345
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 132 points 1 week ago
[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 131 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Vegans consume fewer plants than anyone else. It takes a LOT of plants to raise a cow, pig, or chicken. From an economic point of view, meat is a way of refining mountains of cheap, plentiful, safe plant products into a scarce, harmful and addictive luxury product. This comes up a lot, you'd be amazed how many plants rights activists your average vegan runs into.

[-] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 week ago

Vegans: we'll have only a little vegetable cruelty, as a treat.

Whatever keeps the high horse fed.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 39 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You're going to have to unpack this a bit more for me.

Edit: Ohhhh, you're another one of those plant rights activists. Buddy, I eat plants for breakfast. You know what? Now I'm going to eat twice as many plants, just because it upsets you.

[-] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

Lol your reading comprehension.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Unless you count grass and non-human consumables and non-potable water...sure...until then that's bullshit.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 51 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

How is that bullshit? I am not vegan, but that's just a scientific consensus and a major reason why plant diet is way lower carbon than a meat diet. If you need to grow plant food for your animal food, eventually you have to grow way more plant food.
Most animals raised for meat consumption are fed with crops, notably soy, not wild grass.
Thinking animals raised for meat only consume resources (land (first cause of biodiversity loss), plants, water, energy) that would not be useful to humans anyway is undoubtedly wrong.

Researchers Poore and Nemecek are a great source of meta-analysis information about those subjects. Check this summary here for example: http://environmath.org/2018/06/17/paper-of-the-day-poore-nemecek-2018-reducing-foods-environmental-impacts/

Let me know if I misunderstood your point.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 week ago

It's less important that such arguments be factually accurate than that they are superficially convincing enough to distract the person giving the argument from thoughts and feelings they are unwilling to process.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/50901500/px-based_v3.2/educ-matrls/pdfs/HO_what-cows-eat.pdf

We do not feed them food we can eat, it would be such a waste to do so. We literally feed them shit we cannot consume. Feeds are made from roots/stalks/inedible plants.

The vegan industry doesn't like this, so they say well that land could be used for other things, when in reality it's already being used for the food that we eat.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 21 points 1 week ago

They are also fed grains and soy in varying percentage depending on regions and countries.
There is also still the use of land, energy, fresh water and the methane emissions typical of cows.

This is another break down of the above-mentioned study: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

You can see that indeed, the USA does better than other countries on not dedicating crops to animal feed, but it is still about 14%, while the world average is around 40%. Isn't that a lot that could be earned back?

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 12 points 1 week ago
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 37 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

What figures are you basing your ignorance off of? The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals. Animal ag is one of the largest consumers of fresh (ie "potable") water. There are ten animals living in human possession for every human on Earth. Without intensive plant agriculture, we could not possibly feed them all. Grass and run-off is not what is producing your food.

And since we are specifically discussing the hypothetical suffering of plants, why wouldn't you count grass? You're triggered.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] NFord@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Are you saying grass aren't plants? Why would it matter if the plant is consumable by humans if vegans are trying to minimize suffering?

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Because they're not about minimizing suffering, it's about being morally superior to meat eaters and letting everyone know about it. The post I replied to, literally made that a point.

[-] Pieisawesome@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago
[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 5 points 1 week ago

Addictive like water and air are addictive.

[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

I challenge you to make an appetizing meal out of the plants (and specific cultivars!) used as animal feed.

[-] Leeks@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago

Not a vegan: remember we raise a lot of these plants just as feed. If the reason to feed disappeared, so would the vast quantity of “not tasty” plants.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

Yes, but I can grow human food on the same plots of land.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 75 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

If you think pigs, chickens and cows have the same level of awareness and perception as broccoli, tomatoes or potatoes than you're the potato.

Humans have to eat and with the exception of a few minerals like salt, everything edible to humans is alive on some level. Vegansisn is making an ethical choice about reducing what causes the most pain fear and suffering in another. If I were to develop cancer, a tape worm or a virus should I also allow those living things to thrive as well or does "Uh, now what?" also apply to antibiotics?

[-] GladiusB@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

How about I just get to eat meat because I consider it far more humane to be more efficient about proteins? And eggs and cheeses are more efficient with all sorts of aminos.

As much as I respect vegans I also don't agree with their approach. I am of the opinion (as is most biologists) that we are omnivores.

[-] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

(as is most biologists) that we are omnivores.

No vegans dispute this. In fact that is a large reason we point that meat is not a necessity to a healthy diet like many claim.

But fundamentally I'm not here to talk about veganism. You are entitled to your own beliefs, I only wanted to provide a complete answer to the "hypocritical vegans" comment that appears in every thread paints feeling pain. While I personally think deciding that things are most "humane" when they are "efficient" for you regardless of the effect it has on others is selfish and motivated reasoning, thus unethical. But this thread nor community is a place to discuss ethics, I clearly illuminated why equating plant rights and animal rights is silly, so frankly I would just like to end the discussion there. Thanks.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

No vegans dispute this.

I've actually seen vegans dispute that. I have no problem with veganism. It is not a bad idea. I don't eat meat, but I do not have the willpower (or the money) to be a vegan.

But I have seen that.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] GladiusB@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Well I do think getting protein from many sources makes more sense and easier to obtain. Are there other options? Absolutely. But how available are they at all times and how much do I need to eat to get the same amount? I hear what you are saying by selfishness but we kind of have to be. It's what fuels this giant meat puppet I move around daily.

[-] Jon_Servo@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

Many sources of protein

You think vegans just eat blocks of tofu all day? My diet has never been more varied and flavorful than when I went vegan. Every single environmental impact study says animal agriculture is a bane to our continued existence, and it goes so far beyond that. Our lands and crops are swallowed up by this ever-rotating machine of suffering and murder that affects the lives of billions of land animals every year, which die terrified and in pain. No "varied protein" myth is worth so much suffering.

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] Landsharkgun@midwest.social 7 points 1 week ago

What? The entire point of veganism is that it is an entire order of magnitude more efficient than eating meat. Turns out all the land we use to feed animals we can just grow soybeans on instead. Speaking of which, you want amino acids? Wanna take a guess what has all the amino acids you need? That's right, tofu! It's widely recognized as the healthiest source of protein possible. That sets it apart from red or processed meat, which actively gives you heart disease and cancer.

Look, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. If you want to eat meat despite the facts indicating you shouldn't, that's fine. Same as you can decide to smoke cigarettes and drive a Hummer. Just be aware that it's worse for both you and the entire planet.

[-] GladiusB@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Excessive soy beans has side effects as well. Most nutritionists (like doctors) agree that plant based with diversity of meats is the healthier option.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] otp@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

If you think pigs, chickens and cows have the same level of awareness and perception as broccoli, tomatoes or potatoes than you're the potato.

Eat people because they're potatoes, got it!

Or wait, it's "than"? Hmm...no, I can't think of how to turn it into a joke with a punchline of "than" being there instead of "then", lol

[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 week ago

Haha as always, you do what you can

[-] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Won't someone think of the plants feelings?!?

[-] heraplem@leminal.space 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

What? The fact that plants physically react to being cut has absolutely no bearing on whether they have conscious experience.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LostXOR@fedia.io 4 points 1 week ago

Time to start eating bacteria now, I guess.

[-] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Maybe hundreds of years from now we can synthesize nutrients without involving any living cells. At that point, it could be seen as unethical to enslave, murder and eat billions of microbial cells. For the time being, our life still depends on other living things, so better get comfortable with having mixed feelings about survival.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
345 points (100.0% liked)

science

14806 readers
155 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS