150 replies to this topic

[Sorcerer]

Agreed. I'd be curious if the average meat-eater on this list eats none of the latter.

I've been doing it for over a year now. Avoiding everything but grass-fed Argentinian beef or grass-fed NZ beef or lamb. Today I ate supermarket lamb in Athens, GR, my first transgression since the summer of 2009 and I found it totally disgusting in both flavour and in the way it made my stomach feel. Never again, unless absolutely necessary.

[hypnotoad]

We have more than that though surely. We have science. We can analyze how foods impact our bodies. This seems more valuable that looking back at cavemen.

Yea but it's hard to find legitimate good science that isn't simply inferred epidemiological data, short term studies, incomplete, funded by someone with an agenda/financial interests etc. How are you going to really study the lifetime impact of any foods with a perfect control group? People don't know or accurately report what they eat, and every day we ingest hundreds of different compounds. And no two food sources are identical from season to season or region to region etc. Throw in genetic variations, environmental variations etc and you have a sea of millions of variables that make it difficult to really "analyze" exact foods and their impact on our bodies over a lifetime.

Giant data sifting studies like the China study or Framingham can be massaged into delivering nearly any result and conclusions you want depending on your preconceived bias. So, given that I am highly distrustful of ANY "scientific" studies, I prefer to look back at historical evidence as a big factor in how I decide what is healthy and what isn't. You don't need to know the nuances of biochemistry or have a medical degree to see that the modern food environment we live in results in high levels of "Western degenerative diseases" compared to all traditional diets (which varied widely in meat intake)

That's why I don't focus on meat per se. I don't have every single iota of data regarding all aspects of meat and how it affects my unique genetic makeup, but I don't think anyone really needs to have all that data to eat sensibly. There are so many more clearly hugely harmful "invented" food substances that people should focus on such as high fructose corn syrup, hexane solvent-extracted vegetable oils, artificial chemical-filled nutritionless foods in a box etc.

I think if people want to eat a lot of meat or a lot of veggies or a lot of fruit, that's fine - just stay the hell away from crap like hot-pockets and snickers. Doing that will get most people 90% of the way there.

Edited by hypnotoad, 20 September 2010 - 08:45 PM.

[Sorcerer]

Interestingly, the China Study, although it mentions "animal proteins" repeatedly, seems to point to casein as the culprit rather than animal protein consumption per se.

[vato]

what about the acid \ alkaline balance in the body!

eating meat is acid forming, and all fruit and vegetables are alkaline forming
i think our ancestors were just eating ANYTHING they come across because they had no argiculture yet.
they had spears and stones and bows. to fight animals and eat them! think about the WW2, they ate ANYTHING when they were in hunger even cats.

just look at the real picture. one day they find a COW, they eat them, the other day they walk through a forest and find some berry's. next day they walk over land and eat spinach.
meat is just occasional and HIGH calorie, i guess they just stuff themselfs up with it until the animal is completely gone, they had no refrigirator!

so one day may be, high calorie 5000, LOT of saturated fat. ketosis, muscle growth and repair. testosterone from cholestrol etc.
i always wondered why my cat would go CRAZY for butter!!! i guess they always are into ketosis, and while in ketosis, cream butter elevates BHB the natural high ketone :D:D i love it!!!
thats why i am just as crazy over cream butter as my cat right now :D

Edited by vato, 01 December 2010 - 08:15 AM.

[motif]

1. Humans have no natural desire to consume meat.

We have no "taste" for it. When people think of eating meat, they immediately think of barbequed ribs or a filet mignon from Outback. Carnivores are primarily after the nutrient-rich organs. If someone were to put a bowl of cherries and a pig's pancreas side by side, which one are you going for?

2. Humans have no natural capability to consume meat.

Leave your ripped up caveman theories at the door. In the wild, humans are epic fail in the carnivore arena. Comparatively speaking, we aren't strong, we aren't fast, we can't smell, we can't see at night, we can't jump high, we can't swim naturally, we can't stay quiet enough to hunt, we have no claws and our teeth and jaws are useless. And, most importantly, unlike all carnivores, we have no hunting or killing instinct. It's a different story when some cute waitress brings your kill to the table with a bottle of K.C. Masterpiece.
All carnivores are capable of killing at birth or shortly thereafter. For the first 13 years of life it is highly unlikely that a human male (much less, a female) could have a prayer of getting hold of a wild animal and killing it. And this is when you are growing the most!

3. Our digestive tracts aren't designed for it.
I won't go too much into this one as there is tons of information on this. Just try swallowing fresh, raw meat whole. Better yet, give it to an infant.

4. Meat is not nutritionally imperative to humans.
All ten essential amino acids as well as every other nutrient for optimum health are found in plants. You get your protein the same place the animals get it - from foods that grow out of the ground. There is a huge misconception about this as the vast majority of people have no understanding of how amino acids work. They believe that not eating meat cannot be "healthy" because of the flabby vegetarian with no energy they see at the office. It should be noted that most vegetarians eat like crap.

Arguments in this post are really silly but I'll address all points.

ad 1. Nonsense, taste of fried chicken or fish is one of the best thing to my palate.

ad 2. Another Nonsense, humans (giving the opportunity) killed and kills lot more then all other species together... We replaced our claws and teeth with more efficient tools, and yes we are strong and can jump high provided we eat well (e.g. paleo diet). All sportsmen eat like that more or less.

ad 3. This one is really funny...You can't feed meat to a baby cat or dog either, they drink only milk for first few weeks!
and yes we can digest meat well, same as carbs because we omnivores.
(with indication to meat)

ad 4. Since we are omnivores it cannot be imperative but it's essential because carbs in excess do too much harm to our health. Some essential element and antioxidants like CoQ10 are found in meat in abundance. Cannot tell the same about plants.

Edited by motif, 01 December 2010 - 10:07 AM.

[TheFountain]

and yes we are strong and can jump high provided we eat well (e.g. paleo diet). All sportsmen eat like that more or less.

No, most 'sportsmen' do not consume a paleo type diet. In fact most sportsmen involved in sports requiring endurance, stamina and alot of jumping and running tend to fill up on carbs. Not just 'natural carbs' but pasta, breads, etc.

[motif]

and yes we are strong and can jump high provided we eat well (e.g. paleo diet). All sportsmen eat like that more or less.

