I am assuming this is some sort of vegan talking point that since some human teeth are mostly flat, ignoring canines and some particularly sharp front incisors, humans are supposed to eat only plants? Aren’t humans omnivores though?
You are interpreting that backwards. I wouldnt say it’s a vegan talking point so much as a non vegan talking point in reverse. It’s commonly argued that because humans have canines were meant to eat meat. Whereas vegans fully acknowledge the capacity to digest meat and evolutionary history that evolved omnivorous diets (but argue the majority of (not all) people have a want rather than a need) . The vegans are just memeing back.
meh I’ve heard mostly vegans make this dumbass argument.
I definitely support vegans but I don’t support pseudoscientific bullshit no matter who says it.
If anything is dumbass pseudoscience, it’s the paleo diet, carnivore diet, and all other low carb diets.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FNIoKmMq6cs&pp=ygUhcGFsZW9udG9sb2dpc3QgZGVidW5rcyBwYWxlbyBkaWV0
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-problem-with-the-paleo-diet-argument/
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18596505-the-low-carb-fraud
Multiple different things can be dumbass pseudoscience, actually. Any time someone starts talking about what humans “were meant to eat”, I’m done listening. Humans can and do survive and thrive on an extremely broad variety of diets. It’s part of why societies were able to develop in so many different places.
Right, exactly. This is what I said. Humans _can _ survive on vegan diets. So the question becomes, if it’s possible to live a totally healthy normal life not eating meat, should you? This is the moral line that vegans come down on differently than the typical meat eater.
Nobody is arguing that humans can’t eat meat or that it wasn’t beneficial for our ancestors to be able to. The question is, if it’s not required, is it moral? Btw, veganism is about harm reduction. There are people to this day in impoverished countries who are actually required to eat meat to achieve sufficient nutrient intake. You will find 99% vegans having no problem with those people. But if you live in a country with basic infrastructure you probably have enough to at least significantly reduce meat intake
Hi there! You appear to be interpreting some type of meat eating ideology from my comment. Let me encourage you to take it at face value - the only intent is to criticize the idea that humans are “meant” to eat particular foods, an idea present both in the meme that started this thread and in the above mentioned paleo diet
We are agreeing lol. My point is that vegans do not actually make this argument. I have yet to ever hear it made unironically. Sometimes it is made in jest because it is made to us with sincerity from meat eater ideology.
Another question is: if it’s moral, are you gonna do it for that reason?
I have no arguments against veganism. Vegans are right. Yet I am not a vegan.
People vary in their adherence to their own morals. Some change their morals more often than they change their actions.
I choose to be someone who puts my morals above my wants, at least as often as I can, and I try to learn all the time if there are other ways I am inadvertently going against my own morals.
Edit to add: I also used to agree with veganism and not take part, mainly out of fear it would be too hard and I’d fail or hurt myself. And then one day I just did it. I dont regret it one bit.
This is the “fuck off, I like guns” of meat eating and pretty much the only argument I’m receptive to. I get frustrated when people argue they should be able to do things using bad arguments. But if you say, I don’t have a good argument for this but I’m gonna do it anyway, that’s at least being honest with yourself and I respect that a lot more.
To be honest I do largely agree with you on this. What we did eat should not really determine what we should eat now.
Nutritionfacts is a pseudoscience site.
The paleo diet is definitely, absolutely bullshit, but ketogenic diets have real use and purpose, if you can adhere to a strict ketogenic diet, and can do so without becoming malnourished (both of which are damn near impossible for most people). If you can get your body into a state of ketosis–not ketoacidosis, which is a potentially fatal condition most often associated with diabetes–then you burn off body fat much, much more quickly when you’re on a calorie-deficient diet, because your body is already using fats as a primary source for energy rather than carbohydrates. The downside is that you’ll feel like absolute dogshit for a few days until you adjust, since glucose is the preferred fuel for cellular respiration.
Nutritionfacts is a pseudoscience site.
thank you
Your defense of keto boils down to: people need to lose weight fast or they will give up, so its useful? Its an incredibly damaging diet if you were to stay on it for life.
And if you are only meant to use it to lose weight, what exactly do people transition to when done?
If anything is dumb it’s limiting your diet.
Humans have teeth suitable for both meat and plant foods. So I would say humans are omnivores.
I may be wrong, but a 100% vegan only diet I think requires supplements to be taken for certain things like proteins that humans need in order to live. Of course, those certain proteins are found in meats.
However, I think saying humans are carnovires would also be incorrect, and a 100% meat only diet would be I think equally as unhealthy as a 100% plant only diet.
I don’t think you read my post carefully. I said humans have teeth for both meat and plants. I didn’t say that humans aren’t omnivores. I just said (implicitly) that they are not obligate omnivores.
Proteins are not a concern, you can get all essential amino acids through only plant protein. Pretty much the only one that is hard to get enough of is B12. With real determination it can be done but it’s easier to just supplement. By the way, most omnis also do not get enough B12 and eat supplements either directly or through fortified foods. It’s just usually they are getting it through fortified milk which vegans don’t drink.
Milk is not typically fortified with B12. Plant based milk is more likely to be B12 fortified.
Probably depends on the country…
a plant based diet is completely healthy as long as you eat varied foods and don’t try something stupid like subsisting on apples and dandelions.
There are world renowned athletes who are plant based…
The idea that a pure plant-based diet can’t provide all the protein we need has been thoroughly debunked for a long time.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DMwf_9wqWY0&pp=ygUdc3RhbmZvcmQgc2NpZW50aXN0IG9uIHByb3RlaW4%3D
The nutrient you’re thinking of is b12. Vegans need to supplement b12 (for now, discoveries are still being made on that front). But at the same time, in a sense, so does everyone else.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UUyiiNwDNLU&pp=ygUOZWQgd2ludGVycyBiMTI%3D
You don’t need to supplement b12 if you eat meat unless you have health issues that cause malabsorption.
