Can someone be pro environment and eat meat?

[Elim Garak]

I don;t want people or animals to suffer, why is that so wrong in your mind?

Humans suffer when they cannot eat bacon. Pick your side.
Also stop murdering plants for your dietary needs. All life is sacred.

[Trassk]

No. We have a choice.

Actually, lot of people don't, wherever you are born into isn't your choice, and if your born in a poor region or into a poor family in a poor community, sometimes just getting a good meal can be a struggle.

People like vegan gains is the kind of callous wanker who would deny a starving homeless person a hot meal because it had meat in it.

- - - Updated - - -

Also stop murdering plants for your dietary needs. All life is sacred.

Haha, yeah that's something I find funny about vegans, they go on about how all life is sacred, but by eating fruit and vegetables, they are consuming the flesh of a living thing, and denying its chance to spread it's seeds. They even sell the seeds in little consumable packets ready salted.

Vegans are just as bad as those they accuse to be against. Fuck Lisa Simpson

[Forogil]

Trees talk to each other using fungus. Or so I've read.

True they talk, often through fungus, but also by other means:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141...idden-internet
https://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret...age-of-plants/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634023/

"In this review I will demonstrate that plants are sessile, highly sensitive organisms that actively compete for environmental resources both above and below the ground. They assess their surroundings, estimate how much energy they need for particular goals, and then realize the optimum variant. They take measures to control certain environmental resources. They perceive themselves and can distinguish between self and non-self. This capability allows them to protect their territory. They process and evaluate information and then modify their behavior accordingly."

[Zogarth]

Can you really be using electricity writing this post on MMO-Champion and still support the environment?

[downnola]

Multiple studies show that plants feel emotional pain.

A plant responding to stimuli and a plant demonstrating pain and suffering are two radically different experiences. Even if you ignore the fact that plants lack brains and central nervous systems, you still have a long way to go to prove that the "pain and suffering" a stalk of corn "feels" is anywhere near the observable level of pain and suffering that cows and pigs are capable of experiencing.

Living a perfect life without having a negative impact on the environment, or on other living creatures, is impossible. However, perfection is not the goal of the vast majority of vegans. The non-strawman version of what most vegans try to do is to limit the negative impact they have on the environment and other living creatures. This method of thinking may not impress the nihilists out there, but I'll take the average insufferable vegan over a nihilist any day.

- - - Updated - - -

Also he is so very misinformed about our digestive process and how our body breaks down meat or food in general. While veganism is all well and good as a personal choice, I can't tell you how many pathological processes are associated with veganism and nutritional deficiencies in comparison to eating meat.

The bolded part sounds like junk science to me; correlation =/= causation. Also, it's incredibly easy to supplement b12 and fill amino acid gaps with proper vegan diets. In fact, it's similar to how meat eaters supplement their diets with fortified foods and milk.

[Dr Assbandit]

The bolded part sounds like junk science to me; correlation =/= causation. Also, it's incredibly easy to supplement b12 and fill amino acid gaps with proper vegan diets. In fact, it's similar to how meat eaters supplement their diets with fortified foods and milk.

No, it's not. Especially if you're on the lower end of the income bracket sustaining a vegan lifestyle while also investing in supplements is pricey. A vegan diet is a luxury most people cannot afford and it's also doubly relevant the older you get as it's way easier to become nutrition deficient.

Whether it sounds like junk science to you is irrelevant. A whole section of our studies revolved around pathological processes involving nutritional deficiencies and most patient vignettes based off of real patients involved vegans ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. A proper vegetarian diet with supplemented nutrients is no doubt a healthier alternative to say a mostly red meat based one. Like I said before however, it's a luxury and I'll focus more on a diet that is prevalent in the US as opposed to the 1% of the population that are vegans.

