Can someone be pro environment and eat meat?

[Deleted]

It's odd, for such a food-obsessed society, we have very little understanding of the realities of food production, since as far as most of us are concerned, it just miraculously appears on the supermarket shelf for us to buy. And in our never-ending quest to find healthy and natural food that's in tune with Mother Earth or whatever, we've seemingly forgotten that everything we eat has been selectively bred over thousands of years specifically to be food for humans. There's no sense in worrying about the ethical dilemma of raising cattle for food, since none of them would last a day in the wild what with their meaty haunches and docile demeanor making them a perfect target for predators. If people really want to go green, try a diet of insects and tree bark, there are still plenty of tribes out there who rely on these and other truly "organic" food sources to stay alive.

That's a good way to think about it. I will use that in my argument the next time a vegetarian challenges my diet.

[Bodakane]

Those animals exist to suffer - we bred them to live short, miserable lives that give them just enough time to get fat and marbled before ending up on our dinner table. That might be fucked up in and of itself, but there's no turning back from it now. Not only have people grown accustomed to eating meat-heavy diets, it's also become a major part of our economy that can't be easily replaced, because as you pointed out we'd also be growing far fewer crops to feed those animals.

Yes, they were bred to suffer.....that doesn't mean they have to. Before you go further, I literally live on a farm animal sanctuary where we have over 150 farm animals lving healthy happy existences, free from suffering.

[Macaquerie]

Yes, they were bred to suffer.....that doesn't mean they have to. Before you go further, I literally live on a farm animal sanctuary where we have over 150 farm animals lving healthy happy existences, free from suffering.

That's great and all, but there are literally billions of farm animals out there. To turn every last one of them from a resource that we can exploit, into a resource drain that we need to babysit, would be disastrous and wholly infeasible.

[Bodakane]

That's great and all, but there are literally billions of farm animals out there. To turn every last one of them from a resource that we can exploit, into a resource drain that we need to babysit, would be disastrous and wholly infeasible.

Who said that?

At what point did I propose this magic event where meat eating stops overnight?

[44104]

That's great and all, but there are literally billions of farm animals out there. To turn every last one of them from a resource that we can exploit, into a resource drain that we need to babysit, would be disastrous and wholly infeasible.

Yes, there are billions, doesn't it make sense to stop producing so many?

[AeneasBK]

Depends how much you eat I guess

[Macaquerie]

Who said that?

At what point did I propose this magic event where meat eating stops overnight?

How would you go about reducing demand for meat, even gradually? If anything, demand is going to skyrocket over the next couple of decades as third world countries develop and their middle classes acquire the same tastes for meat as Westerners. The average Indian only eats about 10 pounds of meat per year, and while some of this is due to religious or cultural reasons, it's mostly because people there are too impoverished to afford a steady diet of meat. That's not going to last for long, and as these countries become more affluent they're going to adopt the same farming practices as the USA, and who are we to say that because we fucked up the Earth so badly with our meat consumption, that now they can never enjoy that lifestyle?

[Trassk]

Of course, eating meat to survive is what omnivores and carnivores do, that's just nature.

[Bodakane]

How would you go about reducing demand for meat, even gradually? If anything, demand is going to skyrocket over the next couple of decades as third world countries develop and their middle classes acquire the same tastes for meat as Westerners. The average Indian only eats about 10 pounds of meat per year, and while some of this is due to religious or cultural reasons, it's mostly because people there are too impoverished to afford a steady diet of meat. That's not going to last for long, and as these countries become more affluent they're going to adopt the same farming practices as the USA, and who are we to say that because we fucked up the Earth so badly with our meat consumption, that now they can never enjoy that lifestyle?

Well, education is the first thing. People need to understand the enivronmental and ethical tolls that come with meat production. Also faux and lab grown meat industries are growing by leaps and bounds. Soon it will be easier, cheaper to produce and deliver these products then it will be to raise livestock.

[Phlegethon]

Jesus.

OP wasn't rude. OP didn't even make a conclusion, merely asked questions for others to answer based on information OP found....and people come on here and wish him dead and to never have kids.

But please, tell me again how vegans are the ones that pushy and confrontational....

No... The most environmentally unfriendly thing you can do is not eat meat, it is living your life or having childres. It has been proven. That is my statement.
I don't care if he lives or dies, nor if he reproduces.
Besides: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/ea...t-actually-th/
As soon as they are able to cultivate meat without using animals, that's fine for me too. But muscles need to work for them to taste good, so it'll be a while still.

