Scientists recommend that humans consumption of meat is unsustainable to life

[DavidB.]

More meat = more muscle = more manliness

Not necessarily true at all. It's not more difficult and not more expensive to consume just as many proteins as a vegetarian. And millions of Americans are fat as hell and eat way too much meat.

eating a lot of meat doesn't make people fat.  Eating a lot of sweets and breads makes people fat.  Orange juice is worse for you than bacon.

Sure, but my point was that there's a lot of people out there who eat a lot of meat and are fat, and a lot of people who don't eat any meat and are muscled - so Technocratic Timmy's (probably ironic) point that "more meat = more muscle" isn't all that strong...

[dead0man]

Sure, there are people who are "strong" who don't eat meat, but it's harder and rarer than "strong" people that do eat meat.  Humans evolved with meat as an important part of our diet and like most of the things humans evolved into doing, it can be changed, but it takes work.  What percentage of professional athletes are veggies/vegans?  I'd guess something less than 1%, but I don't know.


edit for anecdote-I know and have known many veggies/vegans and I know a lot of "strong" people, I"ve never known someone that's both.  I know it's possible, but it's certainly not common.

[DavidB.]

Sure, there are people who are "strong" who don't eat meat, but it's harder and rarer than "strong" people that do eat meat.  Humans evolved with meat as an important part of our diet and like most of the things humans evolved into doing, it can be changed, but it takes work.  What percentage of professional athletes are veggies/vegans?  I'd guess something less than 1%, but I don't know.


edit for anecdote-I know and have known many veggies/vegans and I know a lot of "strong" people, I"ve never known someone that's both.  I know it's possible, but it's certainly not common.

Because most people into vegetarianism/veganism are lefty "soyboys" and not interested in sports or getting strong. Not because it's so much harder than as a non-vegetarian.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

Sure, there are people who are "strong" who don't eat meat, but it's harder and rarer than "strong" people that do eat meat.  Humans evolved with meat as an important part of our diet and like most of the things humans evolved into doing, it can be changed, but it takes work.  What percentage of professional athletes are veggies/vegans?  I'd guess something less than 1%, but I don't know.


edit for anecdote-I know and have known many veggies/vegans and I know a lot of "strong" people, I"ve never known someone that's both.  I know it's possible, but it's certainly not common.

Because most people into vegetarianism/veganism are lefty "soyboys" and not interested in sports or getting strong. Not because it's so much harder than as a non-vegetarian.

That hasn't been my experience in the Western US, but I'm glad we can agree on CAFOs and excessive meat eating being bad.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The big problem with meat, health-wise, is that even in hunter-gatherer societies it's not something you eat every day (with the sole exception of Inuit cultures, who gorged on seals and fish everyday). Hunting is a very energy intensive activity that is often unsuccessful, and many times such societies had to rely on foragers for extended periods of time. Undoubtedly the increased reliance on meat-eating was good for human evolution: it meant less energy had to be expended on processing bulky and cellulose filled indigestible plant matter, allowing more resources to be diverted to the hungry brain; but the notion that primitive man ate meat as much as we did is wrong (and they of course had to expend effort to obtain their meats) - just as beneficial for the spread of humanity is the fact that we are ridiculously generalist in our eating habits. However, it's even worse in humans descended from agricultural societies (i.e. everybody on this forum, as far as I know): humans from these groups became adapted to starch based diets, with the expectation that meat was a relative rarity; the introduction of meat as a daily meal is an extremely recent change.

The other problem is processed meats, which often have their own problems: this includes as various compounds formed when smoking or cooking meats, as well as perhaps several common preservatives.

[dead0man]

My biggest problem with meat is the suffering the mammals have to go through.  Even if we make life as nice as possible, it's still a tragedy for each and every pig, cow, goat, etc.  I can't wait for factory meat.

screw the birds/dinosaurs and fish

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Well fish has its own problems. An awful lot of ocean plastic comes from nets and other such junk, and both fish farming and using natural fish stocks create their own problems.

[dead0man]

Well fish has its own problems. An awful lot of ocean plastic comes from nets and other such junk, and both fish farming and using natural fish stocks create their own problems.

oh yeah, those are big problems too, I was mostly talking about their suffering and my guilt about killing them.  Mammals are special to me*, I pretty much like them all.  Fish and birds, they are like worms and bugs and vegetables, they don't have a soul.  I'm a bigot against non-mammalian life, I admit it.



