"Don't eat meat," says Pope. Is he right?

[Sage_Rat]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Have you ever been to a factory farm?

Those domesticated animal farts would not be replaced with wild animal farts if we slaughtered all those factory farmed animals and shut down the factory. There would simply be fewer living things on the planet. That life is artificially sustained by the efforts of humans that want to eat meat.

The amount of life which can be supported is basically the Surface Area of the Earth X The Amount of Sunlight that Gets Through the Atmosphere. And then the end result of evolution is that all spare energy that is available, thanks to the Sun, will be eaten. If there’s some niche that is avoiding consumption, that’s an easy niche to invade, and consequently it will disappear and, again, 100% of energy will be consumed by life.

On the other hand, if the total energy available is less than the needs of life, then some number of lives will be lost.

But in no case does food go uneaten.

So while it may be true that a large number of life forms may have been collected into one location, since man has no control over the Sun, we are still limited to the available energy that the Sun has naturally produced. We aren’t producing bonus energy and thereby bonus vegetaion to feed our slaughter animals. We’re just aggregating our vegetation to a single location to feed a localized population, where naturally that vegetation would have stayed in its original location and been eaten by a distributed and varied population of animals.

[carnivorousplant]

@Nature_s_Call

Of course I don’t hold the Pope as an authority on, well, anything really.

He worked as a chemist before becoming a Priest.

[kayaker]

@carnivorousplant

He worked as a chemist before becoming a Priest.

Would that be a lateral move?

[Kobal2]

A diagonal one, obviously. Time spent as a bishop, you understand.

[Mikeisskeptical]

@mascaroni

All species are programmed by evolution to pass on their genes.

All genes are programmed by evolution to build more of the species. The consequence of this is that animals have sex and usually don’t eat their young. Animals (almost certainly) have no concept of ‘preservation of the race’.

[DrCube]

@puzzlegal

It is the nature of being an animal that we have to kill other life to survive. In some sense, the only truly moral way to live is to survive on fruit, which is produced to be eaten. Eating a root or a leaf or a seed it killing, just as eating meat and eggs is.

No, eggs are like fruit (or milk, or honey, etc). Nothing dies, and they’re meant to be eaten. Unless I’m misunderstanding you somehow…

[Mikeisskeptical]

@DrCube

No, eggs are like fruit (or milk, or honey, etc). Nothing dies, and they’re meant to be eaten. Unless I’m misunderstanding you somehow…

I think you are. Being eaten is the ‘purpose’ of a fruit. It’s flesh is full of costly-to-produce sugar. It attracts animals which scatter the seeds. Animals may produce a large number of eggs to compensate for some of them being eaten, but ideally they would ‘want’ them all to survive. Honey is intended for the larvae so it’s closer to egg yolk in that sense. Nectar is similar to fruit in that it exists as a sort of bribe. Animals get food in exchange for using their muscles to the benefit of the plant’s reproductive cycle.

[Mikeisskeptical]

I suppose, since their domestication, you could argue that the purpose of a cows milk is as much ‘to encourage humans to breed more cows’ as it is ‘to feed offspring’. Something similar might be said of bees and honey. In that respect it could be considered to have a similar function to fruit, but that’s a very recent development.

[mascaroni]

@Mikeisskeptical

All genes are programmed by evolution to build more of the species. The consequence of this is that animals have sex and usually don’t eat their young. Animals (almost certainly) have no concept of ‘preservation of the race’.

Genes are an intrinsic part of all animal species, thus the species is programmed to build more. I wasn’t suggesting that any non-human species is consciously trying to preserve their ‘race’, it’s instinctive. Those that lack that instinct (Yes, I’m talking about you, Giant Pandas) will become extinct.

[Mikeisskeptical]

@mascaroni

I wasn’t suggesting that any non-human species is consciously trying to preserve their ‘race’, it’s instinctive.

Fair enough, I think that’s all the post you were challenging was saying though. That animals don’t actually care about the preservation of their race. They just want to put food in their faces and get laid every now and then. Even humans didn’t understand the link between sex and reproduction until pretty recently.

[Charlie_Wayne]

There is an excellent documentary that explores the issue of a diet consisting primarily of animal-based products (meat, dairy products, fish, etc.) versus plant-based products (fruits, vegetables, legumes, etc.)

