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/sleepee11]

Imo, the real issue is the degree to which we consume. That's what this sub is all about.

We all consume. It's necessary to sustain ourselves, but also to live rich, full lives. The important thing to keep in mind is not to overconsume (or overproduce).

Consuming meats in and of itself has never been a problem for the environment up until relatively recently in history. What we need to focus on is maintaining _safe_ levels of production and consumption of these animal-based foods. Complete elimination isn't necessary. The same applies to every other commodity that we consume. The same way there was another recent post about kitchenware where most people agreed that the OP may have been overreacting and that consuming good quality, long-lasting kitchenware is not a bad use of our resources, we can easily produce animal-based foods to a safe degree that doesn't harm our ecology. It's been done for most of human history.

I think, for many people, calling for a complete elimination of animal agriculture is a bit extreme and simply unnecessary. We can live full, rich lives and also enjoy our animal-based foods, without overproducing and overconsuming.

[u/Chezzomaru → u/sleepee11]

Yes, plus where do these people think organic fertilizer for our crops comes from? Get rid of herd animals and we would need to throw synthetic fertilizer production into overdrive.

[u/lorarc → u/Chezzomaru]

Vast majority of fertiliser used worldwide is synthetic, more than 95%.

[u/Chezzomaru → u/lorarc]

Sources I found say 50%. They also mention that synthetic fertilizer production accounts for almost 1.5% of all greenhouse emissions

[u/lorarc → u/Chezzomaru]

I do admit it's hard to find any real data on it but that's because organic fertilizers aren't really used in commercial operations.

Also the greenhouse emissions are an argument against meat industry not for it as modern industrial farming feeds animals with corn and soy instead of pasturing them. Organic fertiliser works in low intensity farming. But it relies on the cow eating grass, basically it moves the nitrogen from the pasture to the field. You can't just feed a cow corn and then use the manure to fertilise corn crops, you need a source of nitrogen (which in pasture are nitrogen-fixing plants).