• TypicalHog@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    It’s very, very simple. It’s cuz shit’s tasty AF and most people care more about themselves and their tastebuds than climate.

  • Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Where I live the beef is local and cheap. I’m not able to obtain enough protein without meat, as confirmed by a doctor and a nutritionist when I tried to go vegetarian. With food costs so high it’s cheaper to buy cow than anything else, but when I have the money I opt for fish or turkey. I looked into hunting but it’s prohibitively expensive for me with permits, tags, guns, licenses, days off and transportation. I tried fishing for myself as well, but whenever I get time to do it, there are warnings about eating fish in the area. When there aren’t I never catch anything big enough to legally be allowed to keep. I’d like to get chickens if/when local government ever lifts the bylaws preventing it.

    • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not able to obtain enough protein without meat

      How does that work? Isn’t egg white pure protein? Surely eating a pile of boiled eggs would give you the same amount of protein as a steak, not counting stuff like cheese and legumes.

      • Acamon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Egg and dairy allergies are among the most common food allergies, so I’d guess that something like that might be the issue?

      • negativeyoda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I and others are over here with soy, egg and gluten allergies that restrict pretty heavily what I can eat. But go off since you have it all figured out, king.

        • Sizzler@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You know who else has restrictions on their food? Vegans. You’d have thought you’d be more sympathetic, but nah, you’re negativeyoda.

          • negativeyoda@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            By choice, dingus.

            I don’t have that option. Big Ole difference. Maybe give everyone Lyme disease so they develop red meat allergies and we can talk

            Okay. You want me to double down? I won’t eat at vegan places most of the time. Here’s the thing: vegetables are delicious. So why?

            Vegans will support a vegan place no matter what and will talk it up as being amazing even if it sucks. I’ve been burned being told, “oh. That place is so good” and it’s just a matter of vegans circling the wagons and propping up a place that serves a lazy impossible burger with fake plastic cheese on it. Y’all ain’t accountable and it makes it difficult taking vegan food seriously. No wonder y’all’s food has an inferiority complex

        • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry about your issues, I never meant to diminish them. I was genuinely curious about how one can become so limited in ones protein intake, but clearly worded my question poorly.

      • Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh gee I didn’t try eggs or dairy in the months I felt like shit after going veggie, and neither the doctor nor nutritionist suggested that either. You solved all my dietary needs and I can give up meat now after years of trying to figure out the most sustainable diet I can manage.

        • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry, I was trying to ask a genuine question, I didn’t mean to come across in a negative way.

          I’d still be very interested in the answer.

          • Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sorry about that, it’s the internet. I’m not a doctor, but it was explained to me that proteins from different sources are not all the same and, while I can process protein from a variety of foods, I don’t do it as efficiently as with muscle proteins. The nutritionist I spoke to - who was a vegan and a vegan activist - said people like me need about 1-2 chicken breasts per week. It’s not uncommon, a lot of people who try to go veggie and can’t hack it just go back to meat without trying to figure out why they felt sick and tired. Other people have said it’s genetic based on your ancestors, but I haven’t seen a lot of evidence to support that. Other sources point to evidence you can alter the way your body processes things by following specific diet plans, but I’m not prepared to feel that shitty again to figure it out.

          • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d advise you proof read future questions then. Your initial question came across as very dismissive and condescending.

            • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thanks, I’ll try to be mindful of that! English isn’t my first language, so there is surely some nuance to be learned.

  • Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You haven’t made vegan food free yet. Make vegan food free, and people will naturally eat more of it. Plus you solve hunger at the same time.

    You do care about reducing beef consumption right? Well start here. Stop spinning your wheels elsewhere

  • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s nutritious. Instead of carefully observing some diet you can eat some beef and buckwheat or cabbage or beans, and you’re good.

    That said, I eat meat so rarely that my relatives worry, mainly because it takes some time to cook if you boil it, and I’m lazy and unorganized, and frying it has the potential of, eh, leaving the kitchen for 5 minutes which turn out to be half an hour and returning for the smell.

    Other than that people can’t care about every problem at once.

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Same reason we use electricity despite not being 100% green energy and thus being even worse for the earth?

    If you actually wanna guilt this question then the fuck are you doing using your coal and gas powered electricity to do it?

    There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, because the capitalists have seen to it that you will never be permitted to make an ethical choice that would dare compete with what they expect you to choose.

    Being a moralizing prick doesn’t send any message, what gets people to change is making that change easy, that’s why instead of being terminally online fuckwads, british vegangelists spread the good news by hosting free kitchens, volunteering to take people grocery shopping on their own pound, teaching vegan cooking classes, and all other sorts of actually addressing literally any of the actual concerns people have about going vegan instead of being a condescending snob about it.

