undefined | Better HN

0 pointswyager3y ago0 comments

When you consider arability constraints and nutritional efficiency, meat is more efficient and less destructive than plants in many cases. Soy production, for example, sufficient to meet global demand requires destroying the Amazon; meat production is much less destructive to land, taking place either on non-arable scrubland or via consuming human-inedible surplus feedstock. (Or on land already depleted by plant farming, like in the Amazon.)

And then in the end you're left with foods with inferior nutrition. I'm not going to stop eating the foods I've evolved to eat (ruminants especially) until I can safely do so without becoming malnourished, weak, and unhealthy. Right now, this is not technologically possible.

0 comments

sweetheart3y ago

The majority of that soy you’re worried about is grown to feed the animals…

You’re citing things which are actually making the case for eating only plants stronger, while thinking that you’re doing the opposite. It’s wild.

This isn’t even addressing the part of your argument where you fallaciously appeal to nature by saying you’re going to do what you evolved to do. What we evolved to do is irrelevant; what we have the ability to do is all that matters.

ornornor3y ago

> without becoming malnourished, weak, and unhealthy. Right now, this is not technologically possible.

Millions of people “survive” on a vegan diet and have for decades. They’re doing just fine and aren’t “malnourished, weak, and unhealthy”

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse