Myfitnesspal

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Eating less Meat won't save the Planet. Here's Why

Theo166Theo166 Member, Premium Posts: 2,529 Member Member, Premium Posts: 2,529 Member


Thought this would be a good debate topic, I'm still watching the video.
«1

Replies

  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Member Posts: 10,457 Member Member Posts: 10,457 Member
    I noticed the text "includes paid promotion" as soon as I hit play. 🤑 💰 🪙 💵 💲 💵 💰 ⚖️ 🥩 🥓 🐄 🐮 🐄 🥩 💰💰 💵 💰 🤑 🤑 🤑
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 8,775 Member Member Posts: 8,775 Member
    It's hard to take someone seriously who gives you a number to quantify the effect of X number of people going vegan and then says the number "isn't measurable." You just measured it!
  • neanderthinneanderthin Member Posts: 7,657 Member Member Posts: 7,657 Member
    It's hard to take someone seriously who gives you a number to quantify the effect of X number of people going vegan and then says the number "isn't measurable." You just measured it!
    They did measure it and gave an answer and that answer was 0.26%. In that context it's not a relevant number to the discussion which was if all people went vegan, the different being 2.6% and of course if only 10% of the population went vegan (a more realistic number) then they got the 0.26% number.
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 8,775 Member Member Posts: 8,775 Member
    It's hard to take someone seriously who gives you a number to quantify the effect of X number of people going vegan and then says the number "isn't measurable." You just measured it!
    They did measure it and gave an answer and that answer was 0.26%. In that context it's not a relevant number to the discussion which was if all people went vegan, the different being 2.6% and of course if only 10% of the population went vegan (a more realistic number) then they got the 0.26% number.

    Yes, so it's measurable. And he literally (I am not paraphrasing) said it "isn't measurable." I can't take seriously an argument about numbers from someone who would say such a thing.

    Also, this is a straw man argument of sorts. No single change or effort is going to be a 100% solution, yet that is the bar he is setting before accepting that implementing any given change or effort.

    Also, he just pulls the 10% of people going vegan out of thin air. No justification for why that should be the percentage we should look at.
  • neanderthinneanderthin Member Posts: 7,657 Member Member Posts: 7,657 Member
    It's hard to take someone seriously who gives you a number to quantify the effect of X number of people going vegan and then says the number "isn't measurable." You just measured it!
    They did measure it and gave an answer and that answer was 0.26%. In that context it's not a relevant number to the discussion which was if all people went vegan, the different being 2.6% and of course if only 10% of the population went vegan (a more realistic number) then they got the 0.26% number.

    Yes, so it's measurable. And he literally (I am not paraphrasing) said it "isn't measurable." I can't take seriously an argument about numbers from someone who would say such a thing.

    Also, this is a straw man argument of sorts. No single change or effort is going to be a 100% solution, yet that is the bar he is setting before accepting that implementing any given change or effort.

    Also, he just pulls the 10% of people going vegan out of thin air. No justification for why that should be the percentage we should look at.

    The whole premise is flawed. The 10% was just a number to use, it could have been 12 or 5 it doesn't matter because the planet isn't going 100% vegan so any lower number is arbitrary which happened to be 10, no biggy.
  • neanderthinneanderthin Member Posts: 7,657 Member Member Posts: 7,657 Member
    xrj22 wrote: »
    I think the #'s quoted by the "save the planet" people are slanted one direction, and the # cited in this video are slanted in the other direction. While pointing out errors made by the vegans, they are making their own errors in reasoning. For instance, they say that methane from cows is basically carbon neutral because it is recycled through the grass, which turns it back into oxygen. However, what they fail to point out is that without cows eating the grass, the grass would be a net *producer* of oxygen, and could help to off-set carbon produced by fossil fuels. So, the cows turn land that could be oxygen producing (i.e carbon lowering), and make it carbon neutral.

    Also, this video says that cow don't waste land because they use "marginal" land which can't be farmed. What they don't mention is that cows still *ruin* this land. Without cows, that land would grow much larger and more varied grasses, brush, trees, etc. Which would produce a lot MORE oxygen, not to mention habitat for wildlife, prevent erosion, and trap water in the local eco-system rather than have it run-off to the ocean or evaporate and wind up in the ocean. Once water ends up in the ocean, it is essentially lost to ecology and and wildlife.

    Another mis-leading part is where they talk as if cows eat a substantial portion of waste from human food manufacturing (stems, hulls, husks, etc.) Yes, it is true that 95% of cattle feed is not edible for humans, but the *vast* majority of this is hay. Cows eat mostly hay, and only a very small part of their intake is waste products. That hay is grown on useful land and requires irrigation. And again, as far a growing plans go, hay/grass is one of the *worst* at converting carbon to oxygen.

    Although it does correctly point out some biases in the vegan publicity, I found it to be equally biased and misleading.

    At any rate, I think the "save the planet" arguments are a very small part of why people become vegans. The reason that most vegans become vegans has to do with the ethics of needless killing of animals. The fact that it might help the planet is just a small added benefit.

    I hope you realize that there is no life above or below and I mean no life anywhere you see monocropping, even the topsoil is dead. there was a complete eco system there before. Cows eat grassland that have life and they further feed that life, it's still a circle of life. Which direction do I want to see. Not the large feed operations for sure but the small farm that rotates crops, rotates the animals and continues the circle of life. That's were I buy my beef and for the last 3 yrs it's been retired dairy cows. I must be evil, I know, but I can live with it.
  • Theoldguy1Theoldguy1 Member Posts: 1,891 Member Member Posts: 1,891 Member
    I need to find a nice angus beef burger to eat while watching this.
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Member, Premium Posts: 20,374 Member Member, Premium Posts: 20,374 Member
    It's hard to take someone seriously who gives you a number to quantify the effect of X number of people going vegan and then says the number "isn't measurable." You just measured it!
    They did measure it and gave an answer and that answer was 0.26%. In that context it's not a relevant number to the discussion which was if all people went vegan, the different being 2.6% and of course if only 10% of the population went vegan (a more realistic number) then they got the 0.26% number.

    Yes, so it's measurable. And he literally (I am not paraphrasing) said it "isn't measurable." I can't take seriously an argument about numbers from someone who would say such a thing.

    Also, this is a straw man argument of sorts. No single change or effort is going to be a 100% solution, yet that is the bar he is setting before accepting that implementing any given change or effort.

    Also, he just pulls the 10% of people going vegan out of thin air. No justification for why that should be the percentage we should look at.

    The whole premise is flawed. The 10% was just a number to use, it could have been 12 or 5 it doesn't matter because the planet isn't going 100% vegan so any lower number is arbitrary which happened to be 10, no biggy.

    I guess my question would be this:

    If the number is so meaninglessly tiny, why would anyone even bother to make a video like this? Is it Pure Noble Pursuit of Truth for its own sake? An altruistic impulse to avoid people being sad that they can't eat tasty, tasty meat, and restoring them to full and confident meat-centric gustatory enjoyment? Or . . . ?
    I noticed the text "includes paid promotion" as soon as I hit play. 🤑 💰 🪙 💵 💲 💵 💰 ⚖️ 🥩 🥓 🐄 🐮 🐄 🥩 💰💰 💵 💰 🤑 🤑 🤑

    Heh. 😉 Yeah.


    Obligatory full-truth bias disclosure: I've been ovo-lacto vegetarian for 46+ years. In 1974, we didn't know we were destroying the planet - at least didn't know we were destroying it through the mechanism of global warming.** Clearly, I didn't become vegetarian because of unwillingness to exploit animals.

    ** I think then we thought we were destroying it mostly via air pollution, water pollution, acid rain, the ozone hole, overpopulation . . . . can't recall which was the most common perception at the time.
  • psychod787psychod787 Member, Premium Posts: 4,017 Member Member, Premium Posts: 4,017 Member
    Hmmm.... interesting video. Its definitely propaganda, just like the vegan documentary it is supposed to counter, but makes a few good points. I would like to add, the use of animal manure for fertilizer, on a large agricultural farm here in the US, is highly unlikely. Gathering all that up for use would be time and cost prohibitive. I mean, unless they are getting it directly from feed lots, it is. Manure can be used in other ways. Some farms are now using bio generators to produce power and also dry grains out for market. Though, I think they forgot one crop that can use both animal waste and plant waste...... Mushroom cultivation. I have grown mushrooms in my youth... if the law ask, I swear they were just Oyster Mushrooms! ;) The protein yield per acre is not bad, and they also contain other minerals and vitamins. They create clean soil by composting... https://paulstamets.com/mycorestoration/helping-the-ecosystem-through-mushroom-cultivation
    edited May 30
  • tsazanitsazani Member Posts: 753 Member Member Posts: 753 Member
    I wish more people would go the vegan way.

