Support NeoGAF

[MutFox]

Interesting. How much harder is it to follow that diet without supplements?

It is possible, you just have to eat a lot of certain types of veggies,
in what you'd get in a small serving of a certain type of meat.

Vegetarian is easier, as you can get a lot of that in dairy and eggs...

i love eating meat and i don't think its wrong in any way, the strong kills the weak, this also applies to wild animals. so why we should be any different?

Sustainability.

Animals don't set up factories.
They also don't over consume.
As humans, we don't need THAT much meat in our diet.
Though we still do it (I'm guilty of this too)

We're setting ourselves up for some major global starvation in about 40 years...

 

[Xdrive05]

It'll be a cold day in hell when I give up meat.

They'll have to pry it from my cold dead mouth!

One minor point on topic: even in a theoretical future where every civilian is a vegan, or where all meat for consumption is lab-grown, there will still need to be hunters for population control of game - roughly the same amount we have now. So there will still be lots of meat eating going on, just by the function of wildlife preservation.

A world with true universal veganism is a world where we must "final solution" all non human animals, which would destroy the world ecology in and of itself. Or have the hogs and coyotes overrun our streets and neighborhoods.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

a lot of people itt eat stuff like that regularly

It must be fun to live life making grand assumptions and stating them factually.

 

[mantidor]

I wonder if there are studies about vegetarians and vegans and digestive system strain. The vegans and vegetarians I know eat a lot, which makes sense because to replace meat you have to increase your serving size considerably, but I'm not sure how our stomachs react to that, we aren't cows.

 

[Goliath]

They also ate raw meat which we moved past. But that's not the point. The point is that nothing you write in this paragraph in any way, shape or form argues why we should eat meat now when there's options that gives us as much sustenance, especially if you start discussing ethics. Of course we're only talking about people who have the option to do so without. Your argument seems as valid to me as it would be to argue for oil instead of working for alternative energy resources (preferably working and efficient such, then) because we've used it to achieve some great things, pollution aside.

Yea, have fun having an "ethical" debate on eating meat in an environment that is diverse with different values, ethics, cultures, circumstances and available resources.

There is nothing wrong, ethically, with eating meat. Should we work on how we treat and handle our livestock, of course. Nothing wrong with that. But eating meat is not wrong, it's what got you to this point in time (we have a long history of eating cooked meat as well) and what has allowed you to live your current lifestyle.

Life without meat is much more expensive, risky if you aren't paying close attention to everything you put in your body, full of supplemtns and unrealistic for most people in the world. Be happy that you live in a country that has such an abundance of food and trade that you can live off of only veggies and supplements. And be appreciative that you have the money to chose such a lifestyle. Most people even in the U.S. can't due to lack of resources.

As I said before, we breed animals specifically for food, testing and byproducts. You may think your lifestyle doesn't hurt animals but trust me you have been vaccinated or used a product that was tested on animals at some point. You directly benefit from a society that uses animals as food, testing, labor or byproducts. Ethically there nothing wrong with that and your comparison to fuel debate is not the same.

 

[Gr1mLock]

It is possible, you just have to eat a lot of certain types of veggies,
in what you'd get in a small serving of a certain type of meat.

Vegetarian is easier, as you can get a lot of that in dairy and eggs...



Sustainability.

Animals don't set up factories.
They also don't over consume.
As humans, we don't need THAT much meat in our diet.
Though we still do it (I'm guilty of this too)

We're setting ourselves up for some major global starvation in about 40 years...

I forget that being vegan rules out any bready pasta-ey thing. Man thats rough.

 

[Professor Renegade]

 

[JesseZao]

You should refrain from such comments, if you are only using superficial knowledge...

There isn't some magic brain-growing ingredient in meat, it was just an important factor for carb intake, combined with cooked food and other factors.