Not really, many many more people are B12 insufficient than there are vegans/vegetarians. And much of what B12 you get is because supplements are given…to the animals. See e.g. https://baltimorepostexaminer.com/carnivores-need-vitamin-b12-supplements/2013/10/30
Where I live, various vegan-targeted foods are fortified with B12, so it might be possible to get enough B12 that way without supplementing.
And going back to your main point, it’s really just dubious to draw conclusions about what we are “meant” to eat based on the shape of our teeth. If all we’re considering is health and history, it’s not entirely accurate to say we’re just omnivores. It’s more like we are predominantly herbivores with some capacity for opportunistic omnivory in emergencies, but our ability to live on animal foods is rudimentary at best and comes at a high health cost. Also consider that from a Paleolithic standpoint, early humans would have been eating much more bugs as their protein, as that would have been far more abundant and easily gathered. Hunting is unreliable, and in most circumstances would have been a luxury at best (the book “Edible” goes into this).
Of course we also are becoming more intelligent, and have emerged the capacity for moral evolution. The paleo concept as a whole is ultimately just the argument from tradition fallacy. We can do better.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FNIoKmMq6cs&pp=ygUhcGFsZW9udG9sb2dpc3QgZGVidW5rcyBwYWxlbyBkaWV0
The paleo argument is about matching the environment of evolutionary adaptedness in diet, not tradition.
People seem to forget that human evolution started 3 billion years ago so our evolutionarily-adapted diet isn’t just “paleo”
Humans don’t have to kill things with their teeth. Sharks do.
Yeah one thing you notice about the ocean is the teeth are designed so if you catch something it can’t get away. Look at anglerfish and baleen. White sharks have hundreds of teeth. Most omnivorous land mammals have teeth just like ours.
This is just a bad comparison, but it is funny.
The joke is making fun of people who call us carnivores, though. Our teeth are very different from land carnivores, as well.
Again, humans don’t kill with their teeth like land carnivores do.
I understand that, but my point was that we aren’t carnivores at all, we are omnivores.
I am not vegan FWIW, I was just responding to the person who was saying that comparing us to sea carnivores was a bad comparison, when comparing us to land carnivores yields the same results. It seemed kind of like they missed the point of the joke which was to make fun of people who wrongly call us carnivores, especially as a response to veganism.
It was all kind of useless pedantry on my part, anyways, so I apologize.
Funny thing is, have You ever seen any human having this kind of teeth naturally? No? Good coz nobody has, maybe (just maybe) as replacements but that would be the really cheap ones.
Humans generally don’t need to kill animals.
Neither do cows but I’ve seen one too many slurp a Snake like spaghetti and eat baby birds as if they were KitKats
Just because an animal does it doesn’t mean it’s okay for humans to do it
Aren’t we also “just” animals as well though?
(Not defending either side, I just really dislike it when statements suggest we aren’t also literally animals that somehow figured out to think slightly more than others…)
Technically correct is the best correct. We are animals!
We are animals in a very literal sense, but justifying an immoral act because it’s natural for animals to do it opens the door to justifying other immoral acts because animals do them. Humans are animals, but we’re uniquely the only animals capable of choosing to act ethically.
Just because an animal does it doesn’t mean it’s okay for humans to do it
Then comparing human teeth to animal teeth is irrelevant no? Because what the animals do is irrelevant.
Don’t kid yourself, Jimmy boi. If a cow ever got the chance, he’d eat you and everyone you care about!
Explain why not
Many animals reproduce via rape. If I need to explain further, then I can’t help you
Nothing does.
Soon we’ll be able to produce all the meat we want without any conscious creatures involved
I’ll just wait until photosynthesis can support brain function.
You sick bastard. Oh well to each his own.
Well, I don’t like meat anyway, so…
Let me guess: fava beans?
I would be a vegan but I just don’t have the time or willpower.
I mean, the amount of time you have to spend bitching about other’s dietary choices is exhausting.
I’ve considered being like A half vegan Like a vegan but I’ll occasionally splurge at like events and restaurants
It’s not really considered as admirable tho and is just frowned upon by both vegans and non vegans
What if you just did it without getting any credit. You don’t need others approval to make a positive change
You’ll find outspoken people on both sides, but despite their words the world is not black and white. Do what you can, do what you feel is best. Any harm reduction is harm reduction and an all or nothing mentality isn’t helping anyone anywhere.
I’m proud of you. You’re doing something good even if you slip up. Me, I have decided to not go meat free.
I find vegan cooking to be easier, but I’m not a vegan and will eat meat at restaurants or if someone else cooks, or at least cuts the meat which is a total pain in the ass and leaves packaging that makes the garbage stink like nothing else.
The bitching is universal though. I used to take my dad’s home cooked food to school and one that got the most questions was the spicy tofu and pork. I could call it literally ‘tofu and pork’ and people would ask if im vegan and if that’s why I’m not muscular at all etc.
Yet here you are?
Leave him alone. His anus is bleeding
Typical vegan shitposting
Nice, isn’t it?
No. It never is
I fear you have a shitposting deficiency.
Holy shit why can’t vegans shut the fuck up about veganism
They’re part of the “If I’m doing nothing then I’m part of the problem” crowd.
Otherwise known as “moralizing busybodies”
People who mentioned veganism: Just you, Bud.
Downvote if you’re secretly attracted to your own dad.
How can I downvote twice?
- Spin up your own instance
- Set up a bunch of bot accounts to spam downvotes at people that post inflammatory garbage on popular communities
- We all profit
I’m sorry, my reply is inflammatory garbage? Not the person calling out vegans in a comment under a meme? Yeah, okay.
