Meat-eating Vs. vegetarianism

[chuboy]

While I would rather not get into a major debate, I do have an opinion on this argument: I don't care.

It's kind of like, why do people argue about the most stupid things? Who cares about whether you eat veggies or meat?

I could go on about this for a while, but I'd like to see if anyone shares my views.

You don't care whether we do or not, so if you please, stop spamming the debate.

Vegitarians really do conserve food, as i previously stated it takes 7kg's of grain/feed to make 1kg of meat. However, the balance has been in check for some time and its now that the poorer countrys can afford more food that is causing the real problem. We have to start to change our own way of life now, or millions of people will starve. Meat eating does need to decrease, but not to such a rate that it causes problems due to decreasing production.

The major flaw in this argument is that, like you stated, cows eat 7kg of grain/feed for 1kg of meat. Humans can eat meat. They can't eat cow feed, or grain. The grain that cows eat is too coarse for humans; they have four stomachs in order to digest the tight starches. So even though cows are eating a lot, it's not food that could be fed to people instead.

As for the biofuel comment, its a joke. Its one of the main reasons why were in this prediciment, and the sensible thing to do would to ban certain cars. (cars that get less than 20mpg, or engine sizes over 3,800cc.) This would be a sensible way to avoid almost every problem faced in the world today, from global warming to the food crisis, and that biofuel could be lowered to a 2-5% blend, releasing the strain on the global market.

Hmmm...wouldn't work. If engine sizes over 3.8 were banned, sports car makers would just make high powered 3.8L engines. Also, this imposes on a lucrative industry and would be met with considerable force even within governments. Under those laws Hummer would have no cars to sell, and since Hummer is an American company it would affect the American economy, for instance.

And, as has been mentioned in the ethanol debate, if you're stuck in a traffic jam, it doesn't matter how economical your car is, it's doing 0mpg. So the rules you propose don't really work. Massive reforms in public transport for commuters are what is required. If everyone catches the bus, that's thousands of cars off the road by choice, not by force.

 

[Regan]

You don't care whether we do or not, so if you please, stop spamming the debate.


The major flaw in this argument is that, like you stated, cows eat 7kg of grain/feed for 1kg of meat. Humans can eat meat. They can't eat cow feed, or grain. The grain that cows eat is too coarse for humans; they have four stomachs in order to digest the tight starches. So even though cows are eating a lot, it's not food that could be fed to people instead.


Hmmm...wouldn't work. If engine sizes over 3.8 were banned, sports car makers would just make high powered 3.8L engines. Also, this imposes on a lucrative industry.

And, as has been mentioned in the ethanol debate, if you're stuck in a traffic jam, it doesn't matter how economical it is, it's doing 0mpg. So the rules you propose don't really work. Massive reforms in public transport for commuters are what is required. If everyone catches the bus, that's thousands of cars off the road by choice, not by force.

For the cattle feed, it could be further refined for human consumption. For the engine size issue, if cars had to have 3.8L engines or less with a minimum of 20mpg, they could twin turbocharge cars all they want, the biggest pracitical engine size a car would have is a v6, and all cars would have to do at least 20mpg. They should also change the gas guzzler tax to include small trucks used as cars like hummers, and could ban all imports of cars over 10 years old, or that get terrible gas millage. The idea of this however is not to decrease greenhouse gas emissions but to decrease the ammount of ethonol used in fuel, (which uses less fuel, and as a bonus decreases greenhouse gas emissions) thereby increasing the avaliable corn stocks which would put some pressure off the industry.

If they took all the buses off the road, and oped up bus and cycle lanes to private cars, there would be a reduced traffic jam problem, and therefore no car would get 0mpg

^EDIT: Sarcasm.

 

[chuboy]

For the cattle feed, it could be further refined for human consumption. For the engine size issue, if cars had to have 3.8L engines or less with a minimum of 20mpg, they could twin turbocharge cars all they want, the biggest pracitical engine size a car would have is a v6, and all cars would have to do at least 20mpg. They should also change the gas guzzler tax to include small trucks used as cars like hummers, and could ban all imports of cars over 10 years old, or that get terrible gas millage. The idea of this however is not to decrease greenhouse gas emissions but to decrease the ammount of ethonol used in fuel, (which uses less fuel, and as a bonus decreases greenhouse gas emissions) thereby increasing the avaliable corn stocks which would put some pressure off the industry.

Here's a thought. How about you just NOT USE food as a fuel source? There's plenty of biomass byproducts which can be fermented into ethanol. Which genius decided using a major cereal was a good idea?

Also, if you really want to reduce ethanol use, you don't make ALL cars a bit more fuel efficient. You get rid of them altogether. No cars on the road = no need for lots of fuel = no need for so much fuel consumption.

If they took all the buses off the road, and oped up bus and cycle lanes to private cars, there would be a reduced traffic jam problem, and therefore no car would get 0mpg

LOL, sorry, but that is SO ridiculous I can't believe it. Get rid of cycle lanes (which use NO petrol at all) so more petrol-using cars can drive instead? Get rid of bus lanes so that people who leave their cars at home to save fuel have to wait in traffic jams as well?

There are how many buses on the road, compared to cars? There are thousands of cars to buses. There are too many car lanes and not enough bus lanes. If every person driving a car to work caught the bus instead, how many un-economical cars would be off the road? Thousands. You'd need maybe a hundred more buses. Sure, per mile buses are a tad more inefficent than cars in raw fuel usage, but they also carry ten times as many people in one go.

If someone's arteries are clogged with fat, how do you make them better? Do you make their arteries bigger to allow more room for fat to get in, or do you reduce the amount of fat in their diet to get rid of the problem entirely?

If highways are clogged with petrol-using cars, do you make the highways bigger to allow more petrol-using cars to use the road, or do you get rid of all the cars?

It's so simple, I can't believe you think otherwise.

 

[Regan]

Here's a thought. How about you just NOT USE food as a fuel source? There's plenty of biomass byproducts which can be fermented into ethanol. Which genius decided using a major cereal was a good idea?

Also, if you really want to reduce ethanol use, you don't make ALL cars a bit more fuel efficient. You get rid of them altogether. No cars on the road = no need for lots of fuel = no need for so much fuel consumption.


LOL, sorry, but that is SO ridiculous I can't believe it. Get rid of cycle lanes (which use NO petrol at all) so more petrol-using cars can drive instead? Get rid of bus lanes so that people who leave their cars at home to save fuel have to wait in traffic jams as well?

There are how many buses on the road, compared to cars? There are thousands of cars to buses. There are too many car lanes and not enough bus lanes. If every person driving a car to work caught the bus instead, how many un-economical cars would be off the road? Thousands. You'd need maybe a hundred more buses. Sure, per mile buses are a tad more inefficent than cars in raw fuel usage, but they also carry ten times as many people in one go.

If someone's arteries are clogged with fat, how do you make them better? Do you make their arteries bigger to allow more room for fat to get in, or do you reduce the amount of fat in their diet to get rid of the problem entirely?

If highways are clogged with petrol-using cars, do you make the highways bigger to allow more petrol-using cars to use the road, or do you get rid of all the cars?

It's so simple, I can't believe you think otherwise.

Firstly, my remarks about removing bus/cycle lanes were completely sarcastic

Secondly, that 'genius' must have thought that corn was in large supply, or something. I think the reasoning was the U.S. produces a large amount of corn, and that because it would not have to be imported, it could be a good idea.

Also, about removing cars all-together. Its a terrible idea. People need cars to get around, and in rural places cars play a huge part in getting people around. Not everyone has a 7-Eleven around the corner, and some people have to drive upwards of an hour to find anywhere at all. Cars should be banned in citys with a radius of under 5km, but this entertains all sorts of problems like where do visitors park there cars when they're entering the city? Cars are a necessity, and are abused by fat lazy americans (figure of speech). They should not be banned, but there useage be restricted to where its actually needed.

Edit: More buses is -bad-. The public transport system needs to be more efficient and organised, not put an influx of buses on the road. They use large amounts of petrol, and are useful for about 2 hours in the day when they're full (8-9am/5-6pm), the rest of the time they're running with about 4 or 5 people on them (or at least where i live they do). It seems like such a waste for such a good idea, and even though i have no proof regarding this the buses usefulness must be comprimised by running on almost no people.

 

[chuboy]

Secondly, that 'genius' must have thought that corn was in large supply, or something. I think the reasoning was the U.S. produces a large amount of corn, and that because it would not have to be imported, it could be a good idea.

The must have overlooked the minor detail that people EAT corn.

Also, about removing cars all-together. Its a terrible idea. People need cars to get around, and in rural places cars play a huge part in getting people around.

They can still own them, they can own as many cars as they want. I realise that there isn't always enough demand for a bus service. But if there isn't demand for a bus, there isn't going to be a traffic problem is there?

Not everyone has a 7-Eleven around the corner, and some people have to drive upwards of an hour to find anywhere at all.

An hour to find somewhere to buy food? Well, I don't imagine that affects too many people. The vast majority of developed society has access to public transport and is close enough to grocery stores to not have to use a car to get there. Just because someone lives in the middle of nowhere and doesn't like the idea shouldn't mean that people who live in urban environments can use as much fuel as they please when they can catch the bus.

Cars should be banned in citys with a radius of under 5km, but this entertains all sorts of problems like where do visitors park there cars when they're entering the city? Cars are a necessity, and are abused by fat lazy americans (figure of speech). They should not be banned, but there useage be restricted to where its actually needed.

You can't restrict all the time. That requires too much policing. Instead, cars can drive anywhere they want, but if they want to drive to work, it's gonna cost them a fortune to park in the city. If they drive to work on the highway and don't share their car, they have to use the private car lanes, while buses and carpoolers get to use the transit lanes (which will be expanded to use some of the current regular-use lanes).

Edit: More buses is -bad-. The public transport system needs to be more efficient and organised, not put an influx of buses on the road. They use large amounts of petrol, and are useful for about 2 hours in the day when they're full (8-9am/5-6pm), the rest of the time they're running with about 4 or 5 people on them (or at least where i live they do). It seems like such a waste for such a good idea, and even though i have no proof regarding this the buses usefulness must be comprimised by running on almost no people.

When did I insinuate that all buses have to run all the time? At peak hour, all the buses can run, taking home the commuters. During off-peak, the services slow down to normal. Simple.

Besides, buses are very economical. There's no argument - one fully-loaded bus is going to use less fuel in a trip than 60 cars.

This is getting off-topic. There is an ethanol debate in this forum already.

 

[Regan]

The must have overlooked the minor detail that people EAT corn.
That they did.
They can still own them, they can own as many cars as they want. I realise that there isn't always enough demand for a bus service. But if there isn't demand for a bus, there isn't going to be a traffic problem is there?
No, and the buses use more fuel, which uses a 10% blend of ethonol, which wastes it, which wastes food, showing how unorganised the bus system is
An hour to find somewhere to buy food? Well, I don't imagine that affects too many people. The vast majority of developed society has access to public transport and is close enough to grocery stores to not have to use a car to get there. Just because someone lives in the middle of nowhere and doesn't like the idea shouldn't mean that people who live in urban environments can use as much fuel as they please when they can catch the bus.
That affects a huge amount of people, maybe not compared to the population of New York, but according to figures on wikipedia (which i realise is not a reliable source), 10% of Americans live rurally with no grocery store in even execptional walking distance. Thats 3 million people that either grow there own food or have to drive to live. People should restrict even bus use, that still uses an unreasonable amount of petrol, and humans have legs for a reason.
You can't restrict all the time. That requires too much policing. Instead, cars can drive anywhere they want, but if they want to drive to work, it's gonna cost them a fortune to park in the city. If they drive to work on the highway and don't share their car, they have to use the private car lanes, while buses and carpoolers get to use the transit lanes (which will be expanded to use some of the current regular-use lanes).
Its the rich people that use all the petrol anyway, so there have to be other penalties apart from money. This is getting off topic as well, as this at the furtherest stretch is about the food biofuel uses that means meat prices are going up..
When did I insinuate that all buses have to run all the time? At peak hour, all the buses can run, taking home the commuters. During off-peak, the services slow down to normal. Simple.
You didn't insinuate that either, you just said we need more buses.
Besides, buses are very economical. There's no argument - one fully-loaded bus is going to use less fuel in a trip than 60 cars.
But one 1/4 full is going to use more, and thats what most run on for the majority of the day.

