This is Fine Rule : 196

[–] [email protected] 65 points 2 months ago (10 children)

Sorry ya'll, but if you are still shoveling these idiots money for most of your meals, then you personally are the problem. You should feel guilty every time you do it. You are hurting yourself. You are hurting your children. Tou are hurting your granchildren and future generations. You are hurting strangers. You are hurting everyone you care about. You are doing this all out of addiction and laziness. Not to mention the extreme torture that you are inflicting on the animals. It is time to grow up and take responsibility. You are not innocent because "other people do it too." You are guilty. Please admit this very clear fact to yourself and do better.

[+] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 months ago (5 children)

and a well rounded vegan diet is not cheap.

Not the person you are replying to, but want to counter that part specifically. The cost is actually usually the other way around. It's much more of a privilege to consume large amounts of meat and dairy

From a modeling study looking at healthy plant-based diets:

It found that in high-income countries:

• Vegan diets were the most affordable and reduced food costs by up to one third.

• Vegetarian diets were a close second.

• Flexitarian diets with low amounts of meat and dairy reduced costs by 14%.

• By contrast, pescatarian diets increased costs by up to 2%.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study

From some real world spending data

Based on primary data (n = 1040) collected through an online survey, representative of the Portuguese population, through logistic regressions, it was possible to conclude that plant-based consumers, particularly vegan, are associated with lower food expenditures compared to omnivorous consumers. In fact, plant-based consumers are shown to spend less than all other consumers assessed

https://agrifoodecon.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40100-022-00224-9

Compared to meat eaters, results show that “true” vegetarians do indeed report lower food expenditures

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800915301488?via%3Dihub ---(looking at the US)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And yet rice, beans/lentils, pasta, vegetables, and spices are all vegan, and are all the staples for low-cost meals in grocery stores the world over. Where do you live where that isn't the case?

[+] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

Fruits are also available but usually tend to be more expensive and are usually considered a treat for people on limited budgets. Me not listing them was part of keeping to the usual budget shopping lists recommend for people with limited income. Unless you are further being a pedant and insisting that tomatoes are fruits and not vegetables.

And while I am fortunate enough to live in the continental US, I mostly buy what is in season and local and therefore on sale for relatively cheap. And anywhere where that isn't available, frozen veggies are available, often for even cheaper and with no difference in nutritional value or content. If you don't have a fridge/freezer, dried veggies are also available in most markets (dried peppers especially) and canned goods are far better for you now than they ever have been, with only marginal decreases in nutritional value.

Where do you live that absolutely no vegetables are available in any form for a dollar a can or five dollars for a family pack that would make a couple dozen meals for a family of four?

(Edit: Or, if not in the US, where you can't even buy local produce, unless you are in an area where there is famine. In which case you may object to the fact that almost half our farmable land is used to grow crops to feed to animals instead of being used to grow more food for humans.)

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I totally get you, but if you want really convince other people of doing the right thing you need to change your tone. This kind of approach is terrible, no one wants to be called evil or dumb for something they never had the time to think about it. You have to do better than that otherwise you are just preaching to people who agree with you.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

Yeah, absolutely, you're totally right. That's definitely the most common way to go about it, and maybe the most effective, I really don't know. There is a bunch of gentle nudging going on, though, and everyone responds to different things. For some people, no amount of loving hints will get them to do anything. Some people just need the genuine blunt truth to get them to actually think about something. Honestly, it's like any other addiction, the desire needs to come from within, nobody can force them to get better.

I dont buy that many people are unaware or never thought about it before. It's brought up all the time. The issue isn't a lack of information, it is that most people just have almost no personal moral compass, they just rely on the behavior of the masses to dictate to them what is right/wrong. The more people remind them that what they are doing is disgusting, the more likely they will be to eventually change. I figure just machine gun 'em with all various forms of reminders, and we'll get through to some. Eventually, we will hit a critical mass, and the sheep will follow. The most pathetic will cling to their cruelty addiction until they are dead, but that's the same as what happened to the racists, rapists, child abusers or anything else that used to be more accepted.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Oh yeah! Love my burgers from the Stockyard restaurant in Brighton. Occasionally, I'll get the filet. Oh my!!

It is NOT my fault the Earth is fucked.

Corporate and politicians can eat the shit out of the ass of every meat eater.

GFY for trying to blame the "little guy". You're a prick stain.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You can try to pass the blame onto them all you want, but the obvious reality is that the billionaires can't sell disgusting over-drugged factory farm meat to billions of people if billions of people don't buy it. They only have power if you willingly give it to them.

The game is over, YOU are the problem, and only YOU can stop your own disgusting habits. No more blaming everyone else for your own complete and utter lack of self-control. Live in your guilt. You are screwing us all over because you are unable to admit responsibility. You are an abusive husband who beats his wife and then blames her for it. Nobody with any amout of common sense is still believing your tired old excuses.

Future generations will know what you did, and you will disgust them. They won't even be able to comprehend how you could be so vile and uncaring. Get used to it, Grandpa. That's your future.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You militant vegans are hilarious, meat eating is not going away, get over it. You know how people don't like when religious people try and cram their shit down your throat? Yea... you're doing the same thing and it's really fucking annoying.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago

You are right. Meat-eating won't go away. Meat-eating is not the issue. Factory farming is. Pumping animals full of drugs in tiny cages and forcing them to live unnatural for your own selfish pleasure. That is what is going away. The fact that you'd defend it so viciously is what makes you so disgusting and pathetic. That is what will make future generations of school children laugh at their unevolved, brutal, self-centered ancestors. They will all deny that it was their bloodline that had people like you in them, those despicable people who knew what they were doing, saw the effect on the world, had the power to resist it, but were too weak and selfish to care and would rather make future generations deal with your mess. All so you can get a cheaper hotdog.

