SpaceHorror
Member
Nah, I'm good.
Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron for "less meat, less heat"
- Thread starter 8-Bit Sunset
- Start date
- Status
mavericktopgun
Member
Elk is the fucking best! You ever had bear?
Nice. I had an elk steak for the first time a few weeks ago and it was delicious.
Fallout-NL
Member
So, when Arnold said "You hit like a vegetarian" to Stallone in Escape Plan, he was actually giving him a compliment!
https://youtu.be/LLaOIXXalK8?t=18
https://youtu.be/LLaOIXXalK8?t=18
I always thought it would be a great compromise if everyone could agree to eat vegetarian 3 times and week and cut their meat portions in half. I mean, your average chicken breast is bigger than a serving of meat should be, so I literally cut them in half. Saves money too.
Bringing vegetarian dishes into the mix is fun and challenging to me. I've found quite a few recipes that are hearty and satisfying without meat or meat substitutes.
This is something I feel strongly about because, well...the gov't is never going to really do anything about the environment. This is a way that we could all kinda dictate what happens in our world. Kinda like "voting with your wallet", but you're voting with your stomach.
Bringing vegetarian dishes into the mix is fun and challenging to me. I've found quite a few recipes that are hearty and satisfying without meat or meat substitutes.
This is something I feel strongly about because, well...the gov't is never going to really do anything about the environment. This is a way that we could all kinda dictate what happens in our world. Kinda like "voting with your wallet", but you're voting with your stomach.
They are basically just as tall as each other. Arnold and James Cameron are respectively 1.88m and 1.87m
Inferno313
Banned
I have to laugh at the knee jerk reactions in this thread. It's funny how, when there's a thread on something like using reusable canvas bags instead of plastic bags, all of GAF will unify around the idea. But, when someone suggests just cutting down, not even giving up, on a particular food for a just as significant, if not greater, environmental impact all of GAF loses their mind.
Paracelsus
Member
.
I've heard that! I've never had it and I want to try it so bad!!!
I live in NYC so to my knowledge wild game is really hard to find here. Elk meat alone has been difficult for me. I have it once in a while.
Word
Lilalaunebaer
Member
I use public transport.
I´ll continue eating deliciously delicious animals. Even better if they were cute. Tastes better.
I´ll continue eating deliciously delicious animals. Even better if they were cute. Tastes better.
Is there any links you can provide? I'm interested because everything I've read has said much the opposite, they aren't some super food of course but nutritionally they're pretty damned good.
outunderthestars
Banned
This post really deserves more love. Nothing seems to make parts of this forum suspend critical thinking like any thread about vegetarians, vegans, or eating less meat.
Every thread ends up with dozens of people making variations on the same tired joke.
That said, meat consumption in the US is on the decline as people seek out healthier/cheaper options...
I'm down to eating meat maybe once a week these days, and have been losing weight and spending less at the grocery store.
Already Torn
Banned
Going straight vegetarian is terrible for the environment in its own way of course. The ideal solution is to eat little bits of everything.
In a perfect world we'd all hunt and eat dear. Perfect from a moral and ecological perspective.
Wasn't aware of the bolded. How come?
do you do that though? You essentially cannot eat at any chain or larger restaurant. It's safe to assume if the restaurant is not specifically mentioning where their meat came from that the animal went through a shit load of suffering to get to your plate.
The only way to really be sure would be to buy from a local farm. I took photos at a highland cattle ranch and the dude definitely was good with his animals. When I ask about doing photos at the slaughter house he said he didn't want to see that or go anywhere near.
outunderthestars
Banned
One of the ranchers at my local farmers market set up webcams so consumers can monitor the animals' living conditions. They also have subscriptions that end up costing less than most meat sold at a grocery store.
Already Torn
Banned
Farms aren't naturally occurring, and the materials have to get to you some how. If you're not eating meat you're generally eating a lot more food too to make up for that lose energy source, so you increase the demand. Basically just a lot more greenhouse emissions from the growing and processing of your food than you get from foods that aren't vegetarian options.
But wouldn't demand go down due to less animals being consumed? The animals we eat need to eat something, and isn't it typically grown foods / vegetables? Less animals eaten means less food that needs to be grown for them. Seems like it would balance out...
Cheesecakebobby
Banned
This might be the least-informed comment regarding vegetarianism I've seen this year. Exactly what do you think the majority of farmed animals eat?
Add to this:
Fruits and vegetables have the largest water and energy footprint per calorie. Meat and seafood have the highest greenhouse gas emissions per calorie.
We're closer to a water crisis, than a climate one. There's no winning here.
In my opinion, we should tackle the source: buildings and energy. More corporations should aim for carbon neutrality. And we should have an Earth Hour, like, once every month no question.
Already Torn
Banned
Look pal, all I can tell you is that the research has already been done.
