We DO NOT NEED to eat MEAT

I think it's legitimate to compare 200 years ago to now. I think 200 years ago, people probably said that they had owned slaves since the dawn of man, and that it would never change. If we can stop eating meat in two hundred years' time, I'll be happy.

Humans and animals are exactly equal - humans are animals. The difference between a human brain and the brains of other species is one of degree, not of kind. There is no obvious, distinct line that separates sentient animals from non-sentient ones.

Probably the biggest fish that currently needs frying is climate change. Meat consumption, through the emissions of livestock, is a massive contributor to climate change. World hunger is a very large fish. Meat consumption contributes to that too, by ensuring that the most economically viable way to farm does not feed the most people. Cancer and heart disease are also fairly significant fish that could be dealt with to a large extent by removing fatty meats from peoples' diets.

Are you seriously expecting us to believe that cows farting make the world hotter?

Get real. People just grasp at straws to try and get other people to not eat meat. Oh it costs more water. We live in a wet country. Oh it takes up so much land and we could grow more veg and people are starving. Generally people in this country don't eat either through bad habits or lack of funds. Not lack of availability of food. But this - climate change - this is a doozy.

That said, I agree with health. That's not just meat though, it's processed foods as well. Less red meat, less processed grain and less dairy. Foods too rich in things we don't need.

We eat meat by nature, the same way that lions catch prey and eat it. Be my guest and tell all the lions in the world to stop. And do take into account that slaughtering a farm animal is nowhere near as torturous as a gazelle being hunted until it can't run any longer, then having chunks taken out of it while still alive.

I personally hate red meat, but that's just my personal taste (I love chicken though). If I liked how it tasted, I would still eat it. If a few people stop eating meat, it won't decrease the number of animals being farmed for it.

ALSO: drinking milk is so much more inhumane than eating meat. So is eating honey. Why not read up on what happens to the majority of male calves right after they're born, and why bees are dying? If you still consume these products, it's a bit hypocritical of you to ask others not to eat meat, don't you think?

If eating meat is going against ethics, think of all the other things that harm or damage the world such as cars, energy etc etc

Go live in a cave if meat is a problem, we cant ponder on trivial matters like this.

You can say "what about cars", but it won't change the fact that meat-eating is a really terrible idea from an economic and environmental perspective.

What about China?

Posted from TSR Mobile

and these lean body goalz ftw

And good digestion.

And good skin and hair.

Oh and energy levels.

All things that have improved on a vegan diet above

[video="youtube;U5hGQDLprA8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5hGQDLprA8[/video]

Take an hour of your time to watch this please.
Gary Yourofsky is brilliant and this will change the way you think.
We dont. Need to eat. MEAT.

Eating meat isn't trivial, for various reasons.

Firstly, it takes a lot more water, energy, and land to produce meat than it does to produce an equivalent amount of veg, because you've effectively gone up a trophic level - feeding plants to animals and then eating the animals rather than just eating the plants. This inefficiency is multiplied on a global scale, and adds up to a colossal waste.

Secondly, livestock are a large source of greenhouse gas emissions. Removing them from the equation will make it much easier to solve the problem of climate change.

You can say "what about cars", but it won't change the fact that meat-eating is a really terrible idea from an economic and environmental perspective.

Yes, i too learnt all the trophic level stuff from biology lessons, doesnt mean we come up with a radical plan to turn everyone into vegetarians. We've adapted and evolved in such a way that meat has become part of our diet and for many, it is still a brilliant source of energy, calories etc etc.

We are 'removing them from the equation' by eating them... In that way you're contradicting yourself...

Cars are also a terrible idea from an economic and environmental perspective. Oil prices have sent global shocks in the economy and has slowed down the whole economy. Meat is actually good for the economy and if we get rid of meat, we are getting rid of a whole market that definitely will have long term implications.

I cant see why you are dismissive of the car analogy, it is a perfectly valid comparison. But heres the difference. Cars (and fossil fuels) are beneficial to your life so you think its fine when it too is immoral and unethical. I can list so many other things that we as people do everyday that is also unethical. Vegetarianism is just the epitomy of hypocrisy and pure ignorance!

There are already millions of vegetarians in the world, and we're doing just fine, if not better, where health is concerned. Human beings are far from being obligate carnivores, and there's nothing in meat that you can't get as a vegetarian.


