What speaks for the meat food?

2021-08-30 01:06:12 DAVE

I have to say that it always falls heavier to keep meat for properly. It only meets me only counter-arguments. Ethical-moral, but also ecological, social and health.

Two things that are repeatedly expressed to this question are, firstly, the alleged health meaning and secondly the fact that people are meat eaters.

Both are bad / wrong arguments or at least misleading. There is no reason to eat meat. Especially if you're 'vegetarians. It is probably even more like that people who do not eat meat on average healthier. And people are mixed knives (so can also eat meat), but can also just do without it. We also cycleAlthough people are perennial marathon runners. The fact that we were cave dwellers has also not been prevented from dragging us in houses.

I think another point is MMN already more concerned: the enjoyment of pleasure associated with the waiver of meat. I can understand that a bit far and is the reason why I have not limited my consumption for a long time. However, you can replace many products today. Schnitzel, for example, tastes identical to whether vegetable proteins or animal. And bolo with tofu or mixed hack tastes no difference anymore. Even sausage is barely different. In addition, you have to ask yourself if one of the enjoyment is worth the negative pages, to which I give GleicH comes.

On the other hand, in my opinion, there are gigantic negative pages.

  • Significant resources are consumed for animal husbandry. Water for example, which is missing elsewhere. But also indirectly. For example, the rainforest will be picked up because you need space for huge soy plants that serve as animal feed. If you were eating the soy directly, only a fraction of the square would be needed.
  • The rat tail of it is considerable: more space for animal feed means less habitat, less biodiversity, less useful space for human feed, more pesticides, less water for the population, less CO2 storage, etc.
  • Due to meat consumption, we produce incredible animal dress. There was no reasonTo assume that animals suffer less. There are countless videos of it, such as pigs are forgotten panicked. It's cruel and inhumane.
  • Since one protects the animals with absurd quantities of antibiotics from diseases, we breed multi-resistant bacteria.

I would like to know what you think. Are you completely against the waiver of meat? What are the reasons for you to be vegetarians or not? What could you do to reduce meat consumption?

Rebecca

You bring many good arguments of content of content. Especially your indications of the demand for economical use of resources is very consistent.

Nevertheless, some notes could be added. If one looks into the tribal history of man, then one finds that numerous organic structures give clear hints that man has not developed as a vegetarian. The intestinal length, the digestive enzymes, the dentition and other body structures show very clearly that man is a combined meat fruit-angry. He is not an omnivor, because he e.g. no possibilities has cellulose (the carbohydrate of the plants) to reduce. The connection of the glucose molecules present in the cellulose is different than in thickness, the WIr have in the fruits. And exactly this bond can not split the human digestive system, which is clearly clear in that we can not go to the pasture in famous nakes.

In addition, moderate meat consumption is also not unsounding against your statement than a purely vegetarian way of life. On the contrary, the vegetarian must pay attention to its diet much more carefully in order to form a lack of symptoms.

I also think that even the global complete renunciation of animal diet would have disadvantages, because there are huge areas on earth, in which no cultivation of grain or other ground fruits is possible, so you are primarily the willow industry operates.

Your essay on the animal welfare is very consistent and your commitment toA substantial reduction of meat consumption I share without restriction, and yet I think that we are not allowed to be caused by morally, if we condemn every meat consumption per se.

Trevor

As far as I know the Meat consumption positively influences the development of the brain. In the areas where fertile surfaces are present, a spread of man was not possible without this food source.

Surely you can improve the animal husbandry and slaughter I am also for, but a general renunciation would mean one shifts only the actual problem. On the one hand, you would have to eradicate the livestock, as well as many other animals too. Earlier or later, a food shortage is created. Instead of 10 billionPeople could then get fond of 15 billion people. Also there is a border now. The excretions of the coars are used as fertilizer for plants. Surely you can completely change to chemicals. But these destroy the microbiology of the soil and with the time there is nothing growing there.

Betsy

I myself nourish myself vegetarian, because I just do not like meat. I've eaten that as a child only very reluctant. So it was only a logical development, sometime to do without it.

Health and my personal well-being also play a big role for me. After I have fed vegetarian for a while, I noticed positive changes to me.

And of course I also try to cause so little damage with my way of life. That's very important to me.

I'm not for a complete meat. Everyone should simply do what he is personally possible. But of course it can never hurt to make a little idea about what your own way of life can have for impact. And reduce meat consumption to a reasonable level would be good for everyone. Finally, it's not just about your own health, but also animal welfare - and who does not care about the environment and the climate, which actually affects us all.

What could you do? You could stop flamming meat to pour out cheap prices, you could stop meat to subsidizingEren and you could raise the multi-benefit tax. You could create positive incentives for a meatless diet and you could improve the range of vegetarian and vegan food. And you might be something for a better image. So away from the "missionary veggie" and the whole to help something more normal.

Roosevelt

That it tastes reason enough.

And why always do without? Let's just do without school buses. We can also start running our children to go to school. This protects the environment. My grandmother has already laid back as a child for a few kilometers of school and what worked at that time, thanks to modern footwear, today is right.

Ellen

The discussion is relatively old.

Under current conditions, vegetarian and vegan is difficult for many financially.

What is absurd, because the cost is higher for the production of meat than vegetables, but the meat industry is subsidized and the farmer gets hardly enough money to live without the subsidies, the subsidies are only from a certain stable size What makes sure that the farmer has to have sound so many animals and we have overproduction. In other words, you could not get any sausage for NEN Euro. (Not to mention how the people have to work in the Schlachter etc)

It is absurd why an oatmilk is so much more expensive than cow's milk, sausages of the oats cost significantly less than milk production. (Who is not white Plant's milk is always only waterAnd the plant hunted through the mixer and the solids filtered out. For NEN liters, it needs about 100g oats and 1 l of water and 5 minutes work)

But woe a one speaks in politics that meat is not a product of daily life.

Such as good Every German is too much meat (and animal products). Recommended are 300-600g meat and sausage a week. So much less than what you eat, if you only get meat once a day.

300-600G are 2-3 schnitzel, steaks or roast per person per week! (Recommended as a calculation 150-200g each as a portion)

If you read back to it, you have done a lot for the environment and the animals without doing completely. But many do not want to see that.

YesNobody gets, except the big corporations, enough money for his work in the meat industry.

Animals suffer because we keep them together, do not let them out and of course the battles and the trips to the Schlachter is only stress for them.

We waste resources, as many animals like we hold

and through the tons of manure, we damage the floors and groundwater. In small quantities, manure is a good fertilizer, currently too much is brought to the field.

A vegetarian diet stands in a mixed in nothing. Except "enjoyment" (where vegetarian is damn delicious and I dear for a hundred times what delicious vegetarian eating, as a bad piece of meat)

the argument dying out the livestock, is incidentallyAGT nonsense. Because currently the farm animals are already dying, as many many old fruits and vegetables. Because only a handful of races and varieties are grown, because they grow the fastest, the fastest meat, give the most milk or are most growing.

Each hundreds of apple varieties, pigsies, chickeners. In the supermarket, there may be 5 different varieties from the apple (just pink Lady, Granny Smith, Braeburn and Gala, as apples you will always find, too few still nen boss-Kopp) and a fattening pig or maschn race.

The few, the old animal breeds still breed, make little profit. These are largely only lover farms.

What speaks for the meat food?

Top