Anyway, you read something that wasn't there, I forgive you. It's ok.

[supermage]

Well at least if you got max level vegan you get special powers.

This ^^^. I wonder if the farts of vegans at max level cure the environment?

[Waynhim]

I'm all for people being able to be vegans, what annoys the crap out of me though is the moral highground some vegans think they have. In addition to fake news showing disneylike cross-species' relationships between animals in the wild, brainwashing unenlightened urban kids.

[Deleted]

If lab grown meat turns out to be healthy enough to consume and the whole process has a smaller environmental impact than the production of real meat then am willing to give it a shot, i value life enough to make this small sacrifice. Your average cheap cut of real meat needs a lot of magic to become tasty anyway.

[Hooked]

Not eating meat is 1st world privilege, You need to check yo self. People are starving in 3rd world hellholes and they would love some meat to eat. You are lucky to have the option of becoming a vegan or vegetarian, most of the world thinks you are smug and virtue signalers though.

[Tzalix]

"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

- F. Scott Fitzgerald

[Deleted]

Not eating meat is 1st world privilege, You need to check yo self. People are starving in 3rd world hellholes and they would love some meat to eat. You are lucky to have the option of becoming a vegan or vegetarian, most of the world thinks you are smug and virtue signalers though.

So what's the message you are trying to get across, i don't get it, should we stop eating meat for solidarity with poor people or eat all the meat to signal our privilege?

[44104]

Not eating meat is 1st world privilege, You need to check yo self. People are starving in 3rd world hellholes and they would love some meat to eat. You are lucky to have the option of becoming a vegan or vegetarian, most of the world thinks you are smug and virtue signalers though.

Hardly, true. The poorest countries eat vegetarian mainly. Ethiopia, India, etc. Beans, lentils, tofu, rice, are some of the cheapest ways to eat balanced diets you can get. Next time you go to the store, browse the bulk bins and compare your meat prices to the above; and that's with our gov't forcing us to subsidize the prices of meat and dairy industries.

[Raelbo]

You are talking about the totals of X vs the totals of Y. Those are numbers whether you impilcitly stated them or not.

And if you understood the scientific and mathematical principles involved you'd understand that those numbers cancel each other out in the equation. The more CO2 a cow produces, the more CO2 is pulled out of the atmosphere by the plants eaten by them.

Sure I don't.

Look mate, clearly you're passionate about the subject, but clearly you also lack expertise in science. Which means you should probably defer to experts in science instead of trying to argue against them. Incorporating scientific facts into your argument would make it stronger (but it would mean you would need to change your narrative a bit).

I'm talking about deforrestation because that has to generally happen for livestock farming.

You're correct that deforrestation is bad. I never argued otherwise.

Since you have no idea how much grass it takes to feed the cow a steady diet you have no idea how much land is needed. Since you don't know how much land is needed you have no idea what it would take for this sustainable livestock farming model you queefed into existenece to actually happen.

Assuming you're correct (which you aren't), it's not even relevant. This speaks only to the number of cows that can be farmed sustainably, not to the fundamental fact that some can be farmed sustainably.

I am arguing that it is possible to farm cows sustainably. I am not arguing that the number of cows that can be farmed sustainably is infinite.

And? This is the part you're neglecting to understand, in your hypothetical of a cow in a magical box of undetermined size, you have to account for growth time of new grass vs. the amount of time is takes the cow to produce the CO2.

The size of the magical box is not "undetermined". It is exactly the correct size to grow grass at the same rate the cow is eating it. Which would mean that the amount of CO2 being processed by the grass would be identical to CO2 produced by the cow.

This is why I say you don't understand this on a practical level. So, as a scientific genius, surely you understand an X sized field with grass at a length of 3 inches, filters a different amount of CO2 then an X sized field with grass at a length of .5 inches.

Grass is not a CO2 filter. It's a CO2 processor. It turns CO2 (plus water + sunlight) into matter which is edible for a cow. Therefore the amount of CO2 which can be processed is not a function of the length of the grass, it's a function of the rate of growth of the grass.

