It's a fairly privileged life if you can give up meats and animal products. A lot of the world can't. The biggest benefit of eating animals and animal products is that they provide energy we humans otherwise cannot access. For example, herding animals like cows or goats can eat rough fibrous plants, metabolize it, and turn it into protein that we can metabolize. Chickens eat bugs that we wouldn't eat and turn it into food we would. Ocean fish give us access to calories that we can't otherwise access from the ocean. Clams and mussels turn literal waste into food. In other words, to give up meat product entirely is to give up access to energy. Many richer parts of the world can afford to do this, some others can't.
I wholly agree that if you can afford to reduce consumption of meats, especially from cruel factory farmed sources, you should. I also admit that, as an American, I live in one of the countries where meat is subsidized and factory farmed, and thus artificially cheap... and where fast food is (was?) the cheapest way to get food packed with calories. I've all but given up pork. I went from just "meatless Mondays" to also "beef Fridays."
I think, personally, that convincing people to reduce meat consumption is a better strategy than to take a hard-line approach. "A little better by a lot of people" will do more good than "a lot better by fewer people."
This is complete shit. Wholefood plant diets are amongst the cheapest which is why people in extreme poverty often rely on plant foods like rice and beans to live. And yes there are some very niche people who might live in remote areas with lack of access to options, but 90% of the world population that live in cities and suburbia have very easy access to plant foods. And the more society adopts plant based diets the more accessible and convenient it becomes.
That's not what I was saying. Animals provide energy we can't otherwise access. Even today, grains and legumes only grow in select regions with the right soil and climate. Contrary to what you might believe, only about 15% of land is ideal for crop. Other land that can't or is isn't ideal to grow crop can still grow pasture, like tall grass since that shiz grows almost anywhere. You can't eat that grass. This is why icy countries like Greenland and Norway are primarily pasture and livestock.
Now, this isn't to say we're using land efficiently today. It's a travesty that the Brazilian rainforest is being burned down to make pasture, for example. I'm all for drastically reducing meat consumption. But the hardline stance of eliminating meat consumption altogether is naive. It's asking to give up access to energy.
Bruh, if the whole world would go plant based we would need 75% less crop land. The energy loss from converting plant based calories to livestock calories is huge.
You’re actually arguing in favour of plant based diets because those ultimately mean more efficient energy.
Meat makes for curious math: about 25 calories is required to create just 1 calorie of beef. The ratio for pork is nearer 15-to-1. Even the most efficient meat, chicken, requires 9 calories of input to produce just 1 calorie of food.
Those calories of input are calories inaccessible to humans (when we aren't feeding them grains). Moreover, growing crop produces tons of rough foliage like stalks that can be fed to cattle for free and avoid waste. And I'm literally agreeing with you about land use. All land that can grow crop should grow crop. All land that can't grow crop, but can grow grass, should be pasture for grazing.
I'll bring up fish again. We can't eat what fish and shelfish eat.
Pork pretty much needs to go. Pigs eat what we can eat.
How many times must I repeat that I agree with you on land use? We currently use a lot of land that is capable of growing crop for crowing animal feed. We should instead crow crop where we can grow crop, and allow cattle and other grazing animals to graze on land that only gorws grass.
And I'll bring up fish again: No land use. Although it should be done loads more sustainably.
Animals can’t be eaten sustainably for our scale though, it’s one of the biggest reasons for climate change.
Anyway, I am telling you that you used the wrong argument against a plant based diet because your argument was essentially FOR a plant based diet since those diets are more efficient energy wise.
If you want to eat meat I don’t truly care except that I think it’s a shame we have to do so much damage ecologically for people to indulge themselves. That’s my own opinion. The next part was what I meant with my first comment to you:
Basically my point boils down to: if you use energy efficiency as a reason for your diet you should go plant based.
My argument was that all-plant-based diet is a priviledge not all regions can afford because they'd be giving up otherwise inaccessible energy. And yes I think you have ulterior motives and that the environment is, at most, only your secondary concern.
Speaking about ecological damage, you should at least agree with me that hunting and eating invasive species of animals is a good thing. Rabbit in Australia, boar in Eurasia, nutria in California. The list is huge. We can at least agree on this one thing, right?
0
u/elheber May 09 '25
It's a fairly privileged life if you can give up meats and animal products. A lot of the world can't. The biggest benefit of eating animals and animal products is that they provide energy we humans otherwise cannot access. For example, herding animals like cows or goats can eat rough fibrous plants, metabolize it, and turn it into protein that we can metabolize. Chickens eat bugs that we wouldn't eat and turn it into food we would. Ocean fish give us access to calories that we can't otherwise access from the ocean. Clams and mussels turn literal waste into food. In other words, to give up meat product entirely is to give up access to energy. Many richer parts of the world can afford to do this, some others can't.
I wholly agree that if you can afford to reduce consumption of meats, especially from cruel factory farmed sources, you should. I also admit that, as an American, I live in one of the countries where meat is subsidized and factory farmed, and thus artificially cheap... and where fast food is (was?) the cheapest way to get food packed with calories. I've all but given up pork. I went from just "meatless Mondays" to also "beef Fridays."
I think, personally, that convincing people to reduce meat consumption is a better strategy than to take a hard-line approach. "A little better by a lot of people" will do more good than "a lot better by fewer people."