"At the core of this research is the understanding that the modern human brain consumes 20 percent of the body’s energy at rest, twice that of other primates. Meat and cooked foods were needed to provide the necessary calorie boost to feed a growing brain."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...4d36de-326d-11e2-bb9b-288a310849ee_story.html

That's also why morbidly obese people don't become super geniuses...

You're right!

Sarcasm.

 

[Kadayi]

Yes and not only that, we don't eat it responsibly.

Speak for yourself.

 

[BlackJace]

I don't find it morally wrong. So I won't be. I'm already underweight for my age, so I really doubt going meatless will be beneficial for my health.

 

[Goliath]

That's a pretty decent analogy.

How? Ignoring pollution is a HUGE omission. Oil is in limited quantity and meat is a renuable resource which is what moving towards clean energy is. On top of that oil spils have horrible effects on the environment and as much as crap overflow from farms can be harmful to envirnoment as well, it's not on the same level, besides pesticides have a huge effect on the environment too.

Basically comparing oil vs clean energy push is not the same as meat vs vegan diet.

 

[Enco]

Nah bro, I'm sweet.

I'll stick with eating meat for the rest of my life.

Other animals do it. No reason why we have to be special and refuse to eat meat.

I'm all for treating animals well but I'm not gonna stop eating meat.

 

[FkLA]

I don't think we need to stop eating meat as it's delicious, I do however think we should come up with more humane ways to slaughter cattle, sheep and any animal that is being used for its meat, fur, hide or whatever.

 

[MutFox]

How? Ignoring pollution is a HUGE omission. Oil is in limited quantity and meat is a renuable resource which is what moving towards clean energy is. On top of that oil spils have horrible effects on the environment and as much as crap overflow from farms can be harmful to envirnoment as well, it's not on the same level, besides pesticides have a huge effect on the environment too.

Basically comparing oil vs clean energy push is not the same as meat vs vegan diet.

Pesticides, heard that's what is killing off bee's.
They go extinct, we go extinct.

Also, just think how much meat will be needed in 40 years.
Our Population is at 7 Billion right now, we'll be at 9 Billion then.
The land it requires is massive, we don't have the land for livestock for our growing population.
Same with with non-gmo produce.

Which countries do you think deserve to starve?
Choose.

 

[NullPointer]

How? Ignoring pollution is a HUGE omission. Oil is in limited quantity and meat is a renuable resource which is what moving towards clean energy is. On top of that oil spils have horrible effects on the environment and as much as crap overflow from farms can be harmful to envirnoment as well, it's not on the same level, besides pesticides have a huge effect on the environment too.

Basically comparing oil vs clean energy push is not the same as meat vs vegan diet.

In the sense that just because we have used a resource to get us to our current position doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider and invest in alternatives.

There will come a time when humanity as a whole does not *require* the killing of animals for research, sustenance, or even for tasty bits. Bringing that day closer seems like a positive and ethical thing to strive for even if its a very long ways off. And in the meanwhile we can at least try to remove as much cruelty as we can from the process.

 

[Cagey]

Pesticides, heard that's what is killing off bee's.
They go extinct, we go extinct.

Also, just think how much meat will be needed in 40 years.
Our Population is at 7 Billion right now, we'll be at 9 Billion then.
The land it requires is massive, we don't have the land for livestock for our growing population.
Same with with non-gmo produce.

Which countries do you think deserve to starve?
Choose.

First, we don't need enough meat to feed everyone a shit load's worth, and second, why are we moving to a non-GMO produce society if you're worried about feeding the planet?

 

[MutFox]

First, we don't need enough meat to feed everyone a shit load's worth, and second, why are we moving to a non-GMO produce society if you're worried about feeding the planet?

We need GMO produce.
Non-GMO takes up too much land mass.

 

[Jacobi]

Speak for yourself.

If the majority of the people would eat it responsibly, we wouldn't have this conversation and this topic would be uninteresting to me.
Sure a lot of people (also in this thread) do, but that doesn't make it the majority, or else McD and BK would run out of business instead of thriving.

