Half A Billion Fewer Animals Are Being Killed Every Year Since 2007 As People Eat Less Meat

[DonFerrari]

scrapking said:

NATO said:

Here's the thing, half a billion less animals killed to eat doesn't eqaute to half a billion animals frolicking free in the fields, it just means less animals are bred for the purpose of meat production.

That's pretty fucked up that you're comparing eating meat to one human raping another.

"Forced pollenation is rape, growing plants for the sole purpose of harvesting is murder, you should stop eating everything entirely."

See how stupid that sounds to you?, well to everyone that eats meat, that's how stupid your rape comparison is.

I'm aware that fewer animals killed means fewer animals bred into captivity.  Not sure what your point is.  Or do you think it's better for animals to be born into a system that (for example) puts them in a tiny cage and keeps them there their entire life at a huge cost to the planet's environment, and to the health of the humans who eat them?  Nearly 99% of the animals on the planet are now domesticated animals, with animal agriculture ironically doing more to cut into wild spaces for animals than any one other thing.  About a third of the planet's ice-free land is now devoted to animal agriculture, either directly or indirectly, and it's completely unsustainable.

Pointing out that animal agriculture involves rape and murder would have seemed an excessive comparison to me too, when I ate meat.  No one likes to hear bad things about our habits.  Things definitely change when you "take the red pill" and learn what really goes on behind closed doors in factory farms.  Murdering and raping animals is only not excessive to the degree that we accept it as necessary.  But it's 100% unnecessary since we have alternatives, and those alternatives are generally cheaper and healthier.

We humans engage in a curious form of racism, and that's thinking the human race is better than other kind of animals (speciesism, as it's sometimes called).  With how horrible humans are to each other, to the environment, etc., I don't think the evidence suggests that humans are deserving of special treatment.

I haven't hear of we having domesticated over some trillions of animals or is there some major caveat to this?

Also it's funny that you say you aren't emotionally attached, isn't ranting and don't think you are superior because of your diet when we see your posts.

scrapking said:

method114 said:

This is my diet pretty much. I also try and eat very little carbs just enough for my BJJ and weight lifting and that's it. I'm not sure what to think of Vegan diets and eating less meat in general. The science on this stuff is all over the place and riddled with poorly done studies.

The science isn't really all over the place.  Vested interests are creating studies to attempt to sew doubt with the public, just like the tobacco industry did in the second half of the 20th century.  Here's an example: want to create a study that tries to debunk cholesterol being bad?  Create a study where everyone eats the same amount of cholesterol, measure their cholesterol, note that they all end up with different amounts of cholesterol, and declare that there's no correlation.  That's the kind of science that the dairy and egg industries are famous for.  But it's junk science: everyone has different starting levels of cholesterol because of genetic differences.  However, if you reduce cholesterol in people's diet, you get a drop in bad cholesterol.  If you increase the cholesterol in people's diet, you get a rise in bad cholesterol.  Open and shut.

Independent science, not funded by vested interests, shows a consistent narrative.  Cholesterol is bad, saturated fat is bad, excessive amounts of animal protein in the diet is an anti-nutrient due to it overwhelming the liver, etc.  Vested interests are becoming increasingly brazen in creating junk science to convince people to buy their products, so government health agencies have had to start ignoring all industry-funded science in coming up with health recommendations (as the Canadian government recently did when updating the Canada Food Guide, as one of several recent examples).

You really don't have to look any farther than this: the healthiest and longest-living populations are the most plant-based such as the traditional Okinawan diet (98% plant-based), the Adventist vegans (100% plant-based), etc.  The adventist vegans are the longest-living population ever studied by science.  And these populations not only live longer, they have a reputation for being vibrant in their old age (aging okinawans doing tai chi, aging adventists mowing their own lawns instead of being in nursing homes, etc.)  People can debate theories until you're blue in the face, but when you put it to the test the more plant-based a population is the more likely it is to thrive.

Curious how you think the only vested interests and biased studies are on the side of industries that use animal origin products... like if the organizations you like and follow, vegans and other parties doesn't do studies focused on making them look better.

scrapking said:

DonFerrari said:

Prehistorical also had a very long aged live.

There are examples of largely plant-based populations in pre-history where "old age" was living into your 70s so, yes, that was true for some of them.  Less plant-based typically meant shorter lives, and worse weather tended to mean shorter lives, so plant-based populations near the equator typically lived the longest, and the inuit typically lived the shortest lives in pre-history.

largely plant-based means not exclusively, so they weren't vegan.

And people living more near the tropics than on the artics I would bet have much more to do with the abundant and easy food than the healthy effects of eating fruits instead of meat... or how easy is for a pre-historic 70y denizen to hunt a seal?

Funny enough my great grandfather lived up to 111y and great grandmother to 109 eating pork every day, smoking cigar and drinking alcohol. And that is being poor and not visiting any physician before they had crossed the 90s... to the point my ggf when doing a lung exam was though to be with cancer and should die in 5 years (living another 15) so it was probably very old cells that the physician never saw before and mistook for cancer.

So these small tribes could just have better genetics and not diet.

scrapking said:

DonFerrari said:

The trends seem to always be changing and going back to the same place.

Perhaps you don't know that the population that is most lactose intolerant are the Asians (a lot among japanese) and the main explanation is that for the previous several gen they weren't drinking cow milk and dairies so their system got unused to it so nowadays they are the most part of the intolerant population.

What you are pointing at seems more like allergies, where some types the person will only trigger at a certain age or due to continuous exposition. Also everyone reacts different so it may not even be some type of abuse.

You say Asians got un-used to eating dairy.  It's that they rarely ate dairy in the first place, not that they at some point got used to not eating it.  Humans only started eating dairy about 8-10K years ago, a blink of an eye evolutionarily.

And your body can get used to almost anything.  Someone from a long line of heavy drinkers might have a higher tolerance towards alcohol.  But that doesn't mean being a heavy drinker is good for you.

You understood what I was putting, but felt the need to spin it... so ok... let's just not pretend that 10k years is just about the time of civilization themselves and the time humans have started being able to eat dairy. But yes asians not getting used in the past now shows then being more lactose intolerant.

And I haven't said eating dairy is good for anyone, just that eating dairy doesn't create the intolerance (unless when looking at it similar to some types of allergies).