This is a dangerous statement to make. Would you change your mind about Veg*ism? What would it take?
many more people could be fed if we grew plants.
We grow plants, many more are not automatically fed.
Factory farming is inefficient.
Factory farming exists because it is efficient.
Vegetarians and vegans are healthier and general with lower mortality rate, lower bmi, lower risk of heart disease.
There was a recent meta-study confirming that meat has no link to any of those. I would add the caveat that processed meats are less healthy, but that’s a factor of the preservatives not the meat itself. If there is a healthy aspect to veg* it would be about extra effort applied to food maintenance as a lifestyle not about the benefits of vegetables instead of meat. (no link because I don’t have it on hand but have asked around to see if I can find it)
right to infringe on others’ rights.
That depends on your world view.
70% of plant goods are used to feeding livestock.
Not all plant matter is viable for human consumption. Humans can’t eat grass. By feeding it to cows we can harvest nutrients from parts of the earth that are not always viable for human crops.
I’ve come up with that’s rational?
You would make more friends around here describing yourself as, “aspiring rationalist” as we do. And being careful about the label “rational” and using it as an identity (see: keep your identity small)
This is a dangerous statement to make. Would you change your mind about Veg*ism? What would it take?
Sure, very easily. You would have to prove to me that
1) Animals aren’t conscious or for some reason aren’t worth moral consideration
2) Global warming doesn’t exist or factory farming doesn’t affect it
3) Meat is healthy (I understand paleo can be healthy so this point may not matter)
4) Meat is cheaper, more efficient, and more sustainable compared to plants
We grow plants, many more are not automatically fed.
True, but I think they should be ;)
Factory farming exists because it is efficient.
No it doesn’t. It exists because it WAS convenient and efficient. It is now not the best possible solution. It is cheaper and more efficient to produce plants calorie and protein-wise.
There was a recent meta-study confirming that meat has no link to any of those. I would add the caveat that processed meats are less healthy, but that’s a factor of the preservatives not the meat itself. If there is a healthy aspect to veg* it would be about extra effort applied to food maintenance as a lifestyle not about the benefits of vegetables instead of meat. (no link because I don’t have it on hand but have asked around to see if I can find it)
Nah I know correlation =/= causation.
Not all plant matter is viable for human consumption. Humans can’t eat grass. By feeding it to cows we can harvest nutrients from parts of the earth that are not always viable for human crops.
Most cows don’t eat grass in factory farming condition. I don’t really get what you’re saying with the not viable thing. We could always switch those for viable crops and it would be more efficient.
You would make more friends around here describing yourself as, “aspiring rationalist” as we do. And being careful about the label “rational” and using it as an identity (see: keep your identity small)
I didn’t know this was a thing. My bad. This was more of a semantics things. I thought of the word “rationalist” as the same as what you think “aspiring rationalist” is.
We grow plants, many more are not automatically fed.
True, but I think they should be ;)
That would be called politics. (the politics of why some are fed and not others) And has very little to do with how much meat we eat, and a lot more to do with the state of geopolitical events.
Not all plant matter is viable for human consumption. Humans can’t eat grass. By feeding it to cows we can harvest nutrients from parts of the earth that are not always viable for human crops.
We could always switch those for viable crops and it would be more efficient.
This is where we disagree on this point. I would say it’s not always possible to grow human-edible crops in all land areas that we currently grow animals crops or generally have animal herds. I can’t prove that over the internet, but consider climates not ideal for human food, dry climate, wet climate, rocky mountainous regions…
Vegetarians and vegans are healthier and general with lower mortality rate, lower bmi, lower risk of heart disease.
There was a recent meta-study confirming that meat has no link to any of those.
Nah I know correlation =/= causation.
By what mechanism would you propose that veg* is healthier?
I didn’t know this was a thing. My bad. This was more of a semantics things. I thought of the word “rationalist” as the same as what you think “aspiring rationalist” is.
Certainly! Not a problem, we tend to have a way of talking around here. Kind of a “jargon”, not hard to get used to, but tends to make it possible to tell who is on the same page as you in terms of reasonableness or still learning. Definitely look at the wiki for some of the terms and the sequences is a great read.
This is a dangerous statement to make. Would you change your mind about Veg*ism? What would it take?
We grow plants, many more are not automatically fed.
Factory farming exists because it is efficient.
There was a recent meta-study confirming that meat has no link to any of those. I would add the caveat that processed meats are less healthy, but that’s a factor of the preservatives not the meat itself. If there is a healthy aspect to veg* it would be about extra effort applied to food maintenance as a lifestyle not about the benefits of vegetables instead of meat. (no link because I don’t have it on hand but have asked around to see if I can find it)
That depends on your world view.
Not all plant matter is viable for human consumption. Humans can’t eat grass. By feeding it to cows we can harvest nutrients from parts of the earth that are not always viable for human crops.
You would make more friends around here describing yourself as, “aspiring rationalist” as we do. And being careful about the label “rational” and using it as an identity (see: keep your identity small)
Sure, very easily. You would have to prove to me that 1) Animals aren’t conscious or for some reason aren’t worth moral consideration 2) Global warming doesn’t exist or factory farming doesn’t affect it 3) Meat is healthy (I understand paleo can be healthy so this point may not matter) 4) Meat is cheaper, more efficient, and more sustainable compared to plants
True, but I think they should be ;)
No it doesn’t. It exists because it WAS convenient and efficient. It is now not the best possible solution. It is cheaper and more efficient to produce plants calorie and protein-wise.
Nah I know correlation =/= causation.
Most cows don’t eat grass in factory farming condition. I don’t really get what you’re saying with the not viable thing. We could always switch those for viable crops and it would be more efficient.
I didn’t know this was a thing. My bad. This was more of a semantics things. I thought of the word “rationalist” as the same as what you think “aspiring rationalist” is.
That would be called politics. (the politics of why some are fed and not others) And has very little to do with how much meat we eat, and a lot more to do with the state of geopolitical events.
This is where we disagree on this point. I would say it’s not always possible to grow human-edible crops in all land areas that we currently grow animals crops or generally have animal herds. I can’t prove that over the internet, but consider climates not ideal for human food, dry climate, wet climate, rocky mountainous regions…
By what mechanism would you propose that veg* is healthier?
Certainly! Not a problem, we tend to have a way of talking around here. Kind of a “jargon”, not hard to get used to, but tends to make it possible to tell who is on the same page as you in terms of reasonableness or still learning. Definitely look at the wiki for some of the terms and the sequences is a great read.