No, most 'sportsmen' do not consume a paleo type diet. In fact most sportsmen involved in sports requiring endurance, stamina and alot of jumping and running tend to fill up on carbs. Not just 'natural carbs' but pasta, breads, etc.

what??? Have you ever been training anything, because I did and you obviously have no idea what are you talking about. They use sometimes protein supplements but usually meat is the basic food (mostly chicken) and some fruits for desert.


p.s.
or maybe you're talking about SUMO then maybe pasta and bread...but this is not a sport.

[TheFountain]

and yes we are strong and can jump high provided we eat well (e.g. paleo diet). All sportsmen eat like that more or less.

No, most 'sportsmen' do not consume a paleo type diet. In fact most sportsmen involved in sports requiring endurance, stamina and alot of jumping and running tend to fill up on carbs. Not just 'natural carbs' but pasta, breads, etc.

what??? Have you ever been training anything, because I did and you obviously have no idea what are you talking about. They use sometimes protein supplements but usually meat is the basic food (mostly chicken) and some fruits for desert.


p.s.
or maybe you're talking about SUMO then maybe pasta and bread...but this is not a sport.

I am not condoning consuming 400-500 carbs a day, I personally am low carb at this time. I am saying that 'sportsmen' do not typically consume low carb paleo-ish diets. Especially endurance sportsmen, like marathoners. Like it or not, you are wrong.

Edited by TheFountain, 02 December 2010 - 01:25 PM.

[AstralStorm]

To some uneducated person who wrote about lacking taste for meat: glutamate receptors also known as umami.
Only meats (processed or not) and fermented vegetables (e.g. soy) and cheeses really have the capacity for activating those in any appreciable amount. Note that most people perceive the taste as savory.

Edited by AstralStorm, 02 December 2010 - 07:23 PM.

[AstralStorm]

The okinawans are practically vegetarian. They eat fish more than land animals and very very little of the latter. About 8 times less than the average westerner. This means something, like it or not.

There's no such thing as practically vegetarian. There's no gradation. Take out their Omega 3/6 fish oil and you're left with a broken diet...
People eat things because they crave them or need them. Barring debilitating genetic conditions, the organism tends to regulate itself well, at least on a rough level.
(Unfortunately not most vitamins and microelements - these were always fairly abundant in diet.)

Edit: of course see the Okinawa thread, where there's another theory why their diet is so delicious and life-extending and why you're wrong.

Edited by AstralStorm, 02 December 2010 - 07:58 PM.

[TheFountain]

The okinawans are practically vegetarian. They eat fish more than land animals and very very little of the latter. About 8 times less than the average westerner. This means something, like it or not.

There's no such thing as practically vegetarian. There's no gradation. Take out their Omega 3/6 fish oil and you're left with a broken diet...
People eat things because they crave them or need them. Barring debilitating genetic conditions, the organism tends to regulate itself well, at least on a rough level.
(Unfortunately not most vitamins and microelements - these were always fairly abundant in diet.)

Edit: of course see the Okinawa thread, where there's another theory why their diet is so delicious and life-extending and why you're wrong.

Okay so they are basically pescetarian. I highly doubt the omega 3s in their fish consumption would offset an otherwise harmful diet. Maybe their enzymatic pathways just deal differently genetically with carbs than those of europeans and americans.

Edited by TheFountain, 03 December 2010 - 06:18 PM.

[AstralStorm]

Okay so they are basically pescetarian. I highly doubt the omega 3s in their fish consumption would offset an otherwise harmful diet. Maybe their enzymatic pathways just deal differently genetically with carbs than those of europeans and americans.

Really read the thread: http://www.imminst.o...s-from-okinawa/
According to those findings, Okinawans eat foods that have antidiabetic properties - reduce glucose levels and improve insulin sensitivity.
Perhaps insulin resistance is also linked to higher levels of IGF, which is implied in some symptoms of aging... I'd have to dig further.
(not to mention rest of metabolic syndrome and advanced glycation products)

Edited by AstralStorm, 04 December 2010 - 04:00 AM.

[carlcrott]

the advent of the advanced human prefrontal cortex coincided withe the consumption of meat.

that is all.

[Benedictus]

Alright, here we go again...

"Try to imagine eating a healthy vegetarian diet in the wild" Billions of people throughout history as well as our biological relatives and thousands of animal species.

K2 is produced by gut flora (just like other animals)

Omega 3:6 balance: Omega 3 in plants, seeds etc, are a far better source because they aren't oxidized as quickly because they are protected by the antioxidants in the plant.

One wouldn't need to "find" b12. It is also manufactured by gut flora (just like other animals).


"and you probably couldn't even find enough calories to survive" uhhhh....nope, you got me there. Just kidding. I don't think that one even needs a response.

"we evolved eating meat because it benefited our evolution" Is that why we have no use for it and don't have the digestive tract for it?

"meat has all man needs to survive" Except vitamin c (which carnivores manufacture and humans don't), vitamin E, countless antioxidants and fiber (which carnivores don't need because their intestinal tract is short and smooth). Next, muscle meat is the least nutritious part of the animal.

The eskimo deal was debunked long ago. Not that you care. The inuit are among the lowest life expectancy in the world. Good luck selling that one at this forum.


Let me reiterate that I do not follow any dietary religions nor are my decisions based on emotion for animals. Everything I do (and don't do) is backed by mountains of scientific evidence.

Thanks for starting this thread, Trevor, I often use it to link to when I'm discussing this with the status quo of meat-industry loving idiots in this world. I'm behind you on this entire thread.
I'm extremely healthy for my 45 years of age, and that's because I never felt a need to eat ANY meat at all, so I have tried to minimize eating it ever since childhood. Plus, I used to be allergic to several fish species, which made me realize early on that not eating fish-product is not a problem at all, as long as you know what constitutes proper replacement.

I still at times eat some meat, but only because I'm way too polite to refuse what people serve me, but I'm working on getting that solved..