Here, take mine since I’m not attracted to my dad. 🤣 (I applied it for you to the other guy… Maybe I am attracted to my dead dad- I do eat meat and that’s obscene according to these vegans)
deleted by creator
Look at the name of the person posting. Kinda makes a statement.
deleted by creator
Man, it really is entertaining when religious zealots try to meme
Veganism isn’t a religion. It’s a simple moral framework, a practical moral baseline, and a social movement like any other. Would you call a social justice, anti-genocide, or lgbtq+ rights advocate a religious zealot?
Suuure.
And not all social justice advocates treat it like a religion. But some do.
Also, trying to compare veganism, a system of belief, to genocide resistance and human rights is absurd to the point that it exactly makes my point.
There is no world in which fighting genocide is the same thing as avoiding animal products. None, no way, no how. The arrogance of your statement is so far beyond the usual responses my little troll statement gets that I’m outright flummoxed. I can’t believe anyone would be that stupid, that arrogant, that ridiculous.
And that goes just as much for lgbt+ rights. You are outright absurd making that comparison.
And that absurdity is exactly why veganism is a religion to way too many vegans. Like, I’m not anti vegan, I know and love many, I just like getting online vegans riled up for entertainment. But you jumped the damn shark big time homie. That kind of thinking, that’s why people that hate vegans hate them.
Man, I find it hard to not just start calling you names because damn, son.
sImPlE mOrAl fRaMeWoRk
You are completely ignoring the fact, that for many it is too time consuming and involved to go vegan. And then you are imposing your belief that others should invest the same amount of resources, be it time or money, or they are worse human beings not caring about animals. In other words, being able to switch your diet is usually a sign of at least slight financial privilege. I just had some tofu so you don’t have to preach to me. But let others be and do not compare veganism to anti-genocide. It is absolutely ridiculous.
First off, I am not vegan or even vegetarian. But every time I eat meat I am very aware that I am doing this from a very hedonistic point. It is not necessary for either my health or survival, nor is it morally or ethically ok. It just is not. Trying to find anything other than I like how it tastes as an argument is futile. But again, I am saying this as a person who does eat meat, not daily, but regularly.
You are completely ignoring the fact, that for many it is too time consuming and involved to go vegan.
It is not time consuming. Instead of making noodles with minced meat and tomato sauce you make noodles with tomato sauce. You literally leave out one ingredient, that’s it. Especially going vegetarian is literally a no brainer. If you aren’t too anal about being vegan (trace amounts etc) this is also really not time consuming. You don’t need to do fancy vegan recipes with sprouts or quinoa, this is the equivalent of cooking a beef wellington with truffle sauce for lunch. Even your walk through a supermarket is shorter because you don’t need to go through the meat aisle.
And then you are imposing your belief that others should invest the same amount of resources, be it time or money, or they are worse human beings not caring about animals.
You and I are less caring about animals and the planet. Even if we buy organic free range meat, we know the carbon footprint. We know that an animal was scared before its life ended untimely and unnecessarily. Let’s not fool ourselves here: It’s not a belief. It is what it is. It is a choice to make but let’s be clear: it is a choice. And as with every choice, it has consequences. Moneywise, I think I won’t tell you anything new by pointing out that meat substitute products are expensive, but a plain vegetable based diet is not per se expensive. Although I am very baffled by how little meat can cost - but we are talking about the lowest standard meat here. A kg of free range chicken breast is 30€ where I live. I can’t afford that every day for sure. And again, you don’t have to buy fancy sprouts, pea protein sausages, quinoa and all that. Rice, a can of kidney beans fried with an onion, and some sauteed veggies are a full meal which will not cost more or is more difficult or time consuming to make than any meat dish. Hell there’s even convenience food for vegetarians and vegans, which will - as all convenience products - cost more than if you prepared it yourself, but choose the resource you want to spend.
In other words, being able to switch your diet is usually a sign of at least slight financial privilege.
With a push to leave out meat, fish, and animal products, you are not being told to buy something. You are being told to leave something out. But I absolutely agree that if you are struggling to get by, then a kg of low quality chicken wings will get you fuller than a kg of bell peppers, which might also be more expensive. But the greatest majority of us - those not on food stamps or counting every penny - can absolutely afford to go vegan/vegetarian or at the very least leave out meat once in a while. Especially if you usually try to look for better quality meat (which is on the more expensive site) you can easily save money by leaving out meat.
I just had some tofu so you don’t have to preach to me. But let others be and do not compare veganism to anti-genocide. It is absolutely ridiculous.
If anything, not eating meat is more effective and more directly effective on ecological movements than protesting will be on your country’s (assumed by me) support of genocide. It’s very easy compared to much more complex issues. There are a lot of problems in the world that cannot be compared well but are all very important. You can address one and the other.
There is evidence to suggest that low income households are more likely to be vegan or vegetarian than high income households. So financial privilege is not a good deflection. The reason so many vegans are not sympathetic to the argument about time or effort is that for the vast majority of them they have lived experience contradicting it so it comes across as an excuse. they are not spending any more time or mental effort to eat than anybody else. When you first make the switch maybe you spend 10% more effort to learn new recipes, what you buy or whatever, but it quickly becomes routine as any other dietary system.
(I say they because I don’t identify as vegan for a variety of reasons, but it does make it easier to have a conversation to use labels. I don’t advocate people become vegan, but I do advocate they try to reduce their animal product intake the best they can. In the rare circumstance that the best they can is nothing I don’t judge.)
To me It seems you are upset that people are putting you in a moral category below themselves and your reaction is to assume that means they are wrong. Firstly, don’t think of people as putting you below them morally, but putting your actions into less desirable outcomes. Also, sit with that. Should you feel uncomfortable? If so, what is an appropriate reaction to that discomfort?
I don’t think it’s productive to quibble about whether it’s comparable to human ethical questions, so no comment on the genocide. People have been in trouble in the past for making comparisons to Jim Crow or slavery. I don’t think it’s appropriate either, just as it would be inappropriate to argue whether Palestinian genocide or slavery was worse.
nonetheless, during any time of ethical or moral awakening, there were people complicit with status quo in those scenarios, maybe even sympathetic to some of the arguments but valued social order over progress, who were asked to confront their complicity and they blamed the people pointing this out as the judgy problem starters rather than addressing the root problem.
I have many friends which are vegan and we live in an area + work in an industry with a comparatively high amount of people with such a diet. We have talked about the topic at lengths, and my understanding is that in order to have a healthy diet you have to do quite a bit of research and spend time planning your meals. And then going out on a dinner is often a pain, although this has improved in the recent years.
We eat much less meat than the general public. But going the next step and eliminating meat and then diary products is not trivial. Unless you have less responsibilities and or more prior knowledge to get you up to speed. I simply do not have the time for that, I have a small kid to take care of. And we often struggle to plan enough meals ahead of time in the short period of time between finishing work and doing groceries.
It might sound like an excuse to you. It feels the same on my end, when my concerns are dismissed with some hand waving by people which usually are in a completely different place in their life than me.
The thing is, you could argue you need to do all that research to verify you’re eating enough of the right things, but in some sense you should be doing that regardless of whether your diet is vegan. But most people don’t bother, they just eat whatever and go to the doctor every once in a while and if there is a big gap somewhere the doctor will point it out. The lazy vegan diet is no more unbalanced than a lazy Omni diet. You can just not think about it, it’s not like you will immediately die if you are lacking in some nutrient. If you are supplementing with a multi vitamin or even just taking only B12 and iron, chances are you’re eating enough different kinds of things just by happenstance that you don’t even have to think about “complete proteins”.
If you only eat potatoes and Oreos then yeah you’ll have a bad time, but who is doing that? Do you count your carb, protein, fat intake? Daily caloric intake? Your lysine? Your riboflavin? Why don’t you? How are you so sure you’re getting enough already? Do you think vegans sit around counting that stuff too? I buy the usuals at the grocery store, I just make/eat whatever I feel like and have a couple weeks worth of recipes I rotate through same as everyone else, eat out once or twice a week at normal restaurants with vegan options. It’s not hard no matter how much you insist it should be.
When I hear its too hard my lived experience tells me it’s entirely possible to think about food the absolute minimum required, so it seems either like an excuse or ignorance.
The thing is, you could argue you need to do all that research to verify you’re eating enough of the right things, but in some sense you should be doing that regardless of whether your diet is vegan. But most people don’t bother, they just eat whatever and go to the doctor every once in a while and if there is a big gap somewhere the doctor will point it out. The lazy vegan diet is no more unbalanced than a lazy Omni diet. You can just not think about it, it’s not like you will immediately die if you are lacking in some nutrient. If you are supplementing with a multi vitamin or even just taking only B12 and iron, chances are you’re eating enough different kinds of things just by happenstance that you don’t even have to think about “complete proteins”.
If you only eat potatoes and Oreos then yeah you’ll have a bad time, but who is doing that? Do you count your carb, protein, fat intake? Daily caloric intake? Your lysine? Your riboflavin? Why don’t you? How are you so sure you’re getting enough already? Do you think vegans sit around counting that stuff too? I buy the usuals at the grocery store, I just make/eat whatever I feel like and have a couple weeks worth of recipes I rotate through same as everyone else, eat out once or twice a week at normal restaurants with vegan options. It’s not hard no matter how much you insist it should be.
When I hear its too hard my lived experience tells me it’s entirely possible to think about food the absolute minimum required, so it seems either like an excuse or ignorance.
Don’t compare veganism to anti-genocide? My anointed sibling (gnostic gender-neutral idioms >> orthodox gendered ones), every animal product eater/user is complicit in the largest perpetual genocide in human history.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Hershaft
In the first place remember that veganism isn’t only about diet. And it’s about doing the best that you can, with what you have. Not everyone can go fully vegan, and that’s understandable and okay as long as they’re doing their best.
Also, I’ve never owned property. I’ve never worked a job that paid enough to afford it (or rent) on my own. When I started transitioning my diet, it was when I had switched jobs to a factory setting with 40-48 hour work weeks (post-covid it was almost always 48 hours), 10 hour shifts on my feet all day. Prior to that I was dependent on eating fast food every day (with predictable rapidly declining health). I also lived in a food desert where going vegan meant that I had zero options for takeout.
I had no one in my life willing to help, in fact all the people around me made it even harder to change. I also have adhd, and can’t stand the concept of meal prep. So what I did was save up for an Instant Pot, and started making the largest batches of grains and legumes that I could, along with frozen veggies (mainly broccoli). I generally cooked only once a week, and then would combine the helpings of leftovers in different ways each day (to keep it from getting too boring) for both my work lunches and dinners.
And I also sought community. Having vegan friends helps immensely.
Don’t assume that I’m as privileged as you think just because I’m vegan. On the other hand I know there are too many people who are far worse off than I am, and everyone who is struggling too much to go fully vegan should never be condemned, on the contrary we should seek to help - because our current food system is killing everyone who is most disadvantaged and impoverished.
Our capitalist wasteland, particularly when you factor in health outcomes, means it’s even more important to at least go plant-based (not the same thing as veganism), and to help others do the same.
it’s not a genocide. the goal isn’t to wipe out pigs or chickens or cows.
