Indian UN expert recommends us to eat less meat

[cubsfan6506]

Our family didn't make much money on the farm either. Our 80 acre farm is in Oregon up in the forested foothills of a huge mountain range. I don't live there anymore, I had to get to a city before I got bored out of my mind and it is run by two of my more patient brothers now.

We sold some timber and crops and a head or two every year but mainly it just kept us all fed for close to free. We would trade beef with our neighbors for things like chicken and fresh milk. As a kid I remember petting the cow our milk came from. Older and wiser, but I didn't know then just how healthy growing up in that environment must have been for us. I can only shudder at how many chemicals my kids must be consuming now by comparison.

I laugh about it now, but as a kid I used to complain on the nights we had to eat steak. Not agaaaain I would whine. I wanted macaroni and cheese.

Eating healthy isn't easy. And it is only harder when adding in the global cost of your diet as from this thread and still trying to have it be good tasting and not just clog your arteries and kill you dead with a heart attack. Not easy indeed.

Living in the country as you do your diet is one area where you count yourself fortunate.

WHat about your grand chidren you do realize your helping make their life hell

 

[Sahkuhnder]

But your personal philosophy of life places great value on consumption of meat!

Meat is only a small part of my effort to maximize my happiness.

Do you see any analogies we could make?

No, because they are not the same thing. Eating meat and cocaine use are very different. Meat consumption is not inherently destructive like cocaine use is, but is simply a production issue. The problem with meat is not the meat itself, but the production costs and their effect on the environment. Abaddon has a full understanding of this.

If you disagree then you haven't done much coke.

WHat about your grand chidren you do realize your helping make their life hell

You have a right to your opinion but I disagree. If I really believed my grandchildren would live in hell because I eat meat then I would stop. The sky is not falling.

 

[LucyDuke]

Meat is only a small part of my effort to maximize my happiness.

Yet you refuse to give up even a very small part of it, no matter what kind of good your sacrifice could bring.

No, because they are not the same thing. Eating meat and cocaine use are very different.

Well duh. That's what analogies are for. Comparing things that aren't the same things.

Meat consumption is not inherently destructive like cocaine use is, but is simply a production issue. The problem with meat is not the meat itself, but the production costs and their effect on the environment. Abbadon has a full understanding of this.

The problem is that you cannot separate consumption from production. If there's none produced, there's none to consume. Meat's production costs and their effect on the environment are unavoidable consequences of eating meat.

The goal is to maximize pleasure, not just in the short term, but overall, right?

The net pleasure gain provided by eating some meat is outweighed by the net pleasure loss of the combined effects on your later environment, your childrens' planet, ecosystems' health, etc.

Unless it doesn't bother you that the daily steak you treasure is contributing to the ruin of the planet, in which case, I suppose there's no pleasure lost on you. Personally, I think other people (and things) matter too. But hey, to each his own.

 

[Mercenary82]

I really hate when people try to tell me to eat less or not to eat meat, especially comming from someone whose own country is a major source of the worlds pollution and is fast on track to become the leader. He needs to worry about his own countries pollution before critizing ours. I think this is all bs though, and the real reason he is complaining is not because of pollution, but because world grain prices are so high and he thinks America's high meat consumption is a large part of it.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Yet you refuse to give up even a very small part of it, no matter what kind of good your sacrifice could bring.

Yes. In this case the good my sacrifice could bring is not worth it to me against the loss to my quality of life.

Here is the important point:
We all make this same selfish decision every day so please don't get all self righteous or holier than thou. We both have a thousand things in our lives that we could give up that would make the world a better place, but we choose not to.

As I have made clear what I eat is an important part of my happiness and I am not willing to trade that away for the extremely minor ecological effect that my personal dietary change would bring. I won't fault others if they choose to do so, but at this time I see such a sacrifice as excessive and unwarranted.

Well duh. That's what analogies are for. Comparing things that aren't the same things.

Analogies are only useful when there is a relevant relationship. If this thread was titled "Indian UN expert recommends us to do less cocaine" then I would agree with the OP. Eating meat does not do the harm that coke does so I don't see a very useful analogy there.

The problem is that you cannot separate consumption from production. If there's none produced, there's none to consume. Meat's production costs and their effect on the environment are unavoidable consequences of eating meat.

Agreed. Do you advocate outlawing meat? Even if you could wouldn't that be pretty much unenforceable? How many illegal things do you know of that are still in abundant supply, including cocaine?

The goal is to maximize pleasure, not just in the short term, but overall, right?

Yes, but not at excessive cost to do so. For me a life without meat would be a net pleasure loss compared to pleasure gain I would get from not doing the minor ecological damage that my personal meat consumption creates.

The net pleasure gain provided by eating some meat is outweighed by the net pleasure loss of the combined effects on your later environment, your childrens' planet, ecosystems' health, etc.

Unless it doesn't bother you that the daily steak you treasure is contributing to the ruin of the planet, in which case, I suppose there's no pleasure lost on you. Personally, I think other people (and things) matter too. But hey, to each his own.

I understand your logic but I disagree with your conclusion. This entire issue as blown way out of proportion. Ruining the planet? Sorry, but I just can't see this as that big of a deal. Like you said "to each his own".

 

[Mise]

For me a life without meat

Again, no-one's asking you to give up meat forever. I wish people would stop presenting this ridiculous strawman every time we talk about the environment. Simply eating less will help. Like eating it 4 times a week instead of 5 (or 6 instead of 7 or w/e).

I mean, you keep banging on about production, by saying that the problem is not production but consumption. But consumption CAUSES production. So if you eat less meat, less meat will be produced, and the ecological harm is reduced. Are you denying this?

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Again, no-one's asking you to give up meat forever.

Really? Not yet at least. From the OP article:

The group has called for governments to lead campaigns to reduce meat consumption by 60 per cent by 2020.

How are governments supposed to do this? Nobody is asking (or telling) us to give up meat at this point, but having the government tell me what I can eat is a dangerous trend. I prefer living in the land of the free to the land of governmental attempts at social engineering.

...Simply eating less will help. Like eating it 4 times a week instead of 5 (or 6 instead of 7 or w/e).

No. I am not going to reduce my quality of life for an issue that I don't believe the expense of the sacrifice is worth the supposed reward, not even a little bit. I could take fewer showers, but won't. I could use my computer less, but won't. I could mow my lawn more infrequently, but won't. I could eat less meat, but won't. I enjoy being clean, using my computer, having a well tended lawn and eating hearty meals. Sorry if that offends you but I am not lowering my standard of living any for this issue.

I mean, you keep banging on about production, by saying that the problem is not production but consumption. But consumption CAUSES production. So if you eat less meat, less meat will be produced, and the ecological harm is reduced. Are you denying this?

My point about the fair consideration of production (and including consumption) is simple:

Absolutely - for all types of food, not just meat. Do it on a case by case basis based on the specific food, how it was grown or the efficiency at which it was raised, and how far it had to travel to get to you. Be sure not to just say "meat" is bad and assume all other kinds of food are less ecologically damaging and/or required less resources to produce and ship.

For any given food, meat or otherwise, the ecological cost and resources used to produce and ship it will vary based on the consumers location and how it was raised or produced.

 

[El_Machinae]

The problem is that you cannot separate consumption from production. If there's none produced, there's none to consume. Meat's production costs and their effect on the environment are unavoidable consequences of eating meat.

At the extreme levels of detection, meat production will always harm the planet. But so does everything else. More realistically, I really do think it's possible to support a viable meat industry, one that's environmentally sustainable. It's just not the system we have now.

Do you advocate outlawing meat? Even if you could wouldn't that be pretty much unenforceable? How many illegal things do you know of that are still in abundant supply, including cocaine?

'Outlaw' might be the wrong word for what I'd prefer. I'm tending more to 'end subsidies for meat production' and then 'include externalities in the cost'. I have no problem with people paying a fair price for sustainable meat. I do have issue with people paying a subsidised price for unsustainable meat.

I recognise that you're not willing to reduce your meat consumption. I can certainly understand why. That's why I take pains to purchase meat from suppliers who produce sustainable and green meat. Heck, if one's going to buy organic meat anyway, then the boost to grass-fed sustainable meat isn't much. Of course, I pay a premium, but I'm purchasing the product that I want. I think people should pay a fair price for things.

 

[Mise]

Really? Not yet at least. From the OP article:



How are governments supposed to do this? Nobody is asking (or telling) us to give up meat at this point, but having the government tell me what I can eat is a dangerous trend. I prefer living in the land of the free to the land of governmental attempts at social engineering.

This is great. Not only do you present an obvious and ridiculous strawman as some unassailable fact, but apparently, now, eating meat is some righteous fight against government oppression! Oh, how noble your cause!

No. I am not going to reduce my quality of life for an issue that I don't believe the expense of the sacrifice is worth the supposed reward, not even a little bit. I could take fewer showers, but won't. I could use my computer less, but won't. I could mow my lawn more infrequently, but won't. I could eat less meat, but won't. I enjoy being clean, using my computer, having a well tended lawn and eating hearty meals. Sorry if that offends you but I am not lowering my standard of living any for this issue.

So you agree that all of your arguments are simply excuses?

My point about the fair consideration of production (and including consumption) is simple:

So you agree that eating meat is ecologically detrimental?

It's a well known fact -- and one that you have continued to ignore -- that meat eating is more ecologically damaging than eating vegetables. Scientists already have fairly considered production and consumption, and the conclusion is that eating meat is more ecologically damaging than eating vegetables. Do you deny the vast body of scientific evidence? Do you presume to know more about this issue than the thousands of scientists that have spent many years of their lives studying this?

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I have no problem with people paying a fair price for sustainable meat. I do have issue with people paying a subsidised price for unsustainable meat...I pay a premium, but I'm purchasing the product that I want. I think people should pay a fair price for things.

I also have no problem paying fair price for my consumptions. I tend to be against most subsidized prices in general and usually prefer the government to stay out of the free market except to regulate to promote a level playing field.

If the increased price for "sustainable" meat was reasonable I would even consider voluntarily paying more to purchase it. But my consumption would remain constant - no 60% decrease by 2020 for me thank you.

This is great. Not only do you present an obvious and ridiculous strawman as some unassailable fact, but apparently, now, eating meat is some righteous fight against government oppression! Oh, how noble your cause!

Please read what I said: "Not yet at least". I didn't present it as an "unassailable fact". I would appreciate if you refrained from attributing statements to me that I did not make.

Eating meat is the topic of discussion right? So when discussing eating meat if I make a comment expressing my dislike of governmental social engineering then yes, this could someday theoretically become a "righteous fight against government oppression". At this point I find your jump to conclusion a bit dramatic, but in theory if the government tells me I must eat 60% less meat as the OP author recommends, then that is exactly what it would become. And it will be a "noble cause" as the government has no right to dictate my diet to me.

So you agree that all of your arguments are simply excuses?

Nothing I said was any form of an excuse. Saying I refuse to do something because I don't find the action justifiable is a statement, not an excuse. I thought I already made this point clear:

I make no excuses. I consider this a quality of life issue. I use electricity and drive around town too. Do you or Rhymes consider the electricity you are using right now something you need to make an excuse for? I consume many resources in order to try to provide a happy life for myself and my family. I enjoy meat. A delicious meal is a wonderful thing. I don't eat meat to cause harm, I eat it because it tastes good. When the day comes they can make it in a chemical vat or use plants to produce the same taste then I will gladly switch. Until then it's my hard-earned money and a steak to me is money well spent.

So you agree that eating meat is ecologically detrimental?

I consider every single piece of food we eat to be some amount of ecologically detrimental. The question is if it is ecologically detrimental enough to pay the price of no longer eating and enjoying it. In rare cases the answer would be yes. I would never eat bald eagle meat, or any endangered species for example. But ordinary beef, chicken or fish? Not enough of a detriment to justify the loss of pleasure that eating such food brings. Again, not an excuse, only a position statement.

It's a well known fact -- and one that you have continued to ignore -- that meat eating is more ecologically damaging than eating vegetables...

No, and it's not a fact. It's a generalization.

I have repeatedly addressed this already. It depends on the situation. I could go a mile from my house into the desert and shoot a rabbit for dinner and it would be far less ecologically costly than eating strawberries flown in from Australia. "Meat" is not inherently bad, almost any specific food can be good or bad depending on the exact situation.

 

[Mise]

Please read what I said: "Not yet at least". I didn't present it as an "unassailable fact". I would appreciate if you refrained from attributing statements to me that I did not make.

No-one said that meat should be banned. No-one said that you should give up meat forever. No-one made any such statement. Yet you insist on attributing them to the government, or to the guy in the OP, or w/e. I would kindly ask you to refrain from doing that in the future, and discuss what was actually said.

but in theory if the government tells me I must eat 60% less meat as the OP author recommends. [...] And it will be a "noble cause" as the government has no right to dictate my diet to me.

No-one is recommending that you will be forced to eat 60% less meat. Stop being dramatic.

(then there's the small matter of deliberately doing something environmentally harmful, purely because the government tells you not to. How noble of you.)

Saying I refuse to do something because I don't find the action justifiable is a statement, not an excuse.

Oh well if you say so...

No, and it's not a fact. It's a generalization.

Yes, it's a generalisation. A factual generalisation. In general, meat consumption is more damaging than vegetable consumption.

I have repeatedly addressed this already. It depends on the situation. I could go a mile from my house into the desert and shoot a rabbit for dinner and it would be far less ecologically costly than eating strawberries flown in from Australia. "Meat" is not inherently bad, almost any specific food can be good or bad depending on the exact situation.

No-one is saying that ALL meat production and consumption is more damaging than ANY vegetable production and consumption. Obviously, the best meat production is better than the worst vegetable production.

But I would have thought that you, the last bastion of fair comparisons, wouldn't compare the best of meat production with the worst of vegetable production. I would have thought you would want to compare average meat production with average vegetable production. I would have thought that you would want to compare what we actually eat.

And the meat that we, as a nation, as a society, actually eat is worse that the vegetables that we actually eat. And this is causing great environmental problems.

One way of solving the problem is to eat meat that's produced in a less damaging way. Another way is to eat less meat. The guy in the OP is saying that one way of solving the problem is to eat less meat. Do you deny that he is correct?

 

[Sahkuhnder]

No-one said that meat should be banned. No-one said that you should give up meat forever.

And I never said that either. If you claim otherwise please link to my quote.

No-one is recommending that you will be forced to eat 60% less meat. Stop being dramatic.

Have you followed the OP posting to the article?

A direct quote from the article:

called for governments to lead campaigns to reduce meat consumption by 60 per cent by 2020.

IMHO the only possible way governments could reduce meat consumption by 60% by 2020 is to require it. That's not being dramatic, that's being realistic.

Oh well if you say so...

Yes, I say so and so does the dictionary.

Do you understand the difference between a statement and an excuse? By your logic I could say you are making excuses to not eat meat, which is not what you are doing either.

Yes, it's a generalisation. A factual generalisation. In general, meat consumption is more damaging than vegetable consumption.

Don't confuse a fact, with a fact-based generalization. Your exact words were "It's a well known fact -- and one that you have continued to ignore -- that meat eating is more ecologically damaging than eating vegetables.", so I gave you an example where your supposed fact wasn't the case.

No-one is saying that ALL meat production and consumption is more damaging than ANY vegetable production and consumption. Obviously, the best meat production is better than the worst vegetable production.

Agreed. Which is why a case-by-case analysis is the best and fairest way to judge.

But I would have thought that you, the last bastion of fair comparisons, wouldn't compare the best of meat production with the worst of vegetable production. I would have thought that you would want to compare what we actually eat.

That was an example for illustrative purposes. I'm only pointing out that comparisons should be done without bias if a food item is "meat" or not. Here is my statement again:

...If we should base our food choices on their ecological cost that is worth considering, but it should be done fairly. To single out "meat" as always bad is unfair...If this is the criteria then don't consider the food type but only consider the amount of energy and resources that food cost to produce and deliver to you for your consumption.

And the meat that we, as a nation, as a society, actually eat is worse that the vegetables that we actually eat.

As a generalization I agree. But we can do better than generalizations. If we look as I suggested at specific food items without a meat/vegetable bias we can be far more accurate in determining the amount of environmental damage each item required, and can thus better adjust our diets if desired to minimize said damage. Why generalize when you can be specific?

And this is causing great environmental problems.

I don't agree with the "great" part. I see this as vastly overblown.

One way of solving the problem is to eat meat that's produced in a less damaging way. Another way is to eat less meat. The guy in the OP is saying that one way of solving the problem is to eat less meat. Do you deny that he is correct?

His generalization is correct, but as I said there is a better way:

Instead of the OP "eat less meat"[a generalization] how about "eat less food that is ecologically damaging to produce and was shipped long distances to get to you personally"[specific].

I also object to his "governments to lead campaigns" concept and I disagree as stated that for me at least this problem is not great enough to warrant the corresponding loss of pleasure and happiness that would result from restricting in any way my current meat consumption.

 

[El_Machinae]

IMHO the only possible way governments could reduce meat consumption by 60% by 2020 is to require it. That's not being dramatic, that's being realistic.

Naw, the gov'ts could stop subsidizing and that would take a huge chunk out of consumption (since people wouldn't want to pay the actual price for meat when grains/beans would be so much cheaper). As well, health campaigns to reduce unhealthy meat could be used as well.

 

[Mise]

And I never said that either. If you claim otherwise please link to my quote.

Then stop saying things like this:

For me a life without meat

Your opinions on a life without meat are entirely irrelevant. Please refrain from making such off-topic strawmen.

Have you followed the OP posting to the article?

A direct quote from the article:

called for governments to lead campaigns to reduce meat consumption by 60 per cent by 2020.

IMHO the only possible way governments could reduce meat consumption by 60% by 2020 is to require it. That's not being dramatic, that's being realistic.

Since when has "government led campaign" meant "legal requirement"? The government campaigns for many, many things, from AIDS awareness to contraceptive use to the dangers of second hand smoke to the benefits of higher education. The government doesn't require you to use contraception to prevent the spread of STDs, nor take night classes to boost your employability. But it still encourages both.

Perhaps your next righteous crusade should focus on how the evil government tries to educate us against the dangers of driving without a seatbelt? Those damn authoritarian bastards.

Don't confuse a fact, with a fact-based generalization. Your exact words were "It's a well known fact -- and one that you have continued to ignore -- that meat eating is more ecologically damaging than eating vegetables.", so I gave you an example where your supposed fact wasn't the case.

I feel rather at ease in claiming that birds can fly, despite the unfair and utterly misleading generalisation. Perhaps in my current state of whimsy I tragically neglected the various birds that remain confined to this altitude, but I don't feel an overwhelming compulsion to point out the various exceptions to an otherwise reasonable and uncontroversial statement. The generalisation is a fact. I could add "on average", if you like. If you are unsure about how to interpret complex statistics such as percentages and averages, then perhaps there is a dictionary.com entry you could refer to.

Anyway, the point of the statement -- and what the guy in the OP was driving at -- was to let people know that there was an easy way of reducing your carbon footprint. Reducing your carbon footprint is a good thing, and I for one am glad that I was made aware of such a simple way of reducing my impact on the environment. This knowledge will help me make more informed decisions about what I choose to eat. Do you think that making informed decisions is a bad thing? Do you think that the guy in the OP shouldn't have made that statement?