Pretty much everything has been said now though and I'm opting out of this thread.

And I never assumed everyone is American here, I'm also not American, so...

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Wow. I didn't know people were so vehemently anti vegetarian.

 

[itsinmyveins]

In the sense that just because we have used a resource to get us to our current position doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider and invest in alternatives.

There will come a time when humanity as a whole does not *require* the killing of animals for research, sustenance, or even for tasty bits. Bringing that day closer seems like a positive and ethical thing to strive for even if its a very long ways off. And in the meanwhile we can at least try to remove as much cruelty as we can from the process.

Well, that. And this:

The FAO report found that current production levels of meat contribute between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of "CO2-equivalent" greenhouse gases the world produces every year. It turns out that producing half a pound of hamburger for someone's lunch a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.

It's not like the meat industry isn't responsible for a lot of emissions then. And that's only one example of the negative impact on the environment it has.

 

[blitzcloud]

They also ate raw meat which we moved past. But that's not the point. The point is that nothing you write in this paragraph in any way, shape or form argues why we should eat meat now when there's options that gives us as much sustenance, especially if you start discussing ethics. Of course we're only talking about people who have the option to do so without. Your argument seems as valid to me as it would be to argue for oil instead of working for alternative energy resources (preferably working and efficient such, then) because we've used it to achieve some great things, pollution aside.

is a vegan world sustainable? Would we have enough crops for everyone on the planet? considering that animals transform vegetables we don't eat into something we can eat, wouldn't that go to waste?

 

[Goliath]

In the sense that just because we have used a resource to get us to our current position doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider and invest in alternatives.

There will come a time when humanity as a whole does not *require* the killing of animals for research, sustenance, or even for tasty bits. Bringing that day closer seems like a positive and ethical thing to strive for even if its a very long ways off. And in the meanwhile we can at least try to remove as much cruelty as we can from the process.

"In the sense that just because we have used a resource to get us to our current position doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider and invest in alternatives."

That is a gross oversimplification of comparing an Omnivore diet vs Vegan diet to Oil vs alternative energy.

There will never be a time in humanity where we will not be "required" to kill animals for reasearch, sustenance or for tasty bits. All of these people who are "excited" about the possibility of lab grown "meat" is completely ignoring the impact they may have on our planet and bodies as well. We have infused a lot of vitamins and minerals in a lot of different food but our body absorbs them better from it's original source as oppossed to drinking or eating a supplement.

Here are some things people should ask about this lab grown meat. How expensive will it be? What chemicals will be used to create it? What chemical WASTE will be created from these products? What impact on the environment would replacing farms with concrete labs where lab "meat" would be made have? What countries would have access to this "meat? These are some important questions that most animal "cruelty" advocates might not like the answers too.

I feel our time and money is better spent improving the condition of our current livestock.

Pesticides, heard that's what is killing off bee's.
They go extinct, we go extinct.

Also, just think how much meat will be needed in 40 years.
Our Population is at 7 Billion right now, we'll be at 9 Billion then.
The land it requires is massive, we don't have the land for livestock for our growing population.
Same with with non-gmo produce.

Which countries do you think deserve to starve?
Choose.

Well, this is all assuming that our rate of growth AND rate of meat consumption remains the same, which neither of those have to be true.

However playing your game, the sad truth is the countries that will have the most die of starvation in your future are the same countries that have the largest population dying of starvation today. So basically the poor 3rd world countries with a large population and 0 natural resources will take the brunt of the death while richer 1st world nations will just see a spike in some meat products.

Basically buisness as usual.

 

[blitzcloud]

If birth was a controlled matter we wouldn't have sustainability problems. One child per family and things would get normal in a few generations. Problem being that no government is going to promote that if they have an eldery salary (like spain for example)k, for all the work you did during your life. If you decrease future workforce, the elders will not be sustained because money burns.

