Cool Fact: Vegans consume a total of less plants than omnivores. Animals eat plants, so if you eat them, you're eating an animal plus everything it ate to grow up.
I absolutely agree, eating meat should count as eating at least one salad too.
Take that, doctor.
Animals on average convert about 10% of the mass they eat into their own body mass.
So when a lion dies and turns to grass, the antilopes only get back 10% of the grass they ate to make meat for the lion.
Circle of life, my ass. More like a trickle down pyramid scheme.
It's even less. The Antilope converts 10% of grass to meat, the lion converts 10% of Antilope meat to lion meat. So it's 10% of 10% bringing us back to the root problem of everything... The 1%!!!!
I mean, obviously you won't get 100% of the energy back because most of it is spent on heating you up and moving and also heating you up, but yeah, I feel like God could've really done with some optimization techniques.
Only a matter of time before plant-based alternatives fully take over from meat. Meat farming is not sustainable, as you mention all the land used to farm food for animals could be used to just farm more food for us directly.
We just have to get rid of the stigma around plant-based "meat".
At this point it isn't so much the stigma as it is the price for a lot of us. If it was the same or cheaper than regular meat prices in my area I would buy it instead.
Prices are coming down, but they won't come down a lot until more people buy it, but more people wont buy it unless it's cheaper...
Here's hoping there's some more restrictions imposed on meat.
Yea it's a catch 22 unfortunately.
Huh. Now that you mention it, even where I live i actually didn't hear any comments after soy shit fell. I didn't notice. Still ain't buyin substitute cu I love meat but it's no longer due to hearing how bad it tastes - in fact I did hear some good comments lately.
This seems like a dubious line of reasoning. It's like making the claim that if you eat moss your net water consumption is lower than if you eat the leaves off an oak tree because of all the water it takes to grow. I mean I guess it's sort of true but it's also sorta weird. The argument is basically eat closer to the bottom of the food chain and the younger the better, but I don't think you're going to be happy if people eat more puppies and veal...
So it's about efficiency. A given organism is going to have a particular conversion ratio in terms of how much mass/calories/nutrients whatever you're measuring it has to take in to increase it's own content an equivalent amount.
Since the vast quantity of food consumed by animals goes into energy rather than body mass they're very inefficient. Particularly larger creatures like cows which "waste" (obviously not from the cow's perspective) that energy breathing, moving, pumping blood, digesting, feeling and so on.
Infants are probably less efficient, as pregnancy is very stressful biologically.
Except 95% of what an animal eats ends up back in the soil as manure.
Cool Fact: Vegans consume a total of less plants than omnivores. Animals eat plants, so if you eat them, you're eating an animal plus everything it ate to grow up.
I absolutely agree, eating meat should count as eating at least one salad too.
Take that, doctor.
Animals on average convert about 10% of the mass they eat into their own body mass.
So when a lion dies and turns to grass, the antilopes only get back 10% of the grass they ate to make meat for the lion.
Circle of life, my ass. More like a trickle down pyramid scheme.
It's even less. The Antilope converts 10% of grass to meat, the lion converts 10% of Antilope meat to lion meat. So it's 10% of 10% bringing us back to the root problem of everything... The 1%!!!!
I mean, obviously you won't get 100% of the energy back because most of it is spent on heating you up and moving and also heating you up, but yeah, I feel like God could've really done with some optimization techniques.
Only a matter of time before plant-based alternatives fully take over from meat. Meat farming is not sustainable, as you mention all the land used to farm food for animals could be used to just farm more food for us directly.
We just have to get rid of the stigma around plant-based "meat".
At this point it isn't so much the stigma as it is the price for a lot of us. If it was the same or cheaper than regular meat prices in my area I would buy it instead.
Prices are coming down, but they won't come down a lot until more people buy it, but more people wont buy it unless it's cheaper...
Here's hoping there's some more restrictions imposed on meat.
Yea it's a catch 22 unfortunately.
Huh. Now that you mention it, even where I live i actually didn't hear any comments after soy shit fell. I didn't notice. Still ain't buyin substitute cu I love meat but it's no longer due to hearing how bad it tastes - in fact I did hear some good comments lately.
This seems like a dubious line of reasoning. It's like making the claim that if you eat moss your net water consumption is lower than if you eat the leaves off an oak tree because of all the water it takes to grow. I mean I guess it's sort of true but it's also sorta weird. The argument is basically eat closer to the bottom of the food chain and the younger the better, but I don't think you're going to be happy if people eat more puppies and veal...
So it's about efficiency. A given organism is going to have a particular conversion ratio in terms of how much mass/calories/nutrients whatever you're measuring it has to take in to increase it's own content an equivalent amount.
Since the vast quantity of food consumed by animals goes into energy rather than body mass they're very inefficient. Particularly larger creatures like cows which "waste" (obviously not from the cow's perspective) that energy breathing, moving, pumping blood, digesting, feeling and so on.
Infants are probably less efficient, as pregnancy is very stressful biologically.
Except 95% of what an animal eats ends up back in the soil as manure.