How is any of that true for lions and not true for humans? I eat to survive as well – if I did not eat, I would die. I have also evolved to eat meat, as lions have.
Environmental concerns I think should be excluded from this offshoot of the conversation, which is spawned from ethical concerns about killing animals, not environmental concerns.
> How is any of that true for lions and not true for humans? I eat to survive as well – if I did not eat, I would die. I have also evolved to eat meat, as lions have.
The difference is that humans can process plant materials into what is needed whereas lions cannot. The humans/lions analogy breaks down because most of us do not live in the Serengeti fighting for survival.
The ethical dilemma is: are you eating to live or living to eat?
In the past we needed to eat animals to survive, so there was a purpose for animal farming. Now that we don't need animal sourced proteins we are consuming mainly for ignorance or human pleasure.
As we improve the technology and the fidelity of plant based and/or synthetic products improve it will be more clear that we don't need to keep killing animals to satisfy our taste buds.
Do you understand that the vast majority of humans are eating to live? No, most humans could not afford to be vegetarians or vegans. Most humans, although not in the Serengeti as you put it, are in fact, fighting for survival. Most humans choose meat, because it's nutritionally dense and depending on how it was raised, provides a 'full protein' unlike plants. Nevermind the obvious health issues involved with eating "process'ed plant materials" that your body is not at all designed to eat.
> No, most humans could not afford to be vegetarians or vegans.
There are large vegetarian human populations such as people in parts of India.
>Most humans, although not in the Serengeti as you put it, are in fact, fighting for survival.
Humans fighting for survival cannot choose things freely. I am going to go out on a limb and claim that the majority of the HN audience can make choices.
> Most humans choose meat, because it's nutritionally dense and depending on how it was raised, provides a 'full protein' unlike plants.
You can’t have it both ways the humans fighting for survival cannot afford “well raised” meat.
There are plant sources that provide complete proteins by themselves and others can be combined easily to provide complete proteins.
> Nevermind the obvious health issues involved with eating "process'ed plant materials"
You do realize that beef is essentially processed plant materials? Meat is not magic. We can adopt better alternatives, but we choose not to do so.
>There are large vegetarian human populations such as people in parts of India.
This is a common fallacy. There are at least a couple of studies that show the negative health effects of "vegetarian" Indians after they moved to the US. They were very surprised to find that despite eating the same things as they would in India, their blood work would come back with nutritional deficiencies and contribute to poor overall health. Why? Because they were never vegetarians. In India, food production was very much local for these people, and they were often or always eating vegetables that were picked the same day, in or near the same place they lived, the vegetable plots were not sprayed with pesticides (like they would be in the US), and so they consumed a fairly large amount of animal (insect) flesh as a result. Secondly, a very small minority of the total human population is vegetarian, and for very good reason. If you listen closely, your body will tell you what you need to ingest. We were made to eat everything around us...we should continue to eat everything around us.
>Humans fighting for survival cannot choose things freely.
As someone who's struggled for survival most of my life (and continues to do so), I assure you, I've had plenty of choices. Maybe we're talking about a different type of survival or struggle though.
>You can’t have it both ways the humans fighting for survival cannot afford “well raised” meat.
I grew up in Eastern Europe during the "dark days". We were fighting for survival. We raised pork, chicken, turkey, duck, rabbit in the heart of the city, as did most of our neighboors. Was it "well raised"? Hmmm, probably not by your standards, but it kept us alive when the stores were literally empty. We certainly couldn't afford the nice cuts, we sold those to the professional class (the type you find in this HN thread it seems).
>There are plant sources that provide complete proteins by themselves
I read a lot about nutrition and studies on proteins, microproteins, short and long fibers, etc. I have yet to find a study claiming a plant source can provide the amino acid range necessary to create a complete protein. In fact, I've not read a serious study ever claiming that a plant protein, is at all the same as an animal protein. Same goes for fiber, probably a much more important aspect for mammalian health. A calorie is not a calorie. A protein is not a protein. Anyways, we're getting off track. Meat contains fats in amounts that are critical for human development. Some plants can contain some fats, but once again...a plant fat is not an animal fat. They're not interchangeable.
>You do realize that beef is essentially processed plant materials?
Not sure why all this talk of beef? I brought up meat, and meat seems to equal beef only in the American mind set. Most of my red meat consumption is goat and pork. I raise and grow about 90% of my and my family's food (some years 100%), and am intimately aware of what meat, fungus, plants, microbes are and are not. Let me assure you, meat is not essentially "processed plant materials". If you believe there's something in likeness between a cut of goat meat that's been raised on forest browse and pasture, and American white bread or breakfast cereal, I believe you're mistaken. That's a very reductionist view, and one that is not supported by any scientific research I've read.
I'm hearing a lot of arguments here brought up that seem very similar to the arguments made 50-70 years ago by stock farmers who claimed that cows and pigs can't possibly feel or think anything. Now its my vegan friends claiming that plants can't possibly feel or think anything. I wonder what fallacy humans will come up with in 50 years time.
> the vegetable plots were not sprayed with pesticides (like they would be in the US), and so they consumed a fairly large amount of animal (insect) flesh as a result
This doesn’t make any sense. When you eat/cook vegetables, you don’t leave insects on it. You actually wash the vegetable. What you are suggesting is gross and so u healthy.
What do you mean by this? Some things that will give someone a stroke is sitting in front of a computer screen all day, eating highly processed carbs and other "food-like products".
No, my family and I eat everything. Most often right out of the ground without washing. Nobody in my family is on any prescriptions, and no chronic illnesses. Bugs are your friends. Microbes are not the enemy.
Environmental concerns I think should be excluded from this offshoot of the conversation, which is spawned from ethical concerns about killing animals, not environmental concerns.