The demand would go up, because people would be switching to more vegetarian focused diets. The problem isn't the food animals eat, but the food humans eat. People who tend to eat less and eat vegetarian tend to increase their carbon/water usage as opposed to people who just eat less, which decreases it.
This is true in the short term. In the long term, the land, farms, supply chains used to grow feed for domesticated animals can be switched to grow produce/grains for human consumption. I think it generally takes less resources to produce a vegetarian diet than an omnivore diet. People often bring up this recent study to refute that claim but it's important to keep in mind the context of its conclusion, "not every plant product is more environmentally friendly than every meat product."
Doctoglethorpe
Member
Its become extremely easy ti at least cut off red meat. Theres chicken and turkey and bean variants of just about every food you can imagine short of a straight up slab of steak. And yes, they taste GOOD. I recently started eaing turkey bacon and honestly I think its better than pork. Granted I havent actually eaten it in several years but still.
Awe, I love you too. More love, less meat, less guns, it's all good!
Is that due to more people eating fast food which isn't real meat?That said, meat consumption in the US is on the decline as people seek out healthier/cheaper options...
I mean, you can't just state "the problem isn't the food animals eat" and be done with it. They do eat a lot of food, which I think is calculated into their environmental impact. If that just goes away due to less consumption of animals, that has to be good, right? Humans may increase their consumption of vegetables, which I acknowledge will have an impact on the environment, of course. But with the less food going to animals, it sounds like it will balance out.
Cheesecakebobby
Banned
Show it to us then. Show us how it could possibly be more efficient and better for the environment to use land to grow crops to feed to an animal and then feed to humans then just to feed the crops to humans in the first place. It is accepted by the scientific community that animal agriculture is one of the main causes of greenhouse emissions, not to mention deforestation and other damaging effects to our environment.
tattooed_dwarf
Member
You know people, you don't have to give up meat completely. Eating it less frequently helps a lot. It helps climate and it makes you feel physically better. People it much more meat than they actually need.
There are some US companies trying to address the whole visual aversion to bugs. One company takes crickets, toasts them, and grinds them into a flour mix (part crickets, part cassava flour).
I bought some and made cupcakes and they taste the same as normal flour but has more protein than normal flour because bugs are rich in it. The only difference I found was the moisture content was different.
Most of my coworkers wouldn't try anything with the cricket flour when they learned it was from crickets (also, most of those people were >40 y.o.).
Already Torn
Banned
I'm absolutely not going to. It's out there, but if you're gonna come in here saying it's the stupidest post you've ever seen than I can only assume you've already seen the research yourself. But then if you've seen it you wouldn't have said that in the first place.
And of course the meat industry is bad for the environment. That's why you gotta cut down on eating mostly one type of food in general. If you eat only meat you're adding a lot of greenhouse gasses and contributing to deforestation, but if you go completely vegetarian you're wasting way more energy and water.
Is this actually the Chinese government issuing a policy change towards meat, or is it a campaign from celebrities/etc?
Because AFAIK protests/etc are illegal so this wouldn't fly unless it was blessed by their government, but on the other hand, poor people don't really have any choice in what they get to eat, and meat is generally more expensive, so I'm wondering who exactly this is aimed at and how effective it will be.
Because AFAIK protests/etc are illegal so this wouldn't fly unless it was blessed by their government, but on the other hand, poor people don't really have any choice in what they get to eat, and meat is generally more expensive, so I'm wondering who exactly this is aimed at and how effective it will be.
Just pointing out you're the one shooting down other peoples claims about bugs and their nutritional value and then refuse to back up your claims. The onus is on you and while people shouldn't be calling you dumb or throwing insults, you haven't really asserted your claims very well.
hendersonhank
Member
Because beans and lentils are so much more expensive and harder to prepare than meat, and can only be found at the best restaurants.
Cheesecakebobby
Banned
Of course I've seen the research, and it contradicts pretty much everything you have said. You are spreading false information. Animal agriculture might just be the number one cause of climate change. Cutting down reduces the problem, cutting it out completely solves the problem. If you care about the environment, you have to care about consuming animal products - the less the better, there isn't some magic barrier under which you start damaging the environment more.
Fallout-NL
Member
andythinkpad thinks of this matter just in terms of the impact on his diet instead of what is actually the point here, the impact on the planet.
Already Torn
Banned
So you're going to completely ignore the environmental effects that increased farming has? Completely cutting out meat would put a huge strain on the environment based on water usage alone.
But red meat gives you cancer.
I have not seen any study out there which claims this. If you have a preference for balanced diet, then that's perfectly fine but I have not seen studies which claim that a vegan or vegetarian diet has a greater negative impact on the environment than an omnivore diet.
Aren't you doing the same in your own way by ignoring the destruction of massive amounts of forest and other natural landscapes to make more farmland for grazing cattle? Or the huge amounts of methane the billions and billions of cattle release all the time? There are tons of factors involved and while water is a big one, its not the only one.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked