Meat, Famine and starvation

[Formless]

Strawman. Where did I claim that people find meat tasty "because meat is high in energy"? Too rebut the claim that "meat is an essential foodstuff, especially if you live a very active lifestlye because it is very difficult to make up the energy with plants" is not the same thing as claiming that people find meat tasty purely because it's energy dense.

Once we went agrarian humans for millennia subsisted largely off plants bred to be much richer energy sources than hunter gathers had access to. Only the nobles could afford substantial quantities of meat whilst the peasants who worked the land (and life doesn't get any more gruellingly "active" than that) were forced to subsist largely off plants with meat as a much sort after luxury.

Your entire argument against meat being an essential foodstuff rests on the assumption that its only valuable for its energy content; hence why here you assert that the abundance of high energy plant foods made meat a mere luxury. Not only are those plants too rich in energy in the wrong forms (glucose), but they lack an essential nutrient that meat has. Glutamic acid is used in multiple bodily functions, and while the body makes it naturally, it does not make enough of it. Most vegetarians don't realize this because its frequently used as a flavor additive to food here in the west and because its found in cheese.

I'm well aware that meat is high in protein, unlike you I'm also aware that people can easily meat their protein needs through non animal flesh sources.

Wrong again. This specific protein that is not found in any plant. Plants don't need it for their metabolism, and they certainly don't have a nervous system to take care of. Again, you don't realize this because your food often contains it anyway as a flavor additive.

Really so in your world if a foodstuff causes tooth decay that means we can't digest it

Go back to grade-school. The teeth are where digestion begins, fool. Also, you glossed over the part where I said that wheat contains shittons of glucose; the thing that makes a cheeseburger so fatty isn't just the cheese or the meat, its the white bread its served on. So much for this notion that plant foods are inherently better than meat!

[Formless]

Ghetto edit: okay, so upon further review, it turns out that glutamic acid is found in seaweed and yeast (and therefor fermented food), but unless you really like east asian cooking you are not going to find a lot of it naturally without eating meat.

[Plekhanov]

Strawman. Where did I claim that people find meat tasty "because meat is high in energy"? Too rebut the claim that "meat is an essential foodstuff, especially if you live a very active lifestlye because it is very difficult to make up the energy with plants" is not the same thing as claiming that people find meat tasty purely because it's energy dense.

Once we went agrarian humans for millennia subsisted largely off plants bred to be much richer energy sources than hunter gathers had access to. Only the nobles could afford substantial quantities of meat whilst the peasants who worked the land (and life doesn't get any more gruellingly "active" than that) were forced to subsist largely off plants with meat as a much sort after luxury.

Your entire argument against meat being an essential foodstuff rests on the assumption that its only valuable for its energy content; hence why here you assert that the abundance of high energy plant foods made meat a mere luxury.

Strawman. I rebutted Zixinus's specific claim:

"Because meat is an essential foodstuff, especially if you live a very active lifestlye because it is very difficult to make up the energy with plants. I recall a Ray Mears show with Siberian natives, where he showed that you need to eat several bagfulls of (to be fair, local) plants to get the same energy you can get from a big-sized stake they got from their herd.

That is why people are hard-wired to enjoy meat: energy-dense food. Humans evolved to store food and last for several days just on it. Plants were more plentiful as well as grub-food (small stuff) but meat supplied much more raw energy."

At no point did I claim or imply that energy density alone is the only thing of value in meat.

Not only are those plants too rich in energy in the wrong forms (glucose), but they lack an essential nutrient that meat has. Glutamic acid is used in multiple bodily functions, and while the body makes it naturally, it does not make enough of it. Most vegetarians don't realize this because its frequently used as a "flavour additive" to food here in the west and because its found in cheese.

So if glutamic acid is found in both flavoured food and cheese how exactly do you figure that meat is "essential"?

I'm well aware that meat is high in protein, unlike you I'm also aware that people can easily meat their protein needs through non animal flesh sources.

Wrong again. This specific protein that is not found in any plant. Plants don't need it for their metabolism, and they certainly don't have a nervous system to take care of. Again, you don't realize this because your food often contains it anyway as a flavor additive.

And still the strawmen keep on coming. Since when does "non animal flesh" = plants alone? In the very post I'm responding to you concede that the protein you're getting all worked up about is available to vegetarians through cheese & "flavour additives" so what exactly is your point against vegetarianism in general or anything I've posted supposed to be?

Really so in your world if a foodstuff causes tooth decay that means we can't digest it

Go back to grade-school. The teeth are where digestion begins, fool. Also, you glossed over the part where I said that wheat contains shittons of glucose; the thing that makes a cheeseburger so fatty isn't just the cheese or the meat, its the white bread its served on. So much for this notion that plant foods are inherently better than meat!

You post nonsense like this and then dare suggest other people go back to grade school The carbohydrate content of white bread doesn't make it "fatty" it makes it calorific which is not the same thing at all.

Aside from your scientific cluelessness yet again you are blatantly straw-manning me, I have never claimed that "plant foods are inherently better than meat" what I have done is rebut a few utterly retarded arguments morons such as you have put forward against vegetarianism.

[Formless]

At no point did I claim or imply that energy density alone is the only thing of value in meat.

Translation: "I'm an illiterate idiot who doesn't know what the word 'luxury' means or implies, especially in the context of the vegetarianism debate."

So if glutamic acid is found in both flavoured food and cheese how exactly do you figure that meat is "essential"?

I don't know specifically what it the economics are of producing it artificially, but I wouldn't be too generous in my estimates knowing what I do about cell biology. I'm rather skeptical of nutrition supplements in general, actually, which is what this boils down to once taken apart from its source. As for cheese, now you're back to exploiting animals again. And for about the same economic/environmental impact.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing meat intake. I do it. Most societies around the world do. However, I seriously doubt mass vegetarianism is feasible given what it takes to run a human body. Especially when not all societies are as tolerant to the foods we eat routinely. For example native americans suffer from a diabetes epidemic because they aren't as tolerant of agricultural food. They may represent an extreme end of the human spectrum, but are a good example of why one diet cannot work for everyone.

You post nonsense like this and then dare suggest other people go back to grade school The carbohydrate content of white bread doesn't make it "fatty" it makes it calorific which is not the same thing at all.

Goddamn you are an ignorant twat. Glucose is considered fatty because of the way it is metabolized. Eat it and it almost immediately gets turned into energy for the body to burn... but instead the body stores it as fat. This isn't some esoteric knowledge we're talking about here. There is a reason you are supposed to limit your caloric intake, and obesity is exactly it.

P.S. the fact that the teeth and mouth are considered part of the digestive system was literally something I learned before I hit highschool. That's such low level knowledge you have no excuse for not knowing it.

Aside from your scientific cluelessness yet again you are blatantly straw-manning me, I have never claimed that "plant foods are inherently better than meat" what I have done is rebut a few utterly retarded arguments morons such as you have put forward against vegetarianism.

And your arguments are full of ignorant shit. Granted, so were Zixinus', but that hardly exonerates your own idiocy.

And by the way, what do you think I'm supposed to conclude about your position when you've stated that you are a vegetarian?

[Plekhanov]

At no point did I claim or imply that energy density alone is the only thing of value in meat.

Translation: "I'm an illiterate idiot who doesn't know what the word 'luxury' means or implies, especially in the context of the vegetarianism debate."

Please do explain how I used the term "luxury" incorrectly.

So if glutamic acid is found in both flavoured food and cheese how exactly do you figure that meat is "essential"?

I don't know specifically what it the economics are of producing it artificially, but I wouldn't be too generous in my estimates knowing what I do about cell biology. I'm rather skeptical of nutrition supplements in general, actually, which is what this boils down to once taken apart from its source. As for cheese, now you're back to exploiting animals again. And for about the same economic/environmental impact.

Not content with repeated straw-manning now you're moving the goalposts. This thread is about vegetarianism not veganism. You might pretend to know something about cell biology but you obviously know jack shit about the basic english.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing meat intake. I do it. Most societies around the world do. However, I seriously doubt mass vegetarianism is feasible given what it takes to run a human body. Especially when not all societies are as tolerant to the foods we eat routinely. For example native americans suffer from a diabetes epidemic because they aren't as tolerant of agricultural food. They may represent an extreme end of the human spectrum, but are a good example of why one diet cannot work for everyone.

And still the strawmen keep on coming, it's almost as if you're intollerant to honesty. Who exactly was proposing "one diet for everyone"?

You post nonsense like this and then dare suggest other people go back to grade school The carbohydrate content of white bread doesn't make it "fatty" it makes it calorific which is not the same thing at all.

Goddamn you are an ignorant twat. Glucose is considered fatty because of the way it is metabolized. Eat it and it almost immediately gets turned into energy fro the body to burn... but instead the body stores it as fat. This isn't some esoteric knowledge we're talking about here. There is a reason you are supposed to limit your caloric intake, and obesity is exactly it.

So in a post in which you ineptly attempt to wield terms such as "glucose", "glutamic acid", "protein", "high energy"... in anger I'm magically expected to know that when you used the term "fatty" you didn't actually mean a foodstuff but with a high fat content but one with a calorific value how exactly?

Aside from your scientific cluelessness yet again you are blatantly straw-manning me, I have never claimed that "plant foods are inherently better than meat" what I have done is rebut a few utterly retarded arguments morons such as you have put forward against vegetarianism.

And your arguments are full of ignorant shit. Granted, so were Zixinus', but that hardly exonerates your own idiocy.

And by the way, what do you think I'm supposed to conclude about your position when you've stated that you are a vegetarian?

Your moronic assumptions about what vegetarians must think are not my problem

[Formless]

At no point did I claim or imply that energy density alone is the only thing of value in meat.

Translation: "I'm an illiterate idiot who doesn't know what the word 'luxury' means or implies, especially in the context of the vegetarianism debate."

Please do explain how I used the term "luxury" incorrectly.

Missing the point. Do you really not realize how loaded that word is when used in the context of vegetarianism? Especially when coming from someone who has stated that they are a vegetarian?

So if glutamic acid is found in both flavoured food and cheese how exactly do you figure that meat is "essential"?

I don't know specifically what it the economics are of producing it artificially, but I wouldn't be too generous in my estimates knowing what I do about cell biology. I'm rather skeptical of nutrition supplements in general, actually, which is what this boils down to once taken apart from its source. As for cheese, now you're back to exploiting animals again. And for about the same economic/environmental impact.

Not content with repeated straw-manning now you're moving the goalposts. This thread is about vegetarianism not veganism. You might pretend to know something about cell biology but you obviously know jack shit about the basic english.

Oh, goodness me, it couldn't possibly be that one of the most common arguments against eating meat is its environmental and economic impact! It couldn't possibly be that this thread went down that allyway already!

Where are the goalposts, Plekhanov? I don't know why you are a vegetarian, or even where you draw the line. You ask me why I consider meat essential: I respond that its more feasible than the alternative of going meatless, and that the ethical issues of animal husbandry are still there if you accept that eating cheese is okay. What sacred goal post was shifted here?

And by the way, simply repeating that my position is a strawman doesn't make it so. Your argument rested on an assumption that was false, albeit implied. Rather than admit to this fact, you simply repeated yourself.

And still the strawmen keep on coming, it's almost as if you're intollerant to honesty. Who exactly was proposing "one diet for everyone"?

Good god, man. Not everything I say in a post is necessarily directed at you. As for the "one diet for everyone" thing, this whole fucking thread was about two things: vegetarianism, and feeding the world. I'll quote you something: "idea 1: Meat is now not required for a healthy diet, therefore meat is a luxury item consumed for it's taste (like wine)." How is that not an assertion that everyone's dietary needs are the same?

So in a post in which you ineptly attempt to wield terms such as "glucose", "glutamic acid", "protein", "high energy"... in anger I'm magically expected to know that when you used the term "fatty" you didn't actually mean a foodstuff but with a high fat content but one with a calorific value how exactly?

The standard metric pretty much everyone uses for how "fatty" a food is is its caloric content. That's not just me. You might as well have attacked the fact that I used the word "fuckton" in the same sentence as the word "glucose" a page ago for how relevant this is to the argument at hand, or to the accuracy of the science you are so ignorant of.

Your moronic assumptions about what vegetarians must think are not my problem

Assumptions? How many vegetarianism threads have you read recently? And again, tell me what you do believe, rather than this weaseling bullshit. No argument I put up will satisfy you, because you can just deny that that's your position. So tell me now, before I lose my patience. I'm waiting.

[Broomstick]

You could hardly be more wrong if you tried.
Wheat which western society was largely built upon is a grass & we digest it very well.