It’s perpetual misery and slaughter.
i’d say husbandry then harvesting. i think most of the people who make our food would, too.
(Ignoring that our industrial animal-food system is probably a significant contributor to the vast extinctions we’re causing, since animal ag is the leading cause of wild habitat destruction).
Would you feel better about the human genocides that occur, if the mass murderers were deliberately and forcibly breeding the victims into existence so they could continue the cycles of killing perpetually? Or is playing word games more important than recognizing the reality of what we are doing collectively?
i wouldn’t feel any better about it, but it’s not a genocide. if anyone is playing word games, is the person who insists on using the wrong word.
I feel like you missed the point at the detriment of people taking your position seriously. Words and their definitions are very important in communication and I feel like semantics is something that is very undeserving of the flippant treatment it routinely receives.
If someone were to accuse someone else of lying, this also comes with an accusation of intent. It isn’t sufficient for someone’s statement to be false to be a lie, there also needs to be intent to deceive. Intent to deceive implies that the liar at least knows what they’re saying is untrue, and possibly implies they know what is actually true depending on the context. However, if there is no intent to deceive, it’s usually a case of that person just being mistaken. How frustrating would it be for someone to be accused of lying when they say something they believe to be true? And how seriously should they take their accusers when not only being told their view of reality is incorrect, but also being informed that their own intent is malignant when stating something they believe is true?
So, when it comes to describing something as a genocide, you’re also describing intent. If you tell people that they’re killing animals with the intent to extinct them, they’re probably not going to take you seriously. It’s probably better to have someone tell you what their intentions are rather than just assuming you can slap a piece of paper saying “this is you” on a scarecrow before drop-kicking it.
I think it’s just a diet.
My diet has been really deficient in leather jackets since becoming a vegan, at least I can still eat fruit leather.
deleted by creator
If they act like a zealot, then yes. Most, like most vegans, are not zealots and we can have a great conversation. Your name gives me the feeling that a productive conversation might be difficult. But, I’ll try my best. 😁
I chose my username to make fun of all the people who categorize vegans as militant anytime we speak out at all. It’s to highlight that the only vegan who isn’t seen that way is a vegan who stays silent and does nothing to speak out against the atrocities being committed against animals.
This is your take, from someone who defines themselves as militant? Lol.
It’s absolutely a religion. One of the definitions of religion is “a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.” The examples you mention are much less narrowly defined. And if they started persecuting people who don’t join their specific method, then yes, they would be, too.
I mean, here you are proselytizing with poorly thought out memes. What’s more religious than that?
If pursuing something ascribed supreme importance is a religion, then being a doctor is a religion. Doctors ascribe supreme importance to the value of human life and to saving it.
Then it is. Not all doctors do, but ones who do would certainly fall under that category.
You see doctors educating, not badly trying to shame people to, for example, not participate in sports.
We aren’t carnivores, we are omnivores. An advantage that surely allowed the growth of our brains and allowed us to become the dominant species in the planet.
Our teeth our designed in a way to both rip/tear meat and also grind up plants.
It is great that some sector of the population can be vegetarian or vegan, but it isn’t a realistic option if everyone did so. Farming is destroying hundred of thousands of acres of land every year. Keeping up with a plant-based only diet for 8 billion people isn’t feasible with the current technology and farming practices of today.
Farm animals are generally not anymore fed by grazing, but rather from crops that have been grown on farm land. The animals use up energy to sustain their own life, so eating the plants directly is actually more efficient.
Here’s a random source, for example: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
On a cow-calf operation, which is where most beef production starts, a typical cow will graze and/or eat hay for about 12 years while breeding, then get slaughtered pretty much the day they’re shipped because they aren’t worth fattening at that age, they’re just going to ground beef.
The culls (mid-life cows, failed to get pregnant) might see a couple months of their at least 36 month existence on grain before slaughter. Older ones might just go straight to slaughter.
Steers and cull heifers (which is most of what gets used for choice cuts like steak) typically see about 14 months typically on pasture and silage/grain being backgrounded on farm, then about 3 months being intensively fed in a feedlot at up to 80% ration before slaughter.
So, by far, the largest proportion of feeding of most cattle is by grazing or stored forage as part of the backgrounding process. It’s only when they enter the feedlot that it becomes a grain-intense operation, and that part of the production is very short because feedlots don’t make money feeding cows from calf-age to slaughter.
Also, many larger cow-calfs will also hold on to steers and push them, selling them as “fats”, which sees much less intense feedlot experience. This isn’t a huge proportion of the final months of most steers, but is still an appreciable proportion of the market.
The stockyards of Kansas aren’t the typical beef production scenario. They’re just very visible.
Thanks for the interesting info!
basically all beef cattle graze for the first year or so.
Raising animals consumes even more resources because first you have to grow plants to feed to the aninals.
While in general you’re right, you’re neglecting the fact that theres plenty of land that is suitable for raising animals which isn’t suitable for farming. Specifically: The Norwegian population would have been incapable of surviving historically without a bunch livestock living in the un-farmable mountains most of the year.
This is an interesting edge case you’re presenting, but it’s not representative of the overwhelming majority of agricultural land devoted to livestock, and it’s been largely solved by modern supply chains and distribution.
That’s not an edge case, plenty of countries have little to no arable land. Scotland and Japan have around 10% of arable land, New Zealand has 2%. Growing veggies is a luxury, especially in northern parts of the world.
Yes, but shipping veggies has negligible GHG emissions compared to livestock farming. You’re hung up on a small fraction of livestock production when the vast majority is factory farmed.
We are always working at solving problems. Right now the world is trying to figure out how to have its meat and eat it too, and spending all of our energy and money on that.
