Quote (AEtheric @ May 20 2010 01:08am)
With all of the land and resources we use for animals we could use on ourselves. It takes 16 pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1. [3] The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits for direct human consumption. [3] People are cutting down whole forests just for pasture for cattle when it could be used on farmland or even not cut down. Animals fed on grain need more water than grain crops. "According to a 2006 report by the Livestock, Environment And Development Initiative, the livestock industry is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practices of raising animals for food contributes on a "massive scale" to air and water pollution, land degradation, climate change, and loss of biodiversity. " In other words the whole livestock industry is a waste.
@ the bolded: There are many other sources of protein that don't have to do with meat. You just want to believe that meat is necessary when it's not. THe quality of your life will be just fine if you take the right supplements and get the right nutrition as anyone should do, eating meat or not.
You can do as you damn well please, but realize that you're unnecessarily taking lives of sentient beings, who are sentient just like you. You ever heard of the golden rule? I'm sure you wouldn't feel so great if I decided I could eat you if I damn well please.
No, there actually aren't many other sources of protein I can use, I need quick, available food with high protein / calorie ratios. Without milk products / meat, I'm boned. This is ignoring that the natural human diet has no need of supplements, and that in most cases natural diets are objectively preferable to supplement based ones.
No, your "in other words" is wrong.
1. Animal husbandry is often practiced on land unsuitable for farming.
2. Actual weight or caloric intake is irrelevant, the question is which diet is optimal for human survival and health.
3. You are attacking a way of life (eating meat) because of certain adverse effects a subgroup has on the planet. Expensive, healthily raised meat is no more damaging to the planet than you or I.
4. Even were the entire practice to be damaging to the planet, your argument disregards that eating meat is still healthier for the individual. I've had this argument with you before, humans are biologically predisposed to be omnivores, and yeh, that includes meat.
Golden Rule - I don't expect other species to accept or accommodate themselves to my presence, they eat and survive without regard to human life, all I ask is that I be left alone to do the same.
Animal rights activists discriminate against humans, they expect humanity to be held accountable to laws that animals (by their biology) cannot also be held to.
That's well and good for them, but I'll kill every last one of the bastards before they ever stop me from eating meat.