Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neruz]

Well, an industry could have them free-range, but that'd require that they buy massive areas of land or build massive multi-floor buildings.  The extra cost of doing so could have all sorts of unwanted side-effects, such as increase in the price of chicken meat.

And in many areas (like, say, the entirety of Asia) there quite simply is not enough land to waste it on free-range animals.

So what; should the Chinese just all starve to death?

[Realmfighter]

Well, an industry could have them free-range, but that'd require that they buy massive areas of land or build massive multi-floor buildings.  The extra cost of doing so could have all sorts of unwanted side-effects, such as increase in the price of chicken meat.

And in many areas (like, say, the entirety of Asia) there quite simply is not enough land to waste it on free-range animals.

So what; should the Chinese just all starve to death?

They could feed poeple the grain that they would have given to the livestock, but Naah.

Thats to logical.

[Neruz]

Well, an industry could have them free-range, but that'd require that they buy massive areas of land or build massive multi-floor buildings.  The extra cost of doing so could have all sorts of unwanted side-effects, such as increase in the price of chicken meat.

And in many areas (like, say, the entirety of Asia) there quite simply is not enough land to waste it on free-range animals.

So what; should the Chinese just all starve to death?

They could feed poeple the grain that they would have given to the livestock, but Naah.

Thats to logical.

Excellent ide- wait, people can't eat hay.

[G-Flex]

You're very good at building strawmen. You should probably stop it.

I've made it clear at least twice that most reasonable vegans/vegetarians who choose not to eat meat for ethical reasons would not have a problem with people doing it when it's actually necessary for people to do so, and wouldn't try to force the practice on, say, poor Asians (or, hell, poor Americans).

The same applies, logically, to humane farming practices, although I'm not sure what Asian farming practices are like; if it's done on a more local basis, it's likely to be more humane.

So to answer the question: No, the Chinese shouldn't just starve to death. They should do what's necessary. You know this, I know this, and the only reason you're asking that is because you're intentionally missing the point and trying to make the argument sound as bad and as insanely absolutist as you possibly can in order to make yours (if you have one) look better.



As far as high meat prices go, your average person in the US actually eats a lot more meat than is necessary (assuming here that meat is necessary) or occurred historically. It's not as if we need it with every meal; the typical Western diet just tends to put it into high focus. Also, like I've probably said, eating meat is extremely thermodynamically inefficient, to the tune of the calories you're getting being at least a few orders of magnitude lower than what you're putting in in order to raise the animals. Massive quantities of farm animals are great for consuming massive quantities of feed and producing extremely vast quantities of vast. Seriously, there are basically bogs made just to hold animal waste because of this.

So really, most people could stand to eat a bit less meat in the first place. It's not like it would become a luxury or anything, our diets would just adapt to use slightly less; all things considered, we'd probably be healthier if the diets our culture revolved around were focused more on vegetable matter in the first place.

[Neruz]

Ah; but that high-meat diet is what is responsible for the fact that westerners are so large, tall and strong.

There is a reason why, statistically, westerners are something like a foot taller on average than Asians, it's the same reason why Asians born and raised in western cultures tend to grow up to be substantially larger than their parents, and why the more recent generations in Japan are noticeably larger than their parents; improved diet with more meat innit.


From an energy density standpoint; Meat beats plants hands down. That's why herbivores have to eat almost constantly, and carnivores can often go a couple of days without eating and be just fine.

[G-Flex]

Ah; but that high-meat diet is what is responsible for the fact that westerners are so large, tall and strong.

You're going to have to stop right here and provide a decent source, because my bullshit radar is going off like crazy.

From an energy density standpoint; Meat beats plants hands down. That's why herbivores have to eat almost constantly, and carnivores can often go a couple of days without eating and be just fine.

Carnivores can go days without eating because they have to wait from kill to kill, so they gorge themselves. Herbivores eat constantly because they eat in smaller amounts.

Also, herbivores don't tend to eat cultivated grains; they tend to eat things that are less energy-dense than the plants we eat for calories.


Also, it might surprise you to know that prominent Western culture doesn't have trouble getting enough calories in the first place.

Also, I did some really quick research, and stuff like grains/rice has a ton more calories per gram than something like beef.