You may have realised by now that I'm not responding to your personal reasons for continuing to eat meat. However, you seem intent on demonising the message of not eating meat, in order to justify your decision. The statement made by the guy in the OP was factually correct. It was important that he made that statement, because it enables people to make more informed choices about their diets.

If you want to criticise people for imparting knowledge, then I'm not sure I have anything left to say to you.

 

[LucyDuke]

Yes. In this case the good my sacrifice could bring is not worth it to me against the loss to my quality of life.

Here is the important point:
We all make this same selfish decision every day so please don't get all self righteous or holier than thou. We both have a thousand things in our lives that we could give up that would make the world a better place, but we choose not to.

As I have made clear what I eat is an important part of my happiness and I am not willing to trade that away for the extremely minor ecological effect that my personal dietary change would bring. I won't fault others if they choose to do so, but at this time I see such a sacrifice as excessive and unwarranted.

I make a lot of selfish decisions. I'm not going to get self-righteous.

I just find it absurd that you think that not having steak on Thursday is an "excessive" sacrifice. That sounds pretty self-righteous to me.

But I'm glad you won't "fault others if they choose to" do their small part.

Analogies are only useful when there is a relevant relationship. If this thread was titled "Indian UN expert recommends us to do less cocaine" then I would agree with the OP. Eating meat does not do the harm that coke does so I don't see a very useful analogy there.

There is a relevant relationship. They both do harm, so let's do a bit less of each.

Eating meat does more harm to others than using cocaine.

Agreed. Do you advocate outlawing meat? Even if you could wouldn't that be pretty much unenforceable? How many illegal things do you know of that are still in abundant supply, including cocaine?

Don't try to put "outlaw it" in my mouth. I don't advocate outlawing meat-eating, that's silly. I'm definitely in favor of ending the subsidies that artifically decrease the dollar-price you pay for meat.

You seem to be upset at the notion that the government could campaign to decrease meat consumption. If I'm not mistaken, the US goverment did campaign to increase meat consumption... does that upset you?

Yes, but not at excessive cost to do so. For me a life without meat would be a net pleasure loss compared to pleasure gain I would get from not doing the minor ecological damage that my personal meat consumption creates.

So you're selfish, and the only pleasure that counts is your own. That's fine, I'm selfish too. But let's acknowledge it rather than trying to cloak it in "oh it's not much".

I understand your logic but I disagree with your conclusion. This entire issue as blown way out of proportion. Ruining the planet? Sorry, but I just can't see this as that big of a deal. Like you said "to each his own".

Well, if you don't see ruining the planet as that big of a deal, I guess you shouldn't change your behavior.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Naw, the gov'ts could stop subsidizing and that would take a huge chunk out of consumption (since people wouldn't want to pay the actual price for meat when grains/beans would be so much cheaper). As well, health campaigns to reduce unhealthy meat could be used as well.

A 60% reduction is huge amount. IMHO even with a price raise and a government PSA campaign that's totally unrealistic for a voluntary reduction by 2020.

No-one said that meat should be banned. No-one said that you should give up meat forever.

Again, and I never said that either. If you claim otherwise please link to my quote.

Then stop saying things like this:

For me a life without meat

My exact words were:

For me a life without meat would be a net pleasure loss compared to pleasure gain I would get from not...

Quoting me as I speculated how "For me a life without meat" would personally affect me is not the same as me saying meat should be banned or saying anyone else said meat should be banned. The word "banned" or anything like it is nowhere in the sentence. Please stop putting words in my mouth or link to the quote where I said what you claimed.

Since when has "government led campaign" meant "legal requirement"?...

There are many examples. First they try to reduce consumption with restrictions and when that fails they make a "legal requirement" and outlaw it. Alcohol during prohibition comes to mind as does weed, coke, gambling, prostitution, etc. today.

Perhaps your next righteous crusade should focus on how the evil government tries to educate us against the dangers of driving without a seatbelt? Those damn authoritarian bastards.

Now who's being a strawman? The topic of discussion is meat consumption and its effect on the global ecosystem. Please try stay on topic.

I feel rather at ease in claiming that birds can fly, despite the unfair and utterly misleading generalisation. Perhaps in my current state of whimsy I tragically neglected the various birds that remain confined to this altitude, but I don't feel an overwhelming compulsion to point out the various exceptions to an otherwise reasonable and uncontroversial statement. The generalisation is a fact. I could add "on average", if you like...

Point taken, but as I said we can do better than generalizations can't we? "Birds can fly" is fine for children, but to a bird expert having an adult conversation about birds he would be quick to point out the shortcomings in your broad generalization and add the more meaningful "most birds, but not all birds, can fly".

To carry that further let's say animals that fly are bad. Birds can fly, thus birds are bad, but that wouldn't be the whole story now would it? Why not just say animals that fly are bad and leave it at that? Birds that don't fly would be rightfully excluded and other animals that can fly would be rightfully included. Cutting "birds" from the above generalization is like cutting "meat" from the OP generalization.

Anyway, the point of the statement -- and what the guy in the OP was driving at -- was to let people know that there was an easy way of reducing your carbon footprint. Reducing your carbon footprint is a good thing, and I for one am glad that I was made aware of such a simple way of reducing my impact on the environment. This knowledge will help me make more informed decisions about what I choose to eat.

I don't see the OP article as only trying to be somehow helpful by only wanting to inform us of how to reduce our footprint. I personally don't find his suggestion "easy" and when he mentions government programs to cause a population a 60% reduction in the next 12 years he has past the informational stage and moved to a potential threat in having the government dictate to me how I must to live my life.

Do you think that making informed decisions is a bad thing? Do you think that the guy in the OP shouldn't have made that statement?

Informed decisions are indeed good. Informed decisions that don't include generalizations are even better still.

You may have realised by now that I'm not responding to your personal reasons for continuing to eat meat. However, you seem intent on demonising the message of not eating meat, in order to justify your decision.

Another false accusation, I never said that either. Please link to where you claim I was "demonizing the message of not eating meat". Really, stop putting words in my mouth would you please?

The statement made by the guy in the OP was factually correct. It was important that he made that statement, because it enables people to make more informed choices about their diets.

If you want to criticise people for imparting knowledge, then I'm not sure I have anything left to say to you.

Are you just making up my comments to suit yourself? Please link to where I ever, ever criticized anyone for imparting knowledge. My criticism of the OP article was that it didn't impart enough knowledge because it uses generalizations and broad, thus not in all cases factual, statements like "meat is worst that other forms of food".

If your position is correct as you claim the how about a rebuttal of what I actually did say, instead of your current habit of claiming I said things I didn't and then attacking the statements I never made?

 

[El_Machinae]

A 60% reduction is huge amount. IMHO even with a price raise and a government PSA campaign that's totally unrealistic for a voluntary reduction by 2020.

I don't know. It's awfully fricken subsidised.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I make a lot of selfish decisions. I'm not going to get self-righteous.

That wasn't meant to claim you were. I have just seen many other such discussions deteriorate in that manner and hoped to preemptively avoid such an occurrence this time.

I just find it absurd that you think that not having steak on Thursday is an "excessive" sacrifice.

Your priorities and mine are different then. If you told me about your life I am sure I could find something that you enjoy but that I find as absurd. To each his own. I see no justification for any such sacrifice on this issue at all, "excessive" or minor.

That sounds pretty self-righteous to me.

Self-righteous? How? I stated my opinion as it applies to me only. I am not intolerant of your position to have your diet as you see fit:

You have a right to your opinion but I disagree.

But I'm glad you won't "fault others if they choose to" do their small part.

So can I expect the same in return from you? On this issue I choose not to participate in the crusade. So will you respect my opinions, extend me the same courtesy, and not fault me? Or will you be judgmental and prefer to tell others how they should live their lives? Not saying you did, just asking.

There is a relevant relationship. They both do harm, so let's do a bit less of each.

Apples and oranges. Recreational cocaine is always bad. Meat is not inherantly bad and can be a less ecologically damaging food choice than vegetables in specific cases.

Eating meat does more harm to others than using cocaine.

Agreed. But that is not cause alone to reduce meat consumption. Meat also does "good" from the pleasure it gives the consumer. If people didn't enjoy it then we wouldn't have the levels of consumption that we do. Meat can be an expensive food choice, especially compared to many fruits and vegetables, yet people spend their money on it anyway. Why? Because they enjoy the pleasure, i.e. the "good", than comes from a tasty diet.

As stated, to me the "good" outweighs the "bad" in this instance.

Don't try to put "outlaw it" in my mouth.

I didn't quote you or put anything in your mouth. The only time I used the word outlaw was to ask you a simple question:

Do you advocate outlawing meat?

I don't advocate outlawing meat-eating, that's silly. I'm definitely in favor of ending the subsidies that artifically decrease the dollar-price you pay for meat.

You seem to be upset at the notion that the government could campaign to decrease meat consumption. If I'm not mistaken, the US goverment did campaign to increase meat consumption... does that upset you?

Yes, that "upsets" me too. IMHO the government has far more important uses for my tax dollars the spending my money to try to social engineer me or anyone else.

So you're selfish, and the only pleasure that counts is your own.

Now who's putting words in whose mouth? Please link to where I said the only pleasure that counts is my own. My pleasure does count, but not any more than anyone else's pleasure counts to them.

That's fine, I'm selfish too. But let's acknowledge it rather than trying to cloak it in "oh it's not much".

Selfishness is agreed. I'm not cloaking my position in anything, I came right out and said it and detailed exactly how and why. "Oh it's not much" is not the reason. "Oh it's not enough" to outweigh the benefits is the reason.

Well, if you don't see ruining the planet as that big of a deal, I guess you shouldn't change your behavior.

Ruining the planet is a big deal. Our meat consumption is not the death of the planet. And considering the "good" it does from the pleasure it provides (as reflected in meat sales figures) IMHO the "good" is more than the "bad", so I will continue to enjoy my dinner without change.

I don't know. It's awfully fricken subsidised.

The question is how much a price raise would reduce consumption. I would cut many other parts of my spending in order to continue to be able to afford the meals that I enjoy.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh yeah, the wealthy wouldn't have to reduce consumption. Wealthy people don't really have to worry about the lower-level luxury goods anyway. I'm easily rich enough to drink all the beer I want, despite all the taxes.

A fair price for meat is higher than it is now. I think that alternates would become more appealing once their fair value was unlocked.

Would you agree that it would be honest to try to end subsidisation if one's intent was to eat a great deal more meat than most people 'need'? Overconsuming a subsidised (luxury) good just seems a bit dishonest to me, which is why I try to get fairly priced meat.

 

[LucyDuke]

That wasn't meant to claim you were. I have just seen many other such discussions deteriorate in that manner and hoped to preemptively avoid such an occurrence this time.

...

Ruining the planet is a big deal. Our meat consumption is not the death of the planet. And considering the "good" it does from the pleasure it provides (as reflected in meat sales figures) IMHO the "good" is more than the "bad", so I will continue to enjoy my dinner without change.

I don't want to keep bickering.

A steak-a-week sacrifice wouldn't be worth it to you. Fine. I think that you underestimate the damage that sacrifice would prevent, and you overvalue meat's role in your pleasures.

We disagree. I'm not going to convince you that it would be worth it, and you're not going to convince me that it's an unreasonable request.

Oh, and I disagree that recreational cocaine use is always bad.

But hey, whatever, man. I can't take responsibility for everyone, and I'm not going to try to.

Maybe some day you'll change your mind on your own.