[Raelbo]

They only cancel each other out, if the magic box you have can sustain a single cow. But again, since you don't really know the first practical thing about this, you don't know what that would mean for the size of this magic box. Since you don;'t know that AND, you know, magic boxes don;t exist, you can't keep talking about sustainaibilty like it means something. Your model of sustainability relies on magic boxes that don't exist of indeterminate size.

No it doesn't. The "Magic box" is to describe in simplistic terms that a scientific illiterate like yourself can understand, a principle. If you still can't understand it, there is nothing more I can do except suggest that you accept your scientific ineptitude and take it from people who do understand these things.

There is no such thing as ) in this equation, because there's no such place that has perfect conditions year round and year to year. That means you have to truck in more food. That's no longer a zeroed out equation.

I already said this but clearly you missed it. If you have to truck in food, that food still pulled CO2 out of the atmosphere somewhere else. It's still a zero sum equation by the fundamental laws of the universe. A cow cannot produce more CO2 than what the stuff it eats took out of the atmosphere to start off with. If you want to insist on arguing that point then you are an idiot.

Ok, fine....it's not relevant...sigh.
Then by all means give me the number right here and now, that is magically sustainable with a zeroed out equation. Remember, as has been explained to you, that requires no new food trucked in to feed the cattle.

1) If it's not relevant then there is no requirement to come up with a number.
2) As I have explained to you, it doesn't matter if new food has to be trucked in to feed the cattle. It doesn't change the equation, it just changes the location at which the CO2 - carbohydrate conversion takes place. It's like pissing in a swimming pool, doesn't matter where you do the act, in the end the whole pool is affected...

I know what you're arguing.

No you don't. You don't have a cooking clue what I am talking about.

I'm telling you, you have no practical knowledge to detemrine what is and isn't possible. You're literally talking out of your ass. Or prove me wrong and give me the numbers, what's actually sustainable with a perfect zero carbon footprint. Annnnnnnd go....

The fact that you seem to think this is provable by means of numbers simply demonstrates your lack of a clue. The proof is in the chemical equation:

CO2 + H2O + sunlight -> CH2O + O2.

But yes I get it. You are being, and have been for this entire discussion, very evasive about engaging in the chemistry of this issue because you don't understand it, or what it means. And your continued insistence on using a pejorative like "magic box" to label what is actual a basic and fundamental chemical process just demonstrates this further. There is nothing "magical" about the process, although I can understand how to someone without the requisite knowledge it may seem that way

That is undetermined, Sport. What if for the given region, climate, etc. that means the land needs to be 50 acres for one cow?

It means you have to farm less cows. Next?

Although since you want to argue practical numbers, the earth currently has about 1.3 billion cows, which many argue is already too many. I would defer to those opinions. That being said, the number of cows that can be sustainably farmed is still in the hundreds of millions.

Your semantics game illustrates you're getting your ass handed to you. Especially when the entirety of your argument rests on the concpet of a magical box.

What I am saying demonstrates my scientific pedigree. What you're saying right here demonstrates your lack thereof. I am talking about the about the science behind the carbon cycle and how those scientific fundamentals dictate certain truths about what the actual effect of living cows has on the planet (specifically that in terms of CO2, cows as living organisms are CO2 neutral). It's a discussion in which you, quite frankly, are unqualified to say anything because you don't have any scientific background (clearly or you wouldn't be saying the shit you're saying). I accept and agree (have all along) with your points about how, in the real world, cattle farming is hugely destructive to the environment, you need to accept what my argument is saying and understand how it impacts on what you are saying (hint: it's not the way you think it is)

Because you don't actually know if those numbers are feasible. You don't actually know what it takes to raise a cow. You don't actually know about actual land use and feed growing.

I know enough. Whether it takes 1 acre or 2 or 3 (all feasible depending on conditions) to raise a cow is irrelevant. It is possible for the earth to sustain a significant number of cows sustainably.

And yet, you argue with such bravado that X is possible!!!!!! It's absurd.

