Oh, that’s an easy one to answer. It’s because it’s fucking delicious and easy to grow.
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.
Why do people drive when they know it’s bad for the planet
Why do people buy from Amazon/Walmart when they know it’s making their country poorer?
Why do poor people vote for millionares when they know they don’t care about the poor?
Some of us work multiple part time jobs to barely make it.
I’d probably stay in the basement if I didn’t need to pay my landed lord their monthly tribute.
buy some cheap sliver of land and park a bus on it. save up and find a better sliver of land and plan from there.
Because I live in America and there’s pretty much no public transportation.
Trust me, if I had a train, I’d fucking use that sucker. Travel into town for my weekly errands AND I don’t have to deal with people not using cruise control on a highway? SIGN ME THE FUCK. UP.
why do people live in America
Because they don’t have the money and the requisite professions to leave.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Poor Semmelweis he deserved better
I totally agree with your comment but would like to add:
Most of the studies used to vilify Animal sourced foods are observational, based on food frequency questionnaires, the entire cohort is eating high carb, and heavily influenced by healthy patient confounders. At best these are hypothesis generating papers, they should not be used to make diet choices, or set policies.
Absolutely. Great video on the matter: https://youtu.be/xDgzgDSInt0
This is a great video, I havent seen it before.
I like this cited document on the subject as well: https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat
There is a !ketogenic@dubvee.org community here if your interested.
I don’t think it tries to compare carbohydrates to any UFAs, but the implication is indeed that SFAs significantly contribute to heart disease.
effects on the serum lipoprotein profile of reducing SFA intake by replacing a mixture of SFA with cis-PUFA […] or cis-MUFA […] were more favourable than replacing SFA with a mixture of carbohydrates.
Ah, thanks, I’ve missed that.
Is it capitalism?
Do you think people in non-capitalist societies only eat the healthiest of foods?
Beef is one of the least-woke proteins. /s
We only eat the fascist cows. And the homophobic chickens at Chick-fil-A.
What if rolling coal were a sandwich?
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.
Imagine how many people you could feed if we would just eat what we fed the animals!
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.
Ah yes, good old hay … delicious!
It’s delicious, therefore we should torture it and eat it. People are the worst.
Guess you didn’t get to grow up watching the discovery Channel before all their shows were about crab fishing and animal rescue. Would you rather I go rip a gazelle apart and start eating it’s insides while it keeps trying to stand up with only two front legs?
There’s no need to “torture” cattle to get meat from them. Indeed, meat from animals that are experiencing stressful conditions tastes worse. Not to mention simply having lower productivity. A farm with happy cows is going to be more profitable than one with stressed ones, all else being equal.
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.
Cows are not all fed on grain. A lot of cows are ranched on land that would not be suitable for growing grain crops.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And billions of acres of pasture could never support trees
Inefficient?
Cows eat grains that humans can’t digest, or if they can, it takes energy to transform them to something human can eat.
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.
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.
Industrial leather boots last a year tops.
With respect, you’re buying awful boots.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because pouring vodka in my bowls of cinnamon toast crunch is frowned upon by society.
Let 'em frown. You have Cinnamon Toast Vodka now.
Honestly, I like the taste of cow’s milk. I drink it because I enjoy it. I’m also a sucker for chocolate and milk.
Same, I just like how it tastes. I’d rather not eat any meat than not drink milk. I do know that both are bad for the environment and for the cows but quitting is not easy
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.
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.
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! 🤪
The average human has much more of a negative effect on the environment than a cow. So, shouldn’t the question be why we tolerate so many people?
How would not tolerating look like? Let’s start with you as an example, maybe your loved ones too. And maybe look at the horrors of a one child policy in China before we start following that idea again.
Maybe start with people like you who take things on the Internet too seriously
You beat me to it.
Don’t ya just love when scumbags try to make ecofascism woke?
Go back to being a terrible dad Ra’as AlGhoul.
You’re really sensitive, huh?
Because not everyone agrees that it’s terrible for Earth. And even some of those that do may not consider it so terrible for Earth that it’s not worth the tastiness.
You’re wasting electricity running a computer right now, when we know that electricity generation is terrible for Earth. Why are you doing that?
It tastes good and I’m a carnivore.
omnivore, but i agree
The real question is, why should we try to not eat beef for the environment, when corporations make 90% of all pollution in the world.
Maybe focus on the 90% of the problem and not the individual people who but meat?
Corporation polluter the planet, therefore we should be allowed to torture animals. You got it boy
the beef industry wouldnt be razing down the amazon forest if no one was buying and eating it, would they?
