1. Standard memberyo its me
    Yo! Its been
    Me, all along
    Joined
    14 Jan '07
    Moves
    63170
    22 Sep '20 14:21
    If it wasn't for the meat industry there would be no viruses mutating because animals don't naturally mix in the way they have at the meat markets of Wuhan in China.
    There would be less deforestation because animals would not need large areas for grazing. And we wouldn't need to grow large amounts of soya to feed those animals.
    There would be less heart disease because there is no cholesterol in plant based fats (our livers produce cholesterol for building cell membranes and producing hormones. Our bodies are apt at this and animals are too and we get theirs as well if we eat them).

    I think it's time.
  2. Subscriberkevcvs57
    Flexible
    The wrong side of 60
    Joined
    22 Dec '11
    Moves
    36908
    22 Sep '20 14:25
    @yo-its-me said
    If it wasn't for the meat industry there would be no viruses mutating because animals don't naturally mix in the way they have at the meat markets of Wuhan in China.
    There would be less deforestation because animals would not need large areas for grazing. And we wouldn't need to grow large amounts of soya to feed those animals.
    There would be less heart disease because th ...[text shortened]... are apt at this and animals are too and we get theirs as well if we eat them).

    I think it's time.
    Very hard to disagree so I’ll agree, we’ve probably reached a point in our evolution when we can stop murdering stuff just because it taste nice rather than a survival thing.
  3. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    22 Sep '20 14:42
    @kevcvs57 said
    Very hard to disagree so I’ll agree, we’ve probably reached a point in our evolution when we can stop murdering stuff just because it taste nice rather than a survival thing.
    Maybe for industrialized places like the U.S., but not so for under-developed nations.

    Maybe the problem has more to do with corporate farming than meat. Smaller, local farm like those owned by Amish societies would probably not have the same issues.

    Industrialized farms give no thought to the actual care of animals, raise them inhumanely and pack them in as tightly as possible to maximize profits. It's these types of farms responsible for bird flu, mad cow disease, and COVID.
  4. Standard memberyo its me
    Yo! Its been
    Me, all along
    Joined
    14 Jan '07
    Moves
    63170
    22 Sep '20 14:45
    @vivify said
    Maybe for industrialized places like the U.S., but not so for under-developed nations.

    Maybe the problem has more to do with corporate farming than meat. Smaller, local farm like those owned by Amish societies would probably not have the same issues.

    Industrialized farms give no thought to the actual care of animals, raise them inhumanely and pack them in as tightly ...[text shortened]... o maximize profits. It's these types of farms responsible for bird flu, mad cow disease, and COVID.
    What about the cholesterol?
    It's worth stopping just for that isn't it?

    "Of the 56.9 million deaths worldwide in 2016, more than half (54😵 were due to the top 10 causes. Ischaemic heart disease and stroke are the world’s biggest killers, accounting for a combined 15.2 million deaths in 2016. These diseases have remained the leading causes of death globally in the last 15 years."https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death
  5. Subscriberkevcvs57
    Flexible
    The wrong side of 60
    Joined
    22 Dec '11
    Moves
    36908
    22 Sep '20 14:52
    @vivify said
    Maybe for industrialized places like the U.S., but not so for under-developed nations.

    Maybe the problem has more to do with corporate farming than meat. Smaller, local farm like those owned by Amish societies would probably not have the same issues.

    Industrialized farms give no thought to the actual care of animals, raise them inhumanely and pack them in as tightly ...[text shortened]... o maximize profits. It's these types of farms responsible for bird flu, mad cow disease, and COVID.
    Well if it is the case that not eating meat would be detrimental to societies that are already struggling to feed themselves then that should be looked at on a case by case footing.
    But I’m not sure it’s easier to grow feed for cattle than it is to grow feed for vegetarians.
    Survival or malnourishment would certainly be reason enough for an opt out of a global vegetarian diet.
  6. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    22 Sep '20 16:20
    @yo-its-me said
    What about the cholesterol?
    It's worth stopping just for that isn't it?