Not only are you scientifically illiterate, you also lack any knowledge of history. Cows have been around and farmed by people sustainably for millenia. It's only in the last century that things have got out of hand. The idea that with all our modern knowledge and technology that we cannot do better than our more primitive ancestors would be absurd!


At this point I suggest you swallow your hubris and accept what I am saying, because right now you're simply demonstrating that your emotional eco-warrior argument lacks a proper grounding in science. Your heart is the right place, but you need to educate yourself if you wish to become part of the solution instead of part of the problem you're trying to address.

[faithbane]

http://www.theecologist.org/green_gr..._its_way.html#
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...al-living-soya

Can someone be pro environment and eat Soja?

But the food vegans eat gets transported magically to their plates. There is no costs and emissions attached planting, picking, transportation, shipping or cooking them, no trees are cut down to clear land to satisfy their cravings either, vegan food is grown on the clouds...

Getting a little serious, while they sit on their high horses claim the moral high ground, people who have been eating foods like soy as a staple of their diet for centuries cant afford it anymore cause the global price has sky rocketed because of them.

[downnola]

No, it's not. Especially if you're on the lower end of the income bracket sustaining a vegan lifestyle while also investing in supplements is pricey. A vegan diet is a luxury most people cannot afford and it's also doubly relevant the older you get as it's way easier to become nutrition deficient.

Whether it sounds like junk science to you is irrelevant. A whole section of our studies revolved around pathological processes involving nutritional deficiencies and most patient vignettes based off of real patients involved vegans ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. A proper vegetarian diet with supplemented nutrients is no doubt a healthier alternative to say a mostly red meat based one. Like I said before however, it's a luxury and I'll focus more on a diet that is prevalent in the US as opposed to the 1% of the population that are vegans.

The low cost of a proper vegan diet was addressed earlier in the thread. Legumes and Soy are not expensive foods.

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.

[44104]

No, it's not. Especially if you're on the lower end of the income bracket sustaining a vegan lifestyle while also investing in supplements is pricey. A vegan diet is a luxury most people cannot afford and it's also doubly relevant the older you get as it's way easier to become nutrition deficient.

Whether it sounds like junk science to you is irrelevant. A whole section of our studies revolved around pathological processes involving nutritional deficiencies and most patient vignettes based off of real patients involved vegans ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. A proper vegetarian diet with supplemented nutrients is no doubt a healthier alternative to say a mostly red meat based one. Like I said before however, it's a luxury and I'll focus more on a diet that is prevalent in the US as opposed to the 1% of the population that are vegans.

https://www.amazon.com/Jarrow-Formul...60RNJR689&th=1

Less than the cost than meal at McDonald's.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/ - Nutritional Update for Physicians: Plant-Based Diets

I am not sure where you get the idea the Standard American Diet is healthier than a plant based one, but our high incidence of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and diabetes says otherwise. The China Study, a study performed over 50 years, has long ago proven that plant-based eating is the easiest way to reduce heart attack risk, some cancers and obesity.

[Deleted]

You know what I'm gonna do?
I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac, El Dorado convertible
Hot pink with whaleskin hub caps and all leather cow interior
And big brown baby seal eyes for headlights, yeah
And I'm gonna drive around in that baby at 115 mph

Getting one mile per gallon, sucking down quarter pounder
Cheese burgers from McDonald's in the old fashioned
Non-biodegradable Styrofoam containers
And when I'm done sucking down those grease ball burgers

I'm gonna wipe my mouth with the American flag
And then I'm gonna toss the Styrofoam container right out the side

[Bodakane]

We also have a choice to live in dense communities that optimize energy usage, yet most "environmentalists" prefer to do otherwise.

This is about environment, right?

There's more resources used in meat production than all that. There's more land use for meat production than all that. There's more CO2 than all that.

- - - Updated - - -

Humans suffer when they cannot eat bacon. Pick your side.
Also stop murdering plants for your dietary needs. All life is sacred.