Because corporations make things based on the demand of those individual people. They don’t exist in a vacuum. And they’re not going to change because someone on the internet rants about them. Their only incentive is profit
It’s a bit of both. We started out just liking beef, for all the reasons above - easy to grow, good bioavailability, tasty, etc. From there, we built our society up, became capitalists, and started really honing in on efficiency, because more efficiency is more money. Now cows are everywhere and beef is cheap.
Right now beef is pretty much the cheapest protein option readily available, and that I actually know how to prepare. Both of those come from the supply being huge, our culture being built around meat eating, it just kinda being the way we are.
This isn’t an individual problem to solve. No amount of vegans voting with their wallet is going to redirect the monumental ship that is our culture. We need subsidization on non-meat options, more ubiquitous supply, and more practice with the style of cuisine if we ever hope to make changes that stick.
Beef would be much more expensive if not for the huge subsidies, it’s artificially cheap. Maybe we just stop doing that and see how it goes.
Right. Part of my point. We have taken great efforts to make beef cheap, and to bolster the supply. With all of this effort, it really isn’t a surprise your average person is going to choose beef.
I’d propose slowly increasing subsidies to beef alternatives, and then once those are to the same level of affordableness and you’ve got some adoption, start cutting beef subsidies. Make the transition slow and painless, more people will stick to it.
I think your argument works if someone is stealing the beef.
If they are buying it then that is directly funding that “90%”.
No corporation pollutes except to produce goods or services for human consumption, or for other businesses that provide goods or services for human consumption.
Every gallon of gas burned is to power a vehicle to move you, or the goods you purchase.
Every natural gas line leads to a house, of a business that sells things to houses.
Theres no such thing as a corporation without consumers, we are where the buck is created, and where the buck stops.
There is no ethical consumption in capitalism.
Nah, you just don’t give a shit to believe you have any control over reality.
Ah, yes, the ol’ victim blame schtick. GTFO with that juvenile shit. This isn’t some timeless chicken/egg quandary, son.
The reason why the top polluters in the world are oil and gas companies is because you buy oil and gas directly to drive your car or heat your house, or you buy electricity generated by oil and gas. The metals in your vehicle? Mining companies pollution. The food on your plate? Agricultural companies polluting. Even the shirt on your back burned bunker fuel to get from Bangladesh to your house.
If you think you aren’t directly responsible for corporate pollution, you’re a fucking moron.
Oh yeah I’ll just stop driving my car in this world they manufactured to be unsustainable to travel in without a car.
If you think you can do ethical consumption by eating the avocados that fund latin american cartels to mutilate and rape the children of anyone who doesn’t just sit there and take their shit instead of some beef from a cow raised by some kid doing their 4H project, you’re the moron here.
You realize there are people in North America who do not own cars, right?
I made ethical consumption choices by looking at my three largest personal (and family) pollution sources.
First is Home heating/cooling. If you rank pollution sources, this is the single largest for most north American people. Now here I got lucky, my area uses almost 100% hydro electric power, so I switched to using a heat pump from a natural gas furnace. Now I no longer directly burn fossil fuels, and my grid is almost 100% pollution free as well. If I had not lived in this area, I would have chosen to install solar panels to offset my energy use as much as possible, and possibly participated in a green energy purchase program. It costs more, but the whole point is that if this were easy, it would already be done. You need to give something up to reduce your pollution, and in this case that thing you’re giving up is some extra money.
Heat pumps are a no-brainer in this category, Smaller homes pollute less, multi-family homes with shared walls pollute less, homes with better insulation pollute less. There’s choices here for everyone. They just either cost extra money, or give up some of your lifestyle.
2nd most pollution, transportation, I bought an EV a few years ago, which while it does have pollution for production over it’s lifespan will have significantly fewer emissions than an equivalent ICE vehicle. Again, my electricity here is almost 100% green, or could be in almost every area.
I wasn’t willing to go car free because of how far I live outside of a city, and I accept the pollution that results from my choice here. When I lived in the city, I used to have a bus pass AND a car, and I’d frequently leave the car in the driveway to take the bus for many trips.
Transportation can be addressed in so many ways, moving closer to the things you need, mass transit, EVs, etc. Again, Money or Lifestyle costs.
3rd most pollution, food, I cook with significantly less meat than average, we aren’t vegetarian, but we almost never eat beef(which is a massive pollution source even compared to other meats) and our portion size for meat from pork and chicken is more for flavor than nutrition. A single pack of bacon in a lentil/vegetable stew covers 10 dinner servings, compared to a single 5 person breakfast, and I bulk out the protein with the lentils. We eat tofu 4-5 times a month, prepared in various ways, etc. Using less meat actually saves you money, alternative protein sources like beans, tofu(which is beans), and lentils are FAR cheaper. We also buy a lot of our produce from our local area(less transportation pollution) and preferably with less fertilizers (heavy pollution source)
Overall, does it cost more money or reduce your lifestyle to pollute less? Yes. That’s the choice that consumers make. You want to have no pollution AND keep your lifestyle the exact same, but it doesn’t work like that. Pollution makes things cheaper, that’s why companies do it. They wouldn’t bother if it was more expensive. Nobody is sitting in a boardroom going: “Man, this coal costs far more, but we need to fuck the environment a little harder so lets keep using it”
We use oil and gas because it’s the option that has been made most available to us. This isn’t an individual problem. As long as the alternatives are prohibitively expensive for the average person, in terms of time, money, availability, etc, then we’re going to always have the bulk of people choosing the easiest option.
We all have so much to worry about each day, trying to fit biking to my job a 45 minute drive away just isn’t feasible. The options for changing that are either we go fuckin full on anarchy, burn the system down, and start anew, or slowly, systematically. Set an easily achievable baseline the average person can work to adopt, encourage it via subsidization and education, and give it time.
You’re thinking about this wrong, you choose your lifestyle.
You simply aren’t willing to give up your lifestyle to avoid emissions. It’s clearly possible to live a less polluting lifestyle, there are billions of people polluting almost nothing compared to Western averages, their lifestyle just doesn’t have as many conveniences as yours.
There are North American people who have chosen to live ultra-simplistic lives who pollute almost nothing as well.
That’s a choice YOU make. It may not feel like you made a choice, but you do so every day by not changing your behaviors.
You’re right. At the end of the day, your lifestyle is your choice. I’m merely pointing out that there are a LOT of pressures keeping people stuck in the lifestyle they’re in. Those pressures are real, and if you want to effect change, it’s better to target them, rather than the individual.
The pressures are not real, they’re entirely social constructs.
The easiest fix is for the government to just tax carbon emissions, like Canada, and turn turn the cost way up. The market (Corporations) will change very quickly if it’s cheaper not to pollute.
Will it hurt people? Yes. Costs will go up, but pollution will go down. That’s the tradeoff.
Theres no such thing as a corporation without consumers, we are where the buck is created, and where the buck stops.
Absolutely correct, glad to have read your comment. People need to start realizing they play a role in what’s to come. It’s a terrible mentality to think we don’t all have our effect on the future.
The thing about individual action is that if it works, it all adds up. But if people all blame the corporations, individual action makes no dent in the over 50% of emissions that individuals help make; a self-fulfilling prophecy. And yes, over 50%. Politifact goes into detail about how most emission indeed comes from consumption instead of corporate production.
Your own source disputes what you say.
The original study did not include emissions from land use, land use change or forestry, or from sources such as landfills, agriculture and farming. It also did not include data on indirect emissions, which come from purchased energy such as heating and electricity, citing concerns about double-counting emissions attributable to corporations.
The study relied on data collected by the Carbon Majors Database, which focuses on greenhouse gas emissions data from the largest company-related sources. In other words, The data derives from records of carbon dioxide and methane emissions relating to fossil fuel (oil, gas and coal) and cement producers dating back to 1854. … t’s difficult to discern how much total global emissions can be attributed to the top 100 polluting corporations, but there are ways to get a ballpark idea.
If you use the total global emissions calculated by the Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, an average of around 60% of global emissions can be traced back to those 100 companies from 1990 to 2015.
The real issue is one of attribution. “Traced to” isn’t the same as “responsible for”. I have a hard time blaming Saudi Aramco for massive volume of oil consumption in the US. Yes the oil companies are eco terrorists too but the binary take is absurd.
I have a eating disorder so most vegetables make me retch, so I kind of don’t have a choice.
Also companies do way more emissions than I ever will, yet I’m asked to stop.
I have food sensitivities which make it so that I can’t eat most leafy greens, most legumes, mushrooms, large amounts of carbs…
I’d be on the toilet 24 hours a day if I went vegan.
How about we shift to talking about portion control and be less all or nothing?
How about we don’t engage in reasonable, healthy discussion and instead throw shit?
You really triggered some folks 🤣
Good, discussion has gotten stale as fuck on the internet. I don’t want to see Lemmy become some censored smooth brained shit pool like Reddit.
Because people are selfish, stuck in their ways, and speciesist. Some are also ignorant
Begging the question
