Lives per calorie AKA Feel bad for eating meet you dirty carnivore

[kingkilburn]

What is this nonsense?

If you’re bothered by the idea of killing animals for food, then going vegetarian might seem like an obvious response. But if you want your diet to kill as few animals as possible, then eschewing meat is actually quite an indirect, and sometimes even counterproductive, strategy. The question you should be asking yourself about any given food is not, “Is this food animal flesh?” The question you should be asking yourself is, “How many animal lives did this food cost?”

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/files/2011/08/Chart.jpg

Want to Kill Fewer Animals? Give Up Eggs | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/11/want-to-kill-fewer-animals-give-up-eggs-not-meat/?WT.mc_id=SA_facebook)

[blueshark123]

i dont get it ?

[kingkilburn]

Apparently if we must eat meat or animal products we should limit ourselves to only eating things that have a low amount of life loss per calorie.

[ronmcdon]

It's really silly, you still don't 'KILL' a chicken because it lays eggs for you.
Whether or not the chicken gets killed is up the farm or facility that raises the bird.
Might as well start measuring how many dairy cows you kill based on how much milk & cheese it produces.

Regardless I don't see the point in such a study.
Sorry to say, but it's one the dumbest study I've ever read.
It has no practical bearing whatsoever unless you're some vegan (probably Californian) tree-hugger.

[theicecreamdan]

I didn't see anywhere in the article that says you should feel bad for eating meat.
It never implied that eating eggs kills anything.
They did count how many cows die for milk and cheese.


This is pretty interesting, and I can see where some people might care. IF you choose not to eat meat because of the unnecessary loss of life, then this info might be valuable.

I do choose to eat meat, but I still try to be somewhat conscious about what I'm eating, and what it costs.

[curbhuggerrps13]

sadly wether you eat meat or not. they will be slaughtered and made into mcnuggets

[ronmcdon]

plants are living organisms too.
(and if you're eating that then probably you're destroying even more lives in numerical terms to satisfy your appetite)
unless you're eating poop, something has to perish in order to provide you with some form of sustenance.

I can understand if one chooses to eat food based on ecological impact, cruelty to the animals or the relevant health risks.
This is just collecting random data for the sake of it.
I'm sure it's interesting if you've nothing better to do.
Not saying that choosing what we eat doesn't have it's costs, I just don't see how this study measures anything worth a rat's ass.

[lflkajfj12123]

so stupid

the only reason these animals aren't extinct is because we breed them to eat

[curbhuggerrps13]

so stupid

the only reason these animals aren't extinct is because we breed them to eat

or ride =)

[lflkajfj12123]

its true we are solely responsible for the existence of all the animals on that list

they have no other purpose to us really and they don't live in the wild anymore

if humans became vegans they would all die off

[curbhuggerrps13]

is there any place in the wild for chickens anymore? if we were not breeding them and eat them then other carnivores would be picking them off without replacing them.

[theicecreamdan]

Plants are different than animals- Fact

Failure to see the use of something, does not mean its not useful, or interesting.

In one way or another, this type of data goes into figuring out how much you are paying to eat. Its not any more useless than trying to argue that vegans or vegetarians are stupid.

[ronmcdon]

doesn't matter if plants are different from animals, they have lives too.
the study is looking at lives as one of the main factors.

If you feel this study is useful, at least make a genuine effort to elaborate why.
it is vague to say 'figuring out how much we pay to eat'.
We pay $ to buy food.
Of course there is some level of environment impact.
How does 'lives lost' practically account for financial, environmental, or any other tangible expense?

[theicecreamdan]

I didn't say its useful or isn't useful. I said its interesting and that some people (for their own ethical decisions) might find it useful, and that there's no reason to hate. Its just a thought process, not much different than any other "useless."

Its dumb to just say "this isn't useful -> this is bad -> I must mock"

A lot of really important stuff ends up coming out of "silly" thought exercises. The few examples I could pull up are pretty far away from things that I can really understand.

One example: Figuring out the most efficient way to pack oranges ended up leading to how modem's send and receive signals.

[tqstarburst]

Regardless I don't see the point in such a study.
Sorry to say, but it's one the dumbest study I've ever read.
It has no practical bearing whatsoever unless you're some vegan (probably Californian) tree-hugger. This guy for president.

[kingkilburn]

Pigs and chickens not only survive in the wild, they can grow to be a big problem if not kept in check.


Many species of cattle run wild all over Europe, Asia, and Africa.

[cdlong]

its true we are solely responsible for the existence of all the animals on that list

they have no other purpose to us really and they don't live in the wild anymore

if humans became vegans they would all die off

They don't really have a place in the ecosystem so I don't see that as being much of a problem. And I guess they would turn into pests as King mentioned.

