Can someone be pro environment and eat meat?

[Bodakane]

Probably eating a lot of soy and contributing to the deforestation of the Amazon in the process.

If you think soy and corn aren't used in massive quantities to feed livestock, you're not informed.

[CatsNeverDie]

Yes, absolutely.
Humans are are omnivorous and their diet can be veg or non veg and they can still harm the environment by other means. Factories, cars, smoking, plastic bags etc.

[Deleted]

Can someone really be pro environment / claim they care about the environment while at the same time contributing to the biggest source of carbon footprint, deforestation and water pollution / waste by eating meat?

Can someone really be pro environment and use furniture? I mean it's dead trees or in other ways created by processes that harm the environment.

Morality isn't black and white. Supporting something doesn't mean doing everything in your power to fix the issue it addresses.

[Archon14]

Sure, local meat (by that I mean farms in villages) is still popular where I live and kind of part of tradition. If we're talking mass production, I think it's more useful to fight companies through courts and protest for better animal rights / better environment so that they have to make adjustments and change, because we evolved to care about individuals and not as collective/hivemind, so the vegans will always be a minority and mass production will continue. So in my opinion, a different approach is required.

Or maybe I'm too sceptical, we'll see in a couple of decades.

[Bodakane]

Sure, local meat (by that I mean farms in villages) is still popular where I live and kind of part of tradition. If we're talking mass production, I think it's more useful to fight companies through courts and protest for better animal rights / better environment so that they have to make adjustments and change, because we evolved to care about individuals and not as collective/hivemind, so the vegans will always be a minority and mass production will continue. So in my opinion, a different approach is required.

Or maybe I'm too skeptical, we'll see in a couple of decades.

There is no way/technique/method/etc. to meet the demand of meat and be environmentally and ethically sound, other than lab grown.

[Nihilist74]

Meat production, like every other problem humans are having is a problem due to over population. We can solve this problem in humane ways. Birth control should be free for everyone on the planet or at cost of production. Yes the earth can support more people but at a more horrible quality of life the higher the population is.

[Archon14]

There is no way/technique/method/etc. to meet the demand of meat and be environmentally and ethically sound, other than lab grown.

That's debatable. Humanity didn't see killing animals for food as ethically wrong for thousands of years, mistreatment is another story, we might be able to push animal rights further for a bigger change. Demand is also a mixed bag, in places like USA/China it's probably mission impossible, I think where I live local meat is still a bigger deal.

So my idea of a possible change is much more important for places like USA. That being said, I probably wouldn't have a problem with lab-grown meat, depending on differences from the real thing. Still, as I've said before, we're not thinking as a collective, so while I might go for the lab-grown meat myself, others maybe wouldn't and then "lab-grown meat eaters" are a minority like vegans are (right now, at least) and mass production is then still a problem.

If everyone decided to go vegan or lab-grown, that would be perfect, but you can't expect humanity to change completely like that. At least not without a many, many decades passing, during which we need to push some changes for mass production.

[Bodakane]

That's debatable. Humanity didn't see killing animals for food as ethically wrong for thousands of years, mistreatment is another story, we might be able to push animal rights further for a bigger change. Demand is also a mixed bag, in places like USA/China it's probably mission impossible, I think where I live local meat is still a bigger deal.

So my idea of a possible change is much more important for places like USA. That being said, I probably wouldn't have a problem with lab-grown meat, depending on differences from the real thing. Still, as I've said before, we're not thinking as a collective, so while I might go for the lab-grown meat myself, others maybe wouldn't and then "lab-grown meat eaters" are a minority like vegans are (right now, at least) and mass production is then still a problem.

If everyone decided to go vegan or lab-grown, that would be perfect, but you can't expect humanity to change completely like that. At least not without a many, many decades passing, during which we need to push some changes for mass production.

It's really not that debatable unfortunately.

First and foremost, the animal has to die to be eaten and most of these animals are being taken long before their time.

But let's say that's not the gripe or concern. Let's say it's just about their treatment before they're slaughtered. Demand is directly related to the mistreatment. I'll give you an example.

Mass produced meat is like every other mass produced product....it's done on an assembly line. The problem is, every other mass product isn;t a living being. In 2014, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) wanted to up the line speed (assembly line speed) to 175 birds per minute. (The link is not a vegan link. It's an industry link.)

