Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Meat Eater, Vegetarian or Vegan?

1303133353638

Replies

  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    MissGB11 wrote: »
    People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.

    Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.

    The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....

    climatechange-1.gif

    Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.

    It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.

    And I would like to see your stats on comparing the environmental and waste statistics on farming plants and meat, since you think they are similar. I have never heard that. The impact on producing meat has always been shown to be worse in those aspects. So.....

    Not sure if you are confusing me with someone else, but I never said they were similar.

    So .... what? I could eat meat daily without ever eating commercially farmed meat if I wanted.
  • sunnybeaches105sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,846Member Member Posts: 2,846Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    MissGB11 wrote: »
    People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.

    Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.

    The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....

    climatechange-1.gif

    Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.

    It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.

    Not so fast

    http://www.iflscience.com/environment/new-study-says-beef-10x-more-damaging-environment-chicken-pork-or-dairy-foods
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    MissGB11 wrote: »
    People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.

    Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.

    The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....

    climatechange-1.gif

    Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.

    It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.

    And I would like to see your stats on comparing the environmental and waste statistics on farming plants and meat, since you think they are similar. I have never heard that. The impact on producing meat has always been shown to be worse in those aspects. So.....

    Not sure if you are confusing me with someone else, but I never said they were similar.

    So .... what? I could eat meat daily without ever eating commercially farmed meat if I wanted.

    You'd still have to grow the food to feed the animals that you are going to eat as food. It would not be as bad as factory farming and I don't think I have or know of studies of the impact of local or family based farming.

    No, I'm talking about eating wild animals. Hunting, fishing, that sort of thing.
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    MissGB11 wrote: »
    People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.

    Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.

    The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....

    climatechange-1.gif

    Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.

    It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.

    And I would like to see your stats on comparing the environmental and waste statistics on farming plants and meat, since you think they are similar. I have never heard that. The impact on producing meat has always been shown to be worse in those aspects. So.....

    Not sure if you are confusing me with someone else, but I never said they were similar.

    So .... what? I could eat meat daily without ever eating commercially farmed meat if I wanted.

    You'd still have to grow the food to feed the animals that you are going to eat as food. It would not be as bad as factory farming and I don't think I have or know of studies of the impact of local or family based farming.

    No, I'm talking about eating wild animals. Hunting, fishing, that sort of thing.

    I wasn't aware you only ate food you caught or captured yourself. Interesting. I don't know many people in this day and age that is sustainable for.

    ??? Look up the word "could"
  • MommysarusMommysarus Posts: 14Member Member Posts: 14Member Member
    I'm a pescitarian, I generally eat fish 3-4 times a week and the rest is vegetarian. I went this way as advised by a doctor due to some other health issues and problems with red meats which raise the risk of certain complications. I love it though, don't miss meats at all and I find it exciting to try new recipes and find new options for high protein meals. I couldn't handle vegan simply because I like the easy access to protein in dairy when I'm running a bit low and I'm not fond of vegan milks. I however have had a lot more energy and have noticed improvement in my strength training and cardio since dropping the meats.
  • fahdizfahdiz Posts: 11Member Member Posts: 11Member Member
    Omnivore, careful about meat sourcing. I don't eat a lot of red meat or pork these days; it tends to be fish or poultry. I prefer wild game to beef so I'll take it when I can get it.
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    MissGB11 wrote: »
    People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.

    Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.

    The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....

    climatechange-1.gif

    Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.

    It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.

    And I would like to see your stats on comparing the environmental and waste statistics on farming plants and meat, since you think they are similar. I have never heard that. The impact on producing meat has always been shown to be worse in those aspects. So.....

    Not sure if you are confusing me with someone else, but I never said they were similar.

    So .... what? I could eat meat daily without ever eating commercially farmed meat if I wanted.

    You'd still have to grow the food to feed the animals that you are going to eat as food. It would not be as bad as factory farming and I don't think I have or know of studies of the impact of local or family based farming.

    No, I'm talking about eating wild animals. Hunting, fishing, that sort of thing.

    I wasn't aware you only ate food you caught or captured yourself. Interesting. I don't know many people in this day and age that is sustainable for.