If the grass isn't growing at a rate that can sustain the cow, what do you suppose happens to your sustainable farm? It must be supplemented with other feed, like grains and hay. I know you've probably never heard of these things before, but they actually come from OUTSIDE your magic hypothetical box. That would mean, Dr. Genius, that more carbon is coming into the magic box, then the magic box produced.

Sigh.....

If you insist on growing the grain outside the magic box, recognise that outside the box there will be a CO2 deficit (created by the grain) which exactly matches the CO2 surplus inside the box.

How about this: Grow the grain in the same magic hypothetical box instead of grass. It's a hypothetical scenario to explain the principle of conservation of matter. You cannot change the laws of physics and chemistry simply by trying to think "out of the box".

Again, your practical knowledge is shit. You don't think about or are just straight ignorant about the amount of food a modern cow needs to grow.

Actually I do know this and if you'd been paying attention to my argument you would probably recognise this. Your problem is that you don't understand the part of your argument that I disagree with, nor do I think you have a clue about my original point which you chose to refute.

I am explaining to you how, in a sustainable farming model, cows are carbon neutral. You're arguing that because in the practical world cows aren't farmed sustainably, they are not carbon neutral. I agree with you on that point, but I disagree vehemently that your assertion disproves mine. Just because cows are not farmed sustainably, does not mean they cannot be. Maybe not as many cows as we currently farm, but there is some level of cattle farming that can be done sustainably.

In other words, as my original post was saying, it's not eating meat which is the problem, it's the way the meat is produced.

You're ignorant of seasons and what that does to the cow's food supply. I mean I know your magic box is a wonderful place and all, but in the real world, it doesn't always rain enough to produce grass or it isn't always the right temperature. Or there's fire, or pest outbreaks, etc.

Again, I've proven you don't know the first thing about farming so you have no idea what would or wouldn't be responsible methods. You can claim that eating meat isn't the problem, but when you don't really understand the process of obtaining meat, you can't really speak on the subject in an informed manner....as I've been saying.

Ho hum, more irrelevant noise that isn't on point. This isn't a discussion about how to farm sustainably or why many farmers don't practice it. Sustainable farming is possible. That is all that is relevant to my point.

Even if you somehow, came up with the actual numbers that fit your magic box hypothetical and declared that to be true sustainable livestock farming....it wouldn't be able to produce enough meat to meet demand.

And I never argued otherwise. In fact in my first post (the one you argued against) I even said as much "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."

So why the hell are you trying to argue with me on this?

So get this...Dr. Genius, you'd have to lower demand....how does one do that? Oh yeah, not eat meat.

Or, you know, eat less meat?

I guess in your science class you didn't learn about the concept of desertification or climate change.

Please pay attention next time. I already spoke to this in other replies to you:

"I am not arguing that irresponsible farming methods aren't immensely damaging to the environment."
"Sure, if the cow leaves a desert in it's wake it will have a nett output of CO2"

I am not arguing against you on these issues. I am arguing against your nonsense CO2 argument and your seeming "all or nothing" approach to solving the stated problem.

I agree 100% that cattle farming, as it is practised today, is immensely harmful to the planet. What I am saying is that it doesn't need to be. I am also saying that one of the reasons people have a problem with cows is BS. I am refuting the argument that says because cows breathe out CO2 they are inherently always going to have this big carbon footprint.


Since you seem to be hung up on the practical, let me just say this: Demanding that people stop eating meat is not a practical solution to the problem. People are already going to be difficult enough to convince if you bring good science to the table, but when you bring bad science, it makes it even harder.

Address the problem by going to the root of it, which is all about farming methods. If farmers are forced to farm sustainably the rest will fall into place by means of economic forces.

[Felnoire]

Yes, it's easy to eat meat and be for pro environment policies. Just cause the current farming practices for those meats are bad for the environment doesn't make the person eating it less likely to want to see changes to policy and practices to improve the environment. From more sustainable farming practices, to lab grown meat, not like there aren't options out there to be someone who eats meat and wants to see a greener tomorrow.

[Incarnia]

Of course you can, there are options in this area to choose between as a consumer. What producer and what their practices are does matter. Make sure your money support those farmers that does work towards being more sustainable AND at the same time doesn't feed their animals antibiotics left and right. (A high antibiotic usage is sign of living conditions for the animals which aren't optimal).

Personally I'm lucky to be living in a rather great country - option wise - as a meat eater. We choose to buy our meat from local producers, but we also hunt.