There is no possible way to treat animals humanely at that speed. There is no way to adequately meet demand at slower speeds. The only way to solve the problem is to lower demand.

[Tack980]

Yes. You can still do environmental conservation and eat meat. Heck many places have special extra hunting seasons, and many river areas allow looser fishing rules on certain fish all because of overpopulation. And I like doing both.

[Archon14]

Mass produced meat is like every other mass produced product....it's done on an assembly line. The problem is, every other mass product isn;t a living being. In 2014, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) wanted to up the line speed (assembly line speed) to 175 birds per minute. (The link is not a vegan link. It's an industry link.)

There is no possible way to treat animals humanely at that speed. There is no way to adequately meet demand at slower speeds. The only way to solve the problem is to lower demand.

Wait, is that proposal going to happen? It seems like it has a lot of downsides, treatment of animals, quality of product, health of consumers...

And yes, lowering demand is the best option, but it's an option that's going to take a long time. We need something in the meantime, so the things like what you linked above don't happen. I'm sure you understand that most people aren't willing and the number of vegans will probably never be 100%. We still need to wait for that lab-grown thing to become real/popular.

After the number of vegans/lab-grown eaters increase, there will be a switch to local meat probably, return to old roots and whatever. Or maybe that lab-grown thing becomes a huge success and completely wrecks the normal production, who knows. But these things take time, just like any major global change.

[Bodakane]

Wait, is that proposal going to happen? It seems like it has a lot of downsides, treatment of animals, quality of product, health of consumers...

And yes, lowering demand is the best option, but it's an option that's going to take a long time. We need something in the meantime, so the things like what you linked above don't happen. I'm sure you understand that most people aren't willing and the number of vegans will probably never be 100%. We still need to wait for that lab-grown thing to become real/popular.

After the number of vegans/lab-grown eaters increase, there will be a switch to local meat probably, return to old roots and whatever. Or maybe that lab-grown thing becomes a huge success and completely wrecks the normal production, who knows. But these things take time, just like any major global change.

Yes.

Here's a link to the USDA "FAQs': link

Question: Current HIMP establishments who want to maintain their 175 bpm line speed waiver are expected to express their interest in opting into NPIS in writing to their District Offices on or before February 23, 2015. Is this correct?

Response: Yes.

That's my point, though, there is no quick fix to even moderately improve things. In fact, the meat industry is actively trying to stop anyone from even filming stuff on the property by making it a criminal offense. Yes, companies can stop you from filming by forcing you to leave their property, but it's not something you can go to jail for...except in many states where the meat lobby has won.

You have to understand, the meat lobby is HUGE. They aren't going to allow change easily or quickly. That's why the longview is the only way to go...sadly.

[Archon14]

You have to understand, the meat lobby is HUGE. They aren't going to allow change easily or quickly. That's why the longview is the only way to go...sadly.

Yes, it's the thing I always end up underestimating. How far people are willing to go to ensure more profits.

To change the subject a bit, don't you think animals will go extinct once we're not using them for food? The day we find a viable and more profitable option than animals/forests could be the day we actually lose them. Farms/forests take space and we will keep needing more and more of it to sustain the population.
I'd hate to see it, but if you're trying to stop all animals from being killed for food, you could kill them off completely. And the greatest thing we could hope for is that a small sample is kept in national parks, and not zoos.

This subject is poking my brain constantly today, and I didn't see people talking about it, so I thought might as well ask the question here. What do you think? Maybe I'm just thinking too far into the future and I shouldn't expect one thing to happen when there's a long period between in which anything can change.

[Bodakane]

Yes, it's the thing I always end up underestimating. How far people are willing to go to ensure more profits.

To change the subject a bit, don't you think animals will go extinct once we're not using them for food? The day we find a viable and more profitable option than animals/forests could be the day we actually lose them. Farms/forests take space and we will keep needing more and more of it to sustain the population.
I'd hate to see it, but if you're trying to stop all animals from being killed for food, you could kill them off completely. And the greatest thing we could hope for is that a small sample is kept in national parks, and not zoos.

This subject is poking my brain constantly today, and I didn't see people talking about it, so I thought might as well ask the question here. What do you think? Maybe I'm just thinking too far into the future and I shouldn't expect one thing to happen when there's a long period between in which anything can change.