Bzzzt, wrong. In fact, wheat is horrible on your teeth. Just ask all those guys archeologists keep finding in early agrarian societies that died of dental problems. You know why? Its filled with fucktons of glucose. You know, that stuff that makes you fat in a hurry?

Have you done any research on this subject at all? Or are you just another morally righteous prick who thinks meat is murder?

Early forms of flour production also resulted in a lot of stone grit in the flour, which wears down your tooth enamel in a hurry and also contributes to dental problems. Not such a problem in industrialized countries these days, thank goodness, but that's technology advancing, not the inherent superiority of grain as food.

Also, humans digest grass SEED, not the grass itself, and said seeds require processing (cooking, grinding, etc.) in order to really utilize it. This is in contrast to a cow which happily eats uncooked greenery and not just the seeds. How a cow digests grass/plants and how a human does is not comparable.

[Surlethe]

Mighty Mod Powers applied as requested.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Vegetarian/meateater dichotomy is especially false because some land is better for growing one than for growing the other. If we were to, say, ban meat, then Wyoming would be a useless desert. As it is now, it has a large amount of cattle grazing. If cattle is raised traditionally (by eating grass), and the kind of animal is optimized to the climate and terrain (buffalo in some areas, cattle in others, sheep in others, goats in a few more, etc), then we get to a really good and optimal land utilization where land which can't sustain farming is instead used for grazing. Landing which is only sustainable for grazing should NEVER be used for farming--look at Khrushchev's disaster in the Soviet Union in the 60's with expanding agricultural land into Central Asia for an example of what happens. We have put a lot of land which should only be used for grazing into use for farming, and likewise, we use a lot of our farming capacity to produce corn feed for cattle.

My proposal would be to ban the production of corn-fed cattle/chickens/etc and instead require that cattle be raised only to the limit of our grazing land, chickens to the limb of available non-human-edible wastes from regular farm production, etc. Meat will then increase in price commissurate with its actual sustainable value. The excess land can then be allowed to heal from many generations of farming by alternatively laying fallow and using nitrogen fixing crops where appropriate, and we can rotate through our agricultural land to help reduce the threat of aquifer exhaustion and "peak topsoil", which is a slightly absurd gimmick in name but overlays actual concerns. Excess food production can be tapped whenver we have a reliable method of delivering it to nations which are starving, and put back into the cycle of healing/recovery of land and topsoil and intensive agriculture as appropriate. This would also allow us to accept reduced yield per acre by eliminating petroleum based pesticides, another major gain for the environment, and simply relying on genetic modification of the crops to protect them from various pests.

This would result in much more sustainable and healthier long-term farming, a major reduction in the amount of oil used in the United States, a potential increase in available land for biofuels which, without the use of petroleum based pesticides would be more of an energy gain than they currently are, and an available surplus of land which could be put to use whenever we have the ability to effectively deliver crops to the starving people that need them, which due to a variety of delivery and logistics reasons is unfortunately rather rarely. The only price the average consumer would see is a noticeable increase in the cost of meat, which would tend to lead to reduced consumption but only through market factors, and possibly a small increase in the price of food in general from less efficient but also less wasteful farming methods being used. Both could be compensated for with reduced meat and reduced overall caloric intake, which would lead to healthier physical outcomes for the obese United States.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I know someone will come up with the objection "but that will hurt poor Americans!" but, seriously, just increase EBT alotments monthly per person and increase the maximum income. It's not hard to think about, and any government rational enough to implement such a proposal would also implement that fix to the social problems increased food prices would genuinely cause.

[Bottlestein]

My proposal would be to ban the production of corn-fed cattle/chickens/etc and instead require that cattle be raised only to the limit of our grazing land, chickens to the limb of available non-human-edible wastes from regular farm production, etc. Meat will then increase in price commissurate with its actual sustainable value. The excess land can then be allowed to heal from many generations of farming by alternatively laying fallow and using nitrogen fixing crops where appropriate, and we can rotate through our agricultural land to help reduce the threat of aquifer exhaustion and "peak topsoil", which is a slightly absurd gimmick in name but overlays actual concerns. Excess food production can be tapped whenver we have a reliable method of delivering it to nations which are starving, and put back into the cycle of healing/recovery of land and topsoil and intensive agriculture as appropriate. This would also allow us to accept reduced yield per acre by eliminating petroleum based pesticides, another major gain for the environment, and simply relying on genetic modification of the crops to protect them from various pests.

