We must face facts - meat is the problem

[K.I.T.T.23]

If you actually look up the definition of "vegan" it says to reduce animal harm as much as practical, acknowledging that there will always be some level of harm that is impossible to avoid. Also you don't have to be vegan to consider morality. I remember years ago my non vegan mother saying she would no longer buy veal because of the cruelty of locking baby cows in a small crate so they can't move much. Similarly you probably wouldn't eat a dog even though they are functionally little different than a cow or pig, so you already impose some morality on your choices.

That's your interpretation, I never said nor even hinted at such. What we certainly do need is to stop government subsidies of the meat and dairy industries.

-- You are right, morality is a spectrum. So, what you are saying is, as a Vegan, or an advocate for veganism, you or anyone in that group would support the ethical slaughter of animals for food? From my understanding the answer is no... they think it is unethical. Maybe my verbiage wasn't clear (probably wasn't, my apologies) so let me re-state the baseline here. Vegans do not eat animals because they see all consumption of animal flesh as immoral. Is that correct?

-- As an Omnivore (I don't think we have a social club yet) I would absolutely prefer that all of my food is raised/grown ethically with environmental concerns and in a humanitarian nature. I don't have to be a vegan to have this view point. You are right, I prefer not to eat cat, dog, veal, or horse, but my life has placed me in some precarious situations where I have eaten some strange stuff.... including these animals and many more. That is besides the point though... bottom line, you made my point for me, your mother's mentality is fairly normal, and she can enjoy a good steak without guilt; because her morality was moderate, not extreme.

That reminds me of something I once read: There are no atheists in a fox hole, and there are no starving vegans. Food for thought.

 

[JRP3]

There are no atheists in a fox hole,

Except for the fact that it's a false statement. The idea that someone who does not believe in god would suddenly start believing under extreme stress is an idea promoted by theists, not actual atheists. Having been in an extreme life threatening situation myself the idea never crossed my mind. And again, the idea of veganism is to avoid harming animals as much as practical. Since most of us are not in starvation situations your statement of "no starving vegans" is irrelevant. Vegans are aware that for many people eating animals is currently a necessity for survival. They are also aware that for most in first world countries it is not. You still do not have a basic grasp of veganism.

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

Except for the fact that it's a false statement. The idea that someone who does not believe in god would suddenly start believing under extreme stress is an idea promoted by theists, not actual atheists. Having been in an extreme life threatening situation myself the idea never crossed my mind. And again, the idea of veganism is to avoid harming animals as much as practical. Since most of us are not in starvation situations your statement of "no starving vegans" is irrelevant. Vegans are aware that for many people eating animals is currently a necessity for survival. They are also aware that for most in first world countries it is not. You still do not have a basic grasp of veganism.

I see no points here... aside from a little personal jab and one at a phrase I once heard lol. Thank you for the discussion, I am glad we could find common ground!

 

[JRP3]

I made a number of clear points based on verifiable facts. You can look up the definition of "vegan" and see that what I said is correct. You can also look up "foxhole atheists" and find examples as well. What I see is someone ignoring "points" they don't like.

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

I made a number of clear points based on verifiable facts. You can look up the definition of "vegan" and see that what I said is correct. You can also look up "foxhole atheists" and find examples as well. What I see is someone ignoring "points" they don't like.

Well, I think we are on the same page. I am glad we could find common ground. You had some great points, and I am glad they meshed with my statements well.

If I didn't address or mention anything about one of your points I simply agreed with it... think of it as a digital head nod maybe? Or it was an anecdotal point, like the whole foxhole atheist things (seems to have really hit you in a raw spot) and doesn't pertain to the main subject, so just moving on and staying on focus is the best plan.

 

[JRP3]

seems to have really hit you in a raw spot

False statements tend to, I'm weird like that.

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

Will the Vegan movement save the planet? EOM says no.

The Hidden Dangers of the Vegan Movement

by Ben Hunt and Karin Lindquist Veganism is often presented as the solution to our environmental, health, and animal welfare problems. But is it? We have written elsewhere about the other failures of veganism when it

www.ethicalomnivore.org

 

[JRP3]

Will the Vegan movement save the planet? EOM says no.

The Hidden Dangers of the Vegan Movement

by Ben Hunt and Karin Lindquist Veganism is often presented as the solution to our environmental, health, and animal welfare problems. But is it? We have written elsewhere about the other failures of veganism when it

www.ethicalomnivore.org

There is no scalable model for sustainably producing enough food to feed the world’s population that does not include large animals.

As has been shown repeatedly in this thread that is the opposite of the truth. Meat takes greater resources to produce equal calories as plants. You can't change physics and chemistry.

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

As has been shown repeatedly in this thread that is the opposite of the truth. Meat takes greater resources to produce equal calories as plants. You can't change physics and chemistry.

Here is an article that goes into that math. In short, it isn't that simple

"If you stop eating beef, you can’t replace a kilogram of it, which has 2,280 calories, with a kilogram of broccoli, at 340 calories. You have to replace it with 6.7 kilograms of broccoli. Calories are the great equalizer, and it makes sense to use them as the basis of the calculation."
Check out this article for source and math.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vegetarian-or-omnivore-the-environmental-implications-of-diet/2014/03/10/648fdbe8-a495-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Here is an article that goes into that math. In short, it isn't that simple

"If you stop eating beef, you can’t replace a kilogram of it, which has 2,280 calories, with a kilogram of broccoli, at 340 calories. You have to replace it with 6.7 kilograms of broccoli. Calories are the great equalizer, and it makes sense to use them as the basis of the calculation."
Check out this article for source and math.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vegetarian-or-omnivore-the-environmental-implications-of-diet/2014/03/10/648fdbe8-a495-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

That's a bad article.

Just in that quote it says that it makes sense to compare calories. It doesn't. For a start, if people change diets, they'll eat different meals and would have different calorific intakes.

We know that the majority of people in the developed world, and many in the developing world, eat too much by calorie, hence the problem of obesity. Based on vegan stereotypes, they're eating many fewer calories than omnivores.

 

[1965Falcon]

Here is an article that goes into that math. In short, it isn't that simple

"If you stop eating beef, you can’t replace a kilogram of it, which has 2,280 calories, with a kilogram of broccoli, at 340 calories. You have to replace it with 6.7 kilograms of broccoli. Calories are the great equalizer, and it makes sense to use them as the basis of the calculation."
Check out this article for source and math.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vegetarian-or-omnivore-the-environmental-implications-of-diet/2014/03/10/648fdbe8-a495-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

I think it is somewhat simple, but there is nuance to everything. The ratio (for beef for example) is you need to feed a cow about 25 plant calories to produce 1 calorie of beef. Trying to compare calories by mass, really has no bearing unless you are maybe figuring out transportation costs for moving a calorie long distances.

Let's say you cut that ratio in half to 12ish since a person wouldn't just eat corn and grain (common feed for beef) and other plants may not be as efficient... but you are still feeding 12 people instead of 1 the same calories. This doesn't include the environmental damage from cows either. If you have them graze on grass, the space requirement vs what you could do with that same land growing edible vegetables is staggering. Here is a handy site with common ratios: Farming Animals Is A Major Form of Food Waste

I couldn't read your article since it was paywalled, so I'm not sure exactly what it said, I'm just going with the quote you stated.

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

I think it is somewhat simple, but there is nuance to everything. The ratio (for beef for example) is you need to feed a cow about 25 plant calories to produce 1 calorie of beef. Trying to compare calories by mass, really has no bearing unless you are maybe figuring out transportation costs for moving a calorie long distances.

Let's say you cut that ratio in half to 12ish since a person wouldn't just eat corn and grain (common feed for beef) and other plants may not be as efficient... but you are still feeding 12 people instead of 1 the same calories. This doesn't include the environmental damage from cows either. If you have them graze on grass, the space requirement vs what you could do with that same land growing edible vegetables is staggering. Here is a handy site with common ratios: Farming Animals Is A Major Form of Food Waste

I couldn't read your article since it was paywalled, so I'm not sure exactly what it said, I'm just going with the quote you stated.

My quote was just a simple portion used to point out the basic math used by @JRP3 is incorrect, and with any critical thought; fallible. I found a lot more info on Ethical Omnivore! I am really impressed, I didn't think anyone really looked into the science, apparently it is something that a lot of research has been done on.

No paywall, I just put in a fake email, and it lets ya in.

I have to be careful as I read these things... confirmation bias is a thing, so reading with a skeptical mindset. I will share over the next few days/weeks what I find I think it will be a great center of discussion.

 

[JRP3]

"If you stop eating beef, you can’t replace a kilogram of it, which has 2,280 calories, with a kilogram of broccoli, at 340 calories. You have to replace it with 6.7 kilograms of broccoli. Calories are the great equalizer, and it makes sense to use them as the basis of the calculation."

This is garbage pseudo science designed to mislead. They choose a low calorie plant source to compare to beef, they could also compare it to a kilogram of water. Here are more relevant and realistic numbers:

1 kg of beef produces 40.2 kilograms of CO2 emissions while providing 3,320 calories and 144 grams of protein.

1 kg of beans produces 0.8 kilograms of CO2 emissions while delivering 3,410 calories and 216 grams of protein.

Beans provide about 3% more calories and 33% more protein than a similar amount of beef.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316879904_Substituting_beans_for_beef_as_a_contribution_toward_US_climate_change_targets

My quote was just a simple portion used to point out the basic math used by @JRP3 is incorrect, and with any critical thought; fallible.

All you did is point out your attempt to use bad information to avoid the truth.

 

[1965Falcon]

My quote was just a simple portion used to point out the basic math used by @JRP3 is incorrect, and with any critical thought; fallible. I found a lot more info on Ethical Omnivore! I am really impressed, I didn't think anyone really looked into the science, apparently it is something that a lot of research has been done on.

No paywall, I just put in a fake email, and it lets ya in.

I have to be careful as I read these things... confirmation bias is a thing, so reading with a skeptical mindset. I will share over the next few days/weeks what I find I think it will be a great center of discussion.

I read the article you posted above, but it was more focused on what I would classify as vegan extremists and philosophy of veganism. I think the focus on this thread is more a discussion on the science and environmental impacts of a plant based diet vs consuming meat. Most people I know that call themselves vegan are really just using it as a common way to let people know they have a plant based diet. The discussion of veganism as a philosophy/activism and the ethics, should probably be on a different thread, which is more what Ethical Omnivore's messaging appears to be focused on.

Edit: Of course a little friendly OT discussion is always welcomed in moderation.

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

I read the article you posted above, but it was more focused on what I would classify as vegan extremists and philosophy of veganism. I think the focus on this thread is more a discussion on the science and environmental impacts of a plant based diet vs consuming meat. Most people I know that call themselves vegan are really just using it as a common way to let people know they have a plant based diet. The discussion of veganism as a philosophy/activism and the ethics, should probably be on a different thread, which is more what Ethical Omnivore's messaging appears to be focused on.

Edit: Of course a little friendly OT discussion is always welcomed in moderation.

Some do use the term loosely, though the definition of Vegan is typically a vegetarian that does so for more than just health/dietary reasons. To each their own though, and the labels are vague. There are pages of definitions for vegans from violent activists to vegetarians that like the label and nothing more.

In this thread, I am trying to focus on the environmentally conscious Vegan as it coincides with the OP's title that "Meat is the problem". Maybe not activist, but morals, particularly related to the environment is a focus.

The article from the EOM website is more about the far Left stereotypical activists, with some gems of data in there. The website has a lot to sift through. They are obviously bias, and since I already align with the mentality I am sifting through it attempting to remove confirmation bias as much as possible as I read.

The second article from the Washington Post (requires an email to get access to it, sorry, not a promoter of WP) had some good data on it, I thought it was quite balanced! It covered the Environmentally focused Vegan mentality and then brought into question the simplicity of it, thus bringing to light the complexities of the situation.

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

This is garbage pseudo science designed to mislead. They choose a low calorie plant source to compare to beef, they could also compare it to a kilogram of water. Here are more relevant and realistic numbers:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316879904_Substituting_beans_for_beef_as_a_contribution_toward_US_climate_change_targets

All you did is point out your attempt to use bad information to avoid the truth.

That is a great article, I don't have time to read it all, but I like the abstract. They are correct, beans (a proteins) is a good comparison. My comparison was more of extremes. I was comparing the worst of the meats as far as climate impact, to a low caloric vegetable. It simply shows that the basic vegies vs meat is a fallible argument at least at some level, and there are many more factors at play.
---
If I may, let me point out some methods to discussion that help keep things constructive:
-- Broaden statements out from a "me vs you" or an "us vs them". I fall into this trap too from time to time, but try to avoid it if you can.
-- Keep using sources and links, preferably academic articles like the one here. Random guys on YouTube (like the guy a few pages back) support confirmation bias.
-- Speaking of, try to avoid biases in general. Find something you can support or agree with in an article that doesn't support your point.
-- Remove emotional language if you can, such as "this is garbage". Doing so will help prevent a discussion from devolving into an emotional argument.

Just a couple pointers, I know your likely response will be a sharp-witted reply, but try and take it in; I promise it is helpful!

 

[JRP3]

Worthless comparisons are "garbage", I call a spade a spade. I don't need you to tell me how to have a discussion, my style is direct, take it or leave it. I also feel as if I'm wasting my time with you. You keep posting low quality links wasting more of my time.

My comparison was more of extremes. I was comparing the worst of the meats as far as climate impact, to a low caloric vegetable. It simply shows that the basic vegies vs meat is a fallible argument at least at some level, and there are many more factors at play.

It was a nonsense comparison which showed nothing other than that you aren't actually serious about using realistic comparisons when they can't support your viewpoint.

The "random guy on youtube" has spent many years reading far more source materials than probably anyone on this thread. You would learn much by watching his videos, he is very much data driven and has good references for everything.

YouTuber Makes Veganism Cool

Chris MacAskill points lens at family, nutritional experts and scientists for the answers

ruthtalksfood.substack.com

Plant Chompers is the year-old brainchild of Chris MacAskill, a 68-year-old Stanford-educated geophysicist, former tech exec at NeXT (the computer company founded by Steve Jobs after he was forced out of Apple), cofounder of the popular SmugMug photo sharing site, and now a passionate creator of this entertaining and informative YouTube channel about food and health

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

Worthless comparisons are "garbage", I call a spade a spade. I don't need you to tell me how to have a discussion, my style is direct, take it or leave it. I also feel as if I'm wasting my time with you. You keep posting low quality links wasting more of my time.

It was a nonsense comparison which showed nothing other than that you aren't actually serious about using realistic comparisons when they can't support your viewpoint.

The "random guy on youtube" has spent many years reading far more source materials than probably anyone on this thread. You would learn much by watching his videos, he is very much data driven and has good references for everything.

YouTuber Makes Veganism Cool

Chris MacAskill points lens at family, nutritional experts and scientists for the answers

ruthtalksfood.substack.com

*as I slump in my chair, I exert a strong exhale as I decide if I am going to entertain this further... yes. Why not, work is slow*

Your evidence, some of which I can buy into, some seems fairly fringe and a bit cultish; is fine, and I follow your logic. You apparently can't follow my logic. You have decided you would like to make this a personal, public conversation, one that will devolve into an emotional argument and cease to become productive. I do not support this type of juvenile discussion, and attempted to steer you away from it.

I do enjoy this subject matter though. So like your friend mspohr, please see yourself to the digital door. Feel free to read, though engagement with you will be spotty. I wish you the best my friend.

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

I found an interesting study from the Swedish government on Climate Friendly Diets.

Spoiler: the result isn't Vegan or vegetarian for a multitude of reasons. Ethical Omnivore seems to be quite sustainable, though more research needs to be conducted. The issue with Vegan and Vegetarian diets (with their restrictions) had a negative impact due to nutritional substitutions. And yeah.. Beef needs to be reduced a lot.

It is quite the read, so grab your favorite beverage and enjoy.

Designing Nutritionally Adequate and Climate-Friendly Diets for Omnivorous, Pescatarian, Vegetarian and Vegan Adolescents in Sweden Using Linear Optimization

Low-carbon diets can counteract climate change and promote health if they are nutritionally adequate, affordable and culturally acceptable. This study aimed at developing sustainable diets and to compare these with the EAT-Lancet diet. The Swedish national ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[David_Cary]

A beverage and that article? I am pretty sure we have a different idea of what a beverage is....

I think you need to check some things. Direct from the Results section using cut and paste.

"In the four optimized diets, GHGE was reduced by 39–73% (Table 2). The lowest reduction in GHGE was achieved for omnivores (“Omni”, −39%) and the greatest reduction was observed in the vegan model (“Plant”, −73%)"

The article is about different diets that can be acceptable from a climate perspective. The "Omni" is roughly what I do and is in no way representative of the average American diet.

Interestingly, I stated earlier about data giving a 70% reduction in "environmental degradation" and this article comes to the 73% conclusion in regards to GHGE. So I underpromised and overdelivered.... 3% can almost "pay" for airline travel (not really of course).