[yoyo]

Designed or not, but meat eating on a planet with 6 billion other humans is shortsighted and selfish.

just the latest news:
http://arstechnica.c...om-chickens.ars

[Skötkonung]

Designed or not, but meat eating on a planet with 6 billion other humans is shortsighted and selfish.

just the latest news:
http://arstechnica.c...om-chickens.ars

Who says I want to eat in a way that supports more people on this planet? It seems just as short sighted to promote a lifestyle that encourages population growth... and let's be real, population is really the root cause of environmental degradation... not meat consumption. The last thing we need is 11 billion people living in crowded cities eating beans and rice from intensive industrial agriculture.

Edited by Skötkonung, 30 June 2011 - 07:00 AM.

[Elenai]

Who says I want to eat in a way that supports more people on this planet? It seems just as short sighted to promote a lifestyle that encourages population growth... and let's be real, population is really the root cause of environmental degradation... not meat consumption. The last thing we need is 11 billion people living in crowded cities eating beans and rice from intensive industrial agriculture.

Haha touché

[TheFountain]

<br />

<br />Designed or not, but meat eating on a planet with 6 billion other humans is shortsighted and selfish.<br /><br />just the latest news:<br /><a href='http://arstechnica.c...om-chickens.ars' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://arstechnica.c...kens.ars</a><br />

<br />Who says I want to eat in a way that supports more people on this planet? It seems just as short sighted to promote a lifestyle that encourages population growth... and let's be real, population is really the root cause of environmental degradation... not meat consumption. The last thing we need is 11 billion people living in crowded cities eating beans and rice from intensive industrial agriculture.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

But it's okay to have thousands of factory farms spread all through out this country to keep up with peoples meat eating habits? Because i'll tell you what, if the population doubles in the next 50 years we will have 5 times as many factory farms in the world. Why population growth is tied directly to veganism is perplexing to me. The subsidized meat industry ihas the largest environmental impact of all food industries (you can say it's the grain industry if you wish, but that would be an outright lie based on cherry picked data). The facts speak clearly, despite the consistent bias repeated here. I also don't necessarily see veganism as a source of 'population explosion' given our tendency to find ways of breeding cattle en masse regardless of how big the population gets. And even if it was, not being able to cope with a growing population would put us in a unique position. It could produce mass chaos, or it could produce solutions never before considered, which would further augment our situation as a species. What if population explosion is the impetus for colonizing other planets? Or producing methods of food replication in laboratories that would change the entire outlook of our species? Then nobody would ever have to worry about going hungry again, regardless of whether or not there are 6 billion, 10 billion or 50 billion humans alive.


Facts and Data on Antibiotics and Factory Farming

Waste Pollution and the Environment

The USDA reports that animals in the US meat industry produce 61 million tons of waste each year, which is 130 times the volume of human waste - or five tons for every US citizen.
Horrigan, Leo, Lawrence, Robert S., Walker, Polly, "How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture," Johns Hopkins University's Center for a Livable Future, July 9, 1999

North Carolina's 7,000,000 factory-raised hogs create four times as much waste - stored in reeking, open cesspools - as the state's 6.5 million people. The Delmarva Peninsula's 600 million chickens produce 400,000 tons of manure a year.
Chris Bedford, "How Our food is Produced Matters!", AWI Quarterly, Summer 1999

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, hog, chicken and cattle waste has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states.

Pfiesteria, a microscopic organism that feeds off the phosphorus and nitrogen found in manure, is a lethal toxin harmful to both humans and fish. In 1991 alone, 1,000,000,000,000 (one billion) fish were killed by pfiesteria in the Neuse River in North Carolina.
Zakin, Susan. "Nonpoint Pollution: The Quiet Killer," Field & Stream, August 1999, p.86

Since 1995, an additional one billion fish have been killed from manure runoff in estuaries and coastal areas in North Carolina, and the Maryland and Virginia tributaries leading into the Chesapeake Bay. These deaths can be directly related to the 10 million hogs currently being raised in North Carolina and the 620 million chickens on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1998

The pollution from animal waste causes respiratory problems, skin infections, nausea, depression and even death for people who live near factory farms. Livestock waste has been linked to six miscarriages in women living near a hog factory in Indiana.
Centers for Disease Control, Mortality Weekly Report, July 5, 1996 (7) Washington Post, June 1, 1997

In Virginia, state guidelines indicate that a safe level of fecal coliform bacteria is 200 colonies per 100 milliliters of water. In 1997, some streams had levels as high as 424,000 per 100 milliliters.

Animal Welfare

Each full-grown chicken in a factory farm has as little as six-tenths of a square foot of space. Because of the crowding, they often become aggressive and sometimes eat each other. This has lead to the painful practice of debeaking the birds.
Horrigan, Leo, Lawrence, Robert S., Walker, Polly, "How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture," Johns Hopkins University's Center for a Livable Future, July 9, 1999

Hogs become aggressive in tight spaces and often bite each other's tails, which has caused many farmers to cut the tails off.
ibid

Concrete or slatted floors allow for easy removal of manure, but because they are unnatural surfaces for pigs, the animals often suffer skeletal deformities.
ibid

Ammonia and other gases from manure irritate animals' lungs, to the point where over 80% of US pigs have pneumonia upon slaughter.
ibid

Due to genetic manipulation, 90% of broiler chickens have trouble walking.
Erik Marcus, Vegan, Mcbooks, 1998

Economics

Almost 30% of agricultural subsidies go to the top two percent of farms and over four-fifths to the top 30%.
Horrigan, Leo, Lawrence, Robert S., Walker, Polly, "How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture," Johns Hopkins University's Center for a Livable Future, July 9, 1999

In 1970, there were approximately 900,000 farms in the United States; by 1997, there were only 139,000.
Drabenscott, Mark. "This Little Piggy Went to Market", Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Vol. 83, No. 3, Third Quarter, 1998, pp. 79-97

Between 1969 and 1992, the number of producers selling 1000 hogs annually or less declined 73%. Producers selling more than 1000 annually increased 320%, according to the US Census of Agriculture.
Swine Strategies, State of Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, Summer 1995

Estimated inputs to produce a pound of: Pork: 6.9 pounds of grain, .44 gallons of gasoline, 430 gallons of water Beef: 4.8 pounds of grain, .25 gallons of gasoline, 390 gallons of water
Alan Durning, "Fat of the Land", World Watch Institute, 1991

Meat production has grown worldwide from 44 million tons in 1950 to 211 million tons in 1997.
Earth Times, July 1, 1998

The price of meat would double or triple if full ecological costs - including fossil fuel use, groundwater depletion and agricultural-chemical pollution - were factored in.
EarthSave, November 1997

90% of the nation's poultry production is controlled by 10 companies.
Zakin, Susan. "Nonpoint Pollution: The Quiet Killer," Field and Stream, August 1999, pp. 84-88

In Maryland, chickens outnumber people 59 to 1.
Ibid.