Rice: 3.7 C/g
Wheat flour: 3.7 C/g
Ground beef: 2.6 C/g
Cooked chicken breast: 1.5 C/g (probably due to lower fat content)
Cooked cod: 1.1 C/g

In other words, as far as calorie-rich foods are concerned, there's a reason why people have tended to eat grains for thousands of years. As far as protein is concerned, consider that whole proteins are available from plants and that we're not even talking right now about a meatless diet, just a diet where you, say, don't have meat with every single lunch. There are also plants rich in some fairly healthy fats as well.

Not that this matters, since getting enough calories isn't the problem to begin with; most Americans get too many, and not enough of the kinds of things more often found in plants, like unsaturated fatty acids and vegetable/mineral content.

[Wiles]

Ah; but that high-meat diet is what is responsible for the fact that westerners are so large, tall and strong.

You forgot to mention the higher incidence of heart disease, cancer and obesity the western diet promotes.

[G-Flex]

And even if it's true, it doesn't necessarily say much.

It's quite possible the Japanese had a fairly limited diet, living on a rather isolated, mountainous island in a rather isolated culture to begin with. So even if we assume that the claim is true, and that the Japanese became healthier after eating more Western food, and even if we conclude that it's due to the presence of more meat, and even if we jump to FURTHER conclusions and say that the increase of height means they're healthier (ignoring other effects, like potentially higher incidence of heart disease), that still only applies as a comparison between the two cases of the Japanese diet, and says nothing of the, say, American diet, which is much more diverse in the first place.

The key here is variety. Americans have access to an extremely wide variety of plants, vegetables, and animal products, so our diets are less likely to be skewed by foreign influence or deficient in anything to begin with. Like I said, we tend to get too much of the stuff that you tend to find in meat and too little of the stuff that you tend to find in plants. Most nutritionists would agree that Americans simply eat too much meat, especially things like red meat and pork.

[Neruz]

Ah; but that high-meat diet is what is responsible for the fact that westerners are so large, tall and strong.

You forgot to mention the higher incidence of heart disease, cancer and obesity the western diet promotes.

Yeah; we're not designed to eat such a high volume of carbohydrates, particularly complex carbohydrates like starch.

Carbohydrates have a huge energy density; if you don't use that energy, it gets stored as fat, and too much fat is a very bad thing indeed.

You're going to have to stop right here and provide a decent source, because my bullshit radar is going off like crazy.

A google search of 'protein diet children growth' threw up about half a dozen articles on the first page alone.



And G-Flex; if you're worrying about Calories, then you're about 5 years behind modern dietary science. Meat contains far more valuable nutrients, such as various important amino acids, vitamins and minerals. These high-density nutrients are what allow us to eat low-density nutrient plants like wheat and gain the carbohydrates in those plants without suffering severe malnutrition.

Meat also allows us to eat cyanogenic glycosides; this is vitally important as cyanogenic glycosides show up in a number of important plants, like, oh, wheat, rice, various types of bean, rye and so on. Without methionine and cystine, two sulfur-containing amino-acids present in meat (and usually not present in plants), cyanogenic glycosides turn into cyanide when digested.

And even if it's true, it doesn't necessarily say much.

It's quite possible the Japanese had a fairly limited diet, living on a rather isolated, mountainous island in a rather isolated culture to begin with. So even if we assume that the claim is true, and that the Japanese became healthier after eating more Western food, and even if we conclude that it's due to the presence of more meat, and even if we jump to FURTHER conclusions and say that the increase of height means they're healthier (ignoring other effects, like potentially higher incidence of heart disease), that still only applies as a comparison between the two cases of the Japanese diet, and says nothing of the, say, American diet, which is much more diverse in the first place.

The key here is variety. Americans have access to an extremely wide variety of plants, vegetables, and animal products, so our diets are less likely to be skewed by foreign influence or deficient in anything to begin with. Like I said, we tend to get too much of the stuff that you tend to find in meat and too little of the stuff that you tend to find in plants. Most nutritionists would agree that Americans simply eat too much meat, especially things like red meat and pork.

Eating 'more western food'? What the hell are you on about?

[Sergius]

I eat anything that I couldn't reasonably huggle instead ;( This includes avians, amphibians, reptiles, fish, crustaceans, mollusks, shrimp, etc. etc. It's biased, and I know it is, but what isn't? Huggleability is as good a criteria as intelligence, ultimately - only we have decided that intelligence and emotion are of higher value. And anyway, it keeps me healthy, so it's fairly easy to keep up with.