    • Sizzler@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So honestly, in your opinion, one of the only ways a vegan can change people’s minds is to take them shopping and PAY for their food for them. Amazing, this is a new level of shitty push the blame away behaviour. Pathetic.

      • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re saying that trying to motivate people positively to move on from meat is “push the blame away” behavior. But I think tut-tutting individuals who eat meat is pushing the blame away.

        While there are some people who believe that eating meat is an absolute moral wrong no matter where or when it takes place in human history, a lot of people who feel eating meat is immoral feel this way because of what the meat industry does, both to the animals and to the planet. Five thousand years ago, people weren’t supporting the meat industry and all its wrongs by eating meat.

        So considering it to be pathetic to try to effect real reduction in people’s meat consumption because the methods shift blame away from the individual meat eater seems really ironic to me, as well as completely counterproductive, if your goal is less meat consumption in the world.

        • Sizzler@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is no positive motivation to move people away from meat. Health maybe? Shame and forcing self-reflection is one of the few effective tools.

          Your last paragraph is just rubbish. That’s not what I was calling pathetic.

          • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is no positive motivation to move people away from meet. Health maybe?

            Did…did you just admit that you people don’t actually believe your own propaganda about why going vegan is better?

            Also, pretty objectively shame doesn’t actually do anything, lecturing at people about why they’re wrong doesn’t convince them of anything, at best they just write you off as that ass who’s lecturing at them, more often they take it as a fight signal and shut down to you completely.

            • Sizzler@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Key word there is motivation. I know its 10 letters long so I can explain it if I have to.

              • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah like how you’re pretty clearly motivated to suck at actually spreading the message because then you get to keep your feelings of moral superiority all to yourself.

                • Sizzler@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Look, you’re here to fight not be informed. It’s really obvious and I don’t care what you think or say.

    • Chemo@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      If you actually wanna guilt this

      Being a moralizing prick

      All OP did was stating a simple fact. If you feel the need to outrage over science, then the problem is certainly not OP.

  • johnlobo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    because not every country produce beef like you westerner. and not everyone eat beef everyday.

    go make your government ban beef like you ban palm oil if you really care about earth.

    • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      go make your government ban beef

      I would get them to end all subsidies for the beef industry if I could. Unfortunately I’m not in control of that, all I can do is bring up discussion, and I got you to comment, so I succeeded.

  • Akareth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because:

    • Ruminants like cows repair our depleating topsoil via regenerative farming (our current approach of using petroleum-based fertilisers is not sustainable)
    • A single cow’s life can feed a human for 1 to 2 years, compared to the many incidentally killed animals (insects, rodents, frogs, birds, etc.) during the growing and harvesting of crops, plus the destruction of entire ecosystems to create the mono-crop farms in the first place
    • Humans need to eat lots of fat to be physically and mentally healthy, and beef provides lots of fat (the low-fat high-carbohydrate diets recommended by various agencies — starting with the US’s department of agriculture in the late '70s via the food pyramid — are making us sick, with once-rare diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, depression, and dementia now commonplace)
    • YaBoyMax@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is ignoring the fact that raising a cow for consumption requires ~10 times the amount of crops per calorie compared to just eating the crops directly. Also, I don’t think I’ve heard a single health expert recommended eating more beef - the universal understanding is that red meat consumption is generally a net negative in terms of overall health.

      • GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        requires ~10 times the amount of crops per calorie compared to just eating the crops directly

        Kind of, kind of not. If fed corn, yes. If pasture raised, no. Humans can’t eat grass. Cows convert grass into food.

  • DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why do people eat food they know isn’t good for their health? Why do people continue to buy products from companies that have proven to only sell bad products or engage in scumbag practices?

    They all have the same answer.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It turns out in 1961 the American heart Association took bribery money from procter and gamble, who owned and sold “healthier Crisco” cooking oils that weren’t high in saturated fat, like beef and other cooking oils were.

      The AHA then claimed and pushed that saturated fats caused heart disease.

      Problem is, something like 88% of every study done in the past 60 years has found little to no link between heart disease and saturated fats.

      So beef, according to most studies, isn’t bad for you. The AHA was just crooked and on the take, being paid off to sell Crisco.

      Now it is calorie dense and people tend to eat too much of it, but that seems to be a lot of things. Don’t eat too much or you get fat. But apparently, you don’t have to worry about saturated fats being bad for you.

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        WHO report

        someone else online summarized the genetics part as the following:

        Mandelian randomisation studies show that LDL-c is causative in atherogenic plaques 1 and metabolic ward RCTs show that SFA intakes increase LDL-c, while the decrease in SFAs lead to lower total and LDL-c 2.

