It’s just such a shame all 8 billion earthlings are so addicted to food!
I don't think half of the planet is overweight or obese due to meat consumption.
If anything, take away the meat (or make it more expensive) and it'd probably lead to even more obesity.
But also, dairy products can be thrown in this discussion too.
That's not to say that there aren't alternatives to meat that also satiate and are nutritious, but most people don't consider them to be equally delicious and therefore they are not as likely to be consumed if meat isn't available.
> fries, sugared beverages...which is likely to be consumed when one doesn't feel satiated (e.g. due to meat consumption).
You know what goes really well with a juicy hamburger or a steak? Crisp fries, and a cool, refreshing, tall glass of Coke (maybe not the Coke so much with a steak), or a frosty milkshake.
So... if you take the meat out what does that leave you with?
People eat junk food because it tastes good. Period. Not because they didn't get enough meat or some BS like that. Meat-eaters eat fries. Vegetarians eat fries. Everyone eats fries. They're delicious.
If you take the meat out there's a whole world of nutritious and delicious foods out there. You just have to broaden your culinary horizons. I'm not even a vegetarian or vegan, have no plans to be one, and I still recognize this.
But most people will not find, enjoy or choose food with both of those qualities, not to mention that they are a minority over what's commonly available -- and even if they are available, they'd probably become too expensive if consumption increased significantly.
Most of the time they'd have to choose between "delicious foods" or "nutritious foods", but not both, and you know they'd choose the former.
If you take out meat, you'll simply reduce the pool of available (good) choices. You'll have a strictly worse outcome than what you had before (except for the animals, admittedly).
Only if we forced everyone to give up meat at gunpoint. Most people who choose to go meat-free, and stick with it, end up finding tasty and nutritious food that works for them.
> even when they are available, they are usually too expensive to become a common staple.
People automatically assume that giving up meat means salads and tofu all day, bought in 2oz packages from Whole Foods while wearing Lululemon yoga pants. And you gotta throw in the $10 artisan kombucha while you're at it.
Beans, lentils, and green peas are far cheaper and healthier than any meat or Impossible burger. You can get them at your local Indian or Mexican grocer for less than $1/lb. Or tofu and seitan from Costco or 99 Ranch Market. A little soybean paste or mushroom broth adds a blast of umami. That's what I mean by "broadening your culinary horizons".
And no beans can never become more expensive than meat, even if more people start eating them. It's simple thermodynamics. Look at the poorest countries on Earth - I guarantee you they eat more beans and lentils than meat. That's what a "common staple" is. If they can afford it, anyone can.
I'll only add that when promoting vegetarianism or veganism, I find most such sources to be akin to propaganda, i.e. they always talk about the benefits but rarely talk about the disadvantages. I suspect this might be because veganism is often tied to political preferences (and certain cultures).
As an example, here's something Wikipedia mentions that you will not usually see entirely discussed in articles promoting such diets:
> [Vegan diets tend to be lower in] omega-3 fatty acid, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12. As a result of the elimination of all animal products, a poorly planned vegan diet can lead to nutritional deficiencies that counteract its beneficial effects and cause serious health issues, some of which can only be prevented with fortified foods or dietary supplements
This might partly explain why it's about as common to find a vegan bodybuilder as a flying cow... it might not be impossible to find one, but it's about as unnatural. And there are probably good reasons for this, including availability and easy absorption/digestibility of all the essential amino acids, which is important for muscle growth and maintenance, which in turn is very important for health especially in middle and old age.
It could also explain why when I see a random vegan person, they tend to "look" unhealthy more often than a random non-vegan person, although I concede that I may be biased, of course -- I've also seen sources claiming vegan people live longer, although I suspect that if it's true, it may be because vegans tend to be more health-conscious and choose their diet and sources of nutrition more carefully, not necessarily because of the lack of meat itself.
But of course, as long as all such information is reported in an unbiased and accurate fashion, I see nothing wrong with it.
Me as a kid. Best parts of the meal.
That's a disgusting fast-food derived dietary preference. Healthy meat-centric diet does not look anything like that.
(And I'll quibble about it being entirely fast-food derived. Steak-frites is classic French and Belgian food.)
But they weren't obese. The person I was responded to claimed obesity is because of less meat.
> and died of a lot of diseases that we now survive easily, so by your logic, I should eat more meat
I didn't know you got your measles vaccine from a plate of pork chops. I got mine via a hypodermic needle, from a nurse who studied anatomy, biology, and germ theory for several years, and washed her hands.
It's not like eating meat multiple time a day or even every day was a pre requisite for human life. I don't remember last time I ate meat and I'm fitter than 90% of people I meet in my day to day life
But even if we did, it would still be factory farming (though of course with fewer outbreaks and antibiotic resistance) with other things that people would find problematic for plenty of equally valid reasons.
Also if anything, obesity would skyrocket. Meat isn’t the big cause of that, carbs are, and if you cut out meat you get more carbs. Most people gain weight when they go vegetarian.
Sure, avoid the highly refined carbs, like white flour and sugar, but substituting dairy and meat for nuts and legumes is going to only be an improvement for your health and the health of the planet.
Vegans and vegetarians are more health conscious than non-vegans and vegetarians so you can’t compare them like that. It’s like when they said that Diet Coke makes you fat because the average Diet Coke drinker is fatter than the average Coke drinker. But it’s really just because skinny people don’t worry about drinking calories.
Most people don’t switch from meat to nuts and legumes, they switch to baked goods.
There is also no scientific evidence whatsoever that switching to plant-based diets is good for your health. You should read outlive by Dr. Peter Atilla. As he points out, the only thing we know for sure is too many calories is bad. For almost anything else, it’s impossible to tease out correlation from causation.
Kind of like, instead of feeding the cows a bunch of soy and then eating the cow, just eat the soy as tofu or edamame instead.
Of course a lot of people prefer eating meat, but that's besides the point.
There's reason that life on Earth exists in a food chain. In this case many of the animals humans eat consume and digest things we cannot. This particular discussion was about cattle and humans deriving nutrition from the milk they produce and the meat they yield. From that perspective, cows and steers as intermediaries provide such a distinct advantage that genetic mutation that allows some humans to digest cow milk drove the flourishing of those civilizations.
Grazing animals, properly fed (this is what we need to fix), eat mostly grass. We need that middle step. Just like we need the intermediate steps of plants extracting nutrients from the soil and turning sunlight into usable calories for us. We can't eat dirt and drink sunshine, either. Of course those aren't the only things to eat. But that's the argument I was responding to.
The "cut out the middle man" argument really doesn't work. The argument should be "here are better alternatives."
I guess it could be seen that way to someone who doesn't know cows mostly eat grass?
HN guidelines say: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
> > > > cows mostly eat grass
In my country, most of the food that goes into feeding animals is imported, and I can assure you they are not importing soccer fields.
You're obviously taking my argument in bad faith.
All those addicted people will be able to satisfy their food addiction at significantly lower costs and consumption of resources by switching to a plant based diet.
Drastically reduced spread of diseases, reduced overuse of antibiotics, environmental benefits are just bonuses.
Not to mention the fact that your grandkids won’t think you’re moral monsters for torturing and murdering sentient beings.
People can either eat straight up plant-based food, or alternatively go for lab grown meat. There's no need to go through all the inefficiency and suffering of factory farms.
I haven’t looked to see if studies have been done to look at the nutritional profile of lab grown vs normal meat. I’d be curious about that as well before I tried it.
So we have these animals, which eat plants and generate fuel (poop) & food (meat). Our bodies are adapted to eating them, our bodies need the same nutrients, and we’re programmed to enjoy the food. The input to this process is mostly grass and grain, both generated via solar power.
Now instead… we take grain, highly process it and make someone few people enjoy, with less nutrients, and likely some unforeseen by products. They can then sell it at a higher price.
At the end of the day, we know what works. It doesn’t make sense to try and reinvent the wheel without benefit.
The more interesting part, is imo there will be a lot of nutrition we miss
A lot of time, energy, and land goes to just keeping the animal alive and metabolizing. And you’re left with the problem of a lot of the parts of the animal are of low value.
Lab grown meat could, in theory, be much more efficient. Just quickly grow the muscles people actually want to eat.
There are also a lot of potential ethical issues with the way meat is raised at scale.
However the comment implying it’s an option currently is ridiculous. It’s nowhere near ready for scale. Might as well cite that Star Trek meal thingy (replicator?).