Quote:
Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
"natural" is arbitrary. It's meaningless to bring up and if anyone ever mentions the word "natural" in the context of discussing biology, it is because they are idiot retards. Saying "we evolved to eat meat" as an argument is essentially making this argument, aka the i am too stupid to learn critical thinking or basic scientific literacy so i just accept the biggest argument from authority in existence, "god made us to do like dat", also global warming is a lie thesis
us evolving with meat as a major component of our diet is meaningful only insofar as meat is rich in nutrients we gotta identify and make sure we are getting from other sources if we aren't eating hyper-rich flesh nutrative concoctions. and in truth there are very few bottleneck nutrients that a reasonably diverse plant-only diet needs to take into consideration. in conclusino, if ur making the evolution argument dont ask me for advice ask your naturopath.
|
I didn't mean evolution in the biological sense really. I just meant that to say we arent meant to eat meat is ridiculous since we have been doing it for as long as can be remembered and it had to have preceded any worthwhile plant harvesting. Watch those survival shows and see how much plant food they can survive off of without agriculture. The vegetarians usually have a hard time on those shows and usually end up having to eat meat or suffer(this is assuming most of the show isnt staged).
I understand this idea about the ethical harvesting of meat and I agree. I was a vegetarian for around 4 years for ethical reasons. If we all became vegetarians tomorrow we would still have to slaughter most of the animals that are stored. They dont serve any real purpose and take up a lot of space and resources. I think animals would still be harvested for stuff like pet food, leathers, glues, and other products that animals are used for besides meat.
Some of those stats people tout about water consumption and shit seems kind of misleading. Plant based replacements would surely require as much or more water consumption correct? Then land would be another issue it would require far more land and power for grow lights and things. The conservative in me says we do things a certain way as it has been worked out to be the most efficient and because overhauling becomes too costly or resource intense.
On a side note I was in a discussion with someone earlier who believes in the "singularity" and how technology is going to solve everything and shit. He was going on about those solar powered road tiles that are being developed. He just never understood my points about the cost of overhauling the US road system with an electronic replacement. He cant grasp the size and the resources needed. He just thinks the tech will solve everything on its own. Not to mention shit like the lobbyist from power companies and such that wouldn't want to be replaced. Anyways end of that tangent.