The first time I saw the word “legumes” I had no idea what it meant. For those who may be interested, it means things like beans, peas, lentils, (maybe rice too) etc.

The movie is called “Forks over Knives (2011)” and it is the best exploration of these issues that I’ve ever seen. I’ve seen several other films that explore these issues and most of them are just one-sided and try to scare people (For example “Earthlings (2005)” a terrible film that just tries to scare the pants off you).

Anyway, for your own health and longevity, I suggest you might like to check out this film -
“Forks over Knives (2011)” - it was a real wakeup call for me.

P.S. Here is the definition of “legume family” from the site http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legume%20family
No wonder so few people know what it means:

the large plant family Leguminosae (or Fabaceae), typified by herbaceous plants, shrubs, trees, and vines having usually compound leaves, clusters of irregular, keeled flowers, and fruit in the form of a pod splitting along both sides, and including beans, peas, acacia, alfalfa, clover, indigo, lentil, mesquite, mimosa, and peanut.

[Gatopescado]

No.

[naita]

@Sage_Rat

The amount of life which can be supported is basically the Surface Area of the Earth X The Amount of Sunlight that Gets Through the Atmosphere. And then the end result of evolution is that all spare energy that is available, thanks to the Sun, will be eaten. If there’s some niche that is avoiding consumption, that’s an easy niche to invade, and consequently it will disappear and, again, 100% of energy will be consumed by life.

False. Lot’s of ecosystems are natural carbon sinks. And plant production varies. In an ecosystem where 100% of food is eaten in an average year, 120% is required in a poor year and desperate animals will eat seeds, seedlings and roots, killing off the producing plants. This rarely happens because other factors keep consumers to a level far from using 100% of plant production.

A lot of that excess plant production is still consumed of course, by decomposers like bacteria and fungi, but in most ecosystems the process of decay is slower than the build up of organic material, which is why we have organic soil in the first place.

Humans can skirt closer to the edge of ecologic disaster because we can take steps to prevent over-grazing that a herd of wild animals cannot, and because we can keep a larger number of animals alive during brief low production periods in ways wild animals cannot.

[GIGObuster]

@Kobal2

A diagonal one, obviously. Time spent as a bishop, you understand.

As I commented in a different thread, I was reminded of a very old Ripley’s Believe it or Not cartoon that reported on what NASA experts did think about the most likely food that one could have in future space stations or moon/mars bases.

Chickens and Sheep would be preferred. No cows or pigs, because they are too big and they eat too much.

Something to think about if you do take into account that our planet can be considered our main space ship.

And still every time I see the title of the thread in the main page the automatic shortening made by the board software makes it look like:

**“Don’t eat meat,” says Popeye! **

[eburacum45]

Ah - Popeye - a prime example of a muscular vegan.

[kayaker]

@eburacum45

Ah - Popeye - a prime example of a muscular vegan.

From what I’ve read he had a very high fat diet; always eating olive oil.

[Jackmannii]

I don’t care if the Pope gets more people to go vegan - it just means more barbecue available for me.

[steronz]

I don’t give a shit about the pope, but the UN said this 5 years ago and nobody seems to have cared.

[DrCube]

@Mikeisskeptical

I think you are. Being eaten is the ‘purpose’ of a fruit. It’s flesh is full of costly-to-produce sugar. It attracts animals which scatter the seeds. Animals may produce a large number of eggs to compensate for some of them being eaten, but ideally they would ‘want’ them all to survive. Honey is intended for the larvae so it’s closer to egg yolk in that sense. Nectar is similar to fruit in that it exists as a sort of bribe. Animals get food in exchange for using their muscles to the benefit of the plant’s reproductive cycle.

Eggs won’t survive if you don’t eat them. They will rot. People don’t (normally) eat fertilized eggs. True, eggs and honey are meant for young chicks and bee larvae to eat, not people, but they are meant to be eaten, and no animal dies when we do.

[Frank]

@DrCube

Eggs won’t survive if you don’t eat them. They will rot. People don’t (normally) eat fertilized eggs. True, eggs and honey are meant for young chicks and bee larvae to eat, not people, but they are meant to be eaten, and no animal dies when we do.

But unfertilized eggs would not be produced if people didn’t set it up that way. Assuming someone is vegetarian because they don’t want animals to be mistreated, the production of unfertilized eggs is based on mistreatment of chickens, which are then slaughtered when they cease to be prolific layers.