This would result in much more sustainable and healthier long-term farming, a major reduction in the amount of oil used in the United States, a potential increase in available land for biofuels which, without the use of petroleum based pesticides would be more of an energy gain than they currently are, and an available surplus of land which could be put to use whenever we have the ability to effectively deliver crops to the starving people that need them, which due to a variety of delivery and logistics reasons is unfortunately rather rarely. The only price the average consumer would see is a noticeable increase in the cost of meat, which would tend to lead to reduced consumption but only through market factors, and possibly a small increase in the price of food in general from less efficient but also less wasteful farming methods being used. Both could be compensated for with reduced meat and reduced overall caloric intake, which would lead to healthier physical outcomes for the obese United States.

Is the suggestion that we assign a minimum of land to farming? You only specified that we limit cattle growing to "grazing land". Is there actually this corn/grass feed dichotomy, or can cattle (or what passes for beef to the average consumer), be raised on a variety of plants? If the price of beef becomes expensive, and say cattle can eat "bluegrass", but our consumers don't have the palate for bluegrass, what is there to stop farmers from simply planting "bluegrass" and raising cattle? After all, the payoff will be greater - due to the captive demand for beef, even if the farmer can undercut the market price by a little bit, he will be able to sell all of his beef. Right now the breeds of cattle over here may eat a certain type of grass, but there's many different breed of cattle and many different types of "grassy" plants, both of which can adapt quickly. This is not to say that I disagree with the idea that we should not reform our farming practices to better match health requirements, as well as sustainability, but I'm not sure if this approach works given our increased abilities to introduce species, as well as the fact that the animals we have captive demands for, cattle and pigs, are quick to adapt in our climate.

[Broomstick]

Is the suggestion that we assign a minimum of land to farming? You only specified that we limit cattle growing to "grazing land". Is there actually this corn/grass feed dichotomy, or can cattle (or what passes for beef to the average consumer), be raised on a variety of plants?

Yes, most definitely cattle - and other animals such as sheep, goats, etc - can be raised on a variety of plants. I think the point here is that we shouldn't be feeding plants that humans can eat as food to animals we raise for meat, we should feed those animals plants humans can't eat but cattle can. In other instances, humans might eat the fruit of a plant, and cattle can eat the rest of it, in which case a crop can serve a dual use.

[HMS Conqueror]

This is quite silly. Starvation is not a result of food shortages, but institutional problems within the countries concerned. Increasing developed world (US and EU) food production even more than it is already artificially increased will not make the slightest difference. Except to the residents of US and EU, of course, most of whose standard of living will sharply decline.

[Zixinus]

Only the nobles could afford substantial quantities of meat whilst the peasants who worked the land (and life doesn't get any more gruellingly "active" than that) were forced to subsist largely off plants with meat as a much sort after luxury.

And which society was that? Or do you think that people herded large amounts of cattle and other herdable beasts, bred farmstock, not to mention go out to the nearest sea, river or lake fishing with large nets and boats just for the sake of a few nobles? Both requiring industries that made their own guilds? Why did then, with every account and even today in some more traditional rural areas, does every farmer try to get his own pigs and poultry and whatnot, if plants satisfied most food needs?

That being forced to only eat grain (or rice, whichever was the most common crop) was actually a form of malnourished is another matter (and "malnourishment" means "eating too much the same thing" as well as "not eating enough").

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This is quite silly. Starvation is not a result of food shortages, but institutional problems within the countries concerned. Increasing developed world (US and EU) food production even more than it is already artificially increased will not make the slightest difference. Except to the residents of US and EU, of course, most of whose standard of living will sharply decline.

Explain how an increase in the cost of food will reduce standard of living "sharply" when that increase is end-loaded to a certain subset of food products, and over-availability of food has already caused a mass obesity epidemic in the western world? Standard of living by any reasonable metric includes physical health and not just economic prosperity, and the abundance of cheap, extremely high calorie foods in the western world is not a positive thing in that regard.

[Broomstick]

But do remember, Duchess, that one purpose of cheap, extremely high calorie food is to keep the poor from feeling hunger. Sure, they may be malnourished and fat, but they're not feeling hungry, which is what prompts people to man the barricades and protest. Actually, it's hard to hold a riot when you're fat enough to waddle.

Mind you, I'm not a conspiracy theorist of the sort who thinks there are old men in secret rooms cackling and plotting, but keeping hunger pangs away really does help maintain social stability and let's face it, governments will use cheap foods when they can get away with doing so.

[Edi]

Part of the starvation problem in poor countries is simply that there are too many people. It doesn't matter at all how much food production or other similar things are increased or the focus shifted unless population growth in starvation countries stops or preferably reverses.

You can't increase the output of agriculture indefinitely, because things like soil erosion, soil depletion and other such phenomena, which lead to decreasing agricultural output yields and massive environmental damage as the people will do whatever it takes to survive on the short term and not care a bit about future consequences.

This is going to eventually lead to war with neighbors over resources and wars tend to cause even more damage due to disruption of agriculture and other production.

The only long term corrective shift for the whole situation is a mass death of a large number of people, especially in the most badly afflicted areas, but in the meanwhile all we can do is try to mitigate the impact as best we can.

However, that is a pretty hopeless task:

Link

For population, I live in Burundi where demographic growth is 3% a year.
Following a 15-years war, rampant corruption and inefficiency in a country where 90% of the 9 M population on a poor 25.000 sq. km. live in rural areas, we end up losing soil fertility at such a rate that the inputs we (FAO) give cannot compensate. The average household's agricultural production has decreased by 30% over fifteen years, while the population has increased by 60%.
Correlated environmental damage is enormous. More than 50% of the population is malnourished, although few die of it.

[HMS Conqueror]

This is quite silly. Starvation is not a result of food shortages, but institutional problems within the countries concerned. Increasing developed world (US and EU) food production even more than it is already artificially increased will not make the slightest difference. Except to the residents of US and EU, of course, most of whose standard of living will sharply decline.

Explain how an increase in the cost of food will reduce standard of living "sharply"

I would consider being unable to eat meat to sharply reduce my standard of living, far more so than even a very large cut in salary.

when that increase is end-loaded to a certain subset of food products, and over-availability of food has already caused a mass obesity epidemic in the western world?

I am not obese (or even overweight) despite eating meat. On the contrary, I imagine I would become malnourished if I were forced onto a vegetarian diet.

Standard of living by any reasonable metric includes physical health and not just economic prosperity, and the abundance of cheap, extremely high calorie foods in the western world is not a positive thing in that regard.

btw, it doesn't actually make sense that cheap food causes obesity. Since obesity is harmful, imaginary perfectly rational economic actors should try to avoid it even if it were free, or if you were paid to eat food. It's a necessary, but not sufficient criteria.

[madd0ct0r]

The only long term corrective shift for the whole situation is a mass death of a large number of people, especially in the most badly afflicted areas, but in the meanwhile all we can do is try to mitigate the impact as best we can.

this hoary old chestnut again. Almost as original as "But we're meant to eat meat, it's natural" and "why should I care about some stoopid Africans?"

Admittedly, you weren't as offensive as that, but the FAO is pretty adamant there is enough food to go around.

Our planet produces enough food to feed its entire population. Yet, tonight, 854 million women, men and children will be going to sleep on an empty stomach.

available here: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/common/ecg/ ... speech.pdf


Food production is artificially high in the EU and America due to farm subsidies. This has also been described as having a 'land surplus'. AT THE SAME TIME, the EU and America are importing animal fodder from poor countries. We're not talking grass from marginal land here, we're talking soya, grain, rye, barley ect

What do you think caused the 'tortilla' riots in Mexico a few years back?


This is food that either could go straight to people, or is monopolising land that could be used to feed people.
Institutional reform is crucially important, but that's a little beyond the reach of an individual.

Reducing, (not necessarily eliminating) the meat in your diet is one way of addressing this inequality. Think of it as a way of giving to charity that leaves you with more cash.

[madd0ct0r]

I would consider being unable to eat meat to sharply reduce my standard of living, far more so than even a very large cut in salary.

Interesting. would you care to quantify that for us? How much of your salary? Is it the taste, the texture? Would psuedo-meat be acceptable? Is it the thrill of the chase, the satisfaction of rearing a calf from milk? Is it the smell of the grease and stale beer that evokes a friendly pub for you?


I am not obese (or even overweight) despite eating meat. On the contrary, I imagine I would become malnourished if I were forced onto a vegetarian diet.

You're right. you are imagining it.

Standard of living by any reasonable metric includes physical health and not just economic prosperity, and the abundance of cheap, extremely high calorie foods in the western world is not a positive thing in that regard.

btw, it doesn't actually make sense that cheap food causes obesity.

Really. Would expensive food do it then? You actually wrote that with a straight face?

Since obesity is harmful, imaginary perfectly rational economic actors should try to avoid it even if it were free, or if you were paid to eat food. It's a necessary, but not sufficient criteria.

Homo Economus =/= Homo Sapiens. Saying imaginary actors would not become obese is wilfully ignoring the real world. If your model doesn't work, it suggests the fault is with your model.

Why do people keep rehashing the same arguments again and again? Stuff that's been answered multiple times in this thread alone. Even if general ignorance and 'common sense' provide the answers, are people not even reading the measely two and half pages so far?

[HMS Conqueror]

I hope you don't mind I deleted all the colors, because the tags were broken and I find them annoying anyway.

I would consider being unable to eat meat to sharply reduce my standard of living, far more so than even a very large cut in salary.

Intresting. would you care to quantify that for us? Is it the taste, the texture? Would psuedo-meat be acceptable? Is it the thrill of the chase, the satisfaction of rearing a calf from milk? Is it the smell of the grease and stale beer that evokes a friendly pub for you?

I can't "quantify" how much I like meat, other than to say that I would continue to pay for it even if the price rose considerably. I can qualify, of course: the taste, primarily. Also, I do love pubs, but I do not eat most of my meals in them.

I am not obese (or even overweight) despite eating meat. On the contrary, I imagine I would become malnourished if I were forced onto a vegetarian diet.

You're right. you are imagining it.

You know more about me than I do? Notice that I didn't say it was impossible to be well nourished on a purely vegetarian diet, just that I didn't think that I would be.

Standard of living by any reasonable metric includes physical health and not just economic prosperity, and the abundance of cheap, extremely high calorie foods in the western world is not a positive thing in that regard.

btw, it doesn't actually make sense that cheap food causes obesity.

Really. Would expensive food do it then?

Since obesity is harmful, imaginary perfectly rational economic actors should try to avoid it even if it were free, or if you were paid to eat food. It's a necessary, but not sufficient criteria.

Homo Economus =/= Homo Sapiens. Saying imaginary actors would not become obese is wilfully ignoring the real world. If your model doesn't work, it suggests the fault is with your model.

Yes, I called it imaginary precisely because Homo Economicus is not to be taken too seriously. But the chap I was replying to proposed an economic deterministic theory, so he was applying the economic assumptions. I was showing that if we took that view seriously, the prediction is the opposite of what happens. So like I said, cheap food is necessary, in the sense that if the number of calories were too expensive for people to afford, they would be simply unable to get fat, but it is not sufficient to explain why people become obese. Furthermore, to make it too expensive for people to buy more than about 2,000 calories per day of food would require a reducing in standard of living to early 19th century standards, whereby most people lived hand to mouth with most of their pay taken buying food.

[Edi]

The only long term corrective shift for the whole situation is a mass death of a large number of people, especially in the most badly afflicted areas, but in the meanwhile all we can do is try to mitigate the impact as best we can.

this hoary old chestnut again. Almost as original as "But we're meant to eat meat, it's natural" and "why should I care about some stoopid Africans?"

Admittedly, you weren't as offensive as that, but the FAO is pretty adamant there is enough food to go around.

Our planet produces enough food to feed its entire population. Yet, tonight, 854 million women, men and children will be going to sleep on an empty stomach.

available here: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/common/ecg/ ... speech.pdf

I was specifically NOT commenting on the morality of the present situation, but on the facts of the situation as it currently exists. Even if the entire planet as a whole can produce enough food to feed the present population, this is utterly irrelevant unless you have a mechanism and logistical apparatus to distribute that food. If you don't, the total aggregate food production is meaningless and you're once more dealing with local problems.

The local problems may be exacerbated by external conditions such as unequal trade treaties, corporate profit maximization etc, which would need to be dealt with in order to construct such a logistical apparatus. Those go into the institutional reform you talk about.

Meanwhile, I do not see an end to population growth, or even a reduction of it, in the regions of the world that most desperately need it. And anyone who pretends that the population explosion needs to stop is just burying their heads in the sand. In the worst afflicted regions there will sooner or later be a corrective demographic shift that involves a lot of people dying. I'm not rubbing my hands together in glee over it, but if and when it happens, it happens and I won't lose any sleep over it either.

Food production is artificially high in the EU and America due to farm subsidies. This has also been described as having a 'land surplus'. AT THE SAME TIME, the EU and America are importing animal fodder from poor countries. We're not talking grass from marginal land here, we're talking soya, grain, rye, barley ect

What do you think caused the 'tortilla' riots in Mexico a few years back?

I'm well aware of this. I'm not at all happy with the present state of things.

This is food that either could go straight to people, or is monopolising land that could be used to feed people.

Institutional reform is crucially important, but that's a little beyond the reach of an individual.

No disagreement here.

Reducing, (not necessarily eliminating) the meat in your diet is one way of addressing this inequality. Think of it as a way of giving to charity that leaves you with more cash.

I don't disagree with anything here. I have no requirement of eating meat every day.

Haven't had any today, for example. Mushroom stew with some bread on the side was quite sufficient on its own, as are certain kinds of other dishes or simply roots and vegetables baked in an oven.

[Broomstick]

Reduction of harm is an important concept once you realize you can NOT force the world to be perfect. If everyone in the US or EU halved their consumption of meat it would have an impact. If enough people make enough little changes it really does add up.

Even people such as myself who, for medical reasons, can not live long term on a vegetarian diet can certainly reduce our consumption of certain food items. Last week, for instance, I went four days without eating meat and I'm so used to eating less meat than average that I didn't even notice until my Other Half pointed it out to me. NO ONE needs to eat meat every single day. Yes, human beings are capable of living healthy, even thriving, on a high meat diet if certain conditions are met but that doesn't mean they have to eat meat constantly. Even if you want to eat meat every day almost everyone who does so could cut that portion of meat in half, or even into a quarter of what it was before, and remain just as healthy if not more so.

Demand for meat does impact other agricultural commodities. It's not a strict one-to-one relationship (as such things as demands for biofuels and industrial applications also have an effect) but it does have a real impact.

[HMS Conqueror]

Reduction of harm is an important concept once you realize you can NOT force the world to be perfect. If everyone in the US or EU halved their consumption of meat it would have an impact. If enough people make enough little changes it really does add up.

It wouldn't, because food production wouldn't stay constant despite a reduction in demand. It's more like: you reduce your food bill from £100 to £50 and spend the other £50 on DVDs. The food industry shrinks by £50 and the DVD industry expands by £50. The amount of either going to Africa (or wherever) remains constant.

People in the world are starving only because they lack spending power. There are two ways to solve this. First, give them food in a way that doesn't require spending power (aid, charity), and second, increase their spending power. The first option is the only choice in the short term, but it's bad in general, because it makes them precarious dependents. In the medium term the best, and only, solution is economic development in those countries, which is an institutional issue: they need enforced property rights, free trade and free markets.

[Broomstick]

Reduction of harm is an important concept once you realize you can NOT force the world to be perfect. If everyone in the US or EU halved their consumption of meat it would have an impact. If enough people make enough little changes it really does add up.

It wouldn't, because food production wouldn't stay constant despite a reduction in demand. It's more like: you reduce your food bill from £100 to £50 and spend the other £50 on DVDs. The food industry shrinks by £50 and the DVD industry expands by £50. The amount of either going to Africa (or wherever) remains constant.

Maybe YOU would do that, but not everyone feels compelled to spend every dime of money they have. That's called living paycheck to paycheck and while all too many people do that (either from choice or necessity) it's not universal.

Though I agree with you that what Africa needs (among many things it needs) is something to sell to the rest of the world with which to make a profit. To some extent it does this with agricultural products such as coffee, some types of grain, cocoa, and other things but those are low profit/high bulk commodities that don't really promote a higher standard of living. Worse yet, such cash crops take up land that might otherwise be used for actual subsistence agriculture. Not that there is anything wrong with some cash crops, but there are countries that devote far too much to them and as a result are unable to feed their own, which is yet another contributing factor to the whole mess.