Antibiotics and Public Health

Overuse of antibiotics in animals is causing more strains of drug-resistant bacteria, which is affecting the treatment of various life-threatening diseases in humans. The Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences has estimated the annual cost of treating antibiotic-resistant infections in the U.S. at $30 billion.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, "Antimicrobial Fact Sheet", May 4, 1999

Fifty million pounds of antibiotics are produced in the U.S. each year. Twenty million pounds are given to animals, of which 80% (16 million pounds) is used on livestock merely to promote more rapid growth. The remaining 20% is used to help control the multitude of diseases that occur under such tightly confined conditions, including anemia, influenza, intestinal diseases, mastitis, metritis, orthostasis, and pneumonia.
American Medical News, "FDA Pledges to Fight Overuse of Antibiotics in Animals", February 15, 1999

Chickens are reservoirs for many food borne pathogens including Campylobacter and Salmonella. 20% of broiler chickens in the US are contaminated with Salmonella and 80% are contaminated with Campylobacter in the processing plant. Campylobacter is the most common known cause of bacterial food borne illness in the US.
Risk Assessment of Fluoroquinolone Use in Poultry, Food & Drug Administration, February 2000

5000 deaths and 76 million cases of food-borne illness occur annually.
ibid

Antibiotics in farm animals leave behind drug-resistant microbes in meat and milk. With every burger and shake consumed, super-microbes settle in the stomach where they transfer drug resistance to bacteria in the body, making one more vulnerable to previously-treatable conditions.
Newsweek, March 7, 1994

Miscellaneous

The average American consumes nearly twice his or her weight in meat annually.
Earth Times, July 1, 1998

Poultry processing has almost double the injury and illness rate than trades like coal mining and construction.
EarthSave, March 1998

The United Nations reports that all 17 of the world's major fishing areas are at or beyond their natural limits. One third of all the world's fish catch is fed directly to livestock.
EarthSave, November 1997

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
Albert Einstein

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man."
Mohandas Ghandi

Sustainability (The Good News!)

Sustainable farming, once dismissed as the pastime of crackpots and idealists, has grown into a business worth some $7.3 billion a year in the European Union and around $15.6 billion worldwide.
Quote by Dr. Nicolas Lampkin, Agriculture Specialist, University of Wales in Aberystwyth. Paul Ames, Associated Press, December 27, 1999

Organic farming became one of the fastest growing segments of U.S. agriculture during the 1990's. Certified organic cropland more than doubled from 1992 to 1997, and two organic livestock sectors-eggs and dairy-grew even faster.
Economic Research Service, USDA

The number of certified organic milk cows in the U.S. nearly tripled between 1992 and 1994.
ibid.

The United States had 537,826 certified organic layer hens in 1997, up sharply from 47,700 in 1994.
ibid.

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) connects local farmers with consumers; local farms grow food specifically for CSA members. As of January 1999, there were over 1000 Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farms across the US and Canada.
University of Massachusetts Extension

Responsible management of the natural resources of soil, water, and wildlife on the 60 percent of all U.S. farms less than 180 acres in size, produces significant environmental benefits for society.
A Time To Act report, USDA National Commission on Small Farms, 1998

The smallest U.S. farms, those of 27 acres or less, have more than ten times greater dollar output per acre than larger farms.
Dr. Peter Rosset, "The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture", Institute for Food and Development Policy, September 1999

In farming communities dominated by large corporate farms, nearby towns died off. Where family farms predominated, there were more local businesses, paved streets and sidewalks, schools, parks, churches, clubs, and newspapers, better services, higher employment, and more civic participation.
ibid

In the United States, small farmers devote 17% of their area to woodlands, compared to only 5% on large farms. Small farms maintain nearly twice as much of their land in "soil improving uses," including cover crops and green manures.
ibid

source: http://www.gracelink...tml#antibiotics

[Skötkonung]

<br />

<br />Designed or not, but meat eating on a planet with 6 billion other humans is shortsighted and selfish.<br /><br />just the latest news:<br /><a href='http://arstechnica.c...om-chickens.ars' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://arstechnica.c...kens.ars</a><br />

<br />Who says I want to eat in a way that supports more people on this planet? It seems just as short sighted to promote a lifestyle that encourages population growth... and let's be real, population is really the root cause of environmental degradation... not meat consumption. The last thing we need is 11 billion people living in crowded cities eating beans and rice from intensive industrial agriculture.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

But it's okay to have thousands of factory farms spread all through out this country to keep up with peoples meat eating habits? Because i'll tell you what, if the population doubles in the next 50 years we will have 5 times as many factory farms in the world. Why population growth is tied directly to veganism is perplexing to me. The subsidized meat industry ihas the largest environmental impact of all food industries (you can say it's the grain industry if you wish, but that would be an outright lie based on cherry picked data). The facts speak clearly, despite the consistent bias repeated here. I also don't necessarily see veganism as a source of 'population explosion' given our tendency to find ways of breeding cattle en masse regardless of how big the population gets. And even if it was, not being able to cope with a growing population would put us in a unique position. It could produce mass chaos, or it could produce solutions never before considered, which would further augment our situation as a species. What if population explosion is the impetus for colonizing other planets? Or producing methods of food replication in laboratories that would change the entire outlook of our species? Then nobody would ever have to worry about going hungry again, regardless of whether or not there are 6 billion, 10 billion or 50 billion humans alive.

False dichotomy - I never defended factory farming, so I'm going to ignore most of what you wrote. The argument that meat consumption should be reduced because of world population is like not seeing the forest through the trees. Unless population growth is addressed, regardless of diet, we will continue to see environmental degradation. If meat, and food in general, gets more expensive because of increased population... maybe that is a good thing? Higher cost of food means people will at least think twice before reproducing.

