[HN Gopher] Use of antibiotics in farming 'endangering human imm...
___________________________________________________________________
Use of antibiotics in farming 'endangering human immune system'
Author : mdp2021
Score : 282 points
Date : 2023-04-25 14:20 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| Never have humans in the history of their entire existence
| consumed so much meat in their daily diet. To imagine that this
| comes with no consequences is just naive.
| kahrl wrote:
| "Never have humans in the history of their entire existence
| consumed so much meat in their daily diet." Source:
| jelliclesfarm's mind.
|
| Inuits would like a word with you.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| This can't possibly be true. The Inuit for example lived almost
| entirely from meat before agriculturalists started trading
| wheat flour to them.
| BetterAdmin wrote:
| [flagged]
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| People usually use the opposite argument: if we've been eating
| meat for so long, how could it be bad?
|
| A food we've evolved with can have a negative impact on us
| because the evolutionary trade-off is to optimize for
| reproductive age. Something like high cholesterol, for example,
| didn't stop our ancestors from siring children in their teens
| and 20s.
|
| On the other hand, foods we started eating recently including
| novel foods don't have this antagonist pleiotropic effect.
|
| But we did evolve with meat.
| biorach wrote:
| The point is the _amount_, not whether we co-evolved or not
| Elgasso wrote:
| [dead]
| decafninja wrote:
| Tangent, but my wife's side of the family is Korean, whereas
| myself and my side of the family is Korean American.
|
| I was surprised at how liberally antibiotics are given out in the
| Korean medical system, even for health issues that shouldn't be
| bacterial. Many members of her family routinely pop antibiotic
| pills to treat the common cold or flu. They don't take a "full
| course" either - just a pill a day for a few days until they feel
| better. When they got Covid, they were again popping antibiotic
| pills to "treat" it. They swear it works, and this behavior is
| apparently commonplace there.
|
| I have very positive views on the Korean medical system, and
| think it generally beats the American one in almost every aspect.
| But this attitude towards antibiotics was shocking.
|
| My wife doesn't partake in this mainly because antibiotics are
| extremely rough on her stomach.
|
| I don't think they're having problems with antibiotic resistance
| there either, so what gives?
| canucker2016 wrote:
| Perhaps it has to do with Koreans eating kimchi, which are high
| in probiotics (compared to food in typical western diet)?
|
| Antibiotics would wipe out much of the bacteria in your gut,
| providing space for deadly bacteria to colonize the gut. But
| kimchi's probiotics would repopulate the gut bacteria to reduce
| the chances for deadly bacteria to grow.
|
| Does your wife eat a lot of kimchi?
| decafninja wrote:
| Of course, we're Korean, so that goes without saying.
|
| However my understanding is that while antibiotics will wipe
| out your gut bacteria pretty quickly, it takes a much longer
| time for it to repopulate, probiotics or otherwise.
| ye-olde-sysrq wrote:
| I think human use of antibiotics, even when used frivolously
| like that, are less of a problem than agricultural use.
|
| Antibiotics-resistance is typically an expensive trait for
| bacteria to maintain, and without selective pressure, it'll
| typically be selected against. (It's why rotating antibiotics
| works.)
|
| Also a pill a day, infrequently, is probably also not a big
| deal.
|
| The problem arises in agricultural use when antibiotics are fed
| to cattle every single day, with every meal, to every head of
| cattle, in every ranch. _That_ creates an environment where you
| 're selecting for bacteria resistant to antibiotics. But even
| if antiobotics start being resisted, we just need to stop using
| them for a while and they'll become effective again. Sucks for
| the people infected the the bacteria though. So we can take
| some amount of heart in that abusing antibiotics is unlikely to
| end humanity, it just might create a huge humanitarian disaster
| at some point, which as we've seen, modern capitalism is very
| prepared to ~handle~ ignore.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| We live in an interconnected world so I don't think there would
| be any localized antibiotic resistance - the effect of that
| will diffuse across the planet quickly.
|
| That said, I wonder what their IBS rates are like. That can't
| be great for their gut biome.
| decafninja wrote:
| Sample size of one, but even a half course of antibiotics
| wreaks havoc on my wife's gut. Which is why she doesn't
| follow the rest of her family in popping antibiotics for the
| common cold.
|
| In contrast though, she had a surgical operation last year
| (in the US). The hospital refused to give her antibiotics
| immediately following the operation, saying she probably
| wouldn't need it. This was shocking for her - and the
| surgical site actually did end up getting mildly infected.
| davidjones332 wrote:
| [flagged]
| tcoff91 wrote:
| My gut is only healthy when I'm mostly eating plants, it's
| crazy to make a blanket statement that eating plants is bad
| for your gut. How are you supposed to get fiber without
| plants?
| contingencies wrote:
| Did the grandparent a miss a _not_? It seems for many
| people IBS is caused by _not_ eating plants, ie. a diet
| lacking fiber.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Fiber isn't essential to the human diet.
| davidjones332 wrote:
| I feel sorry for your poor body. It is trying to make
| muscles, tissues from foliage and leaves, it is tragic.
|
| What does fiber do for your body, it helps you poop?
| Carnivores rarely need to poop and when we do it is very
| small. Our body absorbs and can make use of every bit of
| the animals we consume.
|
| The body is designed to use animals for fuel and has done
| so for millennia. I even eat the bones by making a broth
| every day when I eat. Whose body is happier.. your body
| trying to make bone from leaves or my body using the
| collagen from the broth to make bone? I need no fiber to
| help me poop.
|
| Your leaves are trash , it is trying to poop it all out
| and it cant even do that because there is so much trash
| it is clogging up your intestines. The only reason your
| gut seems healthy with plants is because your biome is
| full of plant eating bacteria due to your past mistakes.
| Without plants you get sick now as that bacteria is dying
| off. I doubt your ancestors had a bad gut and required
| fiber or they were constipated one day vs shitting in
| ditches most of the next day feeling nauseous , no they
| hunted and ate meat and there was none of this "where do
| you get fiber from" ...
| ted_bunny wrote:
| If it sounds so ridiculous, maybe consider that you're
| putting words in their mouth.
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| The idea that you need to take a full course of antibiotics
| came from studies which were done in patients with
| tuberculosis, which is very recalcitrant to treatment.
|
| Depending on the infection that you have, finishing the course
| may not always be the best option since it nukes your
| microbiota and selects for more resistant pathogens. It depends
| on the rate of mutation of each pathogen, amongst other
| factors.
|
| The antibiotic course has had its day
|
| https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3418
|
| https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-the-full-course-of-an...
|
| In the cancer field, where resistance is also very common,
| there are some groups exploring 'adaptive therapy' also known
| as 'press-pulse' therapy, where you intentionally stop
| treatment when symptoms go away, in order to maintain a
| population of the drug-sensitive cells, which will compete with
| the drug-resistant cells (since being resistant takes energy).
| It's not curative but when resistance is inevitable, could pro-
| long life of the patient. I wonder if this type of thing has
| already been tried with antibiotics.
|
| Modifying Adaptive Therapy to Enhance Competitive Suppression
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7761372/
|
| Press-pulse: a novel therapeutic strategy for the metabolic
| management of cancer
|
| https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10...
| xiande04 wrote:
| This happens in a lot of developing countries, but I'm
| surprised at SK. I've spent a lot of time in Mexico and
| Colombia. It's that way down there - antibiotics for
| everything.
| fauxpause_ wrote:
| I don't think it's clear that antibiotic resistance is a
| sustainable effective trait for bacteria to survive in an
| ecosystem that is not constantly under antibiotics (more so
| than what you're implying about Korea). Thinking of it as a
| passive trait without trade offs may not be correct.
|
| On the other hand, if that does hold true and it does become a
| common passive trait, then the world is fucked.
| testfoobar wrote:
| I am surprised this happens in Korea. I know such attitudes
| about antibiotics are commonplace in the developing world.
| Pharmacists are in the business of selling pills - a doctor's
| prescription isn't always necessary, but Korea is a high
| income, well educated country...
|
| 1. New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase 1.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Delhi_metallo-beta-lactama...
|
| "NDM-1[1] is an enzyme that makes bacteria resistant to a broad
| range of beta-lactam antibiotics. These include the antibiotics
| of the carbapenem family, which are a mainstay for the
| treatment of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections."
|
| 2. Antibiotic usage and resistance in Mexico: an update after a
| decade of change. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33956642/
|
| "Ten years ago, a review on the status of resistance in Mexico
| was bleak: with antibiotics freely sold over the counter and
| poor regulation of generic drugs, among other conditions,
| resistance among relevant pathogens often ranked top, either
| among Latin American countries, or even worldwide. "
| mcguire wrote:
| That is actually pretty similar to what Americans did before
| 2000 or 2010, until antibiotic resistance started being
| generally known.
| sarchertech wrote:
| You'd need to go back further than that. Way back in 2002 I
| was shocked at my then girlfriend's family's overuse of
| antibiotics.
|
| Her family was from Mexico and they regularly bought them
| without a prescription at the Mexican grocery store. They'd
| use them the way I used Tylenol.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Antibiotic overuse is shockingly common in a lot of countries.
| A company I worked for had a lot of remote offices around the
| world that I interacted with over video. Whenever I had
| allergies or a runny nose, I'd get a lot of people asking me
| why I'm not taking antibiotics. They'd recommend different
| types of antibiotics that they thought "cured" their last cold.
|
| There are many countries where pharmacies don't require
| prescriptions for common drugs. People can stop by the pharmacy
| and grab some antibiotics whenever they feel like taking some.
|
| The United States isn't totally immune. Many people go to the
| doctor at the first signs of a cold and _demand_ antibiotics.
| Most doctors will refuse, but some of them start writing
| prescriptions so the patients will go away and leave a good
| review. Anecdotally, online local parenting groups always seem
| to have some group of people swapping tips about which doctors
| will prescribe antibiotics so they can go get the drugs they
| want. There are also the people who order fish antibiotics and
| take it themselves, too.
|
| Antibiotic resistance is only part of the problem.
| Unnecessarily destroying gut bacteria is not great. Getting C.
| Diff. Colitis is not fun.
| noduerme wrote:
| The US may have gone too far the opposite way. Under-dosing
| also leads to resistance. I had pneumonia and was under
| prescribed repeatedly for 2 months before going to a doctor
| who was willing to write give me a high enough dose of simple
| amoxicillin (!!) to knock it out in two days.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| My whole family had strep throat for a month. I'm convinced
| it's because they were reticent to prescribe antibiotics
| strong enough. They said "You'll feel better in 24 hours,
| promise", and when I called 3 days later with a fever
| still, they just told me to ride out the course.
| goaheaddownvote wrote:
| People are kinda stupid when it comes to eating meat. The current
| scale of meat consumption [1] is just mind boggling. Yet even
| this comment has to be a throwaway because people can't handle
| someone telling them they shouldn't eat meat 2x a day.
|
| It's bad for the environment, it's bad for individual health,
| it's bad for collective health (breeding drug resistance and
| causing pandemics), and all that is before we even talk about the
| mass scale of needless suffering inflicted on other sentient
| beings.
|
| I don't know what the solution is, because as soon as you mention
| eating less meat people laugh at you or get super defensive.
| "What, do you care about the animals?" is something I've had
| people say to me in all seriousness.
|
| When I gave it up it felt similar to giving up cigarettes, you
| get depressed and feel exiled from a joy you used to share with
| others. But that's what addiction does to you and once you get to
| the other side you wonder how you even participated in such
| negative behavior in the first place.
|
| My fantasy solution is everyone needs to go get a meat
| consumption license by going to a farm and killing an animal with
| a knife in their hands every, say, 10 years. If you can't do it,
| then you have no business participating in consuming it. Bonus
| points if you're a regular hunter.
|
| [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/animals-slaughtered-
| for-m...
| concordDance wrote:
| Downvoting because you insult people without providing the
| required citations, even though I somewhat agree.
|
| Also, this really doesn't work at all: My fantasy solution is
| everyone needs to go get a meat consumption license by going to
| a farm and killing an animal with a knife in their hands every,
| say, 10 years.
|
| Humans used to do that for hundreds of thousands of years.
| Adverblessly wrote:
| > It's bad for the environment
|
| If you are worried about carbon emissions, just tax them
| directly and use that money to offset them. If meat then
| becomes uneconomical, then I guess that's that and people will
| reduce their consumption accordingly. Though honestly I suspect
| that if we did that we'll magically find new ways to farm meat
| that will be less carbon intensive (which is just another
| reason to do it).
|
| > it's bad for individual health
|
| Eating more meat has actually been great for my individual
| health, since it has a low glycemic index and high satiation
| per calorie. Thanks to all the weight I've lost my blood
| pressure and cholesterol have both really improved. It would've
| been almost impossible for me without meat.
|
| > it's bad for collective health (breeding drug resistance and
| causing pandemics)
|
| That sounds like a case for banning antibiotics in agriculture,
| not for not eating meat.
|
| > and all that is before we even talk about the mass scale of
| needless suffering inflicted on other sentient beings.
|
| I don't mean to sound offensive here, but I suspect that this
| is the only reason people that care about this actually care
| about, since every other reason brought out just ends up
| feeling like an excuse brought forth to strengthen this
| position even though the solution doesn't actually require
| forgoing meat.
|
| > My fantasy solution is everyone needs to go get a meat
| consumption license by going to a farm and killing an animal
| with a knife in their hands every, say, 10 years. If you can't
| do it, then you have no business participating in consuming it.
| Bonus points if you're a regular hunter.
|
| At the very least you'd have to make an exception for people
| who are too old/weak/disabled to do it themselves. Also a
| problem for Kashrut since an animal killed that way would not
| be Kosher. I believe it would not be Halal either.
| [deleted]
| yesco wrote:
| Overuse of antibiotics in livestock is certainly a problem, but
| this is also true for many of the pesticides we use for plant
| farming and our lack of standardized irrigation water testing
| (in the US) which has lead to issues like the recent E. Coli
| outbreak in lettuce. In general modern farming of all kinds has
| issues that need to be addressed, I don't see any exclusivity
| in the meat category.
|
| I will continue eating meat, I believe it is *good* for both
| individual health and collective health. In fact the amount of
| vegans I've met in life who didn't look like they were
| suffering from some illness has been very rare, only
| solidifying my position on this.
|
| I'm comfortable with meat prices going up if it resolves the
| antibiotics issue, but I'm unconvinced by the moral arguments
| you disguise as health arguments.
| foxyv wrote:
| Every Vegan I know either looks like an underwear model or an
| athlete. Doesn't mean that all of them are like that though.
| Although being Vegan definitely stops you from eating at most
| horrible fast food places. Whenever someone asks me if I feel
| healthier since cutting out meat I just say "Beer is Vegan."
|
| The moral arguments are pretty solid though. The amount of
| rainforest currently being clear cut to make way for cattle
| is insane. Ecosystem destruction is being fueled heavily by
| the demand for meat products. The US used to be covered in
| huge forests that were clear cut for cattle, way before any
| of us were born. Use of antibiotics is just one more aspect
| of why we should probably cut back heavily on beef.
|
| The pricing does a good job of this, but I would encourage
| meat eaters to reduce consumption of beef products as much as
| possible. Maybe make it an occasional treat instead of the
| main course of every meal.
| stametseater wrote:
| > _Every Vegan I know either looks like an underwear model
| or an athlete_
|
| That sounds like the vegetarians I know. The vegans I know
| look like cancer patients.
| goaheaddownvote wrote:
| I agree with you here. I'm not advocating everyone be vegan
| -- I'm not even personally vegan! I don't even think most
| people should be vegetarian, as much as I'd love to live in
| that future. I don't even think I made any arguments one way
| or the other, just that it's generally pretty bad and maybe
| we should do less of it!
|
| I just find that most people when confronted with a fairly
| straightforward way to mitigate massive environmental and
| global health problems (eat less meat), people will get up in
| arms and defensive and shut the conversation down
| immediately. They'll make all sorts of assumptions about what
| you're implying about them, which I feel like points to the
| fact that people in their deepest self know that it's
| somewhat wrong.
|
| It's kinda funny is all, it's the same behavior I engaged in
| when people told me I should consider smoking less or not at
| all.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| > In fact the amount of vegans I've met in life who didn't
| look like they were suffering from some illness has been very
| rare, only solidifying my position on this.
|
| I would push against this sort of anecdotal view. The circle
| of people we eat with (and therefore know the dietary
| restrictions of) tend to be quite low compared to all the
| people we meet with on a day to day. Additionally, "looking
| sick" is a vague enough assessment that simply knowing
| someone is a vegan may very easily cause you to be much more
| critical of their appearance, and vice versa you may see
| someone who looks sick to you and then pay more attention to
| their dietary habits than you ordinarily would. Another thing
| to note is that _all dietary restriction lifestyles_ is
| subject to a noticeably higher rate of disordered eating or
| intestinal issue that leads to the person participating in
| the dietary change and therefore it may be important to first
| determine if the disordered eating or gut issue caused
| veganism vs the other way around.
|
| That is to say: even though I am neutral towards veganism
| itself, your logic as to why meat is good reads to me as
| quite flawed and poorly reasoned around.
| yesco wrote:
| What do you want me to say here? The science is pretty much
| settled that we are omnivores, you can't just ditch meat
| without consequences. Yes there are substitutes, but in
| practice do vegans consistently eat these at the right
| amount to compensate for the lack of meat in their diet?
| Well my first hand experience tells me this is a big fat
| NO.
|
| Let's put it another way, imagine some guy likes to pester
| you about your eating habits, says they are unhealthy, and
| that _their_ diet is healthy. Well the burden of proof is
| on _them_ and as someone who cares about staying fit, if
| the guy trying to convince me either looks like skin &
| bones, or is overweight, then they are already on shakey
| ground. This has been my first hand experience multiple
| times.
|
| Ultimately my ancedote is not meant to be a counter-
| argument, but instead a reminder to those reading to touch
| grass. Because why wouldn't your personal experiences
| matter more than the anecdotes and misinformation spread by
| strangers online? (This applies to my own anecdote as well)
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| I'm just saying that "well everyone I met who is vegan
| looks sick" is shoddy reasoning to proclaim eating meat
| is the healthy behavior. That's it. I already clearly
| said I have no opinion on veganism itself, nor am I
| pestering you with a claim that any one diet is healthy.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Most people on this forum are flabby omnivores but nobody is
| going to use that observation to condemn plants or meat
| because it doesn't make sense. Same with someone's carnivore
| hot dog diet. Or someone's vegan Skittles diet.
| biorach wrote:
| >I don't see any exclusivity in the meat category
|
| It's exclusive in the resource requirements, which are an
| order of magnitude greater than for plant-based foods.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "I don't know what the solution is"
|
| I'll get hate for my comment too, but the answer is less
| people.
|
| Resource consumption (for multiple resources) and freedom are
| competing interests. You have to trade freedom to restrict
| resource consumption. But even if you do that for this topic
| (meat). You have to look at the secondary effects and still
| need to do that for other topics to make any impact.
|
| For example, if you do away with meat, you would also have to
| do away with egg, milk, etc products. In some cases these
| products are used in things like formula, vaccines, etc. Every
| alternative has some trade-off too. Some may be better, some
| may be worse. If you're still producing eggs or milk for these
| other purposes, then you still have meat as a byproduct. You'll
| also end up with people raising their own, which is less
| efficient and possibly worse for the environment if done on a
| mass scale. Certainly worse for health impacts is done
| illicitly in high density areas.
|
| I do agree that there are many people who are disconnected from
| their meat source, among other things (eg people who think
| hunting is cruel but happily eat mass produced meat, or want
| their almonds/almond milk). I'm not sure licensing will really
| fix that. Either it had to come with a wide restriction to
| local only production to remove many environmental issues and
| force people to see production issues more visibly, or we
| slowly reduce population so we can maintain our desired
| lifestyles.
|
| My estimate is that we will see restrictions in historical
| freedoms and economic pressures on everyday activities. This
| will led to some natural reduction in population. But it will
| be precarious because there will be people who don't agree with
| the restrictions or nations willing to fight for resources.
|
| Edit: If you're going to disagree, please say why.
| Specifically, why is it not true that reducing resource
| consumption to _truly sustainable_ levels won 't require
| lifestyle restriction _or_ a population decline? And not just
| that some unknown future tech will save us from out current
| situation.
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| > My fantasy solution is everyone needs to go get a meat
| consumption license by going to a farm and killing an animal
| with a knife in their hands every, say, 10 years
|
| That's not a solution.
|
| My grandmother's generation (, Chinese) has extensive
| experience with slaughtering animals. That generation still
| likes and craves meat.
|
| You might have people who chicken out in the short term, but in
| a couple of years getting a butcher license will become
| normalized and you're back at square 1.
| goaheaddownvote wrote:
| [dead]
| glitchc wrote:
| Why is meat bad for individual health? Citation?
| arboghast wrote:
| It isn't, in fact it's more nutrient dense per calories than
| vegetables and legumes and rich in amino-acids necessary to
| maintain muscle mass which is increasingly important as you
| age.
|
| It's just something the anti-meat crowd parade, while
| omitting that:
|
| - These beliefs come from epidemiological studies without
| regards for other life habits such as smoking or dietary
| choices such as sugar intake.
|
| - Often when saying meat is bad, what is actually referred to
| is processed meat packed with salt and nitrites.
|
| Eating chicken, pork or beef that you buy raw and cook
| yourself is healthy.
|
| How much you eat of anything matters too. Don't eat anything
| in excess and move.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| > more nutrient dense per calories than vegetables
|
| I'm not sure how this meme started, but it's not actually
| true. You can plug foods into Cronometer.com and see for
| yourself. e.g. carrots (vitamin A) or kale (vitamin K1)
| give you the RDA with few calories. I mean, the cocoa
| powder I added to my smoothie this morning had 100% RDA
| copper and 45% RDA iron in 57 calories.
|
| Similarly, plants and plant-based foods have full amino
| profiles. Once again, plug anything from soy beans or even
| broccoli into Cronometer.com and look at the amino acid
| breakdown.
|
| These are some really ancient wives tales about vegetables.
|
| > These beliefs come from epidemiological studies without
| regards for other life habits such as smoking or dietary
| choices such as sugar intake.
|
| This isn't true. Tracking and multivariate adjustment are
| standard fare for epi studies.
| arboghast wrote:
| It's not a meme. If you look at research that look at
| foods rich in micronutrients, you'll see that meat covers
| most of them.
|
| For example, yes Kale is rich in calcium and vitamin K
| than meat in general, but beef, pork or chicken covers a
| higher ratio of micronutrients than Kale. Obviously, one
| should not only eat meat. But the point was that meat
| itself does not make you sick (unless in excess, like
| anything).
|
| > Similarly, plants and plant-based foods have full amino
| profiles. Once again, plug anything from soy beans or
| even broccoli into Cronometer.com and look at the amino
| acid breakdown.
|
| Full amino acid profile doesn't mean that it contains the
| same amount, it just means that it's present. Moreover,
| nutrient absorption is often lower with vegetables than
| with meat.
|
| Again, not saying one should not eat vegetables. One
| definitely should eat fruits and vegetables. But it's
| clear that lacking meat in one diet has long term
| consequences that reveals itself later in life.
| lkbm wrote:
| > a higher ratio of micronutrients
|
| I'm assuming here that we're talking about "nutrient
| density"--the ratio of nutrients per calorie. Is that
| what you means? Or are you using something like "per
| gram"?
| arboghast wrote:
| That's what I mean yes. English isn't my first language.
| How should I have phrased it?
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Be specific about the micronutrients because aside from a
| few things like protein and b12, I think you will be let
| down by your expectations when you plug meat into
| Cronometer.
|
| What are all these micronutrients that you think 100g
| (184cal) of chicken has? Now compare the mineral and
| folate contents of 100g (121cal) edamame (first vegetable
| I saw in my freezer). Or compare it to 530g of cooked
| broccoli which has the same calories as 100g chicken (if
| isocaloric comparison is easier) and tell me that chicken
| is more nutrient dense per calorie.
|
| I don't want to sound like I'm a Cronometer affiliate,
| but most people can't even estimate which foods have
| which nutrients until they plot a few days of their diet
| into Cronometer. I was certainly surprised, myself.
|
| I highly recommend you log a whole day of eating into
| Cronometer to get an idea of where nutrients come from.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| Hi, I'm seeing a lot of people misunderstanding and/or
| disagreeing with your points so I just wanted to say that I
| agree with you. I've always liked the taste of meat, but the
| older I've gotten, the more the idea of _killing_ something,
| and then _consuming_ it, has increasingly bothered me. It has
| led me to try stretches of vegetarianism over the past couple
| years.
|
| I definitely wouldn't be able to kill an animal with a knife,
| unless I was starving.
|
| I do agree that part of the problem is that the eating of
| animals has become so abstracted away (i.e. chicken tenders)
| that most people aren't even truly aware of what it is they're
| doing. I like the knife + license idea.
| andersentobias wrote:
| > My fantasy solution is everyone needs to go get a meat
| consumption license by going to a farm and killing an animal
| with a knife in their hands every, say, 10 years.
|
| I have heard this repeated from so many vegans / animal
| activists at this point, including my own sister. Where did you
| get it from? Who is the original author? I am seriously asking.
|
| An argument involving only my individual health (I am into
| fitness stuff) plus effect on the environment - repeated enough
| times - would sway me.
|
| To be completely honest: I do not appreciate being told that I
| am an immoral human being for X (X = eating meat).
|
| Been told that too many times already during my lifetime. It is
| a cultural constant. That formula is just too tiresome to hear
| yet again at this point.
| [deleted]
| pasquinelli wrote:
| if you read the comment you're replying to carefully, you'll
| see they never said you or anyone else was immoral for eating
| meat, yet that's your takeaway.
| CaptainNegative wrote:
| I don't get it. In most circumstances, if one doesn't want to
| be called immoral for performing an objectively cruel act,
| the standard course of action would be to stop doing it.
|
| Why would one who inflicts or remunerates mistreatment,
| slavery, and death upon animals expect to be shielded from
| criticism on the count of it potentially hurting their
| feelings?
| flatline wrote:
| There's a huge difference between killing animals and
| eating their meat. Likewise there's a world of difference
| between industrial scale livestock and smaller, organic,
| free-range farming - on many levels. Yes, animal slaughter
| is require for meat production, and by eating meat we
| contribute to said slaughter. But there's a ton of nuance
| in between, and people know this.
|
| It's a really disingenuous argument to pretend these are
| exactly the same thing from an ethical standpoint. In
| Buddhist ethics, for example, intention is key: monks
| cannot kill an animal but they may eat meat if offered.
| People who cry about the moral or ethical basis of some
| decision often make uninformed arguments believing an issue
| is black and white. Ethics is gray all the way down.
| callalex wrote:
| Until technology advances thee is only one way to make
| meat: by killing a living creature. You do not get to
| just remove that step from the conversation because you
| don't like it. There is no "huge difference" when the
| action is a required part of producing meat.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| But... if the animal is treated well during its lifetime,
| and slaughtered humanely (as painlessly as possible),
| almost everybody isn't going to have a problem with it.
| You are then getting into religious beliefs which most
| are not going to agree with.
|
| Admittedly a lot of current practices are pretty
| horrible.
| haswell wrote:
| I agree that killing is inseparable from consumption.
|
| But there is absolutely a huge degree of difference in
| _how_ the killing occurs, and how the animal is treated
| during its life leading up to it.
|
| These differences materialize as an array of options when
| deciding what to purchase, and are factors that can be
| weighed by an individual.
|
| The difference is there and quite meaningful once you
| examine the spectrum of realities involved in modern meat
| production.
|
| One might still believe that no form of animal killing is
| ever acceptable regardless of circumstances, but that
| places the argument in a different category.
| CaptainNegative wrote:
| The topic here is about animals who are fed excessive
| quantities of antibiotics while healthy, fattening them
| up to the point that their skeletons frequently fracture
| because they can't bear the weight. These are not well-
| treated "happy hens". They are chickens crammed by the
| tens of thousands into barns with about as much square
| footage as it has birds. Sometimes less. The unroofed
| "free range" they get access to may amortize out to a
| couple square inches per bird, in a portion of the
| facility they'll never reach due to bird traffic.
|
| It is of no solace to any of the 40 billion individual
| chickens presently in factory farms that some others may
| be raised in a coup in a backyard of someone's
| hypothetical uncle's house. And the hypothetical
| existence of said uncle has no relevance to the act of
| paying others to abuse birds in farms, which is where
| every single person reading this is getting either the
| vast majority or all of their bird flesh.
| haswell wrote:
| To be clear, I find the conditions you're describing to
| be abhorrent and an unacceptable norm, and I've argued
| elsewhere in this thread to that end.
|
| But real free-range farms actually exist, and are not
| someone's "hypothetical uncle's house". The products of
| these farms are available in stores, and purchasing them
| does not contribute to the abuse of animals in factory
| farms.
|
| To claim otherwise cannot be justified by an examination
| of facts/reality, and is to claim that I didn't eat
| dinner last Thursday. This is not to say that sourcing
| food this way is _easy_ , and it's certainly not cheap.
|
| > _the act of paying others to abuse birds in farms,
| which is where every single person reading this is
| getting either the vast majority or all of their bird
| flesh._
|
| The point with all of this is that there is a nuanced
| conversation to be had. Oversimplified binary reductions
| do not represent reality nor are they a useful point from
| which to have a conversation about how to improve the
| status quo. Issuing blanket statements like the one
| quoted above can only create a wedge between your
| position and those who you'd arguably like to reach with
| it. I happen to agree with you re: the horrors of unhappy
| hens, but you're also directly contradicting my lived
| experience.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| [dead]
| OJFord wrote:
| GP's point is that eating isn't killing, you can eat meat
| without (personally) killing any animals, and that can be
| (and for very many _is_ ) emotionally different for
| people.
| haswell wrote:
| And the general counterpoint to this is that the
| emotional distance gained by not doing the killing has
| zero relevance to the moral acceptability of mass abuse
| in factory farms.
|
| Furthermore, that emotional distance leads to even more
| grotesque behavior because people are so far removed from
| the process that they can remain completely unaware.
|
| Over time, more people have become aware of child labor
| and otherwise horrible working conditions in the
| production of clothing and shoes. Not being directly
| exposed to those conditions does not in any way excuse
| those conditions or make them acceptable.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| I think it's important, as people who eat meat, to fully
| acknowledge the deep and societal harms that meat causes. It
| is well-studied that slaughterhouses are uniquely bad for a
| community and uniquely bad for the people who work there.
| Meat as a food can sometimes be bad for people, but meat as
| an industry is definitely bad for people. Knowing this can
| allow us to make more responsible choices even if we still
| end up eating meat, such as selecting for small, ethical
| farmers that also limit the trauma of themselves/those who do
| the slaughtering of their stock.
| haswell wrote:
| > _I do not appreciate being told that I am an immoral human
| being for X (X = eating meat)._
|
| While I don't think it's useful to oversimplify this into a
| binary moral issue, I also think it's necessary to be
| reminded about the realities of the choices we make.
|
| Why do you not appreciate this sentiment? Inconvenient truths
| tend to not feel very good, but that doesn't make them
| incorrect.
|
| > _Been told that too many times already during my lifetime.
| It is a cultural constant. That formula is just too tiresome
| to hear yet again at this point._
|
| I mean this with all respect, but this really sounds like
| "well, the world hasn't stopped abusing animals yet, so I
| really don't have a choice but to participate, and it's
| really tiresome when people point that out".
|
| Change starts from within. I'd argue that the reason these
| argument feel tiresome is because the current solutions are
| not easy ones. They require each of us to alter our habits
| and demand broader change.
|
| This is legitimately hard. But neither is there some magic
| bullet that will solve this.
|
| I fully appreciate that we're all stuck in a system that we
| can't do much individually to change. But the one thing we
| can change is ourselves, and this is an option that is always
| available.
|
| I wouldn't be so quick to call someone who eats meat immoral,
| and as a meat eater I'd be a hypocrite for doing so. I've
| also gone to lengths to acquire meat that is as
| ethical/humane as possible, and over time I've reduced
| consumption significantly.
|
| There are historically plenty of culturally acceptable
| practices that are also deeply immoral upon further
| reflection. If you're finding the arguments tiresome, that
| may be a good signal to listen more closely.
| concordDance wrote:
| > Why do you not appreciate this sentiment? Inconvenient
| truths tend to not feel very good, but that doesn't make
| them incorrect.
|
| Is this a genuine question?
|
| We're social animals and calling someone immoral is going
| to be perceived as a social attack by non-neurodivergent
| people.
|
| > I mean this with all respect, but this really sounds like
| "well, the world hasn't stopped abusing animals yet, so I
| really don't have a choice but to participate, and it's
| really tiresome when people point that out".
|
| If you think this is just about animals you're missing most
| of the picture. In the modern day people are told they are
| immoral for many many reasons: driving cars, not turning
| off lights when they leave the room, not going to that BLM
| protest, not signing the anti-abortion petition, not going
| to church, using shampoo, not donating to ukraine/save the
| children/deworm the world, etc etc
|
| It's an extremely common tactic used by every activist on
| every topic.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > Why do you not appreciate this sentiment? Inconvenient
| truths tend to not feel very good, but that doesn't make
| them incorrect.
|
| "You're immoral for X" is _very often_ used by someone who
| wants to take a very grey issue and make it black and
| white, with their side _obviously_ being the "right" one
| (and, just in case it's not clear, they label the other
| side as immoral). It's often a cheap rhetorical trick of
| someone who wants to win the argument by default, rather
| than having to go through the hard work of actually
| _persuading_ people (which means having to deal with all
| the grey parts of the question). "I'm morally right,
| you're morally wrong, you should feel ashamed of your
| position, and therefore you should shut up" is almost never
| a good-faith argument.
|
| That doesn't make them "inconvenient truths". That makes
| them rhetorical ammunition for someone who is interested in
| winning, not in truth or good-faith discussion.
|
| Note well: This does not apply to _all_ instances of the
| phrase "inconvenient truth". But it seems to me that it is
| used that way more often than it's used in good faith.
| dguest wrote:
| I agree. We should be able to acknowledge that we do
| harmful things without turning it into judgement on our
| overall character. It's not hypocrisy to admit that you do
| bad things sometimes.
| ericmcer wrote:
| I think it is a valid point. We can only indulge in such a
| guilt free way because we don't see how the sausage is made.
|
| My friend will eat burgers and chicken nuggets all day, but a
| chicken drumstick with it's tendons and cartilage he is
| unable to eat, it is a necessary disconnect for him.
|
| My tolerance is way higher but if part of ordering dinner was
| choosing a living animal for them to kill and prepare I would
| definitely just get tofu.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "We can only indulge in such a guilt free way because we
| don't see how the sausage is made."
|
| That might be for some people. There are many that would
| have no guilt. As you point out, some people know what is
| in a chicken nugget (chicken) but eat it anyways. This path
| might slightly reduce the number of omnivores, but I doubt
| it would have a serious impact overall. Like any reduction
| in consumption from them would just lead to a lower price
| and increased demand either domestically or
| internationally.
| PeterisP wrote:
| IDK, I don't see any food-guilt issues from any of the
| countryside people I know who see "how the sausage is made"
| because they have done it, and have slaughtered some of the
| animals they have grown themselves.
|
| And IMHO the discussions about "kill your own dinner" are
| quite impractical because that simply doesn't work in most
| conditions from the perspective of hygiene and food safety,
| and slaughtering is a job that does require quite some
| skill to do it properly, having it done by amateurs can
| easily be needless cruelty if you do it wrong. Like, I can
| butcher a chicken or a rabbit, but I would not be qualified
| to handle a pig or a cow properly.
| wirrbel wrote:
| Also, slaughtering as a process never was an issue for
| people. My grandma slaughtered chicken in her back yard.
| yosito wrote:
| > causing pandemics
|
| Which pandemic was caused by people eating meat?
|
| Much of what you said is true, but some of it is a stretch, and
| taken altogether it seems like an exaggeration.
| goaheaddownvote wrote:
| As another comment mentioned, the one we just lived through
| where I had to be inside for 2 years. It came from a live
| meat market.
| yosito wrote:
| That's so far from being decisively proven that I genuinely
| forgot it was one of the theories.
| CatWChainsaw wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if we get a sufficiently human-
| transmissible avian flu pandemic within the decade, given how
| many non-avians the current strain has been killing in
| addition to birds.
| Pxtl wrote:
| Literally the current one? I mean yes there's the lab leak
| theory, but still the common explanation is that it first
| jumped the species gap at a meat market.
| typicalrunt wrote:
| > People are kinda stupid when it comes to eating meat. The
| current scale of meat consumption [1] is just mind boggling.
| Yet even this comment has to be a throwaway because people
| can't handle someone telling them they shouldn't eat meat 2x a
| day.
|
| I'm sensing a lack of empathy in this comment.
|
| Calling people stupid or attaching any label to them will only
| hinder your attempt to sway their minds.
|
| Portraying black and white thinking (splitting), when we know
| the world is shades of grey, also hinders your ability to
| change minds.
|
| It's great that you found benefits to moving to a non-meat
| diet. This helps others see what they could benefit from.
| Continue from here.
| bogle wrote:
| I don't think the OP was trying to sway minds when they
| described meat consumption as stupid, they were simply
| stating the obvious.
| gropo3 wrote:
| [dead]
| pasquinelli wrote:
| imagine they were talking the same way about something you're
| not so sensitive about, something you agree with them on.
| beedeebeedee wrote:
| This is the same issue as an abolitionist speaking to a
| slaveholder. The moral problem is so overwhelming for the
| abolitionist that it is exceedingly frustrating, difficult
| and ineffective trying to persuade the slaveholder.
|
| > I'm sensing a lack of empathy in this comment
|
| That is what is frustrating- to have to show more empathy for
| the feelings of the slaveholder than the slaveholder has for
| their slaves.
| peteradio wrote:
| Its an arbitrary line, holding slaves at least follows from
| the golden principle. What principle says don't raise
| animals in poor conditions or eat them? Are you extending
| the golden principle to apply to all animals? Why? Do you
| think these principles come from anything but a higher-
| order self-serving? Rather naive to make up a principle for
| no other reason than a poorly identified (non)-symmetry. I
| could see applying the golden principle to a dolphin but
| its probably some back of the mind idea that maybe one day
| my grandchilds grandchilds grandchild will be half dolphin
| and I should hedge for that eventuality.
| kelipso wrote:
| Lol, I get what you're saying but comparing meat eating to
| slavery makes you seem even more unreasonable.
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| Sometimes we compare dissimilar things and in the process
| discover new truths. We don't compare them to see which
| is worse, we don't compare to rank them, but to discern
| similarities and differences and, in doing so, gain a
| better understanding of both our subjects; even, why not,
| of ourselves.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| It's only unreasonable to compare factory farming to
| human slavery if one believes that the rights of animals
| compared to humans is similar or worse than slaveholders
| believed the rights of their slaves to be compared to
| thme.
|
| For the record I eat meat, but I'm under no illusions
| regarding the cruelty of the process. I support all laws
| that would increase farm animal welfare, even if it means
| my steak gets more expensive, it's simple enough to make
| good veggie dishes once in a while.
| beedeebeedee wrote:
| > comparing meat eating to slavery makes you seen even
| more unreasonable
|
| I think that is an attitude that our culture will be
| ashamed of in the near future, just like we are ashamed
| of slavery now. The agricultural practices are almost
| identical (different mammal). The major difference is
| that we consume the flesh of one, and the produce of
| another.
|
| The only reason for saying that the enslavement of other
| animals is ok, while the enslavement of humans is not, is
| if we can come up with a reason that makes us special and
| those other animals not. There is only shaky ground for
| any of those possible reasons, and believing them puts
| blinders on what we can know. I.e., we will not recognize
| things that do not fit our conceptions, which has big
| implications for our biological science, psychology and
| philosophy.
|
| The fact is that meat eating, like slavery, is not
| reasonable. It is just something we grew up doing
| (individually and as a species). Any argument advocating
| it is as superficial and misleading as antebellum racial
| theorists. That is an uncomfortable truth.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Nonsense. Try telling the lion it is being cruel to the
| Antelope, or the wolf it is being cruel to the deer. All
| life (minus plants and Cyanobacteria) get their energy
| from eating other living things. That's just the way it
| works.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Rape is also ubiquitous in the animal kingdom (and human
| history), yet we don't find that to be a convincing moral
| justification for raping women.
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| Have you been to commercial meat operations? I am not
| talking about millions of non human lives held in
| captivity, raped and slaughtered..but the condition of
| the labour in meat processing and meat packing industry.
|
| It's not a cowboy who brings your steak to the table, but
| probably some undocumented immigrant paid slave wages and
| living in a shed.
|
| https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/21/life-
| inside-am...
|
| https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/08/exploitatio
| n-a...
|
| https://www.jsonline.com/in-depth/news/special-
| reports/dairy...
|
| https://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/smithfields-
| hog-f...
|
| https://stonepierpress.org/goodfoodnews/wastelands-book-
| revi...
| ben_w wrote:
| If -- and I recognise that it is an "if" given the
| current lack of any sufficient testable definition of
| subjective consciousness awareness of self -- _if_ farm
| animals are self-aware, then slavery would be several
| steps _up_ from their current existence.
|
| We only stopped feeding cows to other cows because of a
| fear humans might get prion diseases.
|
| Coming at it from the other direction, "what if humans
| were food?" is a horror trope, be it vampires, zombies,
| werewolves, or psychopath cannibals.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _have to show more empathy_
|
| "Empathy" is not "sympathy" ("in-" vs "with-"). You try to
| understand the position of the other (it's a projection),
| not necessarily sharing the feelings.
|
| The poster clearly expressed that "if they do not see it,
| insulting will probably create a counterproductive reaction
| of closure - it's not helping them to see it".
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| [dead]
| goaheaddownvote wrote:
| I'm not trying to sway any minds, the majority of people
| aren't going to change their meat consumption habits at all
| and honestly I'm fine with that. I never said in my comment
| that everyone should be vegetarian. Being vegetarian requires
| a lot of thoughtfulness, especially if you're at all athletic
| (I train muay thai and ashtanga yoga), and most people don't
| have the time for it (or think they don't).
|
| People become exceedingly defensive when they're asked to
| confront the reality of their habits, and honestly I think
| it's probably too much for people to even begin to consider.
| I have deep empathy for that as a fellow human as I've been
| through it too and have experienced both sides of it multiple
| times (meat eating -> veg -> meat eating -> and now back to
| veg for good).
| [deleted]
| MrMan wrote:
| [dead]
| bheadmaster wrote:
| I like meat. Vegetables just don't cut it. Eating meat is one
| of the few pleasures in my life, and I'm not willing to give it
| up for some vague ideal.
|
| I'd assume a lot of people think the same way. It could be
| considered somewhat arrogant to demand everyone to give up
| their personal pleasures for something _you_ believe in.
|
| We could solve all world's problems by collectively killing
| ourselves, but obviously we don't want to do that. Giving up
| things is somewhere on the spectrum between giving up our life
| and not giving up anything. Who gets to decide where the line
| is for everyone?
| goaheaddownvote wrote:
| I'll just keep saying it in this thread, but not once did I
| say everyone should give up meat. In fact I said go at it, go
| hunt and kill and eat it!
|
| But the fact that people feel defensive whenever the thought
| of vegetarianism comes up to me points to the fact that deep
| down people on an individual level know that it is, to some
| degree, wrong.
| bheadmaster wrote:
| You called for introducing meat eating license, which would
| introduce friction and make people eat less meat. The end
| game is the same, the mechanism is different.
|
| > But the fact that people feel defensive whenever the
| thought of vegetarianism comes up to me points to the fact
| that deep down people on an individual level know that it
| is, to some degree, wrong.
|
| Maybe. Or maybe people just feel discomfort because of all
| the people who are trying to dictate to them what they can
| and cannot eat.
| goaheaddownvote wrote:
| [dead]
| [deleted]
| bioemerl wrote:
| > . In fact I said go at it, go hunt and kill and eat it!
|
| This is a strange and unreasonable argument that's just
| designed to eliminate all meat, and not a good faith
| stance.
| goaheaddownvote wrote:
| [dead]
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| > We could solve all world's problems by collectively killing
| ourselves,
|
| Don't worry, we're in the process of that.
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| >It's bad for the environment
|
| Burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment. A cow eating
| grass and dying is not.
|
| The part of meat production that's bad for the environment is
| the machinery used to transport and process the meat. Grain,
| legumes, and vegetable farming also use machinery for
| transportation and processing. Outside of that, animals and
| plants are all part of a carbon-neutral cycle, so long as the
| plants aren't fertilized with Haber-Bosch excrement.
|
| >it's bad for individual health
|
| This is nearly 100% certainly wrong.
|
| We can say with nearly 100% certainty that a human being cannot
| thrive without regularly eating meat, or at least dairy or
| eggs. This is evidenced by human beings having eaten meat for
| millions of years. Eating meat is Lindy. Million-year-old Lindy
| things, especially biological things like diet, are robust,
| resilient, antifragile.
|
| Diet is a _solved problem_. It was solved over millions of
| years of humans, their predecessors, and their extinct
| offshoots trying and testing various foods /diets. The ones who
| survived ate and continue to eat meat. Guess what happened to
| the other ones.
|
| >I don't know what the solution is, because as soon as you
| mention eating less meat people laugh at you or get super
| defensive
|
| _Less_ is pretty relative, and there is no solution, because
| there is no problem. It 's understandable people are going to
| get defensive when you attack their means to life.
|
| Just eat how your ancestors ate. For a Northern European, that
| means a lot of milk and meat. If you're Mediterranean, follow
| the Greek Orthodox tradition - periodic meat and vegetable
| eating. If you're an Eskimo, eat a bunch of fish.
| lkbm wrote:
| > We can say with nearly 100% certainty that a human being
| cannot thrive without regularly eating meat, or at least
| dairy or eggs. This is evidenced by human beings having eaten
| meat for millions of years.
|
| Uh...your second sentence is evidence that you can thrive
| while regularly eating meat, but not evidence that you can't
| thrive without it.
|
| Meanwhile, your first sentence entails that there's no such
| thing as a thriving vegan.
|
| Maybe eating meat is natural, and healthy, and moral, but you
| might want to limit your arguments to those that don't deny
| basic observable facts.
| ericmcer wrote:
| I 100% agree with you in most regards (including being able to
| kill what you eat), but I don't think meat is bad for
| individual health. I recently did just 3 weeks of a carnivore
| diet as an experiment and it was boggling how much it affected
| my strength and recovery. Vegan and vegetarian both have had
| immediate negative impacts on recovery, even when supplementing
| protein and other vitamins.
|
| From an altruistic perspective yeah, do not touch meat, but it
| does have health benefits that I have not been able to
| replicate with vegetarian alternatives.
|
| Also a throwaway to say "eating meat is bad?" that isn't a
| crazy controversial stance haha.
| goaheaddownvote wrote:
| > ... I don't think meat is bad for individual health
|
| I agree with you here too, meat eating isn't in and of itself
| unhealthy, but the quantity and scale that most people engage
| with it at is not doing their body any favors. You sound like
| a very conscious person when it comes to their body, which is
| unfortunately atypical.
|
| As someone that is extremely active as well (training 5x per
| week muay thai and ashtanga yoga, with lots of kettlebell
| work mixed in), I also agree that recovery can be much harder
| on a vegetarian diet. You really have to think about your
| nutrition more, but personally I've decided it's fine for me
| to make that recovery sacrifice for the benefit of animals
| and the Earth. I don't expect others to do the same though
| and I'm fine with that.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Also a throwaway to say "eating meat is bad?" that isn't a
| crazy controversial stance haha.
|
| Can't speak for op, but it feels like 50% of the times I
| bring it up here, even when trying to be careful, my comment
| fades into low contrast...
| throwaway4PP wrote:
| Seeing this response so high up makes me a bit sad.
|
| There's a lot of ways to eat vegetarian, and all the ones
| that I can think of that require _supplementing_ protein and
| vitamins are unhealthy.
|
| It should be obvious that eating a way that "had immediate
| negative impacts on recovery" indicates that what you're
| eating is not healthy.
|
| You see this with a lot of omnivores, they try cutting meat
| out of their diet and complain. But, the thing is, an
| omnivore diet without meat is a deficient diet. It sounds a
| bit intimidating but you really have to rebuild the way you
| eat if you've been eating meat.
|
| Cultures that have a vegetarian tradition (even if not
| described as such) provide a rich tapestry of foods to make a
| healthy diet rich in protein and vitamins. Ethiopian,
| Persian, Indian, Sri Lankian; these are just some of the
| cultures a successful and healthy vegetarian will take
| inspiration from. Eat like a world traveler and you can forgo
| meat without being unhealthy.
|
| Quick list of good protein-rich ingredients across cultures:
|
| Mushroom
|
| Quinoa
|
| Eggs
|
| Halloumi
|
| Chickpeas
|
| Green/brown/red lentils
|
| Peas
|
| Paneer
|
| Yoghurt
|
| Walnuts/almonds/sunflower seeds/pistachios
|
| And forget stews. Roast, broil, saute, crisp, brown! There
| are flavors unlocked by the family of Maillard reactions -
| the technical name for the chemical reactions that give rise
| to browning - that we associate with meat but are common to
| the process of roasting. Savory vegetarian food is a thing.
| ericmcer wrote:
| protein !== protein. Besides eggs those are all terrible
| sources of protein from an amino acid perspective.
|
| I never said it was unhealthy to forego meat, just that I
| have never found a non-meat source that can compete. I was
| vegetarian for 6 months, have done tons of 3-6 week vegan
| stints, keto, carnivore and others all while doing rock
| climbing training and tracking my performance. I am
| noticeably weaker and more injury prone on a
| vegan/vegetarian diet. I do 3-6 weeks of veganism to
| intentionally lose muscle mass and lower my overall weight.
|
| People and the internet can say whatever they want about
| nutrition but it will be hard to convince me when I can
| accurately predict how much strength I will lose when
| removing meat from my diet.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Plug garbanzos into cronometer.com and tell me which
| amino acid it lacks. Do it again for broccoli.
|
| There's a weird amount of "vegetable denialism" in these
| comments from people who presumably never even looked up
| the nutrition info a vegetable.
| throwaway4PP wrote:
| no, they are not "terrible", they're not complex proteins
| - excepting eggs. you have to mix two sources of simple
| protein to equal complex. good, bad; whatever your
| characterization of them may be, that's the foundation.
|
| you again seem to be conflating your ability to measure
| something with the method itself being good. I think it's
| impossible for us to say your vegetarian diet is healthy
| when you say it makes you weaker, yet you point to being
| predictably weaker as a sign of knowing what you're
| doing? I'm not following.
| stametseater wrote:
| Forget stew? I understand the motivations for being anti-
| meat, even if I don't agree with them, but anti-stew? Stew
| is great, even vegetables stews. How can you be anti-stew?
| throwaway4PP wrote:
| Hah, I'm not anti-stew. It's a conception you run into a
| lot, that healthy vegetarian food is a brown stew of
| chickpeas. I threw that in there for the skeptical.
| foxyv wrote:
| I think they were talking more about mental health. But that
| is just speculation.
| BetterAdmin wrote:
| [flagged]
| stainablesteel wrote:
| this is just another anti-farm hitpiece
|
| i don't care for this perspective, I'd rather have locally grown
| food over outsourcing it to some geopolitical rival with animal
| cruelty problems
| jes5199 wrote:
| the RethinkX paper says that most farmed meat will be replaced by
| cheaper precision fermentation proteins by 2030
| https://www.rethinkx.com/food-and-agriculture
| MichaelNolan wrote:
| I love the optimism, and the ideas in all of the rethinkX
| papers. They are great reads. Their predictions for food and
| agriculture might indeed happen, but not by 2030. The dairy
| predictions in that paper seem the most likely to occur.
|
| Their paper on energy is also a fun read.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Um, yes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
|
| I'd bet that was an all-too-familiar human behavior pattern back
| when Rome was a one-horse town.
|
| (Edit: Fixed "how the heck?" typo'ed TLD)
| [deleted]
| greenie_beans wrote:
| the tragedy of the commons is a myth.
|
| https://aeon.co/essays/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false...
| noud wrote:
| The good news is that it's reversible. When you stop feeding
| antibiotics to animals, the amount of resistance bacteria in the
| gut seems to reduce as well.
|
| Additionally, good management practices (clean pens, good
| hygiene, low stress) and proper feed could make the use of
| antibiotics in animals (almost) obsolete.
| dtech wrote:
| The latter is not really the case. There seems to be something
| that causes animals being fed antibiotics to gain weight faster
| than without, all other circumstances being equal. This might
| have something to do with gut flora.
| User23 wrote:
| Even supposing that's true, perhaps the same effect can be
| achieved without antibiotics? For example maybe some kind of
| probiotic feed that displaces the undesirable gut flora?
| giantg2 wrote:
| While it's true they experience more weight gain, that's more
| of an off-label use. That doesn't negate the claim that
| proper procedures/care/environment could make the use of
| animal antibiotics more rare. There are other alternatives to
| increasing weight gain, although the use of any medication to
| induce weight gain should require careful consideration.
| Jgrubb wrote:
| The off label use of "makes animals gain weight faster" is
| why the entire industrial animal meat industry has been
| feeding antibiotics to cows for over a generation now. It's
| why "antibiotic free" is a marketing label now, because the
| opposite was the previous default. The antibiotic
| properties of antibiotics are basically a side effect.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Eh, sort of. It's still mostly secondary. If you aren't
| feeding cattle antibiotic in a CAFO where they're
| crowded, eating spent brewers grain (mostly from fuel
| production), and living in filth, then they will get sick
| and die. Same thing for most chicken houses until changes
| were made a few years ago. The 10% or so of production
| that takes place on small farms generally didn't use
| antibiotics as a standard ration because they didn't need
| to, even if it would have slightly improved weight gain.
| Even the industry is try to voluntarily eliminate it in
| pork because they want access to international markets.
| biorach wrote:
| > If you aren't feeding cattle antibiotic in a CAFO where
| they're crowded, eating spent brewers grain (mostly from
| fuel production), and living in filth, then they will get
| sick and die
|
| Much citation needed. I don't know exactly what you mean
| by CAFO when it comes to cattle, but the EU banned
| routine administration of antibiotics with no noticable
| effect on the practice of permanently housing cows or
| beef cattle
| giantg2 wrote:
| Plenty of citation is available if you google the term
| you don't know. Here's a basic overview of a CAFO (common
| in US, rare in EU).
|
| https://www.sierraclub.org/grassroots-network/food-
| agricultu...
| biorach wrote:
| Thanks for the patronizing answer to a question I didn't
| ask
|
| The EU has no shortage of feedlots and zero-grazed cow
| herds, and yet has phased out routine administration of
| antibiotics without any noticeable reduction in the
| animals in these conditions.
|
| Therefore...
|
| I'm asking for a citation for your claim that it's not
| possible to keep animals alive in these conditions
| without the use of antibiotics
|
| > If you aren't feeding cattle antibiotic in a CAFO where
| they're crowded, eating spent brewers grain (mostly from
| fuel production), and living in filth, then they will get
| sick and die
| pella wrote:
| > The good news is that it's reversible.
|
| While bacteria evolution can't be reversed, stopping
| antibiotics in animals can help lower the number of resistant
| bacteria. Good care practices can reduce the need for
| antibiotics.
| nick__m wrote:
| While bacteria evolution can't be reversed, the antibiotic
| resistance usually have a cost to maintain (the fitness
| cost1) and without the evolutive pressure cause by the
| antibiotic, bacteria without those costly genes will
| eventually dominate.
|
| 1) https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro2319
| goda90 wrote:
| It actually can. Bacteria reproduce and die off rapidly. That
| means the rates of mutation are high. If there's no selective
| pressure from the antibiotics, then there's nothing
| reinforcing that resistance and it can mutate away in a few
| generations. This has actually been tested in laboratory
| settings:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6707769/
| [deleted]
| hospitalJail wrote:
| I went vegetarian and things were going great. I was checking my
| micro and macro nutrients, things were perfect. I got a new job
| and I had to take a drug test. My creatine levels were too low
| and I failed/had to repeat the drug test. I ended up having to
| pee first thing in the morning to make my creatine levels higher.
| This was the most painful thing I've experienced in my life for
| about 3 hours as I waited for the place to open. That sucked.
|
| Later, my kid had low iron levels. I imagine I probably did too.
|
| Sure people are able to live a life without meat, but the
| nutrition from having meat is something I'm finding difficult to
| replace. We eat meat probably 2 or 3 times per week. Seems like a
| decent compromise, but I still feel like this is going to age
| poorly when people become more aware of animal consciousness.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| I just take creatine and iron supplements. Really anyone that
| exercises should supplement creatine.
|
| I also eat meat occasionally, maybe once per week?
| PretzelPirate wrote:
| I'd love to know what you were eating. I've been vegan for over
| 13 years and I eat a lot of processed foods. My most recent
| blood test showed everything in the middle of the healthy
| range, and I had too much iron.
|
| I wonder if it's genetic, but my parents don't go to the doctor
| so I don't know anything about their health.
|
| I don't supplement, but eat the vegan equivalent of the
| standard American diet.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| I've been a highly athletic veg/vegan for a decade and not had
| any major issues, sans maybe B12 or vitamin d occasionally.
| plenty of veg friends experienced the same. vitamin supplements
| are easy to take.
| mr337 wrote:
| 2-3 times a week is exactly what is recommended [1]. There are
| several heath issues with high red meat intake, the biggest and
| not so fun is Colon Cancer. I know two people that lost the
| battle with colcon cancer. It is a bugger to diagnose, treat,
| and recurrence.
|
| 1 - https://www.aicr.org/cancer-
| prevention/recommendations/limit...
| abeppu wrote:
| The discussion here seems to have ignored what seems like the
| interesting/new part of this. There has been plenty of prior
| research and media around blanket use of antibiotics creating
| _drug resistant_ bacteria which are harder to fight with drugs.
| But this is saying that additionally because some antibiotics are
| similar to chemicals endogenously produced within our own bodies,
| they also produce bacteria which our bodies are less effective at
| fighting on their own.
|
| I.e. this isn't just about the use of antibiotics -- this is
| about the use of antibiotics which are _similar to parts of our
| own immune systems_. Using antibiotics which are more dissimilar
| to our own immune responses would create _drug resistant_
| bacteria but not _immune resistant_ bacteria.
| etiam wrote:
| Yes, that's the key part.
|
| Physiologically it's well known that that the antibacterial
| peptides are part of the immune system. They were discovered as
| a part of the pathogen defense mechanisms of insects, found to
| be present also in vertebrates as well and only then, _of
| course_ , exploited for chemical mimicry as pharmaca.
|
| How anybody could believe taking that component out from the
| rest of the defense system, and breed pathogen resistance
| against it in isolation, could be anything but begging for
| calamity is beyond me. It boggles the mind that this has been
| permitted to go on, but particularly unexpected it is not at
| all, sadly.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > How anybody could believe taking that component out from
| the rest of the defense system, and breed pathogen resistance
| against it in isolation, could be anything but begging for
| calamity is beyond me. It boggles the mind that this has been
| permitted to go on, but particularly unexpected it is not at
| all, sadly.
|
| Every irreplaceable natural resource (in this case, human
| immunity) is somebody's profit waiting to be taken, unless
| stopped.
| etiam wrote:
| Yeah, that seems to be the issue doesn't it.
|
| And this in a pharma sub-field infamous for not getting
| enough investment in corporate research because the effect
| of novel substances is almost instantly destroyed by
| precisely the sort of misuse the article points to.
|
| One's tempted to dismiss any attempts to adequately explain
| the exploitation with either greed or stupidity as
| impossible, and just chalk it up to pure malice...
| throwbadubadu wrote:
| Maybe ok if used just as medicine for rare cases where it's
| the last hope.. but for what do we use it? To have more of
| mass-produced meat every day, meat with meat for breakfast,
| lunch and dinner, yay!
| DSingularity wrote:
| It's not even like meats getting cheaper. They produce it
| for cheaper and keep the extra margins. Yay monopoly?
| ciconia wrote:
| This isn't just about antibiotics, it's also about monoculture.
| Both of those combined lead to a never ending arms race.
| GLGirty wrote:
| > a never ending arms race Did you mean, "the
| great filter?"
| abeppu wrote:
| > In the study, E coli carrying a resistance gene, called
| MCR-1, were exposed to AMPs known to play important roles in
| innate immunity in chickens, pigs, and humans.
|
| If the same kinds of AMPs appear across mammals and birds,
| breaking the monoculture (by e.g. raising animals of
| different breeds and species etc) but still using this class
| of antibiotics would still seem likely to cause the immune
| resistance problem. I'm not advocating for the monoculture-
| based practices, but I don't see how it's related to this
| specific mechanism.
| darkerside wrote:
| I think the connection to monoculture is that specific
| pathogens could decimate homogenous populations (see Irish
| potato famine), making widespread antibiotic use necessary
| in a much more preventative way
| stametseater wrote:
| Look up "antimicrobial resistance" (AMR) and see where the deaths
| attributed to this are occurring. South Asia (e.g. India, etc)
| and Africa. Regions with inadequate healthcare for humans, where
| front-line antibiotics get spammed, where people don't complete
| the full course of treatment for lack of resources or
| understanding. It's not coming from the 'factory farms' of
| developed nations.
| scythe wrote:
| Far be it from me to defend something as generally odious as the
| use of antibiotics in agriculture, but this article refers to
| _one specific class_ of antibiotics, described as "antimicrobial
| peptides" but more precisely polymyxins, and particularly to
| colistin. You may be familiar with colistin as an "antibiotic of
| last resort" which is heavily restricted even in medicine.
|
| But check the list:
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock
|
| You will notice that all but two are not peptides. "Peptides" are
| themselves a broad class of chemical, not implying a mechanism of
| action -- contrast beta-lactams which damage cell walls -- and
| bacitracin (which is distinct) has been used in poultry in the
| United States for fifty years without creating any immune-
| bypassing microorganisms. It should be distinguished from the
| polymyxins, the colistin family, which share a mechanism of
| action and are particularly important in the treatment of
| infections which have become resistant to other antibiotics.
|
| I was unable to find any evidence of polymyxins being used in
| agriculture in the United States or the West more broadly.
|
| http://www.msdvetmanual.com/pharmacology/antibacterial_agent...
|
| >Polymyxin is not labeled for oral or parental use for any
| veterinary species in the US.
|
| That is not to justify the use of antibiotics in agriculture,
| which threatens millions of lives by endangering one of the most
| valuable medical technologies in human history, but it is not
| helpful to make claims which are not supported by the evidence.
| The use of colistin -- or any polymyxins -- in pigs in China is
| egregious (and has been belatedly banned by Chinese authorities
| in 2016). Linking this to meat consumption in the United States,
| where polymyxins are not used in agriculture, is suspect.
| myshpa wrote:
| Animal agriculture has too many shortcomings.
|
| - Greenhouse gas emissions
|
| - Deforestation
|
| - Land degradation
|
| - Water pollution
|
| - Water overconsumption
|
| - Loss of biodiversity
|
| - Antibiotic resistance
|
| - Ocean dead zones
|
| - Inefficient land and resource use
|
| - Ethical concerns regarding animal welfare
|
| - Contribution to zoonotic diseases
|
| - Air pollution
|
| - Eutrophication
|
| - Soil erosion
|
| - High energy consumption
|
| - Chemical runoff from pesticides and fertilizers
|
| - Destruction of habitats and ecosystems
|
| - Overfishing and bycatch
|
| - Inequality in global food distribution
|
| - Public health risks from foodborne illnesses
|
| - Nutrient pollution
|
| - Strain on waste management systems
|
| etc.
| JasserInicide wrote:
| Many of these beyond a surface-level inspection break down upon
| a closer inspection
|
| _Inefficient land and resource use_
|
| _Land degradation_
|
| _Loss of biodiversity_
|
| _Soil erosion_
|
| In the US, most of the land used for grazing is already
| insufficient for farming most crops. You take cows and such off
| of them, you're left with near-useless land.
|
| _Chemical runoff from pesticides and fertilizers_
|
| Not exclusive to livestock and their feed, feels weird to
| attribute it to just them.
|
| Widely-available meat in the Western world is a Pandora's Box;
| it's just not going away. It's better to find ways to make it
| more efficient than to go all pissed-off-vegan and want to ban
| meat everywhere in favor of ultra-processed replacement
| monstrosities. You'll win more people to your side too.
|
| Furthermore, attacking the end-consumer does absolutely
| nothing. It's like banning plastic bags/straws, It just makes
| liberal lawmakers feel good about themselves. You want to
| really change our diets? Go after the billions in subsidies
| handed out to farmers for growing corn/soybeans/dairy and such
| in order to stay competitive against cheaper products overseas.
| Good luck.
| Natsu wrote:
| > Go after the billions in subsidies handed out to farmers
| for growing corn/soybeans/dairy and such in order to stay
| competitive against cheaper products overseas. Good luck.
|
| We deliberately overproduce food so that when, say, corrupt
| regimes attack one of the world's largest wheat growers, we
| don't end up starving. It's a necessary adaptation for a
| country that has to worry about food security in the event of
| wars, even if it has 2nd order effects that are not so good.
| finikytou wrote:
| [flagged]
| stametseater wrote:
| Exactly, when it comes to essential matters like food,
| stability is _much_ more important than efficiency. I don
| 't want the food supply chain optimized for efficiency,
| nobody should. Optimize it for reliable output.
| darkerside wrote:
| We've seen what optimizing for efficiency can do to the
| rest of our supply chain in recent years
| throwaway173738 wrote:
| I think the disconnect here is that you presuppose that all
| land must be put to some productive use.
| EngManagerIsMe wrote:
| Or that farming is the only productive use.
| skrbjc wrote:
| Much of that "marginal land" originally had animals grazing
| on it anyway. We have barely more cows in this country now
| than buffalo at their peak. "Re-wilding" land would just
| mean we have animals grazing at that we don't eat.
| myshpa wrote:
| Before the arrival of European settlers in North America,
| it is estimated that there were approximately 30 to 60
| million bison (also known as buffalo) roaming the
| continent.
|
| We are currently consuming upto three times as many cows
| each year as there were wild buffalos.
|
| https://www.sciencealert.com/the-current-mass-extinction-
| is-...
|
| - Cows (cattle): In 2021, the United States had
| approximately 94.4 million head of cattle, including
| those raised for beef and dairy production.
|
| - Beef: In 2021, the United States imported approximately
| 3.1 billion pounds of beef and veal, that's apx. 6 mil.
| cows.
|
| - Pigs (hogs): In 2020, the United States produced around
| 129 million hogs.
|
| - Pork: In 2021, the United States imported approximately
| 1.0 billion pounds of pork.
|
| - Chickens (broilers): In 2020, the United States
| produced about 9.1 billion broiler chickens for meat.
|
| - Poultry: In 2021, the United States imported around 913
| million pounds of poultry meat, including broiler meat
| and turkey meat.
|
| - Turkeys: In 2020, the United States produced
| approximately 229 million turkeys.
|
| Fish, shellfish, ducks, sheep, goats, or dairy products
| not included.
|
| Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| Raising SOME animals in SOME places is an efficient way to
| produce protein, including dairy - like zebu cattle and goat,
| hardy animals that graze on land that will grow nothing. There
| are human populations outside the western bubble surviving with
| minimal resources for a long time thanks to that.
|
| Raising large quantities of animals in the rhythm necessary to
| feed meat daily to a large population is irrational and creates
| these shortcomings.
|
| IMO animal agriculture is just another one of those topics
| that, if you really deep-dive, turns into a discussion of
| overpopulation and capitalism.
| triyambakam wrote:
| > animals that graze on land that will grow nothing
|
| You must not literally mean nothing, but I still don't
| understand where the nutrients are supposed to come from if
| the land is so poor that food crops won't grow, yet there is
| supposed to be enough nutritious grass for grazing?
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| Of course I mean figuratively. Humans don't have a rumen,
| so our capability of extracting energy from vegetables is
| much more limited, basically we need starch (grains or
| tubers). These animals can feed on grass where these
| nitrogen-intensive crops won't grow without fertilizers.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| It's not an overpopulation problem.
|
| When you hit "the world can't support everyone living the way
| we live" the problem is with the way we live, not with
| everyone living.
|
| We can easily provide healthy nutritious food to everyone and
| many many more. Just not in the form that we are currently
| choosing for ourselves.
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| Define "easily".
|
| Seriously, if you ever dealt with land in your life, you
| would know agriculture is anything but "easy". It only
| exists in today's shape and form thanks to fossil fuels,
| massive government incentives and cost externalities.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| OK fine it's hard we still have to do it though you can't
| just throw up your hands and say "eugenics time!"
|
| It still seems pretty clear to me that the problem is
| resource overconsumption, not simple overpopulation.
| Let's address that first bit first then see where we are.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| Reducing population size indiscriminately is not
| eugenics.
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| The problem is you can't discuss consumption without
| addressing the population. The current economic model
| simply pushes the rest of world to consume at the
| unsustainable levels of a North American or European
| citizen. One of those will have to give.
| timeon wrote:
| "everyone should stop eating meat" is red herring. People
| often point out outside of "western bubble" so they can get
| rid of responsibility inside that "bubble". Really poor
| people do not eat meat in scale that is now so common in rich
| countries.
| PeterisP wrote:
| True, but in the last few decades so many people world wide
| have stopped being so poor that they do not eat meat in
| large scale. In China, meat consumption per person has
| increased more than sixfold since 1980, getting close to EU
| levels, and that is a natural outcome of Chinese people
| becoming less poor; the same is likely to happen elsewhere
| around the world unless some factor keeps the developing
| world so poor that they can't afford to do so.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Like almost all environmental problems, nobody wants to talk
| about the real root of the problem: people have been having too
| damn many babies.
| goodpoint wrote:
| By large part most of the problem is due to overconsumption
| from a minority of the world population.
|
| But I don't blame most individuals: people buy what's
| available in shops and have little choice to do otherwise.
| The problem is in the economical system.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| No, it isn't. In fact, the entire developed world, plus
| Russia and China, is facing significant demographic cliffs in
| the near future because people stopped having too many damned
| babies decades ago. Human population will peak at 10B and
| start declining from there. In fact, several countries are
| trying to _restart_ excess-replacement fertility specifically
| because the decline in working-age population is already too
| steep and the alternative is to starve the elderly to
| death[0].
|
| The real root of the problem is that there is no root of the
| problem. There are hundreds of causes that all feed back into
| one another. If you try to boil this down into a root-cause
| narrative, what you will inevitably end up with is a cartoon
| caricature that, at best, pushes an anti-human narrative; and
| worse / more likely, blames some proxy for the poor, racial
| minorities, or foreigners. I know this because the whole
| 'population bomb' thing wound up being used by fascists to
| try and paint their shenanigans as environmentally friendly.
|
| [0] In Russia, this is literally the only thing that will get
| Putin chucked out a window. A very large chunk of the country
| moved to mining towns in the 70s and 80s to take advantage of
| the Soviet Union equivalent of FIRE[1]. Those pensions are a
| crushing burden upon the government and any attempt to reduce
| them causes massive protests and riots.
|
| [1] Financial Independence, Retire Early
| biorach wrote:
| > A very large chunk of the country moved to mining towns
| in the 70s and 80s to take advantage of the Soviet Union
| equivalent of FIRE[1]. Those pensions are a crushing burden
| upon the government
|
| Sources? In particular, what proportion of the population?
|
| When were the attempts to reduce the pensions?
| remexre wrote:
| I thought the root cause isn't the total number of people,
| it's the fact that developed-nation lifestyles are a lot more
| environmentally impactful than developing ones; (6B * current
| developed-nation avg carbon footprint) > (8B * current global
| avg carbon footprint)
| concordDance wrote:
| They're both causes. E.g. if there were only 500 million
| people in the world there'd be no issue. Similarly, if
| everyone lived a somali lifestyle it wouldn't be that bad
| environmentally.
| vixen99 wrote:
| Actually lots of people are now talking about the problem of
| too few babies especially in Europe. Many countries are
| looking to their populations halving by 2100. A recent report
| says there are 79 countries with fertility rates (mean=1.59)
| below the replacement level rate (mean=2.08).
|
| [ The means are my calculations on dataset in
| https://www.pop.org/simple/countries-with-below-
| replacement-... ]
|
| There are some negative consequences or at least difficult
| questions to wrestle with. Where is the tax coming from in a
| massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly
| and who looks after them? Will retirement remain an option in
| those countries and will those folk get a pension? Others can
| comment on the positive aspects of declining fertility.
| f6v wrote:
| How many is just right?
| DrThunder wrote:
| Absolutely not. This a massive lie propped up by nihilistic
| ant-humanist rhetoric.
|
| The population is going down. People aren't having enough
| babies for replacement. You're going to have a rude awakening
| when you get old and there's not enough people to take care
| of you, pay into the retirement system etc.
| comte7092 wrote:
| Population growth is peaking and will begin to decline within
| the lifetimes of people being born today.
|
| Your point is a red herring.
| concordDance wrote:
| Almost all of these apply to plant farming too?
| timeon wrote:
| Yes. And with animal agriculture - especially at scale that
| is needed for contemporary demand - you need huge amount of
| plant farming.
| myshpa wrote:
| If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce
| global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
| PretzelPirate wrote:
| Of course, most plants we grow are fed to animals. Directly
| eating plants would reduce the overall impact since we'd grow
| less.
| DrThunder wrote:
| [flagged]
| pasquinelli wrote:
| you should eat more steak than wheat?
| korroziya wrote:
| [dead]
| DrThunder wrote:
| This isn't relegated to animal agriculture.....
| mdp2021 wrote:
| Those shortcomings are more relevant to intensive, wrong,
| unregulated and mindless practice. There is a form of farming
| which keeps those shortcomings contained - with different costs
| (but also with different quality).
| Pxtl wrote:
| Right, but the amount of meat we could get from non-intensive
| agriculture is likely an order of magnitude lower, meaning an
| order of magnitude rise in price.
| randomdata wrote:
| Tell us more about the form of farming that contains the high
| energy consumption shortcoming listed above. As a crop
| farmer, even a comparatively small reduction in energy
| availability from a cloudy year can cause a noticeable impact
| on yields. I wonder what we would eat if we saw a dramatic
| decline in available energy.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| He's probably referring to one of a variety of permaculture
| setups that integrates animals and a food forest into their
| operation. Carbon zero and super cheap to maintain, but
| challenging to setup and harder to sell some of the
| products.
| stametseater wrote:
| > _permaculture setups that integrates animals and a food
| forest into their operation._
|
| This is a premise from a bygone era. Replace modern
| farming with integrated permaculture and billions will
| starve. Such farming techniques only persist in developed
| countries today as niche activities to amuse yuppies who
| want to buy some connection to nature at the grocery
| store.
| randomdata wrote:
| Still incredibly energy intensive. I honestly cannot
| think of any food that isn't, at least indirectly if not
| directly, so I want to know more about these farming
| practices that can contain the energy need.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| There is a spectrum of permaculture that ranges from low
| yield totally self managing systems where you basically
| hunt and forage, to high yield partially automated
| systems that almost look like slick modern farms. Those
| low yield systems can still be very productive, but you
| have to go get it, so it's obviously more of a
| subsistence farmer or agritourism thing.
| randomdata wrote:
| None of this addresses the intense energy requirements.
| Even the self-managed permacultures would have little
| chance of survival if the bulk of the energy received was
| removed.
| myshpa wrote:
| IMHO not true (unless you're talking about sun's energy).
| Just few examples:
|
| https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/what-is-
| permaculture-f...
|
| https://www.permaculturenews.org/2014/07/15/fukuokas-
| food-fo...
|
| https://returntonow.net/2018/08/01/the-amazon-is-a-man-
| made-...
|
| https://news.mongabay.com/2020/07/in-syntropic-
| agriculture-f...
|
| https://www.microfarmguide.com/syntropic-farming/
| randomdata wrote:
| _> unless you 're talking about sun's energy_
|
| What other source of energy results in a decline in plant
| yields when clouds obscure the energy output? Of course
| we're talking about the sun. Is there some reason we want
| to keep avoiding the original question while sharing
| nothing that farmers, of which you know I am from the
| same comment, haven't already heard of a million times
| before? This is like the tech equivalent of someone
| asking how to prove P=NP and, in return, getting: Have
| you heard of microservices?
| myshpa wrote:
| > Tell us more about the form of farming that contains
| the high energy consumption shortcoming listed above ...
| even a comparatively small reduction in energy
| availability from a cloudy year can cause a noticeable
| impact on yields.
|
| Sorry, I have some trouble getting your meaning - maybe
| it's too late here.
|
| Are you trying to imply that my point above (High energy
| consumption) is somehow related to sun's energy, or that
| all crops need sun to grow (that would be trolling).
|
| - Feed production: Growing crops for animal feed requires
| energy for cultivation, irrigation, and the production of
| synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Additionally,
| energy is needed to harvest, transport, and process these
| crops into feed for livestock.
|
| - Livestock management: Maintaining the well-being of
| animals in farms demands energy for heating, cooling, and
| lighting of barns and other facilities, as well as for
| powering equipment used for feeding, cleaning, and waste
| management.
|
| - Transportation: Energy is required for transporting
| animals to and from farms, feedlots, and slaughterhouses.
| This includes the transportation of feed, water, and
| other supplies to farms, as well as the transportation of
| animal products to processing plants and markets.
|
| - Processing and packaging: The slaughter, processing,
| and packaging of animal products also consume energy.
| This includes the operation of slaughterhouses and
| processing plants, refrigeration, and the production of
| packaging materials.
|
| - Refrigeration and storage: Animal products typically
| need to be stored at low temperatures to prevent
| spoilage. Energy is consumed in maintaining refrigeration
| units at the necessary temperature both during
| transportation and storage at processing facilities,
| warehouses, and retail outlets.
|
| - If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce
| global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
| (https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets)
|
| > I wonder what we would eat if we saw a dramatic decline
| in available energy
|
| Cloudy skies, or maybe volcano eruptions darkening the
| sky for months/years, or snow in summer? Most would
| starve, i suppose. What we would eat? Do you mean grow?
| Mushrooms, maybe?
|
| If I'm still off, could you reformulate your question?
| MrMan wrote:
| [dead]
| myshpa wrote:
| > Those shortcomings are more relevant to intensive, wrong,
| unregulated and mindless practice
|
| On average 90 percent of meat and eggs raised in the U.S.
| come from CAFOs
|
| https://mostpolicyinitiative.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2021/01/...
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations"
| sharkjacobs wrote:
| > Yes, but animal agriculture can be less harmful if you do
| less of it
| mdp2021 wrote:
| I beg your pardon? It is not just a matter of "raising less
| animals", it is also (and mainly) a matter of raising them
| sensibly.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| It is _mostly_ a matter of raising less animals. No other
| factor or approach or combination of them can address
| these things alone, reduction is a necessary step.
|
| Defining any of this as "sensible" is an error imo. In a
| sense it's certainly sensible to have the goal of
| providing accessibly-priced meat to every member of a
| large country. Each step along the way is sensible, I'm
| sure.
|
| But then we end up here and there is nothing sensible
| about it. The sheer _scale_ required to provide all that
| flesh is nearly profane in its own right. There is simply
| and frankly no way to do it responsibly at the scale we
| 've chosen to do it.
|
| It seems meat will either remain built on human, animal
| and ecological exploitation at an incomprehensible scale,
| or it will revert to a rare and expensive luxury mostly
| available only to an economic elite. I haven't seen a
| compelling vision of any alternative.
| davidjones332 wrote:
| [flagged]
| OJFord wrote:
| That's only a paraphrasing to the extent that it means
| higher cost, which means lower demand, which means lower
| supply. It's not the point that was made, and the 'harm
| saving' would be greater than proportional to the
| consequent reduction in supply (ceteris paribus).
| macinjosh wrote:
| [flagged]
| f6v wrote:
| Many problems can be solved by dramatically reducing cattle
| population and consuming more poultry.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| _THE_ single universal defining trait of humans is our
| refusal to be bound by the limits set for us by our
| biological past.
|
| But regardless, the alternative to an economically
| catastrophic meat-centric diet isn't starvation and
| malnutrition come on. It's not even vegetarianism per se.
|
| Most humans most places through most of time have eaten much
| much less meat than we currently do. They've eaten a lot more
| plants and yes bugs and lichen and seaweed and shit than we
| do. We don't need to idealize that or try to return to it,
| but we should remember it.
|
| We are extreme outliers among humans who have lived, in this
| particular way, among others. We should consider the
| consequences of occupying this extreme and choose where we
| stand with it deliberately now that we understand what it is.
| samanator wrote:
| > ...the prevalence of these strains of E coli have dropped
| steeply since China banned the use of colistin as a growth
| promoter, suggesting that these genes carry other "fitness
| disadvantages" for the pathogens.
|
| That sentence seems pretty important but is hardly given any
| attention. It seems like if we simply stop using the antibiotics
| then the dangerous strains will die out on their own?
| etiam wrote:
| No. The numbers expressing it drop, but there are often enough
| advantages in competition situations that the trait stays
| around and can rapidly recolonize the population. Carrying the
| genetic material is a slight cost. Expressing it costs more,
| but that could be made conditional.
|
| Furthermore, note that in this case, the point is that the
| trait also confers resistance to the same type of molecule
| occurring naturally as part of the innate immune system of
| animals, meaning that for bacterial species with a large
| pathogenic component to their lifestyle the resistance retains
| a fitness advantage in their niche.
| amriksohata wrote:
| What infuriates me is the big companies selling them to farmers,
| probably already know this and have done for years. But they
| continue to get away with it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-25 23:01 UTC)