You just can't stop being a douche about this topic can you? Did a vegan steal your woman or something?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, lot of people don't, wherever you are born into isn't your choice, and if your born in a poor region or into a poor family in a poor community, sometimes just getting a good meal can be a struggle.

People like vegan gains is the kind of callous wanker who would deny a starving homeless person a hot meal because it had meat in it.

Now I'm confused. The argument was poor people struggle to get taht one meat meal every week or more because its so expensive while the other times they're eating mostly fruits and vegetables and grains and beans.

Haha, yeah that's something I find funny about vegans, they go on about how all life is sacred, but by eating fruit and vegetables, they are consuming the flesh of a living thing, and denying its chance to spread it's seeds. They even sell the seeds in little consumable packets ready salted.

Vegans are just as bad as those they accuse to be against. Fuck Lisa Simpson

All life is sacred is not the veagn argument or motto. The vegan motto is, "do the least amount of harm possible".

Plants aren't sentient. They have no nerves or central nervous system. Because of that they cannot feel or process pain. If they can't feel or process pain they cannot suffer. Pigs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, turkeys, etc. can suffer.

For vegans, eating meat is no more or less heinous than dog fighting. Most people get pretty upset at dog fighting and when they do the only people who act like being upset by dog fighting is being morally superior are the people who particpate in dog fighting.

[Elim Garak]

You just can't stop being a douche about this topic can you? Did a vegan steal your woman or something?

Address what I say, don't speculate on why.

All life is sacred is not the veagn argument or motto. The vegan motto is, "do the least amount of harm possible".

The least harmful option is suicide at birth. Be consistent or admit that it is all arbitrary, because you want to continue to exist and for that you are willing to do harm to other living beings. The only difference is which living beings are being harmed directly. It's purely arbitrary distinction.

Not to mention that if everyone goes vegan a lot more harm will be done to cows, pigs, etc.. than now. They will go extinct. that's the vegan way and the funny thing is they don't realize this.

[Bodakane]

Address what I say, don't speculate on why.

The least harmful option is suicide at birth. Be consistent or admit that it is all arbitrary, because you want to continue to exist and for that you are willing to do harm to other living beings. The only difference is which living beings are being harmed directly. It's purely arbitrary distinction.

Not to mention that if everyone goes vegan a lot more harm will be done to cows, pigs, etc.. than now. They will go extinct. that's the vegan way and the funny thing is they don't realize this.

What you said was stupid, which is per ususal on this topic.

Plants don't feel pain. Plants don't suffer. Don't give your bullshit about roots being the nervous system of forests, cause its bunk and you know it, you're just trying to justify your habits.

It is not all arbitrary.

There is nothing fucking arbitrary about killing a cow to eat it or not. If that's arbitrary everything is, including killing and eating people.

[Elim Garak]

What you said was stupid, which is per ususal on this topic.

Plants don't feel pain. Plants don't suffer. Don't give your bullshit about roots being the nervous system of forests, cause its bunk and you know it, you're just trying to justify your habits.

It is not all arbitrary.

There is nothing fucking arbitrary about killing a cow to eat it or not. If that's arbitrary everything is, including killing and eating people.

Arbitrary is the reason why you think killing cows is bad and killing plants is ok... DUH. Killing a cow is killing a cow it's cow's purpose to be killed for our needs. Why do you think we have cows (pigs, chickens, etc) in the first place? Where do you think they are coming from? The wilderness? No, we grow them specifically to be used for animal products. If vegans win - all the livestock will be killed and some of the specimens - put in a zoo.

Is that what you want? you monster...

[MatadorMedia]

The average American eats 3 burgers a week???? WHAAAAAAT. Yes, it's easy to be pro environment and still eat meat. I guess less easy if you're a fat piece of crap that constantly consumes and gives nothing back to the world.

