Veganism vs Meat eating and the optimal diet for the human body
no this is not the same person for the other thread, it just inspired me.
My stance is that veganism is more healthy than meat eating, and one of if not the healthiest diet a human can have.
Humans are herbivorous
Humans are not adapted to eating meat
veganism is optimal for human health in all stages of life
eating meat is unethical, unjustified and needless
Cholestrol is the main factor for athersclorosis
meat increases the risk of cancer, and is responsible for millions of death each year.
most if not all animal products are unhealthy
A few of those points are hard to prove in the first post since they are saying that many proof out there is false. To prove all of them would take along time so if you want me to address an issue please say so.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929
CONCLUSION:
Vegetarian diets seem to confer protection against cancer.
"vegan diets showed statistically significant protection for overall cancer incidence (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99) in both genders combined" - this shows that vegan and vegetarian diets reduce risk of cancer compared to a meat eating diet.
Athersclorosis is only present in herbivores, cholestrol and saturated fat for omnivorous animals are beneficial to their health, while it its not for heerbivores.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/
If only herbivorous animals develop athersclorosis then what does that make humans?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/
this was a metabolic ward experiment proving that dietary cholestrol and saturated fat increase your serum cholestrol
and due to this vegetarians and vegans have the lowest serum cholestrol levels.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17364116
from all this research you can conclude that dietary cholestrol increases serum cholestrol, which increases inflimmation, which increases risk of athersclorosis which increases risk of dying.
P.S: when referencing scientific articles, please explain them to prove that you haven't just googled them and don't know what you're talking about.
I will respect your views and opinions and am willing to have a logical debate, I will try to respond with all issues that you have raised, thus I expect you to do the same with me, so its fair for both of us to repeat our points until we get a reasonable response from the other party.
and preferrably not but feel free to make jokes, I don't care about getting offended but please dont overload the thread with cringey jokes and sly comments when people are trying to have logical debates. If you are rude to me I will be rude back.
My stance is that veganism is more healthy than meat eating, and one of if not the healthiest diet a human can have.
Humans are herbivorous
Humans are not adapted to eating meat
veganism is optimal for human health in all stages of life
eating meat is unethical, unjustified and needless
Cholestrol is the main factor for athersclorosis
meat increases the risk of cancer, and is responsible for millions of death each year.
most if not all animal products are unhealthy
A few of those points are hard to prove in the first post since they are saying that many proof out there is false. To prove all of them would take along time so if you want me to address an issue please say so.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929
CONCLUSION:
Vegetarian diets seem to confer protection against cancer.
"vegan diets showed statistically significant protection for overall cancer incidence (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99) in both genders combined" - this shows that vegan and vegetarian diets reduce risk of cancer compared to a meat eating diet.
Athersclorosis is only present in herbivores, cholestrol and saturated fat for omnivorous animals are beneficial to their health, while it its not for heerbivores.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/
If only herbivorous animals develop athersclorosis then what does that make humans?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/
this was a metabolic ward experiment proving that dietary cholestrol and saturated fat increase your serum cholestrol
and due to this vegetarians and vegans have the lowest serum cholestrol levels.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17364116
from all this research you can conclude that dietary cholestrol increases serum cholestrol, which increases inflimmation, which increases risk of athersclorosis which increases risk of dying.
P.S: when referencing scientific articles, please explain them to prove that you haven't just googled them and don't know what you're talking about.
I will respect your views and opinions and am willing to have a logical debate, I will try to respond with all issues that you have raised, thus I expect you to do the same with me, so its fair for both of us to repeat our points until we get a reasonable response from the other party.
and preferrably not but feel free to make jokes, I don't care about getting offended but please dont overload the thread with cringey jokes and sly comments when people are trying to have logical debates. If you are rude to me I will be rude back.
Scroll to see replies
To be honest, I think both can be beneficial and also have it's downsides, and you can eat what you want, it's your life.
But what I don't like and many others don't either is those vegans who don't have the facts above, and just say "Veganism is godly, meat is murder" and shove it down everyone's throat so thank you for actually giving facts.
And I think most people just eat what they can for convenience. E.g. in my town, there NO vegan specific places and usually 1 option of vegan or vegetarian in most places, why would a busy person spend time buying ingredients and meal preping a healthy vegan meal, when you can buy a meat based ready meal for a £1 and it be done in 5 minutes.
But what I don't like and many others don't either is those vegans who don't have the facts above, and just say "Veganism is godly, meat is murder" and shove it down everyone's throat so thank you for actually giving facts.
And I think most people just eat what they can for convenience. E.g. in my town, there NO vegan specific places and usually 1 option of vegan or vegetarian in most places, why would a busy person spend time buying ingredients and meal preping a healthy vegan meal, when you can buy a meat based ready meal for a £1 and it be done in 5 minutes.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Gent2324
no this is not the same person for the other thread, it just inspired me.
My stance is that veganism is more healthy than meat eating, and one of if not the healthiest diet a human can have.
Humans are herbivorous
Humans are not adapted to eating meat
veganism is optimal for human health in all stages of life
eating meat is unethical, unjustified and needless
Cholestrol is the main factor for athersclorosis
meat increases the risk of cancer, and is responsible for millions of death each year.
most if not all animal products are unhealthy
A few of those points are hard to prove in the first post since they are saying that many proof out there is false. To prove all of them would take along time so if you want me to address an issue please say so.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929
CONCLUSION:
Vegetarian diets seem to confer protection against cancer.
"vegan diets showed statistically significant protection for overall cancer incidence (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99) in both genders combined" - this shows that vegan and vegetarian diets reduce risk of cancer compared to a meat eating diet.
Athersclorosis is only present in herbivores, cholestrol and saturated fat for omnivorous animals are beneficial to their health, while it its not for heerbivores.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/
If only herbivorous animals develop athersclorosis then what does that make humans?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/
this was a metabolic ward experiment proving that dietary cholestrol and saturated fat increase your serum cholestrol
and due to this vegetarians and vegans have the lowest serum cholestrol levels.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17364116
from all this research you can conclude that dietary cholestrol increases serum cholestrol, which increases inflimmation, which increases risk of athersclorosis which increases risk of dying.
P.S: when referencing scientific articles, please explain them to prove that you haven't just googled them and don't know what you're talking about.
I will respect your views and opinions and am willing to have a logical debate, I will try to respond with all issues that you have raised, thus I expect you to do the same with me, so its fair for both of us to repeat our points until we get a reasonable response from the other party.
and preferrably not but feel free to make jokes, I don't care about getting offended but please dont overload the thread with cringey jokes and sly comments when people are trying to have logical debates. If you are rude to me I will be rude back.
My stance is that veganism is more healthy than meat eating, and one of if not the healthiest diet a human can have.
Humans are herbivorous
Humans are not adapted to eating meat
veganism is optimal for human health in all stages of life
eating meat is unethical, unjustified and needless
Cholestrol is the main factor for athersclorosis
meat increases the risk of cancer, and is responsible for millions of death each year.
most if not all animal products are unhealthy
A few of those points are hard to prove in the first post since they are saying that many proof out there is false. To prove all of them would take along time so if you want me to address an issue please say so.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929
CONCLUSION:
Vegetarian diets seem to confer protection against cancer.
"vegan diets showed statistically significant protection for overall cancer incidence (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99) in both genders combined" - this shows that vegan and vegetarian diets reduce risk of cancer compared to a meat eating diet.
Athersclorosis is only present in herbivores, cholestrol and saturated fat for omnivorous animals are beneficial to their health, while it its not for heerbivores.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/
If only herbivorous animals develop athersclorosis then what does that make humans?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/
this was a metabolic ward experiment proving that dietary cholestrol and saturated fat increase your serum cholestrol
and due to this vegetarians and vegans have the lowest serum cholestrol levels.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17364116
from all this research you can conclude that dietary cholestrol increases serum cholestrol, which increases inflimmation, which increases risk of athersclorosis which increases risk of dying.
P.S: when referencing scientific articles, please explain them to prove that you haven't just googled them and don't know what you're talking about.