What really should be looked at is calorie per land area. I don't have the facts in front of me, but I was told meat vs plant is roughly 9:1. As developing countries shift to a more meat heavy american style diet, the land needed to produce food skyrockets (since the population there is as well). The only solution is to cut down more forrest land for farming, or just go vegetarian.

[kingkilburn]

There are HUGE chunks of land through out the world that could be used for farming without a big impact on the local ecosystems. Places like the Amazon basin don't happen to on the list.

Imagine growing drought hardy grains in central and southern Africa. Or any number of crops in the grasslands of China, many there wouldn't even need irrigation. I think many countries are in such a rush to industrialize that they over look some of their natural resources.

[axiomatik]

pretty much any kind of farming disrupts the local ecosystem, especially as you start using modern techniques to maximize yield. You are displacing what grew there naturally to grow the particular crop you want. And you want it to be a monoculture, you don't want your corn field to be full of weeds consuming the limited nutrients and water at your disposal. The animals that fed on those native plants or lived among them will be affected, and may or may not adapt. Spraying pesticides or herbicides makes further changes, etc.

The biggest issue with eating meat is the amount of resources required to raise those animals. Lots of water and lots of food to get one pound of beef. So as more countries become more affluent and consume more meat, the amount of food and water grow at an increasing rate.

That said, I love steak.

The study is somewhat interesting. I'm not going to change my habits based on it, but it is food for thought.

For those that choose to eat eggs and cheese instead of meat, the chicken that laid those eggs only exists because a farmer bred and raised it for the sole purpose of making more eggs. When it can no longer make eggs, it is killed. So if you think you are saving lives, you aren't really. Of course, without eating eggs, that chicken wouldn't have ever existed in the first place.

Bottom line: eat what you want.

[zeitgeist]

^^^^

I think you pretty much summed up what the big picture which this study was for. To show how much food we waste feeding it to animals we consume. In terms it's not a good investment(not talking money wise). We put far more into a cow than what we get back

Im not gonna support us killing less animals. But what we do need to do is raise the standards when it comes to sanitation and how these animals are raised and killed.
The standards now are horrific. Everyone here should go to a mass butcher ground and see what not only the cruelties the animals are put through but what the workers experience(mainly illegal immigrants). Many of these people have psychological problems after working in these areas. But I guess they're no big deal either

[Drift N Dragg]

Just a thought...

But if, let say for arguements sake, 40% of people in the US read this and reduce and semi follow this..

Then, in theroy, All prices would rise, would they not?
Or more Slaughter houses in, lets say Mexico ( Since their are so many there ), would see a dramatic increase, based off of the loss of profit and the Ranch not having the funds to maintain there livestock..

So, animals will still get killed. Whether or not we eat them or use there byproduct.

[ronmcdon]

^^^^

I think you pretty much summed up what the big picture which this study was for. To show how much food we waste feeding it to animals we consume. In terms it's not a good investment(not talking money wise). We put far more into a cow than what we get back

Im not gonna support us killing less animals. But what we do need to do is raise the standards when it comes to sanitation and how these animals are raised and killed.
The standards now are horrific. Everyone here should go to a mass butcher ground and see what not only the cruelties the animals are put through but what the workers experience(mainly illegal immigrants). Many of these people have psychological problems after working in these areas. But I guess they're no big deal either

I'm not so sure I buy that argument.
The study merely looks at 'lives lost', which really has little bearing on how much or what the said animal eats.
For instance, a chicken (used for meat or egg laying) will pretty much consume less food throughout it's lifespan.
Lifespan of a chicken is likely to be shorter (Im guessing here).
How much ecological impact of the actual diet of the livestock may have different effects in the environment (i.e cow grazing off grass or eating corn).

In the case of the US, I'm not so sure if the diet of the animal has such an huge impact ecologically, or at least not directly.
We have a huge corn industry here in the US that's still subsidized by the gov't.
It is not expensive to feed cows corn, or at least it's more cost-effective to feed them corn than graze on corn.
Corn probably causes the cows to produce more methane (farts) b/c their digestive system isn't meant to handle corn.
If you're interested in being ecologically sensitive, I would say stick to grass-fed beef for the most part.
I stick to grass fed myself, but it's b/c I enjoy the flavor of grass fed beef a bit more.

I agree that sanitary conditions should probably be raised too,
(as well as ecological impact among other factors),
but honestly I see no bearing as to what that has to do with this study.

[axiomatik]

There's major issues involved with raising chickens too, but mostly from an issue of its waste. Large factory farms with thousands of chickens produce tons of runoff that chokes nearby rivers, killing the fish in the river and promoting algal blooms that deplete the oxygen and kill wildlife where the river enters the ocean. Over-use of antibiotics is creating super-strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the rivers.