[Bodakane]

No it doesn't. The "Magic box" is to describe in simplistic terms that a scientific illiterate like yourself can understand, a principle. If you still can't understand it, there is nothing more I can do except suggest that you accept your scientific ineptitude and take it from people who do understand these things.

I understand the principle just fine. As I've said a 100 times, (and where your level of understanding drops) is that principle doesn't work in the real world on a practical level. I keep saying it, you keep acting like its not true yet provide nothing in the way of why, other than your magic box.

I already said this but clearly you missed it. If you have to truck in food, that food still pulled CO2 out of the atmosphere somewhere else. It's still a zero sum equation by the fundamental laws of the universe. A cow cannot produce more CO2 than what the stuff it eats took out of the atmosphere to start off with. If you want to insist on arguing that point then you are an idiot.

I'm the idiot? lol. Ok genius, tell me about the carbon footprint of the truck that delivers that trucked in food? Tell me about the footprint of the harvesting equipment that got the food from the ground. Jesus man, for someone talks as much steady shit about other people and what you think they understand or don't, you'd think your game would be a little tighter.

1) If it's not relevant then there is no requirement to come up with a number.
2) As I have explained to you, it doesn't matter if new food has to be trucked in to feed the cattle. It doesn't change the equation, it just changes the location at which the CO2 - carbohydrate conversion takes place. It's like pissing in a swimming pool, doesn't matter where you do the act, in the end the whole pool is affected...

It is relevant. You're trying to explain a practical sustainable farming process, yet you ignore all the real world practical aspects. That's ignorant. What you're doing is essentially the same thing as saying don't worry about cancer, they can theoritically cure it. You are and have been ignoring the practical processes involved in getting food to the animals.

No you don't. You don't have a cooking clue what I am talking about.

I should play the same semantics game your ass has been playing with this part, but I won't.

The fact that you seem to think this is provable by means of numbers simply demonstrates your lack of a clue. The proof is in the chemical equation:

CO2 + H2O + sunlight -> CH2O + O2.

But yes I get it. You are being, and have been for this entire discussion, very evasive about engaging in the chemistry of this issue because you don't understand it, or what it means. And your continued insistence on using a pejorative like "magic box" to label what is actual a basic and fundamental chemical process just demonstrates this further. There is nothing "magical" about the process, although I can understand how to someone without the requisite knowledge it may seem that way

lol, the only one ignoring the chemistry is you. You ignore real world issues that change the equation and YOU have been iognoring that. You, not me. You learned one thing in one science class, and think you're an expert. You don't know anything about this in the real world. When I ask you to apply your theories to the real world, you tell me it's not relevant. Any scientist worth their salt would laugh at you for that.

It means you have to farm less cows. Next?

Square that circle with demand....you know real world practical issues......c'mon Captain Answers.

Although since you want to argue practical numbers, the earth currently has about 1.3 billion cows, which many argue is already too many. I would defer to those opinions. That being said, the number of cows that can be sustainably farmed is still in the hundreds of millions.

Ok, let's unwrap this once and for all. Why is 1.3 billion too many? If one cow is carbon neutral, why aren't 1.3 billion? Please explain.

What I am saying demonstrates my scientific pedigree. What you're saying right here demonstrates your lack thereof. I am talking about the about the science behind the carbon cycle and how those scientific fundamentals dictate certain truths about what the actual effect of living cows has on the planet (specifically that in terms of CO2, cows as living organisms are CO2 neutral). It's a discussion in which you, quite frankly, are unqualified to say anything because you don't have any scientific background (clearly or you wouldn't be saying the shit you're saying). I accept and agree (have all along) with your points about how, in the real world, cattle farming is hugely destructive to the environment, you need to accept what my argument is saying and understand how it impacts on what you are saying (hint: it's not the way you think it is)

No it demonstrates your ignorance. You learned one thing and have no fucking clue how to apply it and not only that, definatly refuse to learn anything about the real world implications oif what you're talking about....that is not the act of a scientist, that is the act of a religious leaders. Real scientists would shun your behavior.

