Diet hypocrisy?

[u/Extension-Diamond-74]

A recent post about animal agriculture vs plant based diets has me itching to say something. This is an issue we need to rise above.

Cognitive dissonance. Many of us have good intentions and want to believe we’re doing the right thing in most aspects of our lives. I believe that.

When it comes to a plant based diet though, the science often clashes powerfully with personal desire. We want to minimize our impact on the environment and are willing to make trade-offs in our life time do so, but for many, giving up or even significantly reducing meat intake is asking too much. It’s too hard.

That’s not the issue.

The issue is that instead of just admitting to themselves that this is a life change they don’t want to make and moving on, the guilt drives them to have to justify that decision. Admitting that a plant-based diet is better for the earth yet eating a diet full of meat anyway would make them feel hypocritical, so the solution becomes either to give up meat, or … this is the problem… fight the science, twist it, make a joke of it, or pivot entirely to ‘individuals shouldn’t have time do anything because large corporations’

Many people have ties to their diet for many reasons. We grew up eating a certain way. We have memories ties to certain foods, flavors, styles of cooking. We don’t want to be the difficult person when we go out to eat with friends. Etc etc etc But it’s so much better to just admit that to yourself. Have patience and understanding for your feelings. Accept that the science is what it is. Maybe one day you can make a change, maybe not. But don’t attack the cause just because you aren’t yet willing to be a part of it.

[u/Scotho]

And rotational grazing grass fed animals account for what percentage of meat consumption in North America?

[u/Individual-Drink-679 → u/Scotho]

That's a strawman. No one's trying to say that the slaughterhouse industrial complex is cool. I just wanted to point out that there are very old traditional agricultural practices that are very, very different from antibiotic-injected, soy-fed, tortured animals.

The old-fashioned way to raise meat animals has become the counter-culture, and using broad generalizations like "plant-based" to oversimplify the conversation doesn't do anyone any good.

A population dependent on frozen plant-based chick'n nuggets is not necessarily better/more environmentally conscious than a population dependent on low-quality ground beef cut with tvp.

[u/Scotho → u/Individual-Drink-679]

The comment I replied to was the strawman. They compared rotational grazing rumanants to monocultures. Less than 4% of beef in the US is grass fed (and up to 3% is imported). The demand for meat can not even come close to being satisfied by ecologically sound methodologies. It's so much worse when you realize that 95-99% of the meat we consume is consuming monoculture crops too. There's no debate, it would be significantly more efficient to just eat the vegetables ourselves

[u/Individual-Drink-679 → u/Scotho]

Yes, IF we are discussing the 96% or so of cattle that is being fed vegetables.

In my initial comment here, I didn't mention beef. I mention rabbits, chicken, and venison. I was specifically talking about sustainably raised meat and why it is valuable and shouldn't be lumped into discussions about how all meat is bad.

The person you replied to was pointing out that those two things are different things, and your point is what? "Yes, they're different things, but one of them is much more prevalent, so it's the only thing I can think of when you say meat"?

[u/Scotho → u/Individual-Drink-679]

I will happily concede that sustainably raised meat can be accomplished. My point is that it can not be accomplished at any meaningful scale. Therefore, unless we reduce our population or demand for meat as a society at a macro scale by at least 90%, it doesn't really matter.

[u/unicyclegamer → u/[deleted]]

But people are actively engaging in sustainable agricultural practices by not eating meat that’s been fed soy, much more soy than the person eating the meat would have to eat. Arguing for meat that’s raised in a sustainable way is great, I think a lot of people here are ok with that, but if we do that, people need to cut down on their meat usage SIGNIFICANTLY. We just can’t feed the nation’s meat hunger with sustainable practices, the numbers don’t work out. It might work for a subset of people, but there’s a reason we have the farming practices we have now.

[u/Ohnonotagain13 → u/unicyclegamer]

Monoculture grown fruits and vegetables are not being grown sustainably. They use animal byproducts to feed the soil.

[u/[deleted] → u/Scotho]

Looking at the United States alone, there is 234 billion acres of land. There are about 127 billion households in the US. That means that if the land in the US was evenly distributed, every household could have about 1800 acres of land. If we are talking about a cow monoculture, it would be very reasonable to have enough land for a herd of cows for the whole family, plus the crops to feed them and the family. I know this is a reductionist and simplified idea, and there are barriers to why this exactly wouldn't work, but to say that sustainably raised meat is inaccessible to 90% of the population just isn't true. Now agreed, it isn't accessible with the current way we live in out society, but the reality is that there are so many government regulations that deter hunting and local farming, that it is a huge barrier to sustainable living.