    ??? Look up the word "could"

    My misunderstanding. I assumed most people couldn't do that in this day and age, but didn't want to assume and the belittlement is hurtful. Take care. Enjoy your day.

    I assume most people could do that in this day and age, but choose not to. As do we. Probably only about 1/2 of our meat is from hunting (venison and fish), we raise chickens and the rest is store bought. We could easily eat only wild meat but we choose not to because we like things that can't be found in the wild where we live like seafood and pork.

    My point is that poor farming practices is not something that everyone who eats meat supports.
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    MissGB11 wrote: »
    People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.

    Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.

    The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....

    climatechange-1.gif

    Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.

    It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.

    And I would like to see your stats on comparing the environmental and waste statistics on farming plants and meat, since you think they are similar. I have never heard that. The impact on producing meat has always been shown to be worse in those aspects. So.....

    Not sure if you are confusing me with someone else, but I never said they were similar.

    So .... what? I could eat meat daily without ever eating commercially farmed meat if I wanted.

    You'd still have to grow the food to feed the animals that you are going to eat as food. It would not be as bad as factory farming and I don't think I have or know of studies of the impact of local or family based farming.

    No, I'm talking about eating wild animals. Hunting, fishing, that sort of thing.

    I wasn't aware you only ate food you caught or captured yourself. Interesting. I don't know many people in this day and age that is sustainable for.

    ??? Look up the word "could"

    My misunderstanding. I assumed most people couldn't do that in this day and age, but didn't want to assume and the belittlement is hurtful. Take care. Enjoy your day.

    I assume most people could do that in this day and age, but choose not to. As do we. Probably only about 1/2 of our meat is from hunting (venison and fish), we raise chickens and the rest is store bought. We could easily eat only wild meat but we choose not to because we like things that can't be found in the wild where we live like seafood and pork.

    My point is that poor farming practices is not something that everyone who eats meat supports.

    I'd find the amount of people who eat meat who do not support farming practices in some way to be so small it is non-existent. Even your anecdotal story which is probably more anti-farming than the average meat eater shows that. *shrugs*

    Still it is mixing topics. There are environmentally sustainable sources of meat.
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    MissGB11 wrote: »
    People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.

    Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.

    The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....

    climatechange-1.gif

    Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.

    It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.

    And I would like to see your stats on comparing the environmental and waste statistics on farming plants and meat, since you think they are similar. I have never heard that. The impact on producing meat has always been shown to be worse in those aspects. So.....

    Not sure if you are confusing me with someone else, but I never said they were similar.

    So .... what? I could eat meat daily without ever eating commercially farmed meat if I wanted.

    You'd still have to grow the food to feed the animals that you are going to eat as food. It would not be as bad as factory farming and I don't think I have or know of studies of the impact of local or family based farming.

    No, I'm talking about eating wild animals. Hunting, fishing, that sort of thing.

    I wasn't aware you only ate food you caught or captured yourself. Interesting. I don't know many people in this day and age that is sustainable for.

    ??? Look up the word "could"

    My misunderstanding. I assumed most people couldn't do that in this day and age, but didn't want to assume and the belittlement is hurtful. Take care. Enjoy your day.

    I assume most people could do that in this day and age, but choose not to. As do we. Probably only about 1/2 of our meat is from hunting (venison and fish), we raise chickens and the rest is store bought. We could easily eat only wild meat but we choose not to because we like things that can't be found in the wild where we live like seafood and pork.

    My point is that poor farming practices is not something that everyone who eats meat supports.

    I'd find the amount of people who eat meat who do not support farming practices in some way to be so small it is non-existent. Even your anecdotal story which is probably more anti-farming than the average meat eater shows that. *shrugs*

    Still it is mixing topics. There are environmentally sustainable sources of meat.

    Not really. But if I come across someone who does only source their meat from wild sources, I'll remember this. Until then, it's basically just lip service of what one could but does not do.

    Yes, really. The fact that it can be done means that once ethics are removed the only reason not to do it is that one does not want to invest the time and money to do it.
  • tlflag1620tlflag1620 Posts: 1,358Member Member Posts: 1,358Member Member
    Omnivore here. I eat LCHF and make an effort to source humanely raised animal products (not only for ethical reasons, but because the end product is healthier). I know we (humans) can survive eating in a variety of ways.