If we decided the problem was figuring out how to grow plants in those conditions, I bet you’d find we would improve that too.
Take a look at a map of Norway. If you find a way of growing crops on rocks that are dozens of kilometres from the nearest road, and covered in snow 8/12 months a year, please let me know.
Well you’d have to make exceptions for those that can’t have their food shipped from better climates and also can’t grow their own food. I’d imagine those peoples lives wouldn’t change much from now were the rest of the world to stop eating meat.
Everyone who has the ability to avoid eating meat, should. Bringing up exceptions doesnt negate that position, its built in.
Which is why I said “in general, you’re right”. However, that doesn’t take away the fact that most livestock from some countries is primarily raised on land that can’t be farmed.
Speaking of supply chains: We could do the math on whether shipping a vegetable-based calorie from Brazil to Norway is more or less of an environmental burden than a meat-based calorie produced in Norway.
Here you go:
Did you read the text on that graphic?
… land conversion for grazing and feed …
I’m not talking about meat production in general (which I think should be minimised), I’m specifically talking about meat production from land that is not viable for other uses.
This was exactly my point: I’m legitimately interested in how that graphic looks if you consider meat produced on land that cannot be used for other types of agriculture, and which is local so that transportation is a negligible cost, and feed production is close to non-existent, because the livestock primarily lives off the land.
Why are you bringing up historical facts? Noones planning to go back in time to make people vegan earlier.
We are talking about now, and right now, could those Scandinavian countries get by with substantially less meat? I’m not sure but quite a few of them are trying limited promotions like a vegan day of the week to promote health.
Meat is not good for us in large amounts, people need to understand that. They seem to with fish, just apply that to the other meat too, just it kills you slower than mercury poisoning would.
I’ve seen an operation where someone grew a small food forest on 12 inches of manure spread on an abandoned parking lot, in the midwest.
The idea of what land is suitable for crop use is likely based on what’s suitable for industrial monoculture, a highly inflexible cookie-cutter system, which is a problem in and of itself.
I agree, and I’m most interested in what innovations we can come up with in as people start to care more and more about their health and diet, and learn that animals and humans deserve respect no matter how far away they are.
I’m not bringing up the state of access to agricultural land as some historical trivia. It’s just as true today as ever before.
The point is that plenty of countries/regions cannot be self-sufficient regarding food production without resorting to livestock. There are several reasons to be, at least in part, self-sufficient. From environmental considerations arising from the transport of food from other places, to food security in the case that conflict or crisis strikes the region supplying you with food, a region which you don’t control.
Stop acting like this is black and white, and that there’s absolutely no reason a country would want the capability of providing for its own people, as if that’s a thing of the past.
I never argued each could try should be self-sufficient. Globalism has made it so most people are capable of eating vegan diets, should they choose to. Countries depending on each other to trade food is fine by me, most western countries do this already.
We also dont need to keep growing the human population globally the way we have been, its alright to slow down and figure out how to take care of the people (and animals) that already exist.
You are the one acting like its black and white, saying its either a ban or not at all. Exceptions will need to be made for many reasons were this to be implemented today: for those who can’t grow or ship their food in, for those that have to deal with the environmental considerations you mentioned, or those with any number of medical conditions that affect nutrition and diet.
If the self-sufficiency thing is so important to you, can you tell me which countries currently meet that label? Is it most countries? How are the self sufficient countries doing overall?
It seems like you’ve misunderstood what I’m trying to say. I’m saying that
A) There are legitimate reasons for a country to want to have some degree of self-sufficiency.
B) The environmental impact of producing meat is hugely different depending on how the livestock gets its food, and the environmental impact of transporting goods cannot be neglected.
C) There are countries with terrain suitable for livestock that cannot be used for farming.
Of course: Almost no countries are, or need to be, 100% self-sufficient, because we have trade, but there is a huge difference between 10% and 50% self-sufficiency. If we are to cut out meat entirely, many places would be incapable of maintaining any notable degree of self-sufficiency.
With you third paragraph, it seems like you actually agree with me. I don’t know how you got from me saying “there are legitimate reasons to produce meat”, to me saying this is a black and white issue. I’m explicitly trying to say that it’s not black and white, both because of self-sufficiency arguments, and because of the environmental cost of transportation. Thus, we need a nuanced approach. This means that we should minimise (or eliminate) the use of farmland for livestock production, without condemning livestock production as a whole, because there are legitimate reasons to have livestock, as argued above.
I think the only disagreement I have is that I think we do need to condemn it as a whole, and set the ultimate goal of abolishing the practice. We can still compromise on the way there. I think this is a problem we could solve if we could agree on the goal, although its most important we are heading in the right direction regardless of the end goal.
Guy haven’t heard about fish or wild life.
You think it’s feasible for the majority of humans to survive off wild life?
You think it was a default option to export avocados from South America to Sweden?
It’s strange believing we can’t live how we lived for thousands of years because we changed our habits the past 300. Explosive human growth is not a necessity for human life. It’s a necessity for capitalism to thrive.
Of course: if we just let a significant portion of the human population starve to death THAT will result in us living ethically!
Our population has also exploded in that time
Avocados are relevant to what, exactly?
The question of how much energy is used to feed people. Is it more energy efficient to grow an avocado to ship it to sweden, or raise a cow in sweden?
in case you actually want to know the answer:
it’s the avocado being shipped. and by, like, a mile and a half. it’s not even close.
raising cattle is the single most energy, water, and CO2 intensive food production there currently is.