This is getting off-topic. There is an ethanol debate in this forum already.

Anyway, if you need to rebut lets try to pull this back on topic

 

[Strants]

On the practical side, what if we did stop eating meat? What would we do with these domesticated cows? Also, which is more wasteful, taking food that will otherwise not be used, or not taking it?

Life, and, in turn the entire universe, is a cycle of increase and decline. Stars, people, animals, plants, civilizations. . . From the smallest ant to the largest star, nothing can last forever. So, what if we eat animals after they stop ascending and decrease to a certain point? Or, what if we could genetically engineer brainless (literally) cattle? Just curious.

 

[Kikkoman]

I found it very annoying at a year 7 camp to be sitting opposite a boy who was vegetarian. He saw what we were eating, and after we asked why he was vegetarian (could've been religious-it was- or personal choice, or anything), he got very defensive, and then started having a go at us for eating meat. Come on...
While I don't really depend on meat, unlike my brother and father, I don't see how eating it every now and then is particularly bad. Sure it may impact the environment, but I can't be bothered arguing that; besides, what DOESN'T affect the environment these days!
My old soccer coach had an interesting apporach to it, though, and that was something which may have gotten me in to being a vegetarian. He explained how you get more energy from plants than you do from meats, having to do with the energy from the Sun collected initially in plants, and then eaten by animals, only to be largely lost after the animal got rid of it. However, he said this didn't stop him from eating meat. He preferred vegies, but if someone offers him meat, he won't reject it on the basis of him being vego. I actually really admired him for that reasoning.
It's just a pity that not all vegetarians are so...can't think of the right word...'connected' with meat-eaters? Like, understand their point of view. Besides, being vegetarian, or even vegan, does usually make it harder to get certain nutrients, like iron and protein. And it's not like meat-eaters don't eat vegetables at all; if anything this topic should be 'Omnivores v. Herbivores'

 

[Regan]

He explained how you get more energy from plants than you do from meats, having to do with the energy from the Sun collected initially in plants, and then eaten by animals, only to be largely lost after the animal got rid of it.

You do get more energy, but imagine trying to eat a kg of lettuce ;_;. Its easier to get the energy from a kg of meat than a kg of lettuce.

Sure it may impact the environment, but I can't be bothered arguing that; besides, what DOESN'T affect the environment these days!

Enviromentally friendly options?

 

[RF Steve]

We did not spend 100 million years to get to the top of the food chain and eat vegetables.

^ I hate that reply >_>

I don't see why people even care if someone is a vegiterrian. Oh my god! You don't want to constantly consume fat and sugar and salt! You must be a psychopath! -.- People like that need to die. Infact I think a debate about it is kinda stupid because why should we care if someone wants to eat healthy. I like healthy foods. Do you care?

 

[chuboy]

Thanks for your n00bitronic reply. Vegetarian diets are NOT healthier than omnivorous ones. At best they can JUST get by with most of the nutrients of the diet.

Fat is present in meat, I'll give you that. There's no fat in vegies - but that means no good fat either. Vegetarians can have unexpectedly high bad cholesterol (since bad cholesterol can only be reduced by eating animals).

There is next to NO sugar in meat either <_<. Fruits are full of the stuff, and vegetables have starchy carbohydrates which are also sugars. Sugar itself is DERIVED from a plant, for goodness' sake. For some reason you are confusing a typical unhealthy Western diet with an omnivorous one...