[zeitgeist]

I'm not so sure I buy that argument.
The study merely looks at 'lives lost', which really has little bearing on how much or what the said animal eats.
For instance, a chicken (used for meat or egg laying) will pretty much consume less food throughout it's lifespan.
Lifespan of a chicken is likely to be shorter (Im guessing here).
How much ecological impact of the actual diet of the livestock may have different effects in the environment (i.e cow grazing off grass or eating corn).

In the case of the US, I'm not so sure if the diet of the animal has such an huge impact ecologically, or at least not directly.
We have a huge corn industry here in the US that's still subsidized by the gov't.
It is not expensive to feed cows corn, or at least it's more cost-effective to feed them corn than graze on corn.
Corn probably causes the cows to produce more methane (farts) b/c their digestive system isn't meant to handle corn.
If you're interested in being ecologically sensitive, I would say stick to grass-fed beef for the most part.
I stick to grass fed myself, but it's b/c I enjoy the flavor of grass fed beef a bit more.

I agree that sanitary conditions should probably be raised too,
(as well as ecological impact among other factors),
but honestly I see no bearing as to what that has to do with this study.

When I read the article it stated that they got this information from somewhere else. Ive seen some other studies a few years back which included something like this in an overall bigger picture. Trying to just have that little chart by itself isnt very helpful to anyone

In places that they are fed decently, the amount of food we feed these animals to get them all big and produce milk far exceeds what we get from them, meaning more people can be fed with the corn, grains etc. than what we get back in lbs of beef

The majority of cows are definitely not fed straight corn anymore. They are fed nasty slop looking shit which is full of all kinds of shit to make them bigger and would make us wanna puke! The cows look very unhealthy. I believe if they were kept healthy like in some farms these animals would produce even higher yields

If you're ever down here in the south and get a chance to check out one of these places please do. You won't want to ever eat beef again, that is if you can even get past the smell which floats miles away

the last really didnt have anything to do with the study, it was just some added info lol

[Corbic]

It's really silly, you still don't 'KILL' a chicken because it lays eggs for you.
Whether or not the chicken gets killed is up the farm or facility that raises the bird.
Might as well start measuring how many dairy cows you kill based on how much milk & cheese it produces.

Regardless I don't see the point in such a study.
Sorry to say, but it's one the dumbest study I've ever read.
It has no practical bearing whatsoever unless you're some vegan (probably Californian) tree-hugger.

These animal breads would be extinct if they did not serve man a purpose. By tasting good and making fashionable products, cows will always exist as long as man does.

[Corbic]

The majority of cows are definitely not fed straight corn anymore. They are fed nasty slop looking shit which is full of all kinds of shit to make them bigger and would make us wanna puke! The cows look very unhealthy. I believe if they were kept healthy like in some farms these animals would produce even higher yields

No idea what your squawking about but cows don't eat corn. Corn is feed to them shortly before market as it fattens them up and softens their muscles. It also causes massive bloating issues.

Don't get me wrong, cows love this shit, it's like candy, but imagine a person eating nothing but chettos for 8 weeks.

[kingkilburn]

These animal breads would be extinct if they did not serve man a purpose. By tasting good and making fashionable products, cows will always exist as long as man does.

Absolutely false.

Just take a trip to Texas and watch the feral pigs fuck up livestock and hunters alike.

http://bigbucksite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/hog-hunting.jpg

Looks rather the opposite of extinct, like they're doing great after getting into the wild.


You can also look at the many species of wild cows all over asia, africa, and europe. The beef cattle in america are essentially wild animals too. Cows will always exist baring a global mass extinction of large animals.

Chickens never left the wild. They still run the jungles of asia unchanged by man.




This idea that man is the master of the Earth is a fallacy. We are custodians at best and we aren't doing a very good job of it.

[ViciousCesar!]

I really wish there was a larger/smarter animal on earth that would cage us, exploit us, murder us, eat us and see us merely as a commodity.

[ronmcdon]

I really wish there was a larger/smarter animal on earth that would cage us, exploit us, murder us, eat us and see us merely as a commodity.

thought they were called corporations, lol

[ViciousCesar!]

thought they were called corporations, lol

Haha, good call.

[axiomatik]

thought they were called corporations, lol

hey now, corporations are people too.

[ronmcdon]

ugh, not too optimistic with Mitt Romney if that's his stance.

[ViciousCesar!]

hey now, corporations are people too.

Psychopathic people. But legally 'people' none the less.

[speedgod^s13]

Psychopathic people. But legally 'people' none the less.

Majority of them are worse than the animals that they consume.