The answer to the question is quite simple. It’s also why I don’t bother with any of the nonsense about personally cutting emissions, etc, that is out there, whether it be ‘eat less meat’ or ‘turn off lights’ or whatever. Because the ‘single biggest thing I can do’ and the ‘greatest effect of things I could do’ is still so close to zero that the difference cannot be reasonably measured.
If there is a runaway freight train that needs to be stopped, me throwing a pebble isn’t going to stop it. Yes, my pebble will impart its kinetic force unto the train, slowing its movement, because the laws of physics say that no matter how small an effect, it does have an effect, but the effect is so small as to be effectively unmeasurable. And it is the same with any effect I can have on climate change.
I took a return flight last week. short haul (1hr each way) in a turbo prop (ATR-72-400). It get’s 93 mpg and was half full, so about 30-40 people. The only way I could have produced less CO2 would have been to not travel at all. Which of course is easy, I mean
I don’t understand otherwise well-meaning liberals who continue to travel
In a few decades, or at least a century or two, biologically printed meat will be a reasonable and tasty substitute for meat produced by farming. After that time it would be entirely possible for consumers to eat meat without killing any living creature.
If there is anyone who calls themself a liberal after that time and still eats farmed meat, or any kind of flesh (except perhaps the products of hunting), then they would be a dolt.
I’m politically liberal. I eat meat. I consider “animal rights” and the precepts of veganism to be about as unconvincing and nonbinding as those of the Virgin Birth: a dead serious article of faith to some and absolutely irrelevant to everybody else.
I stopped eating red meat for one year about 25 years ago. I didn’t feel any of the health benefits attributed to this move. Glad it works for you, but your dietary authority really ends at your own dinner table.
But that’s true of basically everything. The effect of a single person on the state of the world is never all that much, save for a few individuals. The point is that there are a lot of us, and so everyone doing something adds up.
This is literally the logic for why people don’t bother voting or otherwise engaging politically. And yet collective action is one of the most powerful tools we have.
I honestly think this is why we developed moral codes. There usually isn’t an immediate effect to most moral actions, but a lot of people doing them makes the world better.
Actually, that meat is neither particularly lean or tough. It is just very seasonal. In the natural system of things, young livestock are ready to butcher in fall. What feedlots do is make it possible to fatten to butcher weight nearly year round. It also creates much more carcass uniformity. You can even out good and bad grass years by grain feeding at the end.
It requires more skill, and much attention toward pasture management, to bring calves to market weight on grass alone. But the beef is considerably healthier to eat, along with it being far more ecologically sound.
I think moral codes developed in a context of small groups of people trying to live together. Which is probably why they are so problematic when millions of people are trying to live together. Apathy has a lot of logic to it now.
Nitpick / pet peeve, and maybe this is part of the problem. Going vegetarian means replacing meat with alternative protein sources. Mostly legumes, beans (including the various soy products like tofu), other plant proteins (like seitan or, say, the pea protein in an impossible burger), or even things like eggs. It doesn’t mean replacing meat with vegetables, which just doesn’t make sense. Vegetables don’t have protein or even a lot of calories.
The most basic moral codes are only about immediate effects. Specifically, they’re about limiting personal desires when those desires would cause immediate harm to others. I shouldn’t beat you up and take your cow because hurting somebody and taking their stuff is obviously, immediately bad.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) counts beans as part of both the vegetable and protein food groups. As do the vast majority of nutritionists. Botanically they’re a fruit.
They also count potatoes as a vegetable. I think there’s a disconnect between the USDA’s definitions and most peoples’ common understanding. French fries are not a vegetable; sorry USDA.
IMO, french fries are a vegetable just as much as butter-fried asparagus is a vegetable. At least in the context of “not eating meat”. In addition, potatoes they are not a bad component of a complete protein regimen. You don’t have to only fry potatoes. You can also boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew.
It’s definitely fair to point out that a culinary definition of a food has no obligation to line up with the scientific one.
But when it comes to discussions about vegetarianism, which is what this thread is, vegetables are clearly defined as “things which grow.”
So this:
Is there any reason to believe people are hearing “vegetarians only eat vegetables” and think, “wait a minute, they’re not allowed to eat mushrooms or apples?!”
From a strictly culinary standpoint, potatoes are almost their own thing. Blessed among all vegetables and given a kingdom unto themselves. But they’re still veggies, and most of the classic treatments (see the Tolkien quote a few posts above) we give them can also be given to other starchy roots and tubers.