I like this criteria. I have never tried to hug a dolphin tho, so I can't say if dolphins are a decent meal or not. The only thing I guess people have against eating dolphin is that "they're so smart". Kinda like being against eating chimp. The other may or may not be whether it is an endangered species or not.

Anyway... does that make you a "huggarian"?

[Sergius]

Don't know about that, big Hindus must be freak occurrences. It's no coincidence that the regions where the tallest people live (Netherlands and Dinarids) are also the regions where dairy products consumption is among the highest in the world.

It's been found that the reason some cultures that are 100% strict "vegans" that don't have health problems due to say, B12 vitamin, is that they were primitive enough that their food wasn't "squeeky clean" and contained a fair amount of bugs or bug remnants and such.

I don't know about Hindus or whatever, I'm guessing there's SOME animal element in their diets even if they don't know it.

[G-Flex]

I don't know about Hindus or whatever, I'm guessing there's SOME animal element in their diets even if they don't know it.

Hindus traditionally don't eat beef, but they do eat dairy, which is a significant source.

Ah; but that high-meat diet is what is responsible for the fact that westerners are so large, tall and strong.

You forgot to mention the higher incidence of heart disease, cancer and obesity the western diet promotes.

Yeah; we're not designed to eat such a high volume of carbohydrates, particularly complex carbohydrates like starch.

Carbohydrates have a huge energy density; if you don't use that energy, it gets stored as fat, and too much fat is a very bad thing indeed.

So let me get this straight: Meat is good, because it has high energy density, but carbohydrates are bad because they have high energy density.


Also: The human body can digest starch just fine, and specific resistant starches (starches that have a bit of trouble being digested, such as in potatoes) actually have positive health benefits, similar to those afforded by fiber. Most starch, however, is digested plenty.

You're going to have to stop right here and provide a decent source, because my bullshit radar is going off like crazy.

A google search of 'protein diet children growth' threw up about half a dozen articles on the first page alone.

There are sources of protein that are not meat, and it is quite likely that the average American diet provides enough to begin with. If eating less meat would provide a problematically-lesser amount of protein, then, as I said, there are other sources.

I'm not going to argue that protein isn't important for growth. Of course it is. I just don't believe that eating less meat should lead to a deficiency of it, for the reasons stated.

And G-Flex; if you're worrying about Calories, then you're about 5 years behind modern dietary science.

I'm not. You're the one who brought up energy density as a point of contention by saying that meat had higher energy density than plants, and I refuted it.

Meat contains far more valuable nutrients, such as various important amino acids, vitamins and minerals. These high-density nutrients are what allow us to eat low-density nutrient plants like wheat and gain the carbohydrates in those plants without suffering severe malnutrition.

If you would do even the most cursory research, you would know that fruits and vegetables can be very, very, very dense in terms of vitamin and mineral content. Meat happens to provide certain things (e.g. iron) in higher density, but there are plants available for that as well. For amino acids, there are also whole proteins found in plants, not to mention that I'm not advocating for a meatless diet anyway.

You act like I'm talking about carbohydrate staple crops vs. meat here. I'm not. There are other, less calorie-dense plants available that are eaten primarily for their noncaloric nutritional content.

Meat also allows us to eat cyanogenic glycosides; this is vitally important as cyanogenic glycosides show up in a number of important plants, like, oh, wheat, rice, various types of bean, rye and so on. Without methionine and cystine, two sulfur-containing amino-acids present in meat (and usually not present in plants), cyanogenic glycosides turn into cyanide when digested.

Like I said, whole proteins are available in plant form. Soy is an example of one. In addition to those, methionine can be found in certain seeds/nuts.

I'm not sure why you even mention Cystine. It has the same biological use as Cysteine (in fact, Cysteine is its metabolite), which isn't even an essential amino acid; your body can produce it on its own. For what it's worth, Cysteine can also be found in certain peppers, onion, garlic, brussels sprouts, oats, and wheat germ. So it's not really a major concern.


Another reason it's not a major concern is because I'm not advocating a meatless diet in the first place. Jeez. Even if you eat half the meat your average American eats, you're still going to be eating it likely every day, and in significant quantities. Amino acid consumption is hardly even a concern for vegans, who have quite good whole proteins available to them, never mind someone who actually does eat meat, just slightly less than your average American.

In 2000, total meat consumption (red meat, poultry, and fish) reached 195 pounds (boneless, trimmed-weight equivalent) per person, 57 pounds above average annual consumption in the 1950s (table 2-1). Each American consumed an average of 7 pounds more red meat than in the 1950s, 46 pounds more poultry, and 4 pounds more fish and shellfish.

Seriously, think about this for a second. Americans simply eat way more meat than they possibly would need to.

And even if it's true, it doesn't necessarily say much.

It's quite possible the Japanese had a fairly limited diet, living on a rather isolated, mountainous island in a rather isolated culture to begin with. So even if we assume that the claim is true, and that the Japanese became healthier after eating more Western food, and even if we conclude that it's due to the presence of more meat, and even if we jump to FURTHER conclusions and say that the increase of height means they're healthier (ignoring other effects, like potentially higher incidence of heart disease), that still only applies as a comparison between the two cases of the Japanese diet, and says nothing of the, say, American diet, which is much more diverse in the first place.

The key here is variety. Americans have access to an extremely wide variety of plants, vegetables, and animal products, so our diets are less likely to be skewed by foreign influence or deficient in anything to begin with. Like I said, we tend to get too much of the stuff that you tend to find in meat and too little of the stuff that you tend to find in plants. Most nutritionists would agree that Americans simply eat too much meat, especially things like red meat and pork.

Eating 'more western food'? What the hell are you on about?

I'm talking about the same thing you were talking about when I said that: The Japanese eating different food post-WWII due to Western influence, such as different kinds of meat and dairy.

[Wiles]

Ah; but that high-meat diet is what is responsible for the fact that westerners are so large, tall and strong.

You forgot to mention the higher incidence of heart disease, cancer and obesity the western diet promotes.

Yeah; we're not designed to eat such a high volume of carbohydrates, particularly complex carbohydrates like starch.

Carbohydrates have a huge energy density; if you don't use that energy, it gets stored as fat, and too much fat is a very bad thing indeed.

A diet with too much meat is also unhealthy. Eating too much red meat in particular is unhealthy, it has been shown to increase risks of some cancers (such as colon cancer) as well as problems with high blood pressure and heart disease.

[Neruz]

Ah; but that high-meat diet is what is responsible for the fact that westerners are so large, tall and strong.

You forgot to mention the higher incidence of heart disease, cancer and obesity the western diet promotes.

Yeah; we're not designed to eat such a high volume of carbohydrates, particularly complex carbohydrates like starch.

Carbohydrates have a huge energy density; if you don't use that energy, it gets stored as fat, and too much fat is a very bad thing indeed.

A diet with too much meat is also unhealthy. Eating too much red meat in particular is unhealthy, it has been shown to increase risks of some cancers (such as colon cancer) as well as problems with high blood pressure and heart disease.

Well no shit; too much water is unhealthy; it leads to drowning. This does not mean that water should be excised from one's diet entirely.

So let me get this straight: Meat is good, because it has high energy density, but carbohydrates are bad because they have high energy density.

That was a typo; i meant to say meat has a high nutrient density. For that i apologize.

Also: The human body can digest starch just fine, and specific resistant starches (starches that have a bit of trouble being digested, such as in potatoes) actually have positive health benefits, similar to those afforded by fiber. Most starch, however, is digested plenty.

Oh there's no problem with digesting starches and other complex carbohydrates; the problem is our bodies weren't designed for such a high intake of them.



I was going to keep going, but then i hit this line;

Another reason it's not a major concern is because I'm not advocating a meatless diet in the first place. Jeez. Even if you eat half the meat your average American eats, you're still going to be eating it likely every day, and in significant quantities. Amino acid consumption is hardly even a concern for vegans, who have quite good whole proteins available to them, never mind someone who actually does eat meat, just slightly less than your average American.

In which case why in the hell are you participating in a discussion about Veganism?

[Sergius]

Another reason it's not a major concern is because I'm not advocating a meatless diet in the first place. Jeez.

You keep saying that, but you also keep defending Vegans, who according to you deserve respect, and they ARE advocating a meatless diet in the first place. There's nothing wrong with not eating any meat! Wait, I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with not eating any meat!

Yes, sure, you personally aren't, but then you say that Vegans do, and there's nothing wrong and it's perfectly valid. Therefore, you ARE advocating it.