It’s important to note the types of farming that use the most land:
This is a good infographic because:
- It uses the graphic medium to convey information that requires graphics (the ratios of land space and how the categories relate down the list) (lots of infographics could just be a bullet list or a paragraph without any information lost; this one actually utilizes the graphical medium
- It lists its data source
You are spreading misinformation. Veganism requires vastly less land and water resources. Type “land use food calculator” into google
None of what I said was misinformation. Turning everyone vegan doesn’t resolve factory farming crops. Chemicals to ensure we can actually grow food, monocultures that are terrible for the environment, limitations of where things can grow.
I’m all for reducing meat consumption, but the utopian world where everyone is vegan has many hurdles to overcome that aren’t just magically resolved. Sure, right now we might be able to reduce land usage for farming, but that is one small aspect of commercial farming under capitalism.
How do people afford food when they don’t live in a place that can grow it? How do we ensure we can continue to grow food when we are so dependent on chemicals to do so? How does a developing country support agriculture without the huge subsidies currently required in developed nations? How do you educate 8 billion people on how to properly get the nutrients they need from new sources of food? How do convince society that GMOs aren’t bad?
These are rhetorical, but moving to veganism requires us to think about these types of things before claiming “but less farm land”
They didnt say everyone needed to be vegan, just that being vegan become the norm. There will always be edge cases, and people can do whatever they want in the wild of course.
We can push forward and try to figure out how to slaughter even more despite all the problems that are coming with increased line speeds, or we can choose a different direction and tackle those problems.
Noone said the solution was perfect, just better. Are you afraid of improving yourself?
Wanna know the most abundant chemical that helps plants grow?
Carbon dioxide.
I’m not sure if you just aren’t aware or are being intentionally obtuse, but that isn’t what keeps the soil healthy or enables plants to grow. Have you grown plants ever?
Sure, photosynthesis takes in CO2 and sunlight and converts that into sugars, but plants need much more than that from the soil and water, which we have to add using modern agriculture.
Growing food on the scale to feed our population now requires crop rotations, fallow fields, nitrogen, phosphates, potash, insecticides, and billions of dollars in agricultural subsidies. You can grow a field of crops once or twice before adding all of the fertilizers and pesticides, but any amount of regular farming requires much much much more than CO2.
I’m familiar with agriculture, having gone to school, read books, and grown plants.
It seems that you are the one being intentionally obtuse. You and I both know that carbon dioxide is kept elevated in greenhouses on purpose because doing so increases the yield of plants grown in those greenhouses.
Yes, other chemicals are necessary to build a plant. The most abundant one however is carbon dioxide. It’s where like 99% of the plant’s mass comes from. And the levels of carbon dioxide in the air change the rate of plant growth.
Nitrogen is also a big limiting factor, but fortunately we’ve found out how to extract nitrogen from the air efficiently using methane, so we can have enough nitrogen fertilizer to feed everyone.
Veganism requires vastly less land and water resources
This too can cause misinformation.
Supporting a vegetarian diet requires less land and water resources.
Veganism requires the overuse of pesticides to the point that it makes the soil become unusable faster and hence needs higher treatment upkeep, essentially causing faster consumption of the limited energy resources we have.
You are spreading misinformation.
You were correct until here, but the land use food calculator will actually only be giving information pertaining to a normal (non-vegan) crop.
What do pesticides have to do with veganism?
Sounds like the problem is with pesticides.
What you are missing here is that we wouldn’t need to grow more food than we do now, we would need to grow less. Whatever issue you can point at for growing enough plants to feed the world, we’re already dealing with now. We already grow enough plant based calories to feed the world over, we just feed it to cows and other livestock. We would need to use less pesticides (not to mention antibiotics) even if everyone was vegan.
You are also narrowing in on obscure edge cases. As others have pointed out not all problems need to be solved and not all people need to adopt a vegan diet for us to make progress towards sustainability. It would be like worrying about the grid and battery technology and strip mining required to create solar panels etc. in the transition to renewable energy. worthy causes for sure but not justification to keep using fossil fuels.
And people don’t even have to change their moral judgment in the case of doing it for climate reasons. They are free to keep believing however they do. Though I suspect that once people stop eating meat for pragmatic reasons the motivated reasoning behind their moral judgment will collapse.
What I am putting up there, is that, stopping meat is not the problem.
The problem arises with using the veganism buzzword, which will make people think that paying those who advertise vegan stuff would make anything better.It would most definitely make it worse than whole vegetarian (which includes putting up with the insects and worms that come during farming) and might even end up being as much of a burden as the meat industry.
People will think they are doing better, while not actually doing better, which is worse than the status quo.
Veganism requires the overuse of pesticides
What makes you think that? Why would growing grain for humans require more pesticides than growing grain for animals, for example?
Why would growing grain for humans require more pesticides than growing grain for animals
Growing grain for the vegan brand will require more pesticides. It’s as if noone is really reading.
You’re entirely wrong.
No, that’s a myth. Growing meat is a lot more efficient.
Do you have a source on that?
We have plenty of countries like New Zealand and Scotland which barely have any arable land and yet animal farming is allowing them to sustain much bigger populations than they could otherwise and even export meat elsewhere.
You’re leaving out that they import a lot of produce and non-meat foods.
Literally impossible, due to energy/biomass transfer up the food chain. The bottom will always be the most efficient.
Except that you can’t eat grass.
Most meat eaters are not eating meat that feed on grass. Mostly it’s corn and wheat which humans can eat. If we even made the simple change that banned meat consumption of non grass fed cows that would mitigate 90% of the issue. Also beef will cost like $100 a pound, so
What do you mean most? There’s no corn/wheat fed meat in Europe. And pretty much anywhere else except for US. Growing special food for animals when you have shitloads of free grass is dumb.
The use of corn-based feed for animals seems to be a universal trend. In Europe it’s done less than in the US, but it’s an option everywhere and driven by prices. And those prices do not consider the CO2 cost to the ecosystem.
https://www.dairyherd.com/news/european-cows-eat-more-foreign-corn-global-glut-erodes-price
Did someone say Omnivore?
