This must be devastating news to the vegans and vegetarians they insist that meat is not natural.
Given trophic levels, meat takes far more energy, land, and clean water to produce. Population studies repeatedly show that large amount of meat consumption leads to individual and population health issues. The same is true of sugar and alcohol, I readily admit, and assume kinds of meat don't require as much energy.
We are fishing our oceans to extinction, destroying essential natural area to grow soy and corn which we then waste 90% of as cow feed.
There is no amount of persuasion that could make me go back, unless the laws of physics are rewritten such that eating meat reduces the amount of atmospheric carbon.
I don't really eat meat myself but I don't believe you, sorry. What about "if you ate meat you could increase your brain capacity by 500 cc and live a longer, healthier life". Would that make you go back? I bet it would. Even if it wouldn't, it would probably make the majority of people go back for sure.
You cannot seriously make an argument that we as humans should potentially accept any diminished quality of life in regards to our mental capacity and health to "reduce the amount of atmospheric carbon".
Again, as I said, I don't really eat meat and I'm all for saving the environment but arguments like that are the reason why it's so hard to convince "ordinary people" of the importance of sustainability and long-term thinking. The only alternative is only presented with these radical, self-destructive requirements.
Why not pour the all the efforts of vegan evangelism into sustainable lab-grown meat? If it works, all problems solved, everybody can eat as much meat as they want (or not), the environment is saved and a lot of (potentially increased) brain capacity freed for other human improvement.
However, if veganism required is to scale back massively scientific research due to drops in human intelligence, I would be on the fence... Further, I do recognize that giving up meat to be an actual sacrifice of summer form... There seems to be a large biological desire to eat meat, which probably is actually largely derived from gut bacteria, if I were to guess. Still, perhaps giving up meat is an actual sacrifice. With my indifference to meat after 16 years or so, I am heavily biased towards veganism as a tool for meeting the climate needs of our current planet biosphere.
Nah, man, I really don't like meat and I can't think of a defendable defense for it's continued consumption given what we know today.
I think part of the problem is people will not sacrifice their own health. It's mainly a "that sounds great, you go first" mindset. Thankfully with population growth slowing I think we're not nearly as bad off as you might think.
1. The horrific practises of the animal agriculture industry, which looks nothing like a chiseled hunter holding a bow
2. The devastating impact of the above on the environment
Cavemen had neither of these issues.
Seriously, watch any factory farm video and I’m sure you wouldn’t want to wish that kind of life for yourself.
But the good thing now is we neither have to club animals to death like cavemen or factory farm animals as our society does now.
We can choose to be cruelty free.
Besides: Even if you claim us humans were carnivores for thousands of years, what does that prove? First off, humans are omnivores. And secondly, with this kind of argumentation we could say that for hundreds of years we had kingdoms (or slavery), so why have democracies (or universal human rights)? Humans do make progress, and the past does not prove or justify anything.
I think that should play absolutely no role in determining whether or not eating meat is better for you than a plant-based diet. It either is or isn't but animal cruelty and sustainability has nothing to do with that.
IF we determine that more meat is better, we can totally focus and increase our efforts towards growing sustainable meat. This can be from sustainable farming or (more likely to be sustainable in the long-term) lab-grown alternatives.
However, you cannot make this argument backwards, i.e. that we shouldn't eat meat because it was bad for the environment or the animals even if it was good for us. I get that some people think like that but it is not a "sustainable" argument for the majority of people to give up their potential health and brain capacity to save the environment or some chickens (if you want to take this to a hypothetical extreme).
Note that I say this a "de facto" vegetarian.
As a whole, people will never accept something in the long-term that requires measurable and hard sacrifices from them. For a current example just look at how hard it is to convince people to stay in lockdown (and those benefits are arguably much more obvious and immediate than "effects on the environment").
The answer to your second statement is more obvious still: If my health (and brain capacity, for arguments sake) is increased, I will have the ability to solve the other problems in the way that we humans traditionally solve problems outside of dogmatic and religious spaces: By scientific advancement.
Why should potentially limit my brain capacity and health to have a shorter lifespan in a potentially slightly more liveable environment? That makes no sense, sorry. Only if we all (including scientists, investors and innovators) live longer and healthier lives, then there will be both incentive and opportunity to solve problems of the environment in a way that does not require personal sacrifice (think carbon capture, lab-grown meat, becoming an interplanetary species and growing meat on asteroids if you want to take it that far) ;-)
I thought this gave us certain health benefits of course (I try to eat healthy) but I would obviously have to reconsider this if it was indeed true that eating more meat would be preferable with regard to health and mental performance.
The article is not enough to convince me (I already commented about its questionable editorial quality) but I might look at the study itself and keep the subject on my radar anyway.