*the first time I ever got mice in the house glue traps were suggested to me.  How is that legal?  So cruel.  It nearly brought me to tears.  The traditional ways of killing mice are the best.  Cats and regular old cartoony "snap" traps.  Cats are probably just as cruel as the glue traps, but at least it's "natural" and that guilt over the cruelty is more on the cat than me.  Snap traps are, more than 90% of the time, cruelty free.  The damn thing is just dead.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The big problem with meat, health-wise, is that even in hunter-gatherer societies it's not something you eat every day (with the sole exception of Inuit cultures, who gorged on seals and fish everyday). Hunting is a very energy intensive activity that is often unsuccessful, and many times such societies had to rely on foragers for extended periods of time. Undoubtedly the increased reliance on meat-eating was good for human evolution: it meant less energy had to be expended on processing bulky and cellulose filled indigestible plant matter, allowing more resources to be diverted to the hungry brain; but the notion that primitive man ate meat as much as we did is wrong (and they of course had to expend effort to obtain their meats) - just as beneficial for the spread of humanity is the fact that we are ridiculously generalist in our eating habits. However, it's even worse in humans descended from agricultural societies (i.e. everybody on this forum, as far as I know): humans from these groups became adapted to starch based diets, with the expectation that meat was a relative rarity; the introduction of meat as a daily meal is an extremely recent change.

The other problem is processed meats, which often have their own problems: this includes as various compounds formed when smoking or cooking meats, as well as perhaps several common preservatives.

You're very much generalizing here and completely ignoring fish/seafood.  You are talking about land-locked societies with ample foraging opportunities that huntable animals avoided for some reason.  I feel like this is a little unreasonable.  Coastal hunter-gatherers gorged on fish/seafood and it would have been the main basis of their diet.  Those in the plains/savannas would follow the herds and did not have trouble picking off large animals.

The truth is, vast tracts of the world are not suitable for human habitation without a largely animal product based diet.  Grasslands are hardly a boon for the vegetarian hunter/gatherer.  Modern hunter/gatherer tribes all eat meat and hunting for meat is a major activity while gathering grubs and processing taro or cassava is the other main role.

Now of course agriculture based societies like western Europe in the middle ages, meat was a rare treat since all meat and fish were owned by the lord of the land.  And they lived short, hard, hungry lives... and they were stunted as well.  The Europeans were impressed by how tall and healthy Native Americans were when they came to North America... because the way they managed the land allowed them more meat and fish.

[Frodo]

I'm not about to give up my meat and dairy (certainly not willingly), but having said that, men can still get strong and buff on a 'gladiator's diet' which, interestingly enough, was what we would consider vegetarian. 

[JA]

Although I don’t doubt that a dramatic reorganization of the Western diet is necessary; due to the twin evils of mass industrial agriculture, such as pollution and rampant abuse of animals. I do have contention with the people who preach to ordinary folks how they need to make enormous changes in their personal lives (changes that are often costly), yet downplay or turn a blind eye to the real cause of global pollution - the super rich and multinational corporations that exploit the environment with no regard for the consequences, all for the sake of profit. It’s the global 1% that contribute overwhelmingly to global pollution; the world’s poorest 50% barest make a tiny dent.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

edit for anecdote-I know and have known many veggies/vegans and I know a lot of "strong" people, I"ve never known someone that's both.  I know it's possible, but it's certainly not common.

Peak dead0man right there.

[dead0man]

edit for anecdote-I know and have known many veggies/vegans and I know a lot of "strong" people, I"ve never known someone that's both.  I know it's possible, but it's certainly not common.

Peak dead0man right there.

i have no idea if this is supposed to be a dig or a compliment, but thanks for reading.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Clean up the oceans, rivers and lakes then so I can eat more fish...mmm sushi.

[Mopsus]

Although I don’t doubt that a dramatic reorganization of the Western diet is necessary; due to the twin evils of mass industrial agriculture, such as pollution and rampant abuse of animals. I do have contention with the people who preach to ordinary folks how they need to make enormous changes in their personal lives (changes that are often costly), yet downplay or turn a blind eye to the real cause of global pollution - the super rich and multinational corporations that exploit the environment with no regard for the consequences, all for the sake of profit. It’s the global 1% that contribute overwhelmingly to global pollution; the world’s poorest 50% barest make a tiny dent.

I think you might want to define your terms more narrowly, as everyone who posts on the Atlas Forum is a member of the global 1%.

[TJ in Oregon]

It's a shame they always go after the tastiest animals like cows rather than the less desirable chickens or fish.

[JA]

Although I don’t doubt that a dramatic reorganization of the Western diet is necessary; due to the twin evils of mass industrial agriculture, such as pollution and rampant abuse of animals. I do have contention with the people who preach to ordinary folks how they need to make enormous changes in their personal lives (changes that are often costly), yet downplay or turn a blind eye to the real cause of global pollution - the super rich and multinational corporations that exploit the environment with no regard for the consequences, all for the sake of profit. It’s the global 1% that contribute overwhelmingly to global pollution; the world’s poorest 50% barest make a tiny dent.

I think you might want to define your terms more narrowly, as everyone who posts on the Atlas Forum is a member of the global 1%.