You could call a shift away from meat-eating radical, but honestly, human society needs to change radically if it's going to survive the next century.



We'd be removing them from the equation by simply not breeding any more animals for slaughter. It's the massive throughput of animal lives that's causing problems. Meat-eating people remove animals from the equation by paying for them to be slaughtered, but that's after they've done their damage.



Strong economies are often founded on unsustainable, exploitative, unenvironmental practices like meat-eating. You can see that reflected in the many unethical but lucrative practices, such as the slave trade, that have already been outlawed. Such prohibitions probably do have effects on the economy, but there are more important things. As I've already said, meat-eating drives climate change, and flooded cities aren't great for the economy, either.



I'm not dismissive of the car analogy in the least - the human race has too many cars and that needs dealing with also. Recognising that doesn't make the problem of meat-eating any smaller and it doesn't make eating meat any more ethical.

(And it's spelled epitome.)

1) Yes we can live without meat but its been part of our diet for 1000s of years. It is difficult to tell everyone to stop eating meat because there would be a huge backlash, not many people would be happy. Vegetarians have not even meat their entire life and dont understand how important meat is, not because 'we cant live without it' because we could, but many eat meat everyday and it does provide us with what we need. Yes there are alternatives but its hard to fight such a prevalent meat eating culture we live in. Like with the analogy of fossil fuels, we can live without it but life will become harder. I know it sounds ridiculous but thats just the way it is, no one can really question that., any meat eater will tell you that their life would be pretty mundane without it!

2) yeah, i guess so you're right.

3) Bear in mind however that animals can be bred on infertile land whereas agriculture is reliant on the right soil, water, sunlight and other factors. It isnt as reliable as meat. It also means that once meat is abolished, there will be a greater demand for agriculture which may not be met since there isnt enough land, labour, capital etc etc. Also, as i said, firms, farmers will inevitably lose out economically. With low supply and high demand, food prices will shoot up. Its just not economically viable at all.

4) My point was that cars and meat eating is a totally valid comparison. Those who are against fossil fuels also have as much of a valid argument as you, but is it really a viable, practical solution to the problem? no. Thats the same with meat.
My other point is that we do need to accept that we will continue to eat meat, like we accept the need for cars. Yes, a biologist will say eating the producer will give us more energy etc etc but problem is not many would change very easily! i.e. Costs>Benefits to the people in society BUT Benefits>Costs in terms of sustainable development, climate change etc etc. Its pure ignorance to say that we need to ban meat since its just not practical at all and not many will be in favour of the proposal. People need to find alternatives to meat, or a way of making the process more efficient and less polluting, or any other similar kind of solution instead of proposing an idea that will be impossible to implement.

1) Have a bit of historical perspective. All sorts of practices that were once thought integral to our economy and our culture have been abolished. And I think that it's equally easy to overestimate how difficult vegetarianism is - just as I, a vegetarian, have never tried meat, most meat-eaters have never tried vegetarianism. It's not that hard. Not to sound callous, but there are more important things than your comfort - there are people starving overseas who will be fed if enough people become vegetarian. Live simply, that others may simply live.

3) For the most part, the animals we eat are fed on crops that are grown on farmland that could be used to produce vegetables that we could eat. Growing food that we could eat on that land will involve much less agriculture than feeding the animals and eating the animals; it's a much more efficient system. When we stop eating meat, the amount of agriculture we need to do will go down, the supply of food will go up, and the cost of food will go down. It is far more economically viable than what we are doing now. I don't doubt that there will be some disgruntled animal farmers as the system they work in dwindles out of existence, but on the whole, it will be a boon for the economy.

4) I don't really know what you're trying to say here - try and use complete sentences, please. Although I seem to have picked out one thing - you think I am calling for a ban on meat; I am not, for many of the reasons you have already detailed. Instead I imagine a campaign of persuasion, in which everyone eventually voluntarily stops buying meat, and the meat industry folds. That probably sounds even more delusional to you, but we are a rapidly growing subset of the population. The meat industry is already feeling our effects.

We dont. Need to eat. MEAT.

I think it is natural for a human to eat meat, and the most of medicine workers will agree with me . Moreover, I support hunting ( for a meat only, not trophy ), I do usually test out my rifle and rifle scopes ( http://www.atncorp.com/smart-hd-weapon-sight ) on legal hunts. I find all this natural.