Farming in of itself isn’t the problem, rather the process. Too many shortcuts and foreign substances, at least in the U.S.
Amazing, you managed to pack so much patently false bullshit into so few words. Elegant.
Says the person who posted a meme showing sharks with human teeth as an argument against meat consumption.
Well since they were trying to stoke conversation, and you are conversating now, seems like it worked just fine.
They succeeded in making fools of vegans. Success indeed!
Is this an argument that humans did not evolve to eat meat? Because those teeth… Well let’s just say the teeth shown aren’t what you expect from an herbivore now, is it? Put those on a cow and they would look just as strange.
Nah, it’s just mocking the people who claim humans have to eat meat, because evolution/god/whatever gave us teeth to chew meat.
It is correct that our teeth do allow chewing meat (since we are omnivores), but yeah, taking the teeth as basis for any argumentation, that’s just ridiculous.
As the only basis, maybe. But they can be an indicator.
They can be an indicator whether we might be carnivore, herbivore or omnivore. But the actual digestion is what counts. And particularly, the categorization into “omnivore” leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Some omnivores might genuinely need to eat both categories. We happen to not need that.
what a stupid meme. it’s almost like sharks don’t have arms and hands so they rely on their jaws more than we do. wow look we don’t have compartments in our stomach, we must not be fit to eat plants.
we dont have gills, so dont drink water
That’s…not what gills are for.
Then why can a straw fit in them?
then why fish the water 😂 because gills!
And our teeth aren’t for ripping flesh off the bone so it fits
Edit: we have hands and tools for that + we cook it
Yep. imagine going through life thinking all the smart people are dumb because you’re too fucking dumb to know how dumb you are.
I always laugh at people that never saw a pacu
You must laugh a lot
It’s good for you. More people should.
The secret to happiness is you must laugh and sweat every day.
— Yogi Bhajan
Aww it’s British.
I’m sorry but this is equally terrifying as the real thing.
Those chompers are like 5 inch squares. Like a piece of bread made of bones
More like Chinese chef knives!
Vegans who actually believe what they preach spend more time on education and less on shaming or meaningless memes.
This is just posturing.
Part of vegan education has carnist shame as a condition.
Does my profile appear to be deficient in educational materials?
Your behavior disinclines me to learn more, tbh.
I think you’re hitting on an interesting concept with regards to activism: that it can be categorized into actions that raise awareness, and actions that provide education.
Take, for example, this story about climate activists blocking traffic in Amsterdam to protest ING’s financing of fossil fuels exploration. Though you may disagree with the methods used in the protest, it’s hard to deny the success of it based on the national attention it drew. Because of it, more people who are opposed to the idea of expanding fossil fuel use are aware of ING’s funding of it.
I think very few people would say that they are now in favor of fossil fuel exploration, or simply do not care to learn more about environmentalism due to the controversial actions of the protesters.
I suppose my question for you is, what would have made you want to seek more information about veganism, and what about this post made you suddenly not want to lean more?
There’s a pretty big gap “making it on the news to raise awareness for your cause” and “mastabatory shitposting on social media”
dude isn’t sneaking video evidence of wrongdoing out of a factory farm… just photoshopping bad dentures on sharks.
I agree that any movement needs both friendly and provocative advocacy to affect change, but the only thing these types of posts accomplish is helping OP feel superior.
Would you level the same criticism against someone posting memes about climate change?
If the posts were this pointless and unthinking, yes.
I can tell you what has led me towards veganism: Friends who knew how to make amazing vegan food. Knowing how to do it economically. Understanding the nutrition concerns and how to work around them. Access to good ingredients. Ways to slowly eat more vegan without rigidly jumping into it. Seeing the environmental impact. Seeing how animals are typically raised and slaughtered. Growing my own veggies and/ or participating in community gardens, etc.
I said I didn’t want to learn more about OP or their perspective. Personally, I already know quite a bit about how to eat vegan… which isn’t, by the way, the same thing as veganism.
Calling this activism is a stretch at best.
Find the nearest school bus and just get on.
Ok that was a fun one the first couple of times I heard it. 🙉
Sounds like you need to spend less time online then :)
All herbivores are opportunistic carnivores.
Pretty much. The idea that there’s any species that is purely an herbivore just isn’t born out in nature.
deleted by creator
All generalizations are incorrect.
Pandas and gorillas have plenty of opportunity and are still obligate herbivores.
But gorillas do eat some bugs. Their diet is mostly plant-based and that’s why they are classified as herbivores.
deleted by creator
Our canine teeth are pretty shark-like. Not all of our teeth are that way though. So going by our teeth, I think we’re omnivores.
The prevalence of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and autoimmune disorders in western society indicates that we are really shitty at being omnivores at best.
Sugar and tobacco aren’t meats. I assure you that heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and autoimmune disorders would still exist even if no one ate meat.
They probably would, and hyperpalatized processed foods and our toxic food environment are a problem that effect both plant-based foods and animal nonfoods.
But it takes a lot of effort to break plants into smaller constituents and rebuild them into something bad for our bodies. Animal products do that by default, and there’s no getting rid of that.
(and of course that’s in addition to all the other myriad reasons why it’s best to not eat animals).
Yes. Because people like you lean ridiculously hard into one way or the other. We need a variety of food sources to sustainability receive all the nutrients we need to live. Eating a majority let alone an only meat or plant based diet is the complete wrong direction, and this is scientific fact. At least with plants it’s possible to find substitutes, however some substitute’s aren’t nearly as sustainable as the vegan agenda tries to lead you to believe, Cough cough almonds cough cough. May, Spirulina save us all.
deleted by creator