You’re right that I should’ve defined the parameters of the globe’s super rich far more narrowly. However, not all people on Atlas are part of the global top 1%; I, along with some others, I’m sure, don’t make more than $32,400 yearly.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Although I don’t doubt that a dramatic reorganization of the Western diet is necessary; due to the twin evils of mass industrial agriculture, such as pollution and rampant abuse of animals. I do have contention with the people who preach to ordinary folks how they need to make enormous changes in their personal lives (changes that are often costly), yet downplay or turn a blind eye to the real cause of global pollution - the super rich and multinational corporations that exploit the environment with no regard for the consequences, all for the sake of profit. It’s the global 1% that contribute overwhelmingly to global pollution; the world’s poorest 50% barest make a tiny dent.

I think you might want to define your terms more narrowly, as everyone who posts on the Atlas Forum is a member of the global 1%.

You’re right that I should’ve defined the parameters of the globe’s super rich far more narrowly. However, not all people on Atlas are part of the global top 1%; I, along with some others, I’m sure, don’t make more than $32,400 yearly.

You need some PPP adjustments. Someone making $33k in San Francisco is obviously much worse off than someone making $32k in Bangalore.

[dead0man]

Although I don’t doubt that a dramatic reorganization of the Western diet is necessary; due to the twin evils of mass industrial agriculture, such as pollution and rampant abuse of animals. I do have contention with the people who preach to ordinary folks how they need to make enormous changes in their personal lives (changes that are often costly), yet downplay or turn a blind eye to the real cause of global pollution - the super rich and multinational corporations that exploit the environment with no regard for the consequences, all for the sake of profit. It’s the global 1% that contribute overwhelmingly to global pollution; the world’s poorest 50% barest make a tiny dent.

I think you might want to define your terms more narrowly, as everyone who posts on the Atlas Forum is a member of the global 1%.

You’re right that I should’ve defined the parameters of the globe’s super rich far more narrowly. However, not all people on Atlas are part of the global top 1%; I, along with some others, I’m sure, don’t make more than $32,400 yearly.

You need some PPP adjustments. Someone making $33k in San Francisco is obviously much worse off than someone making $32k in Bangalore.

perhaps, but I suspect most people would still pick SF if given the option.  Even if they'd be "much worse off".  Sure, there might be more human sh**t on the streets of SF, but it's still the better place to live.

[Torie]

I know a chap in Hudson, who is a tall, strapping quite muscled man, who is a vegan. I was shocked when I was informed of his dietary habits.

[dead0man]

I know a chap in Hudson, who is a tall, strapping quite muscled man, who is a vegan. I was shocked when I was informed of his dietary habits.

indeed.  That is unusual.

[Dr. MB]

Although I don’t doubt that a dramatic reorganization of the Western diet is necessary; due to the twin evils of mass industrial agriculture, such as pollution and rampant abuse of animals. I do have contention with the people who preach to ordinary folks how they need to make enormous changes in their personal lives (changes that are often costly), yet downplay or turn a blind eye to the real cause of global pollution - the super rich and multinational corporations that exploit the environment with no regard for the consequences, all for the sake of profit. It’s the global 1% that contribute overwhelmingly to global pollution; the world’s poorest 50% barest make a tiny dent.

I think you might want to define your terms more narrowly, as everyone who posts on the Atlas Forum is a member of the global 1%.

About 4% of people are American, that uhhhh....doesn't really add up.

[Mopsus]

Although I don’t doubt that a dramatic reorganization of the Western diet is necessary; due to the twin evils of mass industrial agriculture, such as pollution and rampant abuse of animals. I do have contention with the people who preach to ordinary folks how they need to make enormous changes in their personal lives (changes that are often costly), yet downplay or turn a blind eye to the real cause of global pollution - the super rich and multinational corporations that exploit the environment with no regard for the consequences, all for the sake of profit. It’s the global 1% that contribute overwhelmingly to global pollution; the world’s poorest 50% barest make a tiny dent.

I think you might want to define your terms more narrowly, as everyone who posts on the Atlas Forum is a member of the global 1%.

About 4% of people are American, that uhhhh....doesn't really add up.

uselectionatlas.org users are not representative of America's economic demography.

[Dr. MB]

Although I don’t doubt that a dramatic reorganization of the Western diet is necessary; due to the twin evils of mass industrial agriculture, such as pollution and rampant abuse of animals. I do have contention with the people who preach to ordinary folks how they need to make enormous changes in their personal lives (changes that are often costly), yet downplay or turn a blind eye to the real cause of global pollution - the super rich and multinational corporations that exploit the environment with no regard for the consequences, all for the sake of profit. It’s the global 1% that contribute overwhelmingly to global pollution; the world’s poorest 50% barest make a tiny dent.

I think you might want to define your terms more narrowly, as everyone who posts on the Atlas Forum is a member of the global 1%.

About 4% of people are American, that uhhhh....doesn't really add up.

uselectionatlas.org users are not representative of America's economic demography.

So, you seriously think everyone that uses this site makes at least $50k individually or $75k as a household?

[dead0man]

So, you seriously think everyone that uses this site makes at least $50k individually or $75k as a household?

not everyone, but certainly the vast majority do or come from families that do.