It's not about which is healthier. Omnivorous diets are always going to be the healthiest option. It's about morals. So if you please, stop spamming the thread with your irrelevant and poorly researched replies.

 

[Kikkoman]

Enviromentally friendly options?

Touche, my good fellow

 

[Trev&Nacho]

On the practical side, what if we did stop eating meat? What would we do with these domesticated cows? Also, which is more wasteful, taking food that will otherwise not be used, or not taking it?
.

of course its not a matter of if they are there or not because we bredthem to eat, as in its not like we are wasting food if we dont eat meat because if we didnt eat meat that many cows wouldnt be in existance. also if we didnt use so much land creating feed for animals we could use it to create food for starving humans in third world countries. After all i think soy beans have the highest protein yeild per acre out of any crop or animals on a farm.

 

[HyenaHaze]

of course its not a matter of if they are there or not because we bredthem to eat, as in its not like we are wasting food if we dont eat meat because if we didnt eat meat that many cows wouldnt be in existance. also if we didnt use so much land creating feed for animals we could use it to create food for starving humans in third world countries. After all i think soy beans have the highest protein yeild per acre out of any crop or animals on a farm.

First off, capitilazation is fun! Secondly, beans do not have the highest "protein yield per acre". You obviously don't know how many chickens you can fit in an acre. Also, if we all suddenly became vegans/vegitarians, then the cows that were out in the fields would either
A. Be killed for food in other countries or
B. Die, because we will either eat all their food or just kill them because they're in our way.

 

[Strants]

A. Be killed for food in other countries or
B. Die, because we will either eat all their food or just kill them because they're in our way.

Key word in my post: domesticated.
I agree with your reasons, of course, but I'd like to add:
C:Be turned loose into the wild, and dying of starvation, predators, or the cold. These animals have spent several hundred years under human protection (and eventually killing, but until then, anything that could harm them is taken care of, from wolves to cold to disease). They won't just 'know' what to do in the wild.

 

[Tomato Jr.]

Key word in my post: domesticated.
I agree with your reasons, of course, but I'd like to add:
C:Be turned loose into the wild, and dying of starvation, predators, or the cold. These animals have spent several hundred years under human protection (and eventually killing, but until then, anything that could harm them is taken care of, from wolves to cold to disease). They won't just 'know' what to do in the wild.

the current solution to diseased animals is too kill them, as antibiotics are too expensive and impact on profits. there is also this thin called 'instinct'. you may of heard of it. humans, deprived of their technological comforts, and let loose in the wild would survive. They would learn eventually, it is called natural selection.

 

[zaxly100]

I don't have a problem with Vegetarianism. I even tried it once, but had to give in, mostly because i ate meat as long as i could remember. Also, one of my friends is a vegetarian, and eats meatless meat (tofu meat) and vegie burgers. And i respect her. You still get your protein from the tofu and veggie burger, but personally i think a diet with real meat and veggies is a bit healthier.

Killing animals to eat them isn't very humane, but we have hunted ever since we walked on Earth. Later on, we learned that we could raise our own animals to eat them. This is helpful, but there are still people that will hunt down endangered animals and eat them.

I eat meat and veggies, and don't think of vegetarians as bad people. I don't even like the fact that i'm eating animals, but i still do it, because the animals i'm eating are raised to be eaten. I'm not saying that killing animals is a good thing, but there are animals that are raised to be eaten.

I think vegetarianism is a good idea for people that dedicate themselves to animals, but eating meat is also a good choice if you decide to eat the animals that are raised to be eaten.

 

[Father Silverfox]

Losers eat meat because it taste good and they are indiffrent people with a "if it feels good do it" additude.

 

[??????]

Haven't been in this topic for a while.

Well first off, I am on an Omnivorous diet. I eat much more vegetables then meat, and it is much more simple and natural to be on an omnivorous diet.