    My LCHF diet is mostly animal products and dairy.

    I'd like to see my foods become less expensive.
  • neanderthinneanderthin Member Posts: 7,657 Member Member Posts: 7,657 Member
    tsazani wrote: »
    I wish more people would go the vegan way.

    My LCHF diet is mostly animal products and dairy.

    I'd like to see my foods become less expensive.

    Not sure where you live, but regardless of how many people eat less animal proteins it's been moving in the wrong directions all my life and I'm 68 and more so in the last few years where there's been more promotion for a plant based diet. Personally I support anybody's food preferences and lifestyle and especially so if it's one that is more regional (farmers markets et al) and more whole.
  • Sara3vegSara3veg Member Posts: 47 Member Member Posts: 47 Member
    tsazani wrote: »
    I wish more people would go the vegan way.

    My LCHF diet is mostly animal products and dairy.

    I'd like to see my foods become less expensive.

    I've done both ends of the spectrum and cost wise I didn't find my very low carb 'carnivore' phase any more expensive than my WFPB phase. I bought my meat from a local butcher shop that sourced their products from local farmers, shopping their weekly sale meats, and then I bought freezer beef in bulk, (ended up to around $4lb, regardless of cut). While veggies are definitely cheaper than say beef, with my WFPB diet I was spending a lot of money on things like nuts and seeds, 'fancier' whole grain options, (that cost more per pound), out of season fruit etc. I ate a lot more variety doing WFPB, which made it costly.

    eta: I think location is a huge factor though. I live in an area where I can get locally raised meat fairly easily. And there's numerous farmers markets within a few minutes drive.


    edited May 31
  • neanderthinneanderthin Member Posts: 7,657 Member Member Posts: 7,657 Member
    Sara3veg wrote: »
    tsazani wrote: »
    I wish more people would go the vegan way.

    My LCHF diet is mostly animal products and dairy.

    I'd like to see my foods become less expensive.

    I've done both ends of the spectrum and cost wise I didn't find my very low carb 'carnivore' phase any more expensive than my WFPB phase. I bought my meat from a local butcher shop that sourced their products from local farmers, shopping their weekly sale meats, and then I bought freezer beef in bulk, (ended up to around $4lb, regardless of cut). While veggies are definitely cheaper than say beef, with my WFPB diet I was spending a lot of money on things like nuts and seeds, 'fancier' whole grain options, (that cost more per pound), out of season fruit etc. I ate a lot more variety doing WFPB, which made it costly.

    eta: I think location is a huge factor though. I live in an area where I can get locally raised meat fairly easily. And there's numerous farmers markets within a few minutes drive.


    I'm low carb and sometimes in ketosis but I still consume lots of vegetables and I do mean a lot, consume nuts and seeds, mostly berries as far as fruit is concerned and I periodically consume some grain and bread. Almond and coconut flour is very expensive and I use lots. It's not one or the other. With that in mind I generally consume seasonally and locally, so winter months my vegetable consumption is lower and my ketogenic diet is engaged, basically lots of bolognaise as a condiment lol.
    edited May 31
  • Sara3vegSara3veg Member Posts: 47 Member Member Posts: 47 Member
    Sara3veg wrote: »
    tsazani wrote: »
    I wish more people would go the vegan way.

    My LCHF diet is mostly animal products and dairy.

    I'd like to see my foods become less expensive.

    I've done both ends of the spectrum and cost wise I didn't find my very low carb 'carnivore' phase any more expensive than my WFPB phase. I bought my meat from a local butcher shop that sourced their products from local farmers, shopping their weekly sale meats, and then I bought freezer beef in bulk, (ended up to around $4lb, regardless of cut). While veggies are definitely cheaper than say beef, with my WFPB diet I was spending a lot of money on things like nuts and seeds, 'fancier' whole grain options, (that cost more per pound), out of season fruit etc. I ate a lot more variety doing WFPB, which made it costly.

    eta: I think location is a huge factor though. I live in an area where I can get locally raised meat fairly easily. And there's numerous farmers markets within a few minutes drive.


    I'm low carb and sometimes in ketosis but I still consume lots of vegetables and I do mean a lot, consume nuts and seeds, mostly berries as far as fruit is concerned and I periodically consume some grain and bread. so it's not one or the other. With that in mind I generally consume seasonally and locally, so winter months my vegetable consumption is lower and my ketogenic diet is engaged, basically lots of bolognaise as a condiment lol.

    I was just comparing the two ways I did things-when I was very low carb I got to the point where I was almost completely animal based/pretty much no veggies or nuts etc. I was following Shawn Bakers way of eating :) But yeah, there's such a spectrum of ways to eat, even under umbrella labels such as low carb, vegan etc.
  • neanderthinneanderthin Member Posts: 7,657 Member Member Posts: 7,657 Member
    Sara3veg wrote: »
    Sara3veg wrote: »
    tsazani wrote: »
    I wish more people would go the vegan way.

    My LCHF diet is mostly animal products and dairy.

    I'd like to see my foods become less expensive.

    I've done both ends of the spectrum and cost wise I didn't find my very low carb 'carnivore' phase any more expensive than my WFPB phase. I bought my meat from a local butcher shop that sourced their products from local farmers, shopping their weekly sale meats, and then I bought freezer beef in bulk, (ended up to around $4lb, regardless of cut). While veggies are definitely cheaper than say beef, with my WFPB diet I was spending a lot of money on things like nuts and seeds, 'fancier' whole grain options, (that cost more per pound), out of season fruit etc. I ate a lot more variety doing WFPB, which made it costly.

    eta: I think location is a huge factor though. I live in an area where I can get locally raised meat fairly easily. And there's numerous farmers markets within a few minutes drive.


    I'm low carb and sometimes in ketosis but I still consume lots of vegetables and I do mean a lot, consume nuts and seeds, mostly berries as far as fruit is concerned and I periodically consume some grain and bread. so it's not one or the other. With that in mind I generally consume seasonally and locally, so winter months my vegetable consumption is lower and my ketogenic diet is engaged, basically lots of bolognaise as a condiment lol.

    I was just comparing the two ways I did things-when I was very low carb I got to the point where I was almost completely animal based/pretty much no veggies or nuts etc. I was following Shawn Bakers way of eating :) But yeah, there's such a spectrum of ways to eat, even under umbrella labels such as low carb, vegan etc.

    No worries Sara. People seem to think that low carb is bacon, butter and more bacon, it's understandable because that was basically the message from main stream media for decades and I still see it.
  • Theo166Theo166 Member, Premium Posts: 2,529 Member Member, Premium Posts: 2,529 Member
    So I found that the video refuted the extreme argument that eating meat is destroying the world, but it also has issues.

    We would be better off if we reduced our consumption of grain fed meat, focusing on grass/grazing fed animals. While we are at it, we should just stop producing ethanol from corn. I doubt either will happen until we have actual food shortages in the first world.
  • tpacheco311tpacheco311 Member Posts: 72 Member Member Posts: 72 Member
    xrj22 wrote: »
    I think the #'s quoted by the "save the planet" people are slanted one direction, and the # cited in this video are slanted in the other direction. While pointing out errors made by the vegans, they are making their own errors in reasoning. For instance, they say that methane from cows is basically carbon neutral because it is recycled through the grass, which turns it back into oxygen. However, what they fail to point out is that without cows eating the grass, the grass would be a net *producer* of oxygen, and could help to off-set carbon produced by fossil fuels. So, the cows turn land that could be oxygen producing (i.e carbon lowering), and make it carbon neutral.

    Also, this video says that cow don't waste land because they use "marginal" land which can't be farmed. What they don't mention is that cows still *ruin* this land. Without cows, that land would grow much larger and more varied grasses, brush, trees, etc. Which would produce a lot MORE oxygen, not to mention habitat for wildlife, prevent erosion, and trap water in the local eco-system rather than have it run-off to the ocean or evaporate and wind up in the ocean. Once water ends up in the ocean, it is essentially lost to ecology and and wildlife.

    Well, if we're being honest here, the worst thing to happen to our environment has been humans. If you're comparing the damage that cows do to the environment to the damage that humans caused, humans will come out as the bigger villains every time. The environment was likely at it's best before humans came along.
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Member Posts: 10,457 Member Member Posts: 10,457 Member
  • work_againwork_again Member Posts: 70 Member Member Posts: 70 Member
    Well, if we're being honest here, the worst thing to happen to our environment has been humans.

    when she's right she's right...
Sign In or Register to comment.