigs, chickens and cows have the same level of awareness and perception as broccoli, tomatoes or potatoes than you’re the potato.

        Eat people because they’re potatoes, got it!

        Or wait, it’s “than”? Hmm…no, I can’t think of how to turn it into a joke with a punchline of “than” being there instead of “then”, lol

      • GladiusB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        2 months ago

        How about I just get to eat meat because I consider it far more humane to be more efficient about proteins? And eggs and cheeses are more efficient with all sorts of aminos.

        As much as I respect vegans I also don’t agree with their approach. I am of the opinion (as is most biologists) that we are omnivores.

        • inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          (as is most biologists) that we are omnivores.

          No vegans dispute this. In fact that is a large reason we point that meat is not a necessity to a healthy diet like many claim.

          But fundamentally I’m not here to talk about veganism. You are entitled to your own beliefs, I only wanted to provide a complete answer to the “hypocritical vegans” comment that appears in every thread paints feeling pain. While I personally think deciding that things are most “humane” when they are “efficient” for you regardless of the effect it has on others is selfish and motivated reasoning, thus unethical. But this thread nor community is a place to discuss ethics, I clearly illuminated why equating plant rights and animal rights is silly, so frankly I would just like to end the discussion there. Thanks.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            No vegans dispute this.

            I’ve actually seen vegans dispute that. I have no problem with veganism. It is not a bad idea. I don’t eat meat, but I do not have the willpower (or the money) to be a vegan.

            But I have seen that.

            • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              (or the money) to be a vegan.

              That’s an urban myth as the whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper and it’s only the prepackaged supermarket vegan alternatives that are more expensive on average.

              There are several products that are more expensive in any diet like waygu steak or decades old wine.

              Oxford University research has today revealed that, in countries such as the US, the UK, Australia and across Western Europe, adopting a vegan, vegetarian, or flexitarian diet could slash your food bill by up to one-third.

              Source

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                Your paste:

                adopting a vegan, vegetarian, or flexitarian diet could slash your food bill by up to one-third.

                Me:

                I don’t eat meat

                Either you did not read my post or you ignored it to lecture me anyway. Either way, you are not here in good faith.

                • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  I’m only disputing your claim that the “vegan diet is expensive.”

                  Claiming the vegan diet is expensive when a comprehensive study by Oxford on the topic says otherwise necessitates reexamining the claim.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    I did not say that. Do not put it in quotes because that is not what I said.

                    I said:

                    I do not have the willpower (or the money) to be a vegan.

                    Because we’re fucking poor.

                    Also there’s this issue: https://lemmy.world/post/18940775

                    Believe it or not, the plant-based version of Ensure is a lot more expensive and I’d like to not starve to death if it’s all the same to you.

                    Maybe learn a little about a person before pointing fingers, especially when they’re on your side.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    That’s study doesn’t cover people who have some or all of their food subsidized or provided for free, people who hunt fish or trap for their food, nor those who raise their own. it covers nobody who is working poor, only people who pay full retail price for all their food.

          • GladiusB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 month ago

            Well I do think getting protein from many sources makes more sense and easier to obtain. Are there other options? Absolutely. But how available are they at all times and how much do I need to eat to get the same amount? I hear what you are saying by selfishness but we kind of have to be. It’s what fuels this giant meat puppet I move around daily.

            • Jon_Servo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              20
              ·
              1 month ago

              Many sources of protein

              You think vegans just eat blocks of tofu all day? My diet has never been more varied and flavorful than when I went vegan. Every single environmental impact study says animal agriculture is a bane to our continued existence, and it goes so far beyond that. Our lands and crops are swallowed up by this ever-rotating machine of suffering and murder that affects the lives of billions of land animals every year, which die terrified and in pain. No “varied protein” myth is worth so much suffering.

              • prosp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 month ago

                And now it seems we can say the same with plants. Life per se is bad because it is based on a predatory scheme. We need to eat more living things in order to keep living…

                • Teppichbrand@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Vegan Bullshit Bingo
                  #22: Plants have feelings too

                  No, they do not. There is no serious study to suggest that they do. Plants do not have a brain or central nervous system. At most, they respond to stimuli. If you really care that much about the welfare of plants, you should go vegan, since many more plants “die” for animal feeding. Do you feel bad while mowing your lawn? And would you rather rescue a potted plant than a dog from a burning house? Is docking pig tails the same as branch trimming to you? Question upon question…

              • GladiusB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 month ago

                No. One of my sisters is a vegan and we have had extensive talks about it. Yea garbanzo and peanut butter are great power packed availability. But peanut butter only goes so far. Garbanzo needs a massive amount to match isolated whey or anything close.

                I totally agree with the environmental impact. I wish I could have locally sourced options that wouldn’t impact the environment so much.

                • Jon_Servo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  I love how micromanaging nutrition only ever comes up when veganism is mentioned. Do you think people who gorge themselves on steak and cheeseburgers are inherently healthier than someone with a vegan diet because they consume animal protein? You might be shocked to learn that the densest source of protein doesn’t come from an animal.

                  EDIT: You DO have local sources available to you. It’s in the same grocery store you buy slaughtered animals from.

                  • GladiusB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    That isn’t factual. The diversity of food is different in every area. And it doesn’t come up just in veganism. Nutritionists and athletes talk about it often.

