Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Meat is calorie dense regardless of whether or not it's cooked.
What does the evolution of economies have to do with human evolution? Haiti becoming a first-world nation wouldn't all of a sudden make everyone's brain bigger.
The "meat industry" is the problem, not meat eating itself.
And since you seem concerned about human survival, focus on the real issue: Humans' obsession with reproducing. If all humans went vegan tomorrow, the environment would not improve. Having children increases your carbon footprint more than anything else.
Yes meat is calorie dense. How many people eat it uncooked?
Actually nearly 7 billion people eating meat is the problem. I'm not sure why you assume that vegans aren't concerned with over population. Clearly it is a problem, although if people ate less energy intensive foods, the earth could sustain us. The last estimate I saw was that the world could sustain 10 billion people if those people consumed a plant based diet. The problem is billions of people eating like Westerners.
Apples and oranges. What benefits the elite and the privileged is in no way synonymous with what contributes to the evolution of humanity as a whole. Slaves didn't evolve from being enslaved.
Try again.
Yep. Meat eating is helping us to evolve and is especially helpful for those in poverty who cannot afford it. /Not.
Yes meat is calorie dense. How many people eat it uncooked?
Do I really need to explain to you why I even brought that up in the first place? Seriously?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drowningintherain2
Actually nearly 7 billion people eating meat is the problem. I'm not sure why you assume that vegans aren't concerned with over population.
Your first statement says more about overpopulation that it does about eating meat. Your second statement is a generalization. An attempt at a positive generalization, but still a generalization. I've met plenty of vegans that pop out babies like Mormon families.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drowningintherain2
Clearly it is a problem, although if people people ate less energy intensive foods, the earth could sustain us. The last estimate I saw was that the world could sustain 10 billion people if those people consumed a plant based diet. The problem is billions of people eating like Westerners.
That's wishful thinking and nothing more. A population of 10 billion people is bad for the earth, regardless of diets. Human overpopulation is more environmentally harmful than just about anything else.
Do I really need to explain to you why I even brought that up in the first place? Seriously?
Your first statement says more about overpopulation that it does about eating meat. Your second statement is a generalization. An attempt at a positive generalization, but still a generalization. I've met plenty of vegans that pop out babies like Mormon families.
That's wishful thinking and nothing more. A population of 10 billion people is bad for the earth, regardless of diets. Human overpopulation is more environmentally harmful than just about anything else.
.
Both the issues are related. I know a lot of vegetarians and vegans and the majority are childless with a few with 1 or 2 kids. I know of no large vegan families, however I'm sure they're out there. Since the population is going to continue to rise, whether we like it or not, a move to a less energy intensive way of eating is a better use of scarce resources.
In Alien Phenomenology, Ian Bogost talks briefly about the moral superiority that many vegans feel, but says that this only happens because we have failed to articulate an ethics of objects that goes beyond the human being:
"The ethics of the spark plug are no more clear to us than would be those of the vegan to the soybean plant, even as the former strips and devours the latter’s salted, boiled babies in a tasty appetizer of edamame” (p. 77).
I love that description of a vegan enjoying edamame.
I would not use the words morally superior. That sounds like a circular contradiction. Ethical vegans are, OTOH, more compassionate towards animals and compassion comes down to our biochemistry and genetic makeup. We're not all the same in that space.
It depends on how you define morality, which means different things in different cultures. If you define morality as minimizing the suffering of other animals, then yes, they would be morally superior. However, it also depends on how they treat other humans and the planet as well.
This is the best answer.
It depends on your definitions of morality.
And whether or not you're overall a moral person doesn't end with your food choices.
There's a lot more to life.
I do think considering the suffering of others (be it humans or animals) is rather upstanding.
Dunno why this conversation is really relevant, though...most people think they are good people and you see the asshat things they do on a daily basis and wonder how they have fooled themselves so much.
Our local farmer's market prominently features local meat locker-operating families who bring big refrigerator trucks of locally raised beef, lamb, pork, etc.! Def. not just the domain of the vegetarian-vegan only.
So does ours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Meat is calorie dense regardless of whether or not it's cooked. 