As it is simpler and more inclined to our nature to eat meat, the issue at hand is morals. I have no moral qualms with meat eating. Morals are ingrained into our nature, and guess what else is ingrained? Canines! The presence of Canines in our mouths is a telltale sign that we are meant to eat meat.

Inhumane? Look in your ecosystem. Meat eating is natural, and the killing of animals is natural. Humane means a lot of different things, and is quite vague.

Grain Problem? Cows are NOT MEANT TO EAT GRAINS. They are meant to eat grass. Food Companies feed then grains to keep them in closed quarters and save money on space and grass. The greed of the Food Company is the problem, not the meat eating. By putting the cow on its proper diet, you can kill the 2 birds with one stone.

Unhealthy? Excess Red Meat is, but overall, an Omnivorous diet is easier to maintain, and healthier than a Vegetarian diet. Those who eat meat receive proper nutrients that are obtained from meat eating. Vegetarians have to specifically plan out their diet and buy Supplements of the nutrients they miss just to be as healthy as the simpler Omnivore. If an Omnivorous diet as unhealthy, then the human mouth would not posses Canines specifically designed for meat eating.

Losers eat meat because it taste good and they are indiffrent people with a "if it feels good do it" additude.

"Losers" eat meat because it is a natural part of the human diet.

 

[shooting star]

Haven't been in this topic for a while.

Well first off, I am on an Omnivorous diet. I eat much more vegetables then meat, and it is much more simple and natural to be on an omnivorous diet.

As it is simpler and more inclined to our nature to eat meat, the issue at hand is morals. I have no moral qualms with meat eating. Morals are ingrained into our nature, and guess what else is ingrained? Canines! The presence of Canines in our mouths is a telltale sign that we are meant to eat meat.

Meant to =/= forced to. No good argument.

Inhumane? Look in your ecosystem. Meat eating is natural, and the killing of animals is natural. Humane means a lot of different things, and is quite vague.

This has been mentioned, and IMO beaten down. Other behaviour that appears in nature is to feed your children food that you have eaten and thrown up, to rape and to eat your mating partner. Nothing we do very often, huh? Once again. Meant to =/= forced to.

Grain Problem? Cows are NOT MEANT TO EAT GRAINS. They are meant to eat grass. Food Companies feed then grains to keep them in closed quarters and save money on space and grass. The greed of the Food Company is the problem, not the meat eating. By putting the cow on its proper diet, you can kill the 2 birds with one stone.

Mentioning what someone else does wrong to justify your own faults is a convenient, but quite pointless, thing to do.

Unhealthy? Excess Red Meat is, but overall, an Omnivorous diet is easier to maintain, and healthier than a Vegetarian diet. Those who eat meat receive proper nutrients that are obtained from meat eating. Vegetarians have to specifically plan out their diet and buy Supplements of the nutrients they miss just to be as healthy as the simpler Omnivore. If an Omnivorous diet as unhealthy, then the human mouth would not posses Canines specifically designed for meat eating.

Haven't we confirmed that omnivorous diets and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets ca both be just as healthy. Let's just skip the healthiness part.

"Losers" eat meat because it is a natural part of the human diet.

You still get your protein from the tofu and veggie burger, but personally i think a diet with real meat and veggies is a bit healthier.

Healthiness is NOT a subjective factor. We have discussed this, and proven that except for some omega 3-fatty acids or whatever it was, you can get all nutrients and stuff you need from a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet.

Killing animals to eat them isn't very humane, but we have hunted ever since we walked on Earth. Later on, we learned that we could raise our own animals to eat them. This is helpful, but there are still people that will hunt down endangered animals and eat them.

So your point is that since some people do, it's justified? There is lots of killing going on in the world, does that justify killing?

I eat meat and veggies, and don't think of vegetarians as bad people. I don't even like the fact that i'm eating animals, but i still do it, because the animals i'm eating are raised to be eaten. I'm not saying that killing animals is a good thing, but there are animals that are raised to be eaten.

And your point with that fact is...?

Comments in bold. SS out.