    What is optimal? I think we are still trying to figure that out. That said, the only reason we evolved to the point that we are even capable of questioning the ethical ramifications of out diets is because we started eating meat. If it weren't for adding significant amounts of animal products to our diets we would still be swinging from trees flinging crap at each other (thx Red Foreman) like other primates. Specifically we needed a dietary source of cholesterol.

    Because we have a bipedal pelvis our babies are necessarily born grotesquely premature as compared to other primates (that's why they are called neonates). A full term human child's brain is 25% the size of an adult brain at delivery, 75% at age two, and 90% at age five, with continued growth and development well into our 20's. Cholesterol is vital to the growth and development of our brain and nervous system (it is also vital to cell repair and is a precursor to every hormone in our bodies). Breast milk is a wonderful, cholesterol rich food, but soon after babies start the process of weaning (sometime in the first year) they require a dietary source, as full liver maturity is not reached until about age 6. Yes, a full grown, healthy adult in their prime, who gets enough dietary fat, can make enough cholesterol to survive (not necessarily thrive, but survive nonetheless). But young children have a higher need for, and a lesser ability to manufacture, cholesterol. Not to mention older persons, people with chronic liver disease, and gestating or lactating women. Cholesterol is found exclusively in animal foods; no plant based sources exist. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a completely vegan reproducing society. Who knows what the ramifications of veganism over several generations might be. I don't think it's unethical to eat foods in order to provide oneself (and one's offspring) with optimal health, even if it means eating other animals. I do sometimes wonder if the uptick in neurological problems we are seeing in the past generation or two has something to do with the demonization of dietary cholesterol. Not sure if there are any studies on that. Science seems to be just starting to come around to exhonorating saturated fat and cholesterol. But you know what they say, science progresses one funeral at a time. The diet-heart hypothesis is effectively dead, but it will continue walking around like a chicken with its head cut off (excuse the expression) until the dinosaurs clear out of nutritional science.

  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 20,809Member Member Posts: 20,809Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    MissGB11 wrote: »
    People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.

    Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.

    The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....

    climatechange-1.gif

    Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.

    It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.

    And I would like to see your stats on comparing the environmental and waste statistics on farming plants and meat, since you think they are similar. I have never heard that. The impact on producing meat has always been shown to be worse in those aspects. So.....

    Not sure if you are confusing me with someone else, but I never said they were similar.

    So .... what? I could eat meat daily without ever eating commercially farmed meat if I wanted.

    You'd still have to grow the food to feed the animals that you are going to eat as food. It would not be as bad as factory farming and I don't think I have or know of studies of the impact of local or family based farming.

    No, I'm talking about eating wild animals. Hunting, fishing, that sort of thing.

    I wasn't aware you only ate food you caught or captured yourself. Interesting. I don't know many people in this day and age that is sustainable for.

    ??? Look up the word "could"

    My misunderstanding. I assumed most people couldn't do that in this day and age, but didn't want to assume and the belittlement is hurtful. Take care. Enjoy your day.

    I assume most people could do that in this day and age, but choose not to. As do we. Probably only about 1/2 of our meat is from hunting (venison and fish), we raise chickens and the rest is store bought. We could easily eat only wild meat but we choose not to because we like things that can't be found in the wild where we live like seafood and pork.

    My point is that poor farming practices is not something that everyone who eats meat supports.

    I'd find the amount of people who eat meat who do not support farming practices in some way to be so small it is non-existent. Even your anecdotal story which is probably more anti-farming than the average meat eater shows that. *shrugs*

    Still it is mixing topics. There are environmentally sustainable sources of meat.

    Not really. But if I come across someone who does only source their meat from wild sources, I'll remember this. Until then, it's basically just lip service of what one could but does not do.

    Yes, really. The fact that it can be done means that once ethics are removed the only reason not to do it is that one does not want to invest the time and money to do it.

    Environmental sustainability and the ethics of ending someone's life for food are two different topics though. Even if the environmental sustainability of a meat can be somehow assured, that doesn't equal removing the ethical questions.
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    MissGB11 wrote: »
    People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.

    Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.

    The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....

    climatechange-1.gif

    Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.

    It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.

    And I would like to see your stats on comparing the environmental and waste statistics on farming plants and meat, since you think they are similar. I have never heard that. The impact on producing meat has always been shown to be worse in those aspects. So.....

    Not sure if you are confusing me with someone else, but I never said they were similar.

    So .... what? I could eat meat daily without ever eating commercially farmed meat if I wanted.

    You'd still have to grow the food to feed the animals that you are going to eat as food. It would not be as bad as factory farming and I don't think I have or know of studies of the impact of local or family based farming.

    No, I'm talking about eating wild animals. Hunting, fishing, that sort of thing.

    I wasn't aware you only ate food you caught or captured yourself. Interesting. I don't know many people in this day and age that is sustainable for.

    ??? Look up the word "could"

    My misunderstanding. I assumed most people couldn't do that in this day and age, but didn't want to assume and the belittlement is hurtful. Take care. Enjoy your day.

    I assume most people could do that in this day and age, but choose not to. As do we. Probably only about 1/2 of our meat is from hunting (venison and fish), we raise chickens and the rest is store bought. We could easily eat only wild meat but we choose not to because we like things that can't be found in the wild where we live like seafood and pork.

    My point is that poor farming practices is not something that everyone who eats meat supports.

    I'd find the amount of people who eat meat who do not support farming practices in some way to be so small it is non-existent. Even your anecdotal story which is probably more anti-farming than the average meat eater shows that. *shrugs*

    Still it is mixing topics. There are environmentally sustainable sources of meat.

    Not really. But if I come across someone who does only source their meat from wild sources, I'll remember this. Until then, it's basically just lip service of what one could but does not do.

    Yes, really. The fact that it can be done means that once ethics are removed the only reason not to do it is that one does not want to invest the time and money to do it.

    Environmental sustainability and the ethics of ending someone's life for food are two different topics though. Even if the environmental sustainability of a meat can be somehow assured, that doesn't equal removing the ethical questions.

    Yes, I know it's two different topics. That was my whole point.
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    MissGB11 wrote: »
    People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.

    Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.

    The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....

    climatechange-1.gif

    Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.

    It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.

    And I would like to see your stats on comparing the environmental and waste statistics on farming plants and meat, since you think they are similar. I have never heard that. The impact on producing meat has always been shown to be worse in those aspects. So.....

    Not sure if you are confusing me with someone else, but I never said they were similar.

    So .... what? I could eat meat daily without ever eating commercially farmed meat if I wanted.

    You'd still have to grow the food to feed the animals that you are going to eat as food. It would not be as bad as factory farming and I don't think I have or know of studies of the impact of local or family based farming.

    No, I'm talking about eating wild animals. Hunting, fishing, that sort of thing.

    I wasn't aware you only ate food you caught or captured yourself. Interesting. I don't know many people in this day and age that is sustainable for.

    ??? Look up the word "could"

    My misunderstanding. I assumed most people couldn't do that in this day and age, but didn't want to assume and the belittlement is hurtful. Take care. Enjoy your day.

    I assume most people could do that in this day and age, but choose not to. As do we. Probably only about 1/2 of our meat is from hunting (venison and fish), we raise chickens and the rest is store bought. We could easily eat only wild meat but we choose not to because we like things that can't be found in the wild where we live like seafood and pork.

    My point is that poor farming practices is not something that everyone who eats meat supports.

    I'd find the amount of people who eat meat who do not support farming practices in some way to be so small it is non-existent. Even your anecdotal story which is probably more anti-farming than the average meat eater shows that. *shrugs*

    Still it is mixing topics. There are environmentally sustainable sources of meat.

    Not really. But if I come across someone who does only source their meat from wild sources, I'll remember this. Until then, it's basically just lip service of what one could but does not do.

    Yes, really. The fact that it can be done means that once ethics are removed the only reason not to do it is that one does not want to invest the time and money to do it.

    No, not really. Ethics removed and the environmental impact are two completely different things. Not sure why you would lump them both together. Both may be motivating factors for how someone chooses to fill their plate.

    The fact that someone does not want to invest the time and money may be a reason, but it's not necessarily the only reason. Not even in the slightest.

    When it can be done and ethics are removed, what other reason is there?
    edited April 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.