Well, eventually many would. But the truth is, most animals we eat on mass production level aren't really "natural". We've bred them into these poor creatures that can barely survive. Meat chickens grow so fast and so big, due to our breeding, that they often die of heart attacks or literally being crushed under their own weight. Pigs are an introduced species virtually everywhere they are found.

We are killing 15 billion animals a year. That means there's at least 25 million or so alive at a time just for food. That is a lot. Those numbers are high only because we want them to be and most wouldn't survive in the natural world because of breeding. They would eventually die out. I mean it's not like there's going to be a single Veganening (lol) where one day no one eats meat anymore. The faux and lab grown meat industries are slowly going to whittle down meat demand until the leftover animals becomes a solvable problem...if that makes sense?

[Adolecent]

Can someone really be pro environment / claim they care about the environment while at the same time contributing to the biggest source of carbon footprint, deforestation and water pollution / waste by eating meat?

Of course one can. You just have to keep your feet on the ground.

[Archon14]

We are killing 15 billion animals a year. That means there's at least 25 million or so alive at a time just for food. That is a lot. Those numbers are high only because we want them to be and most wouldn't survive in the natural world because of breeding. They would eventually die out. I mean it's not like there's going to be a single Veganening (lol) where one day no one eats meat anymore. The faux and lab grown meat industries are slowly going to whittle down meat demand until the leftover animals becomes a solvable problem...if that makes sense?

Of course. People already fight for preserving species that would otherwise be extinct, I'm sure people would fight for the survival of animals in the future that we are using for food today. I just like to keep banging my head on a hypothetical problem sometimes.

Anyways, I'm off to actually do something productive today. Enjoyed our little discussion. I know, a meat eater and a vegan talking in peace. Heresy!

[PC2]

And the greatest thing we could hope for is that a small sample is kept in national parks, and not zoos.

This subject is poking my brain constantly today, and I didn't see people talking about it, so I thought might as well ask the question here. What do you think? Maybe I'm just thinking too far into the future and I shouldn't expect one thing to happen when there's a long period between in which anything can change.

Sounds like too much work to keep big animals around.

True extinction will almost never happen going forward.

[Bodakane]

Of course. People already fight for preserving species that would otherwise be extinct, I'm sure people would fight for the survival of animals in the future that we are using for food today. I just like to keep banging my head on a hypothetical problem sometimes.

Anyways, I'm off to actually do something productive today. Enjoyed our little discussion. I know, a meat eater and a vegan talking in peace. Heresy!

Thank you, it was refreshing from my end as well.

[Raelbo]

Other source: https://www.skepticalscience.com/how...ute-to-gw.html

In addition to that knowledge, we haven't discussed side effects like deforestation for pastures, water polution, etc. And we havent even discussed other meatproducts Just hamburgers.... let's think about that for a second.

Can someone really be pro environment / claim they care about the environment while at the same time contributing to the biggest source of carbon footprint, deforestation and water pollution / waste by eating meat?

All these issues aren't inherent to eating meat, they're a function of how the farming of meat is conducted.

Farmed sustainably, meat products have a nett contribution of 0 to the carbon footprint, because everything they ate to produce the CO2 in the first place pulled CO2 out of the atmosphere. Farmed sustainably, meat products don't have any other negative environmental impacts.

Of course there is the problem that at some point a sufficient demand for meat pushes farmers to pursue unsustainable farming practices which leads to environmental impact. So I can accept that eating too much meat is probably not compatible with being pro environment, but if kept to moderate quantities, I would argue the two can co-exist.

[Guyv3r]

Do you fart? How can you be pro-environment then

Eating meat is natural. Vegans will deny it but who cares what they think. STOP EATING MY MEATS FOOD.

[Bodakane]

All these issues aren't inherent to eating meat, they're a function of how the farming of meat is conducted.

Farmed sustainably, meat products have a nett contribution of 0 to the carbon footprint, because everything they ate to produce the CO2 in the first place pulled CO2 out of the atmosphere. Farmed sustainably, meat products don't have any other negative environmental impacts.

Of course there is the problem that at some point a sufficient demand for meat pushes farmers to pursue unsustainable farming practices which leads to environmental impact. So I can accept that eating too much meat is probably not compatible with being pro environment, but if kept to moderate quantities, I would argue the two can co-exist.

The bold isn't really true.