You want to talk about who is "religious" in this equation? It is undeniably YOU. Instead of grappling with moral issues with your own, you defer to the group. Your only excuse for your objectively disgusting behavior is the fact that "other people do it too." You inflict harm on the less fortunate for your own selfish reasons and when challenged you don't even attempt to use logic or reason to defend yourself, you simply go and run behind unrelated insults and a defense of group mentality. You are the virus that decent people people are inflicted with because you are too afraid of what you might realise if you were to try to think for yourself. You are the worst aspects of religion with any ounce of love or kindness surgically removed. If you ever have the guys to think clearly, you will be repulsed by who you once were.

You are still alive, you can change. It's just a question of whether or not you have the strength to do so.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's why I avoid eating meat and only stick to eating vegans.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

Honestly most meat tastes like shit anyways. And vegan alternatives taste amazing, are often prepared and ready to go into a meal and you don't have to worry about it being undercooked.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

not really? farming meat doesn't necessarily have to involve so much antibiotics

sure you can reduce the amount of antibiotics used by reducing the throughput of meat but you can also just put in tighter regulations

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I bet you're the life of the party.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 months ago

"Does it make us money right now? Then it's fine."

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nothing good comes from the meat industry. Nothing at all.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Except for delicious meat, of course /s

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Where does that figure come from? That's wild, if true

[–] [email protected] 45 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

For global estimates (~73%)

Previous studies have estimated that 73% of all antimicrobials sold globally are used in animals raised for food

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7766021/pdf/antibiotics-09-00918.pdf

For US in particular (~80%)

Of all antibiotics sold in the United States, approximately 80% are sold for use in animal agriculture; about 70% of these are “medically important” (i.e., from classes important to human medicine).2 Antibiotics are administered to animals in feed to marginally improve growth rates and to prevent infections, a practice projected to increase dramatically worldwide over the next 15 years.3 There is growing evidence that antibiotic resistance in humans is promoted by the widespread use of nontherapeutic antibiotics in animals. Resistant bacteria are transmitted to humans through direct contact with animals, by exposure to animal manure, through consumption of undercooked meat, and through contact with uncooked meat or surfaces meat has touched.4

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638249/

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Jesus... But thanks for having your sources ready!

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago

Added the source to the post text now. Probably should have done that to begin with

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

In Germany 2015 1700 tons of antibiotics were used, thereof only 300 t for human use.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).

^https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf^

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

what does this have to do with anything

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

what

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Big Meat uses a lot of antibiotics, which causes bacteria populations to evolve and no longer be affected by antibiotics. When this happens, the now-used antibiotics become less effective, causing unnecessary deaths.

Tl;dr: go vegan

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago

Also, a cause of 14.5% of human caused greenhouse gas emissions

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Can someone explain why antibiotics are used in the meat industry? Are lots of animals dying to bacterial infections so they need antibiotics to aid the yield, or are antibiotics incidentally also growth hormones, or something else? Always been curious

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Both of the two. The two main reasons are that it incidentally boost growth and there are lots of circulating diseases due to heavy overcrowding conditions. Note that the use is not on those who are sick, but to everyone even if they show no symptoms

Antibiotics are administered to animals in feed to marginally improve growth rates and to prevent infections, a practice projected to increase dramatically worldwide over the next 15 years.There is growing evidence that antibiotic resistance in humans is promoted by the widespread use of nontherapeutic antibiotics in animals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638249/

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[+] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (16 children)

Land use, even cropland use, is actually far lower on a plant-based diet

The research suggests that it’s possible to feed everyone in the world a nutritious diet on existing croplands, but only if we saw a widespread shift towards plant-based diets.

[...]

If everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

we show that plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1713820115

Also wanted to point vast majority of people consuming animal products contain a number of deficiencies in vitamins and minerals that only or mostly occur in plants. For instance, only 5% of the US population gets enough fiber

It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that the public should consume adequate amounts of dietary fiber from a variety of plant foods. Dietary fiber is defined by the Institute of Medicine Food Nutrition Board as “nondigestible carbohydrates and lignin that are intrinsic and intact in plants.” Populations that consume more dietary fiber have less chronic disease. Higher intakes of dietary fiber reduce the risk of developing several chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers, and have been associated with lower body weights. The Adequate Intake for fiber is 14 g total fiber per 1,000 kcal, or 25 g for adult women and 38 g for adult men, based on research demonstrating protection against coronary heart disease. Properties of dietary fiber, such as fermentability and viscosity, are thought to be important parameters influencing the risk of disease. Plant components associated with dietary fiber may also contribute to reduced disease risk. The mean intake of dietary fiber in the United States is 17 g/day with only 5% of the population meeting the Adequate Intake. Healthy adults and children can achieve adequate dietary fiber intakes by increasing their intake of plant foods while concurrently decreasing energy from foods high in added sugar and fat, and low in fiber. Dietary messages to increase consumption of whole grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, and nuts should be broadly supported by food and nutrition practitioners.

https://www.jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(15)01386-6/fulltext

load more comments (16 replies)