I will respect your views and opinions and am willing to have a logical debate, I will try to respond with all issues that you have raised, thus I expect you to do the same with me, so its fair for both of us to repeat our points until we get a reasonable response from the other party.
and preferrably not but feel free to make jokes, I don't care about getting offended but please dont overload the thread with cringey jokes and sly comments when people are trying to have logical debates. If you are rude to me I will be rude back.
I seriously question your choice of and use of the word "inspired".
- a human cannot survive solely off meat, its completely inadequate for human health and doing so would see a quick death. my point about the herbivores is that all herbivorous animals are susceptible to athersclorosis, why are humans the excpetion?
Just because we can extract nutrients from meat does not mean we are adapted to eat meat. If you think we are omnivorous name a physical adaptation we have made to eating meat
"I do not class the life of an animal to be equal to that of a human"
-why?
"If you have to supplement your diet, like you do when going vegan then you can't claim it's a more natural way of living."
- I'd never claim veganism is the most natural way, however something being natural makes no difference in comparison to its health benefits. Half the US population have a B12 deficiancy, do you think that its wrong for them to take supplements due to it being unnatural? also, animals are fed b12 supplements so thats not natural either. Ebola is also natural, and ofcourse we don't want that.
the article you linked is biased and has no scientific evidence, clicking on the sources just goes to an endless stream of sources that are not scientifc but just an article
https://www.livescience.com/6356-sugar-diet-hurts-cholesterol-levels.html
it also uses bad studies. these are some limitations from the austrain cross sectional:
"the cross sectional study cannot prove cause and effect and that the dietary pattern is responsible for any of these self-reported differences"
"As the person’s dietary pattern was self-reported, and the categories were not defined, people grouped into these categories could in reality have had widely different dietary intake patterns, and some people could be incorrectly categorised. "
there is also no evidence that its not just by chance
the article also makes countless claims that are not expressed in any of the linked articles and they are using the benefits of protein to suggest we should be eating more meat.
It also talks alot about sugar and how sugar is worse.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/
this was done by dr wiliam c roberts, a physician specialising in cardiology.
"Atherosclerosis affects only herbivores. Dogs, cats, tigers, and lions can be saturated with fat and cholesterol, and atherosclerotic plaques do not develop (1, 2). The only way to produce atherosclerosis in a carnivore is to take out the thyroid gland; then, for some reason, saturated fat and cholesterol have the same effect as in herbivores."
"The connection between cholesterol and atherosclerosis is strong (9, 10):"
with reference to studies and observations, he continously claims that cholestrol is the leading factor for athersclorosis while sugar not being a large factor.
"There are elderly people who have eaten meat all their lives and are fine" - how does that prove that meat is healthy?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/woman-aged-112-says-secret-7246844 - a 112 year old smoked 30 cigarrettes a day, are you saying that smoking is healthy?
"Why would I change something that isn't broken?" - because the damage isn't done yet, heart disease is the number 1 (varies) killer in modern western civilization and cholestrol is strongly linked with this. Im assuming you are quite young and problems like this don't happen then. I could smoke 20 ciggarettes a day, im not dead or ill so why should i change something that isnt broken?
Just because we can extract nutrients from meat does not mean we are adapted to eat meat. If you think we are omnivorous name a physical adaptation we have made to eating meat
"I do not class the life of an animal to be equal to that of a human"
-why?
"If you have to supplement your diet, like you do when going vegan then you can't claim it's a more natural way of living."
- I'd never claim veganism is the most natural way, however something being natural makes no difference in comparison to its health benefits. Half the US population have a B12 deficiancy, do you think that its wrong for them to take supplements due to it being unnatural? also, animals are fed b12 supplements so thats not natural either. Ebola is also natural, and ofcourse we don't want that.
the article you linked is biased and has no scientific evidence, clicking on the sources just goes to an endless stream of sources that are not scientifc but just an article
https://www.livescience.com/6356-sugar-diet-hurts-cholesterol-levels.html
it also uses bad studies. these are some limitations from the austrain cross sectional:
"the cross sectional study cannot prove cause and effect and that the dietary pattern is responsible for any of these self-reported differences"
"As the person’s dietary pattern was self-reported, and the categories were not defined, people grouped into these categories could in reality have had widely different dietary intake patterns, and some people could be incorrectly categorised. "
there is also no evidence that its not just by chance
the article also makes countless claims that are not expressed in any of the linked articles and they are using the benefits of protein to suggest we should be eating more meat.
It also talks alot about sugar and how sugar is worse.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/
this was done by dr wiliam c roberts, a physician specialising in cardiology.
"Atherosclerosis affects only herbivores. Dogs, cats, tigers, and lions can be saturated with fat and cholesterol, and atherosclerotic plaques do not develop (1, 2). The only way to produce atherosclerosis in a carnivore is to take out the thyroid gland; then, for some reason, saturated fat and cholesterol have the same effect as in herbivores."
"The connection between cholesterol and atherosclerosis is strong (9, 10):"
with reference to studies and observations, he continously claims that cholestrol is the leading factor for athersclorosis while sugar not being a large factor.
"There are elderly people who have eaten meat all their lives and are fine" - how does that prove that meat is healthy?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/woman-aged-112-says-secret-7246844 - a 112 year old smoked 30 cigarrettes a day, are you saying that smoking is healthy?
"Why would I change something that isn't broken?" - because the damage isn't done yet, heart disease is the number 1 (varies) killer in modern western civilization and cholestrol is strongly linked with this. Im assuming you are quite young and problems like this don't happen then. I could smoke 20 ciggarettes a day, im not dead or ill so why should i change something that isnt broken?
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Tiger Rag
How, as a vegan, do you actually get your protein? I am aware there are non-meat protein sources. But as I understand it, some aren't suitable for vegans?
yes, chicpeas, lentils, pretty much all green vegetables, hemp, quinoa, tofu, beans, tempeh, bread etc, and theres thousands of meat substitutes made with soy etc
Original post by Gent2324
yes, chicpeas, lentils, pretty much all green vegetables, hemp, quinoa, tofu, beans, tempeh, bread etc, and theres thousands of meat substitutes made with soy etc
I'd never get off the toilet.
There is so much wrong with the OP it is not even funny. Humans are not herbivores, we are omnivores. We have molars and incizors.
Ethics plays no part in evolution so that's out the window. If you tried to bring ethics into it, the feed vs food debate says veganism is actually unethical due to habitat destruction and deforestation as would for human food is harder to come by than soil for animal feed.
For the survival off one person, veganism is questionable at best but that's such a selfish approach. For 9 billion people to survive on our planet by 2050, we need to adopt a more meat eating approach for resources reasons alone.
Ethics plays no part in evolution so that's out the window. If you tried to bring ethics into it, the feed vs food debate says veganism is actually unethical due to habitat destruction and deforestation as would for human food is harder to come by than soil for animal feed.
For the survival off one person, veganism is questionable at best but that's such a selfish approach. For 9 billion people to survive on our planet by 2050, we need to adopt a more meat eating approach for resources reasons alone.
How dare you?You have to respect my right of dying from a heart attack.
Original post by Guru Jason
There is so much wrong with the OP it is not even funny. Humans are not herbivores, we are omnivores. We have molars and incizors.
Ethics plays no part in evolution so that's out the window. If you tried to bring ethics into it, the feed vs food debate says veganism is actually unethical due to habitat destruction and deforestation as would for human food is harder to come by than soil for animal feed.
For the survival off one person, veganism is questionable at best but that's such a selfish approach. For 9 billion people to survive on our planet by 2050, we need to adopt a more meat eating approach for resources reasons alone.
Ethics plays no part in evolution so that's out the window. If you tried to bring ethics into it, the feed vs food debate says veganism is actually unethical due to habitat destruction and deforestation as would for human food is harder to come by than soil for animal feed.
For the survival off one person, veganism is questionable at best but that's such a selfish approach. For 9 billion people to survive on our planet by 2050, we need to adopt a more meat eating approach for resources reasons alone.
We have big and flattened incisors,we also have flattened molars which is shared commonly with herbivores and herbivores only. carnivores and omnivores have sharp fangs, with short and pointed incisors and blade shaped molars.
"veganism is actually unethical due to habitat destruction" - no its not, the average vegan uses far far less land in comparison to a meat eater. do you know how much land meat actually uses? and if you're referring to vegetables in general and pesticides, why is the fault only exclusive to vegans?
"For 9 billion people to survive on our planet by 2050, we need to adopt a more meat eating approach for resources reasons alone." - animal argiculture is one of the largest contributers to global warming and using up our lands resources, if we continue to be like this till 2050, there wont be a 2050. If we want to utilise resources then we stop breeding animals, cows for instance use thousands of litres of water, and tons of valuable foods like wheat and grains that we could otherwise be using to feed people. And actually, the combined area usage of the wheat farm+ animal farm is far less resourceful and efficient than solely a wheat farm.
Original post by arizonaidiot
How dare you?You have to respect my right of dying from a heart attack.
not sure if you're joking or not lol
Original post by Gent2324
Humans are herbivorous
Humans are not adapted to eating meat
Humans are not adapted to eating meat
Wrong. As others have pointed out already, the rest of your argument falls down on many levels.
Original post by Gent2324
not sure if you're joking or not lol
I was taking a jab at vegans lol
Original post by Duncan2012
Wrong. As others have pointed out already, the rest of your argument falls down on many levels.
no. You need to provide evidence for your claims, I disproved all the claims form other users that humans are omnivores
Original post by Gent2324
We have big and flattened incisors,we also have flattened molars which is shared commonly with herbivores and herbivores only. carnivores and omnivores have sharp fangs, with short and pointed incisors and blade shaped molars.
"veganism is actually unethical due to habitat destruction" - no its not, the average vegan uses far far less land in comparison to a meat eater. do you know how much land meat actually uses? and if you're referring to vegetables in general and pesticides, why is the fault only exclusive to vegans?
"For 9 billion people to survive on our planet by 2050, we need to adopt a more meat eating approach for resources reasons alone." - animal argiculture is one of the largest contributers to global warming and using up our lands resources, if we continue to be like this till 2050, there wont be a 2050. If we want to utilise resources then we stop breeding animals, cows for instance use thousands of litres of water, and tons of valuable foods like wheat and grains that we could otherwise be using to feed people. And actually, the combined area usage of the wheat farm+ animal farm is far less resourceful and efficient than solely a wheat farm.
"veganism is actually unethical due to habitat destruction" - no its not, the average vegan uses far far less land in comparison to a meat eater. do you know how much land meat actually uses? and if you're referring to vegetables in general and pesticides, why is the fault only exclusive to vegans?
"For 9 billion people to survive on our planet by 2050, we need to adopt a more meat eating approach for resources reasons alone." - animal argiculture is one of the largest contributers to global warming and using up our lands resources, if we continue to be like this till 2050, there wont be a 2050. If we want to utilise resources then we stop breeding animals, cows for instance use thousands of litres of water, and tons of valuable foods like wheat and grains that we could otherwise be using to feed people. And actually, the combined area usage of the wheat farm+ animal farm is far less resourceful and efficient than solely a wheat farm.
Erm I'd get you teeth check mate. My incizors are sharp and tear meat.
The amount of vegans now is sustainable but that's because they are in the minority. If everyone was vegan it would be unsustainable. I'm not talking about pesticides etc. I'm talking about the soil needed. The types of would needed for human crops need to be a much higher quality that huge deforestation would be needed for the correct fertile land.
Animal feed however can be grown in lesser quality soil with more imperfections thus there is more available. Water is not an issue. Land space is.
Original post by Gent2324
"For 9 billion people to survive on our planet by 2050, we need to adopt a more meat eating approach for resources reasons alone." - animal argiculture is one of the largest contributers to global warming and using up our lands resources, if we continue to be like this till 2050, there wont be a 2050. If we want to utilise resources then we stop breeding animals, cows for instance use thousands of litres of water, and tons of valuable foods like wheat and grains that we could otherwise be using to feed people. And actually, the combined area usage of the wheat farm+ animal farm is far less resourceful and efficient than solely a wheat farm.
"For 9 billion people to survive on our planet by 2050, we need to adopt a more meat eating approach for resources reasons alone." - animal argiculture is one of the largest contributers to global warming and using up our lands resources, if we continue to be like this till 2050, there wont be a 2050. If we want to utilise resources then we stop breeding animals, cows for instance use thousands of litres of water, and tons of valuable foods like wheat and grains that we could otherwise be using to feed people. And actually, the combined area usage of the wheat farm+ animal farm is far less resourceful and efficient than solely a wheat farm.
Shouldn't we be looking at eating more venison, rats, pigeons, road kill and insects?
animals are sentient, that's a fact, and by stating that you're not "trying" to do anything
it's not about whether humans and animals are equal because, clearly, we're very different
but you don't have to like animals to agree it's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to a sentient being that is fully capable of feeling pain
that's the difference between plants and animals, a plant is not aware and it won't feel anything
animals are usually killed humanely, but it's the conditions they're kept in before slaughter that's the real problem
"ethical sources" really don't need to meet that many guidelines to be approved so there are still significant welfare issues
I do agree with the rest of your post though, we are not herbivores and we evolved to be able to eat meat to take advantage of any available food sources
a meat diet can be healthier than a vegan diet, and a vegan diet can be healthier than a meat diet, it still just depends on what you actually eat
it's not about whether humans and animals are equal because, clearly, we're very different
but you don't have to like animals to agree it's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to a sentient being that is fully capable of feeling pain
that's the difference between plants and animals, a plant is not aware and it won't feel anything
animals are usually killed humanely, but it's the conditions they're kept in before slaughter that's the real problem
"ethical sources" really don't need to meet that many guidelines to be approved so there are still significant welfare issues
I do agree with the rest of your post though, we are not herbivores and we evolved to be able to eat meat to take advantage of any available food sources
a meat diet can be healthier than a vegan diet, and a vegan diet can be healthier than a meat diet, it still just depends on what you actually eat
Original post by Gent2324
no. You need to provide evidence for your claims, I disproved all the claims form other users that humans are omnivores
I don't know whether you're trolling or you genuinely don't understand how proof works. You haven't disproved anything.
As for evidence? I can eat steak therefore I'm not a herbivore. So can you. The fact you may choose not to is irrelevant.
Original post by the beer
Shouldn't we be looking at eating more venison, rats, pigeons, road kill and insects?
are you referring to killing and eating invavie species?
Original post by Guru Jason
Erm I'd get you teeth check mate. My incizors are sharp and tear meat.
The amount of vegans now is sustainable but that's because they are in the minority. If everyone was vegan it would be unsustainable. I'm not talking about pesticides etc. I'm talking about the soil needed. The types of would needed for human crops need to be a much higher quality that huge deforestation would be needed for the correct fertile land.
Animal feed however can be grown in lesser quality soil with more imperfections thus there is more available. Water is not an issue. Land space is.
The amount of vegans now is sustainable but that's because they are in the minority. If everyone was vegan it would be unsustainable. I'm not talking about pesticides etc. I'm talking about the soil needed. The types of would needed for human crops need to be a much higher quality that huge deforestation would be needed for the correct fertile land.
Animal feed however can be grown in lesser quality soil with more imperfections thus there is more available. Water is not an issue. Land space is.
you incizors are not sharp
http://livinontheveg.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/human-anatomy-teeth.png
there is a huge difference, your teeth are not specialised to tear through meat."
"If everyone was vegan it would be unsustainable"
Your arguement is incosistent, you are saying that there will be less soil needed to produce crops, but what about the thousands of litres of water animals need? what about all the grains and wheats that contribute to starvation? Why is soil more important than water and food? And water is not an issue in your house, but maybe you should consider the people dying of thirst because the rivers are dirty and people are using clean water to feed animals for a more pleasurable meal.
https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/06/gr-burgers-462.gif
this image speaks for itself, if you are concerned about land space then you shouldn't be consuming meat produced on farms.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