                • Teppichbrand@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Local meat is not better for the environment. Scientific information is only one click away. Look at this graph, it’s impressive. Plus:

                  Vegan Bullshit Bingo
                  #11 I only eat organic and regional

                  While seemingly 99% of people say this about themselves, the proportion of organic meat in virtually all western countries is less than 2%. Maybe you consciously buy organic products for the big feast, but then in everyday life you go get your weekly hamburger, the restaurant around the corner, or “just this once” prefer to reach for the somewhat cheaper discount products. Moreover, in organic farming, animals suffer and die in the same way. Organic cannot solve the core problems: Murder and exploitation for pleasure. The goal is more about soothing the conscience of consumers rather than actually helping the animals.

        • Landsharkgun@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          What? The entire point of veganism is that it is an entire order of magnitude more efficient than eating meat. Turns out all the land we use to feed animals we can just grow soybeans on instead. Speaking of which, you want amino acids? Wanna take a guess what has all the amino acids you need? That’s right, tofu! It’s widely recognized as the healthiest source of protein possible. That sets it apart from red or processed meat, which actively gives you heart disease and cancer.

          Look, I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong. If you want to eat meat despite the facts indicating you shouldn’t, that’s fine. Same as you can decide to smoke cigarettes and drive a Hummer. Just be aware that it’s worse for both you and the entire planet.

          • GladiusB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            Excessive soy beans has side effects as well. Most nutritionists (like doctors) agree that plant based with diversity of meats is the healthier option.

            • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              You don’t need those animal products for nothing. As most doctors are carnists and do not fully understand nutrition because they have not studied the topic much in their training.

              The objective of this article is to present to physicians an update on plant-based diets. Concerns about the rising cost of health care are being voiced nationwide, even as unhealthy lifestyles are contributing to the spread of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. For these reasons, physicians looking for cost-effective interventions to improve health outcomes are becoming more involved in helping their patients adopt healthier lifestyles. Healthy eating may be best achieved with a plant-based diet, which we define as a regimen that encourages whole, plant-based foods and discourages meats, dairy products, and eggs as well as all refined and processed foods. We present a case study as an example of the potential health benefits of such a diet. Research shows that plant-based diets are cost-effective, low-risk interventions that may lower body mass index, blood pressure, HbA1C, and cholesterol levels. They may also reduce the number of medications needed to treat chronic diseases and lower ischemic heart disease mortality rates. Physicians should consider recommending a plant-based diet to all their patients, especially those with high blood pressure, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or obesity.

              Source

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            The entire point of veganism is that it is an entire order of magnitude more efficient than eating meat.

            the definition provided by the vegan society makes no mention of efficiency.

        • heraplem@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          How about I just get to eat meat because I consider it far more humane to be more efficient about proteins?

          What does this have to do with anything? This is bringing efficiency to an ethics fight.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        In the same way that cultists give human sacrifices to Cthulhu specifically to eat.

        I’m pretty sure the fruits are screaming too.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          The whole deal is that we get to eat the fruit, and in return we provide the seeds within with a nice nitrogen-rich deposition nice and far from the parent plant.

          It’s not a death cult, it’s a sex cult. The fruits might be screaming, but not in pain

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            And the deal with Cthulhu is that he gets to devour whoever you’ve sacrificed, and in return he provides a benefit to the survivors: allowing them to live long enough to provide more sacrifices. It’s basically the same deal.

            Also, if anyone reading this happens to be a seed on a fruit meant to be devoured by humans then I have bad news about your final destination: it’s rather a stinky place that is not in any way conducive to your growth. The cake is a lie.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              It’s basically the same deal

              It’s not even remotely similar.

              Also, that “stinky place” to us is heaven to a plant. Kinda how the foul oxygen they excrete is life-giving air to us.

              • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                The stinky place isn’t soil. It’s a sewer or a landfill, because that’s where human waste ends up. Neither can support plant life because they are devoid of light, just like the realm of Cthulhu.

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Doesn’t change the plant-animal arrangement from the perspective of the plant, it’s still freely given. We just hold up our end through agriculture.

                  • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    It’s freely given by a plant just as human sacrifices are freely given by a cult.

    • heraplem@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      What? The fact that plants physically react to being cut has absolutely no bearing on whether they have conscious experience.

      • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Well, not in any way that we can relate to anyway. But that was the same with animals much earlier.

        • heraplem@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          How much earlier are we talking? I bet if you asked prehistoric hunter-gatherers whether they thought animals experienced pain, they woulds say yes. The idea that animals were automata comes from Descartes.

      • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Maybe hundreds of years from now we can synthesize nutrients without involving any living cells. At that point, it could be seen as unethical to enslave, murder and eat billions of microbial cells. For the time being, our life still depends on other living things, so better get comfortable with having mixed feelings about survival.

        • LostXOR@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Technically we can, it’s just so expensive as to be completely out of the question.

          • catloaf@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            But they’re working on it!

            Personally, I’m still just waiting on lab meat.

          • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            Doing chemistry by mixing chemicals is like fumbling in the dark. You tend to have ridiculously low yield, because you can’t really control which reaction takes place. It’s just a game of probabilities, which makes this gamble really expensive.

            Living cells are doing chemistry the right way by combining specific materials and making specific products. Enzymes are very picky, but with them you can actually control the reactions. Making enzymes is just next level complexity and a story for another time.

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            You’re right, I should have written “No, it isn’t.” Fixed.

            So, no, it isn’t the response the author was looking for.

            • Optional@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Fair.

              Disagree, but fair.

              There’s absolutely NO WAY, not even a scintilla of a percent, that the author did not expect the king kind of discussion we’re seeing here to take place. None.