slothtrop

> diabetes

This scales principally with excess weight gain.

> The fact is meat is often the central peace of the dish, second the carbs and then salads, cabbages and roots.

This is one meal, dinner, and the fact that it is more protein-heavy is not the problem. Nevermind ratio, some diets are devoid of fiber. The secondary "carbs" are just pasta, white bread, crackers, etc.

If you consume a whole-foods diet, with a dinner that has a larger meat component, you will easily, easily have enough fiber.

I did not say small farms are inherently kosher. Please engage in good faith or don't engage at all.

> They don’t oppose slaughter because they don’t think there’s an alternative

That's clearly not true, and a projection.

They don't oppose slaughter because they find no objection with killing an animal for nourishment, "necessity" having no bearing.

> we don’t observe a sufficient fiber intake for most human omnivore.

This has no bearing on the argument. That is just as true of vegans who purchase boxed products.

It's also fairly US-centric. If you observe countries with the longest lifespan, lowest CVD incidence and overall best health outcomes, they consume a more varied whole-foods diet with animal products.

> the classic diet

This is the Americanized diet of ultra-processed foods. Whole foods are the solution, which is in no way shape or form contingent on whether animal products are included (unless the diet is "carnivore" which is not representative, and even there you can find traditional societies who fare ok even if not completely optimally).

You mentioned it, so I addressed it.

Personally I am just choosy about where I purchase my animal products. You can visit some farms yourself. Of course if you're of a certain disposition, you won't want to do that anyway.

Judging from the headline (I'm not going to read PETA), this is about the issues pertaining to the wellbeing of chickens, not the other externalities I actually mentioned.

Land use for animal agriculture has shrunk over time in the US. Methane is highest for cows, not that high with chickens. With the right practices (admittedly, they aren't migrating the clocks to fertilize land) this could be carbon-neutral, but notwithstanding, methane does not persist in the atmosphere nearly as long as CO2 does.

Hint: the answer to the headline is "no", which means it should not have been the headline, but that's clickbait for you.

Growing your own food costs time and resources. People are attached to the (copious) amount of leisure time they have today.

I imagine this scales with size.

By comparison, if you own a dog, you have to clean that too. And pick up it's excrement every day.

Why would it be, when you consider that countries with far less condensed supply chain (e.g. Canada) have not been impacted? If we blame commercial agricultural practices for exacerbating the risk then it makes no sense to frame backyard chickens as doing the same.

Bugs are all over your average yard.

Modest egg consumption has a negligible impact on cholesterol. Most blood cholesterol is produced by your liver, impacted far more by other variables. Eggs are also not that high in fat.

Eggs have obvious health benefits. Land encroachment + emissions is modest, and notwithstanding, that's just something to manage, not avoid altogether. Everything we demand for ourselves encroaches on land.

1 a day

You skipped a step. Immoral acts are immoral because we deem them so. Animal slaughter in itself is not generally thought as such. Unless you think aboriginal / hunter-gatherer tribes who maintain their traditions are immoral for not modernizing.

It's not that simple. High consumption of animal saturated fat can raise total blood cholesterol, but animal consumption in and of itself does not necessitate that. Notwithstanding, with a balanced diet high in vegetables and fiber, omnivores do not fare any worse than vegans in acm.

Morality is arrived at through value judgement. We have a social contract with each other, not animals.

People generally dislike gratuitous pain and cruelty, hence we're seeing a push for cage-free hens and the like. They don't oppose slaughter in and of itself.

* gestures to most of recorded history *

Before the industrial revolution, 80% of us worked the land, most familiar with animal agriculture.

captured on archive dot is

Always been more concerned with data siphoning/spying on the part of Corporations. It's the most egregious and difficult to avoid.

Following their real estate bubble, I'm not sure how much more of that we'll see. Xi seems to want to double-down on manufacturing.

They're technically the global leader in solar, scaling up faster than everyone else.

It's not a long list, and among them is pumping sulfur in the stratosphere. It stops sounding so absurd compared to what's viable, nevermind politically.

The rest of east Asia is currently developing at a faster pace (e.g. Vietnam), with increasing demand for goods and services. China provides, therefore their output is increasing.

You can talk about the inefficiency of CC, but this is nonsensical. It's a woefully inefficient means to retrieve carbon in terms of cost. It only makes sense as a means, under development, to reduce prevent buildup in the atmosphere. If it does not do that very well, then as you can imagine, the yields are not great either! If it does do that well, then it's a moot point whether these companies profit; what matters is improving climate. Can't have it both ways.

Probably for electricity, but that doesn't represent the vast majority of fossil fuel use. Those are not yet abated.

Right, you can't keep a culture in stasis. It always changes. There's something to be said for protectionism though (e.g. language laws), with varying degrees of success (Japan quashed Christianity quite well, brutally). There's a reason behind the choice in semantics particularly when it comes to traditional cultures. We don't call it "preserving culture" when historians and archivists document things.

Obviously since I brought up the topic, I'm not referring to behavior in the thread I had just then created.

> Nobody is disagreeing with this

Perhaps, but they obtusely cling on to the idea that there's no possible way that snark couldn't be well interpreted.

Eggs are just signaled out as part of a whole. Inflation impacts many food products, as you well have noticed. Did you grocery bill go up since 2020, or did it not?

I mean if the avalanche of responses to me doesn't tell you that this was "a thing", there's nothing to say.

Of course it changes. Just not that quickly. We went from Biden to Trump: do you want to explain that with electoral composition?

I'm referring to what I saw then.