        But yes, almost all nutrition science is a bit inconclusive because of genetic variation.

        • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Forgive me, because I’m struggling to understand the linked information, but as someone with atherosclerosis this is an issue close to my heart (ha!).

          I just want to make sure I understand you.

          Your link to the european heart journal says that the causal link between LDL and ASCVD is “unequivocal”.

          I think the WHO study says (amongst a lot of other complicated stuff) that replacing SFAs with PUFAs and MUFAs is more favourable than replacing SFAs with complex carbohydrates? The strong implication being (although I couldn’t see this exactly) that higher SFA intake contributes to heart disease.

          • EndRedStateSubsidies@leminal.space
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            I always keep in mind the first doctor to advocate washing hands after handling corpses was laughed out of medicine and died alone in an asylum ironically enough from sepsis.

            To that point, the vast majority of research on nutrition is done on the presumption carbohydrates should be the foundation of our diet. Even “low” carb diet studies with have 30% of the calories coming from simple carbs. Oddly enough, the human body works much differently and much better when you don’t give it -any- sugar: https://youtu.be/cST99piL71E

            I can expand, but briefly, sugar acts like a sandblaster through your heart and shreds the endothelium (the finger-things that move things in and out of the bloodstream). LDL is a repair van that drives around with cholesterol and saturated fat to repair the plaques. (HDL brings empty LDL back to the liver) The entire logic of blaming cholesterol for heart disease is like blaming bandaids for stab wounds. Doctors say eat less fat and more “healthy whole grains” (carbs) and the liver makes more cholesterol. Doctor sees cholesterol is still high because the body needs it and prescribes statins which impair production. This leads to nerve pain because it’s what literally every nerve in the body is insulated with.

            The problems with cholesterol stem from it sitting in the bloodstream and glycating due to prolonged sugar exposure. Sugar staying in the bloodstream is basically ketoacidosis, so clearing sugar is a priority that results in LDL gumming up and going bad, essentially.

            I can expand on this, but basically the human body needs predominantly fat with some protein and actually zero carbs.

          • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think it tries to compare carbohydrates to any UFAs, but the implication is indeed that SFAs significantly contribute to heart disease.

  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    What a loaded question.

    Outside of the fact that a single cows life provides about 900 meals for humans, and the scraps left over make boots that last for a decade and also feed our cats and dogs. Plus, it’s delicious.

    • 0xD@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Imagine how many people you could feed if we would just eat what we fed the animals!

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        We can’t live on hay and corn. Cows need several stomachs to do it.

        Also, getting enough protein and creatine and other vitamins as a vegan is a hell of a lot of work and doesn’t taste as good.

        Humans are animals, and the type of animals we are is omnivores. Not herbivores.

    • 7heo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah so, the amount of meals is correct. But that’s about it. I mean, I can’t say about the taste, to each their own, but one kg of cow meat needs two dozen kg of grain.

      That’s about as inefficient as it gets.

      As for the leather, the industry doesn’t like products that last a decade, so it isn’t actually using the leather in such a way. Industrial leather boots last a year tops.

      Finally, pet food is made out of discarded cuts of meat, the uglies, etc. But also lots of cereals, and vegetables.

      So we could really afford eating less meat. It isn’t good for anything. Not for us, not for the other species (certainly not for the cows, that get often half assed butchered in a hasty way because of quotas and profit), and absolutely not for the ecosystem.

      But I guess the taste is all that matters.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cows are not all fed on grain. A lot of cows are ranched on land that would not be suitable for growing grain crops.

        • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Whatever their food is, 1kg of beef requires 24kg of grain’s worth of energy. This is something they teach in high-school biology now. The higher the food chain, the more energy is lost. Stopping such production would be pretty beneficial to the environment, but whether we should is a complicated question.

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            But as I pointed out, many cattle are ranched on land that cannot grow grain. They can’t grow the sorts of crops that humans eat, only the sorts of crops that cattle eat. If cattle weren’t being ranched on those lands they wouldn’t be producing edible grain instead, or any other food that humans could eat. So the inefficiency is moot when it comes to the amount of nutrition produced, removing the cattle from that land would simply reduce the total amount of food we have available.

            Sure, if you remove the cattle then wild animals could come in to replace them, but we should make sure that’s not going to result in starvation and poverty if we do that. Many areas of the world have subsistence ranching by the locals.

            • Zorque@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              And of course the land couldn’t be used for anything else… like natural ecosystems.

              Just because land exists doesn’t mean it needs to be pillaged to feed our desires.

              • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Are we just going to ignore the millions of acres of vast grasslands that supported like 50 million buffalo in the US 200 year ago? Healthy grassland ecosystems and ruminants are a thing.

              • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Most ranchland is, in fact, a “natural ecosystem.” They just send cattle out to graze on it.

                The point I’m making here is about food efficiency, though, not about land use.

            • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Interesting. However, a search says that feeding all the grass (or whatever) to cattle takes that food away from existing ecosystems in dry areas and potentially allow exotic weeds to take over land. So we probably don’t want this to expand to the point where we intrude on dry ecosystems.

              • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s just a matter of land management. Many of those grassland areas used to have other large grazing animals on them, so as long as the cattle herds aren’t bigger than those old herds it should be sustainable.

        • Scrof@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Billions of trees every year get cut down to make space for cattle pastures, now tell me how destroying entire ecosystems that have been there for potentially thousands of years is worth some particular meat.

        • 7heo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          So, OK, I’m willing to learn: please show me good brands then.

          They need to resist to mud (thick mud, the kind with a ton of suction that will keep your soles when you try and move), seawater, rocks and sand, and pretty dense vegetation.

          They also need to have steel toe caps, good soles (vibram or equivalent if possible) that don’t slip, and that aren’t too hard (wet stone is enough of a female dog as it is), and to go higher than my ankle.

          The best brand I tried so far was caterpillar, but they lasted only 3 years. That’s a far cry from “a decade or more”.

        • BassTurd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I can make hey dude’s last 9 months. If OP can’t make the cheapest leather boots last more than a year, they are using them wrong, or they should buy high end boots for whatever they’re doing.

          • Fosheze@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Seriously. I bought some dirt cheap full grain leather biker boots 3 years ago; I have given them exactly 0 care, abused the snot our of them daily, and they are still holding up strong. These weren’t even boots meant for working and they still survived trudging through the various slops of all 4 minnesotan seasons for 3 years.

            As long as you are buying actual leather and not “genuine leather” then whatever you buy should easily last several years even if not cared for. Well cared for leather goods can last decades.

        • Alto@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          If we had the same size, I could be wearing my grandfather’s steeltoes that are probably a solid 40 years old. People really underestimate how long good footwear lasts when you take care of it.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Inefficient?

        Cows eat grains that humans can’t digest, or if they can, it takes energy to transform them to something human can eat.

        • pugsnroses77@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          we use some of the most fertile lands in the midwest that could be used to grow literally anything else to grow vast amounts of soy and corn for cows.

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            And in those specific cases, sure, you could do more efficiently by getting rid of the cattle.

            The point I’m making is that there’s plenty of cattle raised in places that aren’t like that.

  • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Along with the other answers:

    Because cooked cowflesh smells delicious, and there are companies out there that are willing to capitalize on that.

    The bigger question is: why do people still drink cows milk? And the answer to that one is all about politics and power.

  • LostWanderer@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Humans can be weird about these facts or simply indifferent to the known effect that raising these animals for meat has on the environment. Additionally, I think the antagonistic message of a few vocal vegans triggered a powerful foolishness in the heads of certain people who are prone to acting hedonistically upon being told not to do something. A combination of apathy, chasing profits, taste for beef, and spite which fuels the industrialized beef production business. Another issue is that most of us simply won’t be around to experience the consequences of the unchecked corporations responsible for this willful harm the meat industry is causing Earth’s climate and surrounding environment. I believe in moderation, eating as little of all the meats as possible (those industries have a big impact on the environment). As an American, I see a weird pride that certain people have about eating as much meat as possible; loudly shunning and making fun of those who have either a mostly plant-based, vegetarian, or vegan diet. It’s such a selfish outlook that happens in societies that focus on the individual over the many.

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Another issue is that most of us simply won’t be around to experience the consequences

      I think most people middle-aged or younger will experience the consequences (in fact, we already are with the increased frequency of severe weather events) it’s just that those consequences will get worse over time.

      • LostWanderer@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The youngest of people certainly will be I could have worded this thought better, but I didn’t. Severe weather is certainly a consequence as well as increased extremes in temperature which are currently happening. Everyone already feels the impact of irresponsible environmental decisions made by the oil industry and industrial agriculture/animal husbandry. Millennials, Gen X and Gen Z will be around to experience the worsening of conditions on Earth. I do genuinely believe that people don’t consider the fact that they aren’t going to experience the climate outcomes based on irresponsible decisions. However, based on the current growing political instability of the USA; I wonder if people are beginning to feel a desire to indulge as they don’t know if they’ll come out unscathed from the blowup which is bound to happen at some point. A bad outlook to have in a way as that will only magnify future issues, however, humans aren’t always rational! 🤪