By the way, maybe someone should post the statistic on your vegan food, grown with synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, that are destroying the oceans and displacing wildlife. Last time I checked, the plains of the American Midwest and the rain forests of South America were being torn up to grow more corn and soy. The problem isn't just industrial animal farms, it's people. When you have too many people, you have to go to greater and greater lengths to supply them with food. That means moving away from traditional methods of food production (polycultures) and relying on non-renewable resources / using increasingly large amounts of land that scale better with higher demand.

Edited by Skötkonung, 30 June 2011 - 07:17 PM.

[TheFountain]

<br />

<br />

&lt;br /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;Designed or not, but meat eating on a planet with 6 billion other humans is shortsighted and selfish.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;just the latest news:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href='http://arstechnica.c...om-chickens.ars' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'&gt;http://arstechnica.c...;/a&#62;&#60;br /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;Who says I want to eat in a way that supports more people on this planet? It seems just as short sighted to promote a lifestyle that encourages population growth... and let's be real, population is really the root cause of environmental degradation... not meat consumption. The last thing we need is 11 billion people living in crowded cities eating beans and rice from intensive industrial agriculture.&lt;br /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /><br />But it's okay to have thousands of factory farms spread all through out this country to keep up with peoples meat eating habits? Because i'll tell you what, if the population doubles in the next 50 years we will have 5 times as many factory farms in the world. Why population growth is tied directly to veganism is perplexing to me. The subsidized meat industry ihas the largest environmental impact of all food industries (you can say it's the grain industry if you wish, but that would be an outright lie based on cherry picked data). The facts speak clearly, despite the consistent bias repeated here. I also don't necessarily see veganism as a source of 'population explosion' given our tendency to find ways of breeding cattle en masse regardless of how big the population gets. And even if it was, not being able to cope with a growing population would put us in a unique position. It could produce mass chaos, or it could produce solutions never before considered, which would further augment our situation as a species. What if population explosion is the impetus for colonizing other planets? Or producing methods of food replication in laboratories that would change the entire outlook of our species? Then nobody would ever have to worry about going hungry again, regardless of whether or not there are 6 billion, 10 billion or 50 billion humans alive. <br />

<br />False dichotomy - I never defended factory farming, so I'm going to ignore most of what you wrote. The argument that meat consumption should be reduced because of world population is like not seeing the forest through the trees. Unless population growth is addressed, regardless of diet, we will continue to see environmental degradation. If meat, and food in general, gets more expensive because of increased population... maybe that is a good thing? Higher cost of food means people will at least think twice before reproducing.<br /><br />By the way, maybe someone should post the statistic on your vegan food, grown with synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, that are destroying the oceans and displacing wildlife.  Last time I checked, the plains of the American Midwest and the <a href='http://www.mongabay....oybeans2003.htm' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>rain forests of South America</a> were being <a href='http://kids.mongabay...entary/soy.html' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>torn up to grow more corn and soy</a>. The problem isn't just industrial animal farms, it's people. When you have too many people, you have to go to greater and greater lengths to supply them with food. That means moving away from traditional methods of food production (polycultures) and relying on non-renewable resources / using increasingly large amounts of land that scale better with higher demand.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I agree with you, but it is very misleading to make it seem as if the majority of environmental degradation is caused by growing plant based foods, when this is just completely untrue. None of us think tearing rain forests down is environmentally sound. That is why we are talking about this. But factory farmed meat sources still do account for the major environmental damage caused by a mass production facilities. There are a ton of references indicating this.

I think we need to move away from traditional methods and into food replication methods that do not harm the environment. What is wrong with giant ocean platforms being a home to mega-green houses, for example? The majority of the oceans surface is uninhabited, nor will it be for a long period of time. If they can build giant oil refiners in the middle of the ocean why can't they do this?

[Skötkonung]

<br />

<br />

&lt;br /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;Designed or not, but meat eating on a planet with 6 billion other humans is shortsighted and selfish.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;just the latest news:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href='http://arstechnica.c...om-chickens.ars' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'&gt;http://arstechnica.c...;/a&#62;&#60;br /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;Who says I want to eat in a way that supports more people on this planet? It seems just as short sighted to promote a lifestyle that encourages population growth... and let's be real, population is really the root cause of environmental degradation... not meat consumption. The last thing we need is 11 billion people living in crowded cities eating beans and rice from intensive industrial agriculture.&lt;br /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /><br />But it's okay to have thousands of factory farms spread all through out this country to keep up with peoples meat eating habits? Because i'll tell you what, if the population doubles in the next 50 years we will have 5 times as many factory farms in the world. Why population growth is tied directly to veganism is perplexing to me. The subsidized meat industry ihas the largest environmental impact of all food industries (you can say it's the grain industry if you wish, but that would be an outright lie based on cherry picked data). The facts speak clearly, despite the consistent bias repeated here. I also don't necessarily see veganism as a source of 'population explosion' given our tendency to find ways of breeding cattle en masse regardless of how big the population gets. And even if it was, not being able to cope with a growing population would put us in a unique position. It could produce mass chaos, or it could produce solutions never before considered, which would further augment our situation as a species. What if population explosion is the impetus for colonizing other planets? Or producing methods of food replication in laboratories that would change the entire outlook of our species? Then nobody would ever have to worry about going hungry again, regardless of whether or not there are 6 billion, 10 billion or 50 billion humans alive. <br />

<br />False dichotomy - I never defended factory farming, so I'm going to ignore most of what you wrote. The argument that meat consumption should be reduced because of world population is like not seeing the forest through the trees. Unless population growth is addressed, regardless of diet, we will continue to see environmental degradation. If meat, and food in general, gets more expensive because of increased population... maybe that is a good thing? Higher cost of food means people will at least think twice before reproducing.<br /><br />By the way, maybe someone should post the statistic on your vegan food, grown with synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, that are destroying the oceans and displacing wildlife. Last time I checked, the plains of the American Midwest and the <a href='http://www.mongabay....oybeans2003.htm' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>rain forests of South America</a> were being <a href='http://kids.mongabay...entary/soy.html' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>torn up to grow more corn and soy</a>. The problem isn't just industrial animal farms, it's people. When you have too many people, you have to go to greater and greater lengths to supply them with food. That means moving away from traditional methods of food production (polycultures) and relying on non-renewable resources / using increasingly large amounts of land that scale better with higher demand.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I agree with you, but it is very misleading to make it seem as if the majority of environmental degradation is caused by growing plant based foods, when this is just completely untrue. None of us think tearing rain forests down is environmentally sound. That is why we are talking about this. But factory farmed meat sources still do account for the major environmental damage caused by a mass production facilities. There are a ton of references indicating this.

I think we need to move away from traditional methods and into food replication methods that do not harm the environment. What is wrong with giant ocean platforms being a home to mega-green houses, for example? The majority of the oceans surface is uninhabited, nor will it be for a long period of time. If they can build giant oil refiners in the middle of the ocean why can't they do this?

I don't know if we need to do things like that... maybe if we wanted to leave as little impact on wildlife as possible... but to accommodate extra people? No way. The issue, as I see it, is that the earth is way beyond its sustainable carrying capacity. The estimates I've seen range from around one half billion to two billion. Some people would like to argue we can fit billions with innovations in farming, but I don't think that is realistic given humanity's track record of lack of environmental foresight, Plus there is something nice about having wide open spaces and being able to appreciate wild life without it being in a zoo or crowded with day hikers.

I agree that factory farming is a huge issue, but so is all of the food we eat. If you eat conventionally grown anything, its horrible for the environment. That means soy, corn, wheat, beef, pork.. even the bell peppers and tomatoes that people eat in January (grown in hot houses or tropical countries). The best thing you can do right now is buy local, preferentially from co-ops and farmer's markets. Sure the food can be more money, but that's because its done right,

[TheFountain]

<br />

<br />

&lt;br /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;

&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;

&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;Designed or not, but meat eating on a planet with 6 billion other humans is shortsighted and selfish.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;just the latest news:&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;a href='http://arstechnica.c...om-chickens.ars' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'&amp;gt;http://arstechnica.c...8;gt;&#38;lt;br /&amp;gt;

&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;Who says I want to eat in a way that supports more people on this planet? It seems just as short sighted to promote a lifestyle that encourages population growth... and let's be real, population is really the root cause of environmental degradation... not meat consumption. The last thing we need is 11 billion people living in crowded cities eating beans and rice from intensive industrial agriculture.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;

&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But it's okay to have thousands of factory farms spread all through out this country to keep up with peoples meat eating habits? Because i'll tell you what, if the population doubles in the next 50 years we will have 5 times as many factory farms in the world. Why population growth is tied directly to veganism is perplexing to me. The subsidized meat industry ihas the largest environmental impact of all food industries (you can say it's the grain industry if you wish, but that would be an outright lie based on cherry picked data). The facts speak clearly, despite the consistent bias repeated here. I also don't necessarily see veganism as a source of 'population explosion' given our tendency to find ways of breeding cattle en masse regardless of how big the population gets. And even if it was, not being able to cope with a growing population would put us in a unique position. It could produce mass chaos, or it could produce solutions never before considered, which would further augment our situation as a species. What if population explosion is the impetus for colonizing other planets? Or producing methods of food replication in laboratories that would change the entire outlook of our species? Then nobody would ever have to worry about going hungry again, regardless of whether or not there are 6 billion, 10 billion or 50 billion humans alive. &lt;br /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;False dichotomy - I never defended factory farming, so I'm going to ignore most of what you wrote. The argument that meat consumption should be reduced because of world population is like not seeing the forest through the trees. Unless population growth is addressed, regardless of diet, we will continue to see environmental degradation. If meat, and food in general, gets more expensive because of increased population... maybe that is a good thing? Higher cost of food means people will at least think twice before reproducing.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;By the way, maybe someone should post the statistic on your vegan food, grown with synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, that are destroying the oceans and displacing wildlife.  Last time I checked, the plains of the American Midwest and the &lt;a href='http://www.mongabay....oybeans2003.htm' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'&gt;rain forests of South America&lt;/a&gt; were being &lt;a href='http://kids.mongabay...entary/soy.html' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'&gt;torn up to grow more corn and soy&lt;/a&gt;. The problem isn't just industrial animal farms, it's people. When you have too many people, you have to go to greater and greater lengths to supply them with food. That means moving away from traditional methods of food production (polycultures) and relying on non-renewable resources / using increasingly large amounts of land that scale better with higher demand.&lt;br /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /><br />I agree with you, but it is very misleading to make it seem as if the majority of environmental degradation is caused by growing plant based foods, when this is just completely untrue. None of us think tearing rain forests down is environmentally sound. That is why we are talking about this. But factory farmed meat sources still do account for the major environmental damage caused by a mass production facilities. There are a ton of references indicating this. <br /><br />I think we need to move away from traditional methods and into food replication methods that do not harm the environment. What is wrong with giant ocean platforms being a home to mega-green houses, for example? The majority of the oceans surface is uninhabited, nor will it be for a long period of time. If they can build giant oil refiners in the middle of the ocean why can't they do this?<br />

<br />I don't know if we need to do things like that... maybe if we wanted to leave as little impact on wildlife as possible... but to accommodate extra people? No way. The issue, as I see it, is that the earth is way beyond its sustainable carrying capacity. The estimates I've seen range from around one half billion to two billion. Some people would like to argue we can fit billions with innovations in farming, but I don't think that is realistic given humanity's track record of lack of environmental foresight, Plus there is something nice about having wide open spaces and being able to appreciate wild life without it being in a zoo or crowded with day hikers.<br /><br />I agree that factory farming is a huge issue, but so is all of the food we eat. If you eat conventionally grown anything, its horrible for the environment. That means soy, corn, wheat, beef, pork.. even the bell peppers and tomatoes that people eat in January (grown in hot houses or tropical countries). The best thing you can do right now is buy local, preferentially from co-ops and farmer's markets. Sure the food can be more money, but that's because its done right,<br />

<br /><br />Unlike you, my friend, I have absolutely no problem making the adjustments necessary to accommodate a higher population. I see it as, indeed, an aspect of the evolution of our species (becoming less and less self interested). Struggle is par for the course. And as I have pointed out before I think our eco-system can support a much larger population than the 6 billion currently inhabiting it (most of whom are concentrated in overpopulated industrial settings). Let's expand outward!<br />Now with regard to food costs, I thought it was generally less expensive to buy local (farmers markets) than the other way around? Isn't revenue loss the reason the government subsidizes these industries to begin with? So that if they lose a certain amount of crop yield they still get paid for what they haven't even sold? Doesn't this, in turn, make industrially grown produce more expensive? I read this amazing book called 'how to get away with shop lifting' or something or other and it pointed out dozens of reasons why the subsidy arbitrarily gets transferred to the consumer with food taxes, and that these industrial farmers are reaping the benefits of overpriced produce. The author was anonymous but it was a good book nonetheless. very informative.