In short, we dug our own graves and the only possible salvation, if it can even be called a salvation, is a massive war where humanity numbers decrease and everything gets structured from the ground again.

However, since nuclear bombs are in the equation of a war, it kinda means serious shit for anyone who survives so...

 

[NullPointer]

There will never be a time in humanity where we will not be "required" to kill animals for reasearch, sustenance or for tasty bits.

Ye of little faith in humanity's capacity for scientific progress.

We're still in swaddling clothes as a species so I couldn't even begin to define limits to what we'll be capable of, provided we don't obliterate ourselves beforehand over petty bullshit.

 

[DanteSparda504]

God I hope not. The day meat becomes unavailable is when I want my life to be over.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

Maybe if we let the machines enslave us.

 

[Goliath]

Ye of little faith in humanity's capacity for scientific progress.

I'm in the Science field.

Reagents, equipment and chemicals cost a lot of money and depending on what your doing can produce some nasty waste. Some chemicals are very difficult to create, have a short shelf life and/or do some damage to the environment to even aquire.

I can only imagine how expensive, dangerous and hazardous making meat for an entire population would be. Probably not as cost effective and available as harvesting animals.

 

[RionaaM]

Wow. I didn't know people were so vehemently anti vegetarian.

I am anti anti meat. I have nothing against vegetarians. I do, however, dislike people who think carnivores are bad.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Wow. I didn't know people were so vehemently anti vegetarian.

I think a lot of people just see the moral arguments as annoying or interpret them as personal attacks.

 

[Dai101]

I can only imagine how expensive, dangerous and hazardous making meat for an entire population would be. Probably not as cost effective and available as harvesting animals.

But hey! Now we're harming any animals, rigth? Clean concience.

 

[Gustav]

I think a lot of people just see the moral arguments as annoying or interpret them as personal attacks.

Or maybe, they don't agree with the morals/ethics.

 

[$200]

When man-made meat become cheaper, healthier and taste better than regular meat.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

Or maybe, they don't agree with the morals/ethics.

That doesn't explain why someone would be "vehemently anti-vegetarian", and also goes without saying.

 

[blitzcloud]

But hey! Now we're harming any animals, rigth? Clean concience.

but hey, we have cheap electronics from pseudo-slavery countries. Clean conscience too. (i mention electronics because you are not using a potato to post the message I assume, but I could say clothes too... mostly everything of daily use).

Morality arguments and first world don't mix well. Even if you are very strong-willed and have morals you live by, you're still harming someone without really noticing. I'm positive I don't even eat a whole cow (in a year) in size if I weight all the meat I take so... my conscience is quite clean yep.

 

[GungHo]

Sustainability.

Animals don't set up factories.
They also don't over consume.
As humans, we don't need THAT much meat in our diet.
Though we still do it (I'm guilty of this too)

There are invasive species that devastate micro and macro ecologies through unchecked consumption. There are also native species that perform the same devastation when their primary predators are eliminated. Why do you think there are culls on rabbits, deer, and feral pigs, or concerns about the sudden growth of a cat or rat colony in a neighborhood? They eat until they can eat no more, and then fuck to make more gluttons just like them, just like we do.

 

[Goliath]

That doesn't explain why someone would be "vehemently anti-vegetarian", and also goes without saying.

Here are examples of the most popular responses to this topic:

1) Meat tastes good so I will never give it up.

2) I'm a vegetarian/vegan and don't see the big deal with meat.

3) Eating meat is just natural, animals do it and we are here because our ancestor's did.

4) Eating meat is eithically wrong, we shouldn't hurt animals. We are better then this.

I don't see too many people here "vehemently anti-vegetarian". Maybe anti-vegan but most people are saying that our society and us as a specie are here because of eating meat. Hearing people complain about "ethics" while ignoring the fact that most people in the world could never live on or afford a vegan/vegetarian diet due to their situation in life and place they live seems hypocritical. It's basically claiming a "morale" high ground because you are lucky enough to have extra money and live in a country with great world trade that can provide you the supplements and vegetables for you to live off of, while most others in the same country who don't have that luxury are "mean" to animals

 

[EatinOlives]

At this day and age, there probably exists some perfectly healthy synthetic block of edible mass that has all the required nutrients humans need to lead a perfectly healthy life.

Doesn't mean we should actually start thinking of food that way, though.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

Here are examples of the most popular responses to this topic:

1) Meat tastes good so I will never give it up.

2) I'm a vegetarian/vegan and don't see the big deal with meat.

3) Eating meat is just natural, animals do it and we are here because our ancestor's did.

4) Eating meat is eithically wrong, we shouldn't hurt animals. We are better then this.

I don't see too many people here "vehemently anti-vegetarian". Maybe anti-vegan but most people are saying that our society and us as a specie are here because of eating meat. Hearing people complain about "ethics" while ignoring the fact that most people in the world could never live on or afford a vegan/vegetarian diet due to their situation in life and place they live seems hypocritical. It's basically claiming a "morale" high ground because you are lucky enough to have extra money and live in a country with great world trade that can provide you the supplements and vegetables for you to live off of, while most others in the same country who don't have that luxury are "mean" to animals

If you didn't notice, I was quoting someone else. I think a hardline ethical stance and cavalier attitude are equally annoying and obstinate. My point was more that people tend to characterize ethical discussion as having more gravity than they actually should have, which is probably a big part of why people don't like them or are resistant to having them, or use them as a way to bulldoze people, so I'd attribute that to the 'annoying' attitudes on both sides.

 

[eot]

but hey, we have cheap electronics from pseudo-slavery countries. Clean conscience too. (i mention electronics because you are not using a potato to post the message I assume, but I could say clothes too... mostly everything of daily use).

Morality arguments and first world don't mix well. Even if you are very strong-willed and have morals you live by, you're still harming someone without really noticing. I'm positive I don't even eat a whole cow (in a year) in size if I weight all the meat I take so... my conscience is quite clean yep.

You can't be perfect, so don't even try. Is that your argument?

 

[akira28]

I've devised a new way to eat meat. Small meat chips used as utensils for soft foods.

 

[God Dayumm]

It's wrong to eat meat? What are you smoking, bro.

I'm smoking a bbq, personally

Here are examples of the most popular responses to this topic:

Some people come off as smarmy and I hate that attitude even if I agree on their point of view.

 

[zeemumu]

I don't see that happening for a long time. We don't even really scold our own ancestors for the things that they ate (unless it was something clearly dangerous for you to be eating, or a person). Their cooking and cleanliness habits, maybe, but not the foodstuffs themselves. It would have to be a gradual process, because the immediate halt of all industries involving meat products would decimate the economy.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

A lot of posters come off as smarmy and snarky as vegans that's why I said it. Holier than thou can go both ways.

 

[Scarphace]

Not gonna happen

 

[MutFox]

There are invasive species that devastate micro and macro ecologies through unchecked consumption. There are also native species that perform the same devastation when their primary predators are eliminated. Why do you think there are culls on rabbits, deer, and feral pigs, or concerns about the sudden growth of a cat or rat colony in a neighborhood? They eat until they can eat no more, and then fuck to make more gluttons just like them, just like we do.

We should eat rabbits then...
Though isn't the reason we have to cull is cause we eliminated their natural predators?

 

[inm8num2]

I'll stop eating meat once the U.S. adopts the metric system.

 

[blitzcloud]

You can't be perfect, so don't even try. Is that your argument?

Nah, you can't be perfect, so don't tell others that your perception of trying to achieve perfection is better than theirs?

 

[Gustav]

Now show me one of those with a cow.

 

[MutFox]

Now show me one of those with a cow.

 

[NullPointer]

Now show me one of those with a cow.

Why? They're both animals, not humans.