    "Of the 56.9 million deaths worldwide in 2016, more than half (54😵 were due to the top 10 causes. Ischaemic heart disease and stroke are the world’s biggest killers, accounting for a combined 15.2 million deaths in 2016. These diseases have remained the leading causes of death globally in the last 15 years."https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death
    There's nothing that mentions meat in that link; it does mention factors like smoking, which cause heart disease.

    There is definitely an argument for going vegan; for moral, environmental, and health reasons.

    A few things: there are meats that are considered quite healthy, mainly fish. As far as I'm aware, fish doesn't increase risk of heart attack or increase cholesterol. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Also, it's not just the meat itself; industrialized farms frequently use chemicals like growth hormones, anti-biotics and unnatural feed for their animals. This is really what adds to the unhealthiness of eating meat.

    But overall, barring issues of poverty where meat may be a necessity, giving up meat is far better for the planet.
  7. Joined
    07 Feb '09
    Moves
    151917
    22 Sep '20 16:26
    I saw an interesting statistic in a documentary.
    The average American consumes 9oz of beef per day..
    If China were to match America at that per capita consumption, there would not be enough farmland on earth to feed to cows required to produce the beef.
  8. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    22 Sep '20 16:28
    @kevcvs57 said
    Well if it is the case that not eating meat would be detrimental to societies that are already struggling to feed themselves then that should be looked at on a case by case footing.
    But I’m not sure it’s easier to grow feed for cattle than it is to grow feed for vegetarians.
    Survival or malnourishment would certainly be reason enough for an opt out of a global vegetarian diet.
    This is like saying we shouldn't switch to renewable energy because jobs like coal-mining will be lost. If something is causing harm to the environment, people's health and to society, we should first look at how much harm it's doing, and how it would benefit society to get rid of it.

    Once we determine something like meat or coal is better off not having around (or least greatly reducing), we can then consider the best course of action to safely and responsibly transition away to a better alternative. It doesn't have to be immediate, transitioning away from something like meat, coal, etc., can be a gradual process, starting with areas that can best handling get rid of it.
  9. Subscribershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    87534
    22 Sep '20 16:40
    It’s not time to stop eating meat.
    Imagine all those extra “healthy” people not dying? Living to a hundred, chewing carrots and guzzling health and social care costs.

    Anyone who makes sauces knows that you need meat products to get it tasty. Anyone who eats pasta and cheese know that bacon makes it 100x better.

    If nobody ate meat, the deer and boar would end up plundering the farmsteads, meaning we’d have to shoot them to save the crops (or introduce wolves). And then not eat them?

    Now, I agree that the industrialized meat industry needs sorting out. And I’m perfectly fine with eating game, free-range, etc. And I’m perfectly fine paying double the price for good quality.

    But not giving children meat and fish, is very unhealthy for them. Vegan diets especially.

    As for pandemics; if the problem is wet markets, stop wet markets. If the problem is feeding cows beef... stop feeding cows beef.
    Other than that, in the long run, antibiotic resistant TB is going to be far more damaging to humanity than a Covid. And that’s got nothing to do with eating meat.
  10. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    22 Sep '20 17:04
    One may as well ask whether it's time to stop mass international travel. With only small numbers of easily controlled people traveling between countries the rate the virus could spread outside the area it originated would be about walking pace (c.f. Bubonic Plague), and by the time it had spread outside China there would be a vaccine and there would not be a pandemic.
  11. Subscriberkevcvs57
    Flexible
    The wrong side of 60
    Joined
    22 Dec '11
    Moves
    36908
    23 Sep '20 09:021 edit
    @vivify said
    This is like saying we shouldn't switch to renewable energy because jobs like coal-mining will be lost. If something is causing harm to the environment, people's health and to society, we should first look at how much harm it's doing, and how it would benefit society to get rid of it.