Edited by TheFountain, 30 June 2011 - 08:49 PM.

[Skötkonung]

Unlike you, my friend, I have absolutely no problem making the adjustments necessary to accommodate a higher population. I see it as, indeed, an aspect of the evolution of our species (becoming less and less self interested). Struggle is par for the course. And as I have pointed out before I think our eco-system can support a much larger population than the 6 billion currently inhabiting it (most of whom are concentrated in overpopulated industrial settings). Let's expand outward!<br />Now with regard to food costs, I thought it was generally less expensive to buy local (farmers markets) than the other way around? Isn't revenue loss the reason the government subsidizes these industries to begin with? So that if they lose a certain amount of crop yield they still get paid for what they haven't even sold? Doesn't this, in turn, make industrially grown produce more expensive? I read this amazing book called 'how to get away with shop lifting' or something or other and it pointed out dozens of reasons why the subsidy arbitrarily gets transferred to the consumer with food taxes, and that these industrial farmers are reaping the benefits of overpriced produce. The author was anonymous but it was a good book nonetheless. very informative.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Perhaps it has to do with my upbringing, which was in a fairly rural environment, but I prefer open spaces and don't care much for crowds or lots of people. I can't imagine a world so populated, it would be hell for me. Right now I live in Portland OR and it is the largest city I have ever lived. Even though my residence is outside of primary metropolitan area, I hate coming to work downtown as it is polluted and dirty, feels cramped and crowded, and noisy. Being able to return home to a place with clean air, lots of green space, and quiet is the only saving grace about living in this city. My boss, who is a native New Yorker, says Portland feels empty to him. I have never been to New York, but I imagine it is much worse from a crowding and pollution perspective. Just like you and I, my guess is our different upbringings gave my boss and I a different outlook on population density.

Some things are cheap (or on par with grocery stores) at farmer's markets. This usually includes in-season produce. Often times a vendor will have a excess of tomatoes at a certain point, they will be forced to sell that cheaply so that they don't spoil. Other items, like meat are more expensive. Instead of $3-4/lb of beef, grass-fed local beef can be $8/lb or more. A premium steak cut can be $15/lb or more depending on the cut, When you take into account that you pay taxes to subsidize conventional meat that you aren't eating, it gets even more costly. Cheese and dairy is also more expensive, because the cost of labor isn't reduced through industrialization. A pint of locally produced cream is usually above $4.

While you are correct in your current characterization of the subsidies system, when you consider the taxes you are paying for food subsidies you don't utilize and military required to protect the oil needed for industrial agriculture, it really isn't cheaper at all. In fact, it is almost always more expensive.

[TheFountain]

<br />

<br />Unlike you, my friend, I have absolutely no problem making the adjustments necessary to accommodate a higher population. I see it as, indeed, an aspect of the evolution of our species (becoming less and less self interested). Struggle is par for the course. And as I have pointed out before I think our eco-system can support a much larger population than the 6 billion currently inhabiting it (most of whom are concentrated in overpopulated industrial settings). Let's expand outward!&lt;br /&gt;Now with regard to food costs, I thought it was generally less expensive to buy local (farmers markets) than the other way around? Isn't revenue loss the reason the government subsidizes these industries to begin with? So that if they lose a certain amount of crop yield they still get paid for what they haven't even sold? Doesn't this, in turn, make industrially grown produce more expensive? I read this amazing book called 'how to get away with shop lifting' or something or other and it pointed out dozens of reasons why the subsidy arbitrarily gets transferred to the consumer with food taxes, and that these industrial farmers are reaping the benefits of overpriced produce. The author was anonymous but it was a good book nonetheless. very informative.<br />

<br />I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Perhaps it has to do with my upbringing, which was in a fairly rural environment, but I prefer open spaces and don't care much for crowds or lots of people. I can't imagine a world so populated, it would be hell for me. Right now I live in Portland OR and it is the largest city I have ever lived. Even though my residence is outside of primary metropolitan area, I hate coming to work downtown as it is polluted and dirty, feels cramped and crowded, and noisy. Being able to return home to a place with clean air, lots of green space, and quiet is the only saving grace about living in this city. My boss, who is a native New Yorker, says Portland feels empty to him. I have never been to New York, but I imagine it is much worse from a crowding and pollution perspective.  Just like you and I, my guess is our different upbringings gave my boss and I a different outlook on population density.<br /><br />Some things are cheap (or on par with grocery stores) at farmer's markets. This usually includes in-season produce. Often times a vendor will have a excess of tomatoes at a certain point, they will be forced to sell that cheaply so that they don't spoil. Other items, like meat are more expensive. Instead of $3-4/lb of beef, grass-fed local beef can be $8/lb or more. A premium steak cut can be $15/lb or more depending on the cut, When you take into account that you pay taxes to subsidize conventional meat that you aren't eating, it gets even more costly. Cheese and dairy is also more expensive, because the cost of labor isn't reduced through industrialization. A pint of locally produced cream is usually above $4. <br /><br />While you are correct in your current characterization of the subsidies system,  when you consider the taxes you are paying for food subsidies you don't utilize and military required to protect the oil needed for industrial agriculture, it really isn't cheaper at all. In fact, it is almost always more expensive.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I would be inclined to say that most of our tax dollars are being misused to begin with. We really do not see the majority of what we pay taxes for in any sound, reasonable fashion. What I was pointing out is the fact that, because the government subsidizes factory farms and industrial agriculture, we, the consumers are paying more per pound than we should be because the prices are artificially inflated (that is, given a 'fixed' price in many cases, that is much higher than the actual cost of production). I don't think it is right at all. Nor do I understand what the 'military' has to do with this. Far too much money in spent in military pursuit as it is. hence the american poverty rate, as compared with other civilized nations, such as the UK, where middle class living is at a different (higher) threshold of standard. Trust me, visit the inner city of new york, or philadelphia, or god forbid, Detroit!

