this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
556 points (76.1% liked)
Memes
45728 readers
751 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's more than three animals that you can eat.
You don't even eat all 80000 of those plants.
Plants make excellent side dishes, unfortunately I can't spend a third of my day shoveling quinoa and lentils by the bucket load just to get enough protein, so meat it is.
I cut beef out of my diet almost entirely, both because it's unsustainable for the ecology (cattle require more resources per pound than any other animal) and because red meat isn't as good for you. Also it's expensive.
This is the fair and balanced take. Of course it would be better for the planet and our wallets to not eat meat, but our diet more or less requires some amount of meat for iron and protein; the responsible thing to do is to be selective about types and frequency. We don't need meat in every single meal or even every single day, but you've got a better chance of pitching meatless Monday to most Americans than full vegetarianism. And even a small reduction is better than no reduction.
Vegans, even life long vegans, exist. We do not need meat. And the reformist position overlooks the question whether it actually works. Convincing 10 people to CONSISTENTLY AND FOREVER decrease their meat intake by 10% is the same as convincing just 1 person to go vegan (aka 100% reduction). I don't have studies either way, but anecdotally people are extremely bad at keeping up dietary/lifestyle changes, but veganism is a lot simpler. "No animal products" is simpler than "have I reached my 90% yet?".
Again, would love some studies on this, but it just seems more like wishful thinking. Additionally, we could just encourage both.
I don't think so. 10 people reducing it by 10% is nothing in a society where everyone claims they have reduced it and only eat happy to be killed animals from their uncles farm. On the other hand one vegan could show hundreds of people that there is no magic to not abusing animals and change some. It is not only about the personal impact but when veganism hits a critical mass and changes society.
I know lifelong smokers. The human body is resilient. If your argument is that veganism is healthy, you need a lot more than "I'm vegan and I'm not dead".
I mentioned elsewhere about protein intakes. It's not a controversial take that protein is one of the most important things we need in a day, that protein is easiest to find in meat, and that our body isn't as good at digesting plant protein. For the rest, telling someone to go plant-based when you need a lot more than just a multivitamin to hit the Iron and B-12 content you need.
Whether or not veganism can be healthy (it might be), it is a known quantity that naive veganism is absolutely unhealthy. So my problem with "getting them vegan is easier than getting them to cut 10% meat" is that you're trying to create naive vegans. That means you're trying to create smokers.
Considering half the country threw a temper tantrum over being asked to wear a mask during a respiratory pandemic, I don't think you're being realistic in your view of everybody being able to go vegan. Many of these people threw a fit over AOC "wanting to take away your cheeseburgers" even though that wasn't what she was proposing; they just knew that it would rile up the rural base.
I think it's much more reasonable to convince people to make two easily implemented changes: no more meat at breakfast, and meatless Mondays. With these two easy changes, only 12 out of 21 weekly meals is eligible for meat, which is a ~43% reduction. Not everybody will do it obviously, but the same people willing to cut 10% will probably cut 43% when presented in this way. Especially if you bring up the financial cost, health risks, and storage inconvenience of buying and eating so much more meat than is necessary.
I also think it's a little silly to say that it's easier to go vegan. You need to study food labels and nutrition facts to see if there is some animal byproduct involved. When you go out to eat, it's not always clear whether options on the menu are vegan friendly, but restaurants are getting better about that nowadays. But I think you're also assuming that people have the means to always choose a product that may be significantly more expensive. I think you'll have better luck convincing people to occasionally think about whether their stirfry really needs steak or if mushrooms are actually enough to carry that earthy, satisfying bite they're looking for this time.
Personally I like fish, I meal prep mostly with fish and they're far easier to farm and it's less damaging than most land animals.
I think people really get a skewed view of this. It's better for our planets if we eat less meat, and if people who need high protein intake won't stop eating meat it's a bit better if you eat zero meat to competensate. But it's a "little vs a lot" thing . We still need meat to support the horticultural industry.
I mean, the cows and pigs in my area serve the important purpose of providing much of the fertilizer for all the vegetable farms in my area. They would still be there, getting fed, if nobody ate them or drank their milk. Their deaths would just be more of a waste. There is a point where too many cows/pigs are producing more fertilizer than crop farms need. But you want to hear something scary? WE AREN'T THERE YET; not even close. In the US at least, we only produce enough manure to support 20% of our horticulture, and the rest is supplemented by compost and synthetic fertilizer. And that synethetic fertilizer? Pretty terrible for the ecosystem and wild animals as well.
The real answer is that we haven't solved the problems. It does "feelgood" to know that we can genuinely help a little by eating a little less meat. And we should all be doing that. But all of us going vegan is a real problem for reasons unrelated to the (very real) nutritional issues.
The meme is questionable, no argument (aren't most?)
But point 3 is just straight up wrong.
Counterpoint. Nutritionists (many, not all) tend to agree that protein is under-represented in the average non-plant-based diet already, and the body processes plant protein at 50-67% effectiveness compared to a similar amount of animal protein. And people with particular common medical issues have nutritional need for higher protein amounts. My wife's nutritionist wants her at 100-120g protein per day, counting plant proteins at 50% (so 240g if plant). Her food intake is about 12-1500kcal.
I challenge you to find a healthy way to to hit 180-240g of protein at a reasonable calorie intake. The best I can find is about 20 to 1 (which would be 3600 calories of high-protein meals to hit 180g). Or she could eat one 600cal steak and then whatever else she plans on in the day.
More importantly, my doctor wants me around the same, if only 100g. But I don't want to eat 3000calories a day.