    Once we determine something like meat or coal is better off not having around (or least ...[text shortened]... eat, coal, etc., can be a gradual process, starting with areas that can best handling get rid of it.
    I’m just addressing the personal morality question of eating meat it’s not much different to the morality of cannibalism if it’s for survival then it’s ok IMO
    Vegan and vegetarian diets are definitely better for the individual and the environment.
    If it comes to burning coal or freezing to death then I’m burning coal. If a society doesn’t have access to alternative energies like wind, wave, or solar energy then they’ll either have to go nuclear or fossil fuel.
  12. Standard memberyo its me
    Yo! Its been
    Me, all along
    Joined
    14 Jan '07
    Moves
    63170
    23 Sep '20 12:56
    @shavixmir said
    It’s not time to stop eating meat.
    Imagine all those extra “healthy” people not dying? Living to a hundred, chewing carrots and guzzling health and social care costs.


    But not giving children meat and fish, is very unhealthy for them. Vegan diets especially.
    Why healthy in inverted comers? It is a healthier way of living, less of a drain on the health system for all ages, not just old age and the car needed in old age is less offensive- healthy gut bacteria means they're more pleasant to clean after a accident for example!

    What about meat and fish do children need that they can't get from plants?
  13. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    653648
    23 Sep '20 13:05
    @yo-its-me said
    Why healthy in inverted comers? It is a healthier way of living, less of a drain on the health system for all ages, not just old age and the car needed in old age is less offensive- healthy gut bacteria means they're more pleasant to clean after a accident for example!

    What about meat and fish do children need that they can't get from plants?
    Vitamin B12

    In fact the People most fit to cease Eating meat are men after they passed the age of about 25...
    Women in General are more likely to become vegetarians, but they are the ones who Need the B12 more than the men.
  14. Standard memberyo its me
    Yo! Its been
    Me, all along
    Joined
    14 Jan '07
    Moves
    63170
    23 Sep '20 14:26
    @ponderable said
    Vitamin B12

    In fact the People most fit to cease Eating meat are men after they passed the age of about 25...
    Women in General are more likely to become vegetarians, but they are the ones who Need the B12 more than the men.
    Yes, OK, that's true.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6611390/
    Infants and Children
    Two case-control studies among infants (29) and children (30) investigated the effects of a macrobiotic dietary regime (no animal foods) on vitamin B12 biomarkers. Plasma vitamin B12 concentrations were significantly lower among macro-biotic fed infants (n = 47) as compared to their omnivorous fed controls (n = 56) (29). In another study, adolescents who had received a macrobiotic diet until 6 y of age and had then switched a diet containing animal products (n = 73) still had significantly lower vitamin B12 concentrations and higher concentrations MMA, but comparable Hcy concentrations, as compared to their age-matched controls who consumed an omnivorous diet from birth onwards. These results suggest that switching from a macrobiotic diet to moderate consumption of animal food products is inadequate to restore vitamin B12 status among children with a low vitamin B12 in early childhood


    But a supplement is enough isn't it? Perhaps everyone should take B12 supplements. B12 is neither from plants or animals. It's made by bacteria and archaea.
    From the same link above, studies have shown a protective effect of multivitamins containing vitamin B12 on global cognition (82), brain shrinkage (83), or quality of life scores (84).
  15. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    653648
    23 Sep '20 14:35
    @yo-its-me said
    Yes, OK, that's true.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6611390/
    Infants and Children
    Two case-control studies among infants (29) and children (30) investigated the effects of a macrobiotic dietary regime (no animal foods) on vitamin B12 biomarkers. Plasma vitamin B12 concentrations were significantly lower among macro-biotic fed infants (n = 47) as compar ...[text shortened]... ning vitamin B12 on global cognition (82), brain shrinkage (83), or quality of life scores (84).
    Supplements

    * are a method for the rich part of the global Population
    * are less facile to dose (beware of the much will help more!)


    In fact I am quite sympathetic to the case of reducing meat consumption. But I don't see that as a global possibillity for the next few decades. Switching from "Supermarket cheap" meat to more sustainably meat of higher qulaity is something I think could be achievable in my (expected) Lifetime to a Degree that we see a good effect.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree