Being Vegan Just Makes You Better Than Everyone Else

nevergone

<Donor All-Stars>
1,387
10d 11h 25m
Reactions
916 1,625 0 0
This is true for beef for sure, but chicken and pork are extremely efficient to raise. Why? Because those assholes will eat *anything*.
If we could just figure out how to solve for the pollutants they create.
And the water cost.
And the energy required to process, package, and distribute the products.
And the potential damage done by pumping animals in factory farm settings full of antibiotics and hormones so they don't croak before reaching maturity.
I was raised on a dairy farm and know first hand the systemic inefficiencies of animal agriculture - and you can't really do much about if you want to scale your business up.

Of course, none of this applies to Joe Farmer who raises his animals to feed his family and community in a state of homeostasis - that sounds idyllic, although not maximally profitable.
Hell, right now the best thing to invest in from an agriculture standpoint isn't meat or animal products, it's hemp and peas.
Primarily because of pharmaceutical uses for the former and meat substitutes continuing to proliferate on chain restaurant menus.
 

moonarchia

The Scientific Shitlord
<Donors Crew>
8,764
18d 18h 38m
Reactions
13,835 650 0 0
If we could just figure out how to solve for the pollutants they create.
And the water cost.
And the energy required to process, package, and distribute the products.
And the potential damage done by pumping animals in factory farm settings full of antibiotics and hormones so they don't croak before reaching maturity.
I was raised on a dairy farm and know first hand the systemic inefficiencies of animal agriculture - and you can't really do much about if you want to scale your business up.

Of course, none of this applies to Joe Farmer who raises his animals to feed his family and community in a state of homeostasis - that sounds idyllic, although not maximally profitable.
Hell, right now the best thing to invest in from an agriculture standpoint isn't meat or animal products, it's hemp and peas.
Primarily because of pharmaceutical uses for the former and meat substitutes continuing to proliferate on chain restaurant menus.
What pollutants? Every part of chickens and pigs is used for something or other. And distribution is highly efficient as is. Or are you unaware of the spoke and hub system that covers the US for every fucking product that exists?
 

ZyyzYzzy

Shitpost Counsel
<Prior Amod>
18,054
47d 1h 6m
Reactions
23,835 1,524 0 0
Hmmm, I was unaware there were forms of agriculture that didn't require water
 

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Donor All-Stars>
4,003
16d 13h 53m
Reactions
2,631 73 0 0

TL;DR Meat is not efficient to mass produce and it promotes animal cruelty. They do, however, say that it doesn't make you a bad person to eat meat, nor does it make you good to not eat it... they just kinda make a point that the -industry- of meat production kinda sucks and we need a better way to do it.
I've always repeated that animal cruelty is bad for the meat itself (stressed animals have worse quality, and late stress during butchery can generate additional toxins which further reduce meat quality). But since you can't judge meat quality easily, there's no incentive for industrial farmers to improve living quality for their livestock.

There's also basic logic:
- "how many of these animals do you think would be alive if we didn't eat meat?"
- "all of them?"
- "nope, none. Because we exterminated every wild large animals to make room for the fields for our grains and vegetables, and we would still do it even without meat"
 

moonarchia

The Scientific Shitlord
<Donors Crew>
8,764
18d 18h 38m
Reactions
13,835 650 0 0
Water.
Methane.
Antibiotics and hormones in the food supply.

You're really arguing it's a system not in need of improvement?
What are the costs of these improvements? And the ROI from them? The market will always go with what makes the most money.
 

nevergone

<Donor All-Stars>
1,387
10d 11h 25m
Reactions
916 1,625 0 0
What are the costs of these improvements? And the ROI from them? The market will always go with what makes the most money.
Very true, but simply going with what makes the most money can have drawbacks too.
 

moonarchia

The Scientific Shitlord
<Donors Crew>
8,764
18d 18h 38m
Reactions
13,835 650 0 0
Very true, but simply going with what makes the most money can have drawbacks too.
Thankfully, being broke isn't one of them. Seeing as farms aren't charities, that's how it's going to be. You want improvements? Make them a better alternative.
 

nevergone

<Donor All-Stars>
1,387
10d 11h 25m
Reactions
916 1,625 0 0
Thankfully, being broke isn't one of them. Seeing as farms aren't charities, that's how it's going to be. You want improvements? Make them a better alternative.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you. That's the way the market works.

But money doesn't really resolve the problem of polluted water, air, and people being exposed to potentially harmful chemicals.

You do see how both of those things are true, right?
 

James

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,117
40d 16h 22m
Reactions
6,340 246 0 0
Had the Beyond Burger at TGI Friday's for lunch today, what an awful piece of shit.
 

Lanx

Aten Ha Ra Slayer
17,186
45d 43m
Reactions
27,606 5,488 0 0

Vanessa

Uncle Tanya
1,224
30d 32m
Reactions
3,259 567 0 0
My question is: Is it the foods causing cancer or is it just being fat that causes cancer? Because it seems logical that the people eating a lot of processed meats are the fatties and then of course it would seem like you could say "aha! It's the foods!" But... more mass = more cells = more chance of shit going haywire when cells divide then you have ta-da! 9% increase chance of cancer. Same thing with colorectal cancer: You're eating more and more shit is "happening" down there which may up the chance of stuff going wrong. We're biological, but we're still machines and any machine that gets overworked will break down quicker. I dunno... I'm maybe just ignorant about this but my gut (no pun int.) tells me it's just more evidence that fat is unhealthy and to be avoided vs. the food itself.

I avoid processed meats on a conscious level partly due to cancer fears (mostly weight issues... I work hard to be toned) but I feel as though I've just been conditioned to feel that way by society and "studies" and that I'm probably just limiting my life joy by avoiding meats like I do.
 

Sentagur

Low and to the left
<Donor All-Stars>
2,708
33d 3h 25m
Reactions
5,230 105 0 0
are you really gonna take any article about food or health seriously from a bitch that looks like you could stuff an entire rack of lamb between her legs and have room for a big mac?


That bitch is living some lifestyle, that is entirely not healthy.
Hey! If she self identifies as a 13 year old boy who are you to judge her?
 

James

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,117
40d 16h 22m
Reactions
6,340 246 0 0
My question is: Is it the foods causing cancer or is it just being fat that causes cancer? Because it seems logical that the people eating a lot of processed meats are the fatties and then of course it would seem like you could say "aha! It's the foods!" But... more mass = more cells = more chance of shit going haywire when cells divide then you have ta-da! 9% increase chance of cancer.
We don't really know, there's a lot of correlative studies done that show things like consuming processed meats/meats cooked at very high temperatures increases your risk for cancer, but for the most part there's not a lot of direct this food causes this cancer studies. Hot drinks and alcohol have definitively been shown to cause cancer, so stay away from those if you're worried about it.

Also, you don't gain/lose fat cells depending on your weight, your fat cells just store more/less fat.