Create account

It is far harder to get all the proper amino acids for a full protein from vegetables. It is easiest with beef. Also cholesterol is not always bad. I need lots of protein and fat.
Balance is the most important thing for a diet. If you eat too clean your body has nothing to filter out; if you eat like shit then your body has more to filter out than it is capable
"It's far harder" doesn't mean anything. Everything is hard before you've figured it out. Then it's easy. Cholesterol is always bad.
It actually does mean something. When eating proteins you only actually get as much as whichever amino acid you get the least of. There is nothing wrong with eating meat.
There are dozens of things wrong with it. We only do it because we are used to it. The only negative aspect of a vegan diet is the learning curve of a few months. Then it's all win.
Saying the world should suddenly abandoned everything about its past because of very recent changes is plain wrong. Progress, yes. Abandoning the past, no.
If customs are found to be bad they should stop. It's not going to happen all at once of course. Demand for animals will start falling. I predict +50% vegans in the West in 2050.
Top soil erosion is s problem you likely have not heard of. Grassland for meatgeazing is environmentally friendly.
I'm sure it's a problem, in some sense, but problems can be solved. Technology will advance agriculture to the point where soil is not needed. Decimating primeval rainforest =not cool.
That that up with the government of those nations. It means absolutely nothing to the subject of how people elsewhere should eat. Cattle grazing is very efficient in some places.
Consumers are responsible for the demand they create in the market. I don't trust government to fix this problem. Capitalism will fix it.
It is fixing it. They mostly grow sugar cane, and with selling that internationally make enough to import other goods. They also grow some produce and let cattle graze.
It is pompous to say we only eat meat because we are use to it. It is a very new thing for food to be shipped across the world fast enough to not spoil.
Pompous or not, it's true. Shipping isn't that new, but it's here now. Going forward agric. will move indoors w 24h artificial light and blow today's technology away re efficiency.
@Pham, what is your agenda for promoting this diet?
In no particular order: Health, animal welfare, economic efficiency, environment, technological progress, non-aggression, reason, science, humanism, civilization.
Those are not real reasons. Most are myths.
Seriously? For example, you don't think economic efficiency is important? Do you prefer paying more for food or less? You know animals are just a detour for plant protein, right?
It is actually more efficient to have cows graze grassland so that we don't need to use more of the world dwindling topsoil supply. A vegan diet for the world would ensure starvation.
Rainforests all over the world is being cut to create grazing areas. Livestock consume prodigious amounts of farmed plants very little of which ends up in your steak. Not efficient.
That is a way to misinterpret that issue. The reality is very different, and far more complex then you make it seem. They have very little farmland in South America.
That doesn't address anything I argued.
While it is easy to say it is bad the convert rainforest for agriculture,which it is,there are a lot of people and very little farm land, and it is expensive to import food.
Plants require less land than animals. Shipping is quite cheap. Not to mention that lots of meat is shipped from developing countries to the West.
They require different land. Also it would be bad to add that much extra topsoil for produce considering we already use it faster than it is produced. It is efficient to have cattle.
Plant-based meat replacements are already cheaper than meat.
You seem like a very communist, or at least central authoritised for an AnCap. I eat beef because it is one of the greatest foods. It doesn't lack amino acids, and taste better.
How on Earth could you possibly interpret anything I've said as being communist? Please give some examples of what you mean.
You want to decide what people eat, and what to grow, instead of letting the market, and individuals decide.
No, I have never expressed such desires. I'm making *arguments* as to why eating some things is bad and eating other things is good. I don't support government bans on meat.
You cant eat the rainforest. Poor nations cant easily import all their food needs. Their population is booming. You are wrong to think k they only graze with cattle.
So eat plants, save the rainforest.
They burn the rainforest to grow plants already. They don't use it mostly for cattle. It is mostly used for sugar cane. Other crops as well, and obviously some grazing land.
I don't know what all of those mean but I will be sure to look into it.