MW7 said:
That was awkwardly worded by me. I was trying to get at the point that people believe that they have to eat meat every day. However since you brought it up, there are many diets that revolve heavily around meat. Any of the variations of a low carb diet tend to revolve around meat. It's simply because when you cut out carbs, you are left with fat and protein for nourishment. Meat is one of the types of foods that is very low carb (or no carb).
I've never met anyone who thought that. (about having to eat it every day)
I only eat meat when I feel like it or I'm hungry for something specific that HAPPENS to have meat in it.
I just eat based on whatever I'm feeling at that moment, meat or no meat. xD
MW7 said:
The problem is that humans are breeding more cows than would exist without human intervention in order to kill them to produce beef. People keep eating more meat than necessary which keeps up the demand for meat, this makes the supply of animals greater than would occur without humans raising them for slaughter in mass amounts, then all the millions of animals fart which contributes to climate change. Farms will continue to exist, but my point is that if you even ate one less serving of meat a week, that would make a difference (admittedly tiny) because then the supply of meat would not have to be so high. I would admit that your argument makes sense when the meat comes from outside of an industrial or business situation. In other words you killing an animal in the wild would be environmentally beneficial, but purchasing meat would not be because that has an economic impact on the meat industry to support the breeding of animals for the sole purpose of producing meat. If you don't believe me, there are tons of sources on the internet related to vegetarianism and environmentalism. For instance I found this article about how the UN wants people to eat less meat, and also in the same article it mentions how the chair of the IPCC (the group studying climate change) wants people to go at least one day a week without eating meat.
Yes, but some people can, and WILL, want to eat more meat, and taking away the cows would kind of take away their right to eat in freedom. So, yeah, and I agree with you that the demand for farmed animals will still exist, and that's why I said "farmed cows will continue to exist and it really won't make much difference." So, yes, I can see your point on farmed Animals.
Yes, People can eat LESS meat, but that doesn't mean they should stop eating it altogether. They just need to balance their diets.
MW7 said:
Also we can consider the fact that my decision to not eat meat leads to greater awareness of vegetarianism and its benefits which leads to less meat consumption by other people.
I disagree. Simply because there are a vast amount of those who are not vegetarians out there that, by free will as you said, will still continue their meat eating. And no vegetarian can stop others from, eating what they like.
Now, if there was a law though, that limited the cows raised or something, then you might have a chance to put it in place, and THAT might have an effect. But a single individual cutting it out from their diet entirely isn't going to make that much difference.
And by the way, (as explained earlier), you can eat meat without it contributing to farmed animals and it would be environmentally friendly, so I'm kind of confused as to why then, one such as yourself would still ban yourself from all meat... couldn't you just eat meat that was not off of a farmed animal?
MW7 said:
This is the only thing you said that is just blatantly false. Most people choose to be omnivores, and no one needs to eat meat. People have raised children as vegetarians and vegans (the latter of which is extremely dangerous if you aren't a nutritional expert). Hundreds of millions of vegetarians living full, normal lives is proof that the idea that humans need to consume both animals and plants to survive is just not true.
I don't see how it's false.
Maybe it can be survivable in a world with supplements, pills, and what technology we now have... But I'm talking in a wild sense.
If you were stranded in an uninhabited place, you would need meat and plants BOTH.
And no way is it false that we are omnivores by nature. We were born that way. We are primates, and all primates are omnivores. By Nature. They eat bugs, they eat fruit, and, there are probably a ton of stuff they eat that I don't know about, but I DO know they eat both. It's not really a choice. However, it is a choice to ban yourself from eating a food.
Anyway, I know you need protein in your diet, and the best way to get it is eating meat. And, If I recall, nuts and stuff DO have protein, but not enough. (unless you eat a LOT of it) And, without technology, there are no supplements.
MW7 said:
I think we just have different ideas for what a good reason to not eat something is.
Fair enough, But I don't think you ever told me what your example/thoughts on an example of a good reason. I'd like to hear it.
(I mean, I might even agree you do have a good reason, based on what that reason is)
Unless that was the whole "Environmental" approach. In which, I thought we have already agreed that one can still eat meat, while still being environmentally friendly. (ex: hunting)