I know enough. Whether it takes 1 acre or 2 or 3 (all feasible depending on conditions) to raise a cow is irrelevant. It is possible for the earth to sustain a significant number of cows sustainably.

The fuck you do. You know nothing about the real world practical implications of your theory. Your theory only makes sense when using the hypothetical of a mgic box that doesn't conform to anything in the real world, other than CO2 productiona nd consumption. That's not just fucking stupid but worse, it's useless.

Not only are you scientifically illiterate, you also lack any knowledge of history. Cows have been around and farmed by people sustainably for millenia. It's only in the last century that things have got out of hand. The idea that with all our modern knowledge and technology that we cannot do better than our more primitive ancestors would be absurd!

Riiiiiiiight. The problem of CO2 levels just happened one day, not gradually over time. Let's also forget the number of people where less when what you were talking about too....oh wait none of that matters cause magic box sustainability needs no real world analogs, facts, numbers, anything....magic box is life, magic box is all.....

At this point I suggest you swallow your hubris and accept what I am saying, because right now you're simply demonstrating that your emotional eco-warrior argument lacks a proper grounding in science. Your heart is the right place, but you need to educate yourself if you wish to become part of the solution instead of part of the problem you're trying to address.

My hubris? lol. You're the one thinks the real world is irrelevant. That's fucking hubris.

[Aeriedk]

if the 300 million US citizens hit the 3 burgers/week average.

Does anyone else think that is a lot of burgers for the average person to be eating? I know my wife and I might eat a burger at a BBQ..maybe? Same thing with the rest of my family. Perhaps I just didn't realize that burgers were such a popular food.

For me it really depends on what you eat and how much. I say what you eat because I've spoken to some people that think meat is only what comes from a cow. I've generally pro-environment, but I do consume the occasional steak. However, most of the time my wife and I eat ground turkey and chicken. Lower in carbon emissions and healthier too.

[Bodakane]

Arbitrary is the reason why you think killing cows is bad and killing plants is ok... DUH. Killing a cow is killing a cow it's cow's purpose to be killed for our needs. Why do you think we have cows (pigs, chickens, etc) in the first place? Where do you think they are coming from? The wilderness? No, we grow them specifically to be used for animal products. If vegans win - all the livestock will be killed and some of the specimens - put in a zoo.

Is that what you want? you monster...

sigh.

It's not arbitrary. I've given you (a number of times) the difference between plants and animals, the fact you still don't understand the difference between a plant and animal is not my fault. Maybe it's your teachers or parents fault you don't understand something 5-year-olds have a good grasp on.

Yes, humans have bred the farm animals as we know them to be what they are. No one argued against that, so I'm not sure why you think you're unique. Also, no one thinks one day we eat meat as a society and the next day we don't. People understand this is will be a long gradual process. Only people like you, who clearly have some sort of problem with rational thought, thinks poof, one day everyone will be vegan than what for all the animals????

[Elim Garak]

sigh.

It's not arbitrary.

It is. You arbitrary decide what you can kill and what you can't based on some arbitrary quality. "Oooh plants have no animal nervous system, kill them." I can as easily go "oooh, these animals have no chlorophyll, kill them". Your suffering argument is just plain silly. Just because something can suffer doesn't mean you shouldn't kill it for food. Your reasoning is ARBITRARY. It's just what you BELIEVE.

Yes, humans have bred the farm animals as we know them to be what they are. No one argued against that, so I'm not sure why you think you're unique. Also, no one thinks one day we eat meat as a society and the next day we don't. People understand this is will be a long gradual process. Only people like you, who clearly have some sort of problem with rational thought, thinks poof, one day everyone will be vegan than what for all the animals????

I don't remember saying that it would happen overnight.
You seem to be missing the point. It doesn't matter how fast it would happen - all those species (cows, pigs, chickens) would go extinct and end up in a zoo. You basically want to get rid of them.