Being from new york has actually made me, as my social anxiety would have it, naturally inclined toward seeking greater privacy. I am in no way immune to the large crowds, nor desensitized to them. I am sure a lot of new yorkers feel this way. But despite my lack of preference for large crowds, I am putting myself aside with the consideration of species advancement with my previous comments regarding population expansion. See selfishness is one of those traits that does in fact hold us back as a species. Despite the apparent immediate results it may garner in some situations (I myself am given to selfish endeavors at times). But if we look at the historical record evolution has never been easy. And I am one of those weirdo's who firmly believes we are still evolving, and will forever be evolving. There is no status quo state of stagnation. Just moments of laziness. And as one of my favorite philosophers is apt to point out, mechanical evolution has ended (a subject for debate) while 'conscious evolution' has begun.

[wiserd]

"What is wrong with giant ocean platforms being a home to mega-green houses, for example?"

The ocean's dead zones are limited in growth by iron deprivation. Iron fertilization could cause huge algal blooms. Fish would eat the algae, replenishing dwindling stocks. Some concern has been expressed
regarding the accidental creation of red tides.

I haven't read the whole thread, but the book "Catching Fire" makes a great argument that humans are adapted to cook our food. No civilization has an entirely raw diet. Even with modern nutrient-rich foods, something like a third of women on strict raw food diets stopped ovulating due to nutrient deprivation. Cooking explains how the human gut could tolerate meat despite its long length. It explains how we could grow to our present size without long intestines like gorillas.

(Incidentally, cows are not a good reference for this topic. Vegetarian primates don't graze. They're fructivores and insectivores.)

I'm a vegetarian, but I feel that humans are definitely pescatarian by nature, at the least. It's true that the oils in fish are just concentrated from oils in some seaweeds, but it would not have been easy for our ancestors to get those oils. The notion that evolution is random is absurd. Many animals are well suited to their environments. You don't find fish on land. Most sea dwelling animals have fins or similar. Species adapt over time.

The same is true with human nutrition. Strict vegans lack sufficient B12. (Even many primates are at least insectavores.) Strict vegans show cognitive improvement from creatine supplementation.
And now it's starting to seem that menatetranone (usually found in meat) is a useful supplement as well.

I'm not claiming that a modern vegetarian diet can't be healthy, quite the contrary. And given the overuse of antibiotics in factory farms, I think there's a lot to recommend people being careful of how their meat is raised.

I just think functional vegetarianism is a fairly new thing, historically speaking.

[Benedictus]

The factor missing in these discussions is the distribution and spread of human food/population. This is waaaay more influential than all other bads combined. Problems of human population only arise when they concentrate their presence (and waste) on too small a surface. There are still many tiny islands of thriving nature in/around Thailand where one could easily live off its surroundings witout making a significant impact, with 100% sustainability.

[neue regel]

In page 3 someone says Human stomach PH is 4-5. No it's not. It's around 2-3. Hydrochloric Acid can even catalyze semi-cooked meat

[corb]

1. Humans have no natural desire to consume meat.

I have no natural desire to eat fruits either.

2. Humans have no natural capability to consume meat.

I've been eating cooked meat and vegetables my whole life. I've never had an indigestion or any other food related problem. Caused by meat anyway. And there are loads of dishes made out of non processed meat - salted fish, sashimi, tartare, etc. Also I've seen people eating raw meat before, it's not as hard as you'd think. Also my cats prefer cooked meat instead of raw too, are you saying they haven't got the capability to eat meat ?

In the wild, humans are epic fail in the carnivore arena.

Yeah well. That's all cool and dandy as far as science fiction and green propaganda goes, but Bear Grylls killing rabbits by throwing a small stick and catching birds with a trap made out of a shoelace on Discovery pretty much destroys that theory. We are born killers, we don't teach that skill to our children anymore and that is why they can't hunt in their youth, a tiger bread in captivity won't be able to hunt food too, but the survival instincts are still there. Live with it.

3. Our digestive tracts aren't designed for it.

We are not "designed" to live forever, whether eating meat can lower your life expectancy or not, nature does not care as long as you live long enough to leave offspring. Humans have evolved as omnivores, which is a nice survival trait.

4. Meat is not nutritionally imperative to humans.

At last something I can agree with.
Doesn't change the fact we'd have to kill into extinction most of the animals we breed for food if we ever go hardcore vegan because we'd have to use their pastures for grain and vegetable fields. In the end of the day both vegan and non-vegan are equally inhumane.

Don't get me wrong being vegan is an alright way of life, but it is definitely not what nature meant for us. After all we've survived thousands of winters in our younger days when we had little to no technology and we don't hibernate, and we've survived in deserts too, so the only logical explanation is we've eaten meat from the start. Regardless of you liking that fact or not.

[#1hit]

just to add my two cents, in the opening argument the OP mentioned that our digestive tracts weren't evolved to handle raw meat and we can't ingest it without cooking it, and hes right. But that same thing goes for many non-meat items too, like beans and grains. I'm sure that you don't eat brown rice, quinoa, or kidney beans raw, and thats for a good reason; they contain toxic substances as an adapted defense against being eaten, such as lectins. The fact that something needs to be cooked doesn't make it bad, its a part of our evolution.

[sam7777]

we can't stay quiet enough to hunt, we have no claws and our teeth and jaws are useless. And, most importantly, unlike all carnivores, we have no hunting or killing instinct.

We do not need those, we have a prefrontal cortex. Humans are the most deadly, diabolical, killing machines ever created by nature. We are born pathological killers. Natural born killers. Cunning, calculated, built to kill.

Who are the most dangerous humans? Not your average criminal or violent offender. Instead- Your elite scientists, engineers, lawyers, doctors, business executives, politicians, entrepreneurs, statisticians- your leaders. They are the ultimate killing machines.

We have no killing instinct, but we have figured out a way to enslave entire species for domestication for our food use, in excess of 100 billion animals globally, like an assembly line to the kill floor. No book, horror film, story, could ever begin to outdo the true carnage that is behind how 7 billion humans are supported. Only this is engineered perversity. It is not the unadulterated natural grace of a lion's crushing bite to the vertebrate of a wildebeest.