Eating meat is considered […] as an evolutionary trait
Correct. But these early humans had no supermarkets or global trade systems. We (and our food selection process) has very little to do with the constraints that these previous generations had. Your argument basically boils down to "it is natural for us to eat meat. This is called “appeal to nature” and is a logical fallacy (i.e. not a very good argument).
cattle industries have gone too far
Kudos to you for acknowledging that.
meat is still one of the easiest ways to give yourself the nutrients required
I do not agree, as meat is lacking in some of the essential nutrients or has a suboptimal composition of them. But even if it was the best source, that would not necessarily justify everything we do (i.e. harm other sentient beings) to get it. To give you an (over the top) counter example: Human meat would even be much better in terms of it’s nutrient composition - but no one would argue for canibalism because of that fact.
What I was getting at is that it’s harder to fight evolution and it takes time. Advocating for meat free lifestyles would most likely push different evolutionary traits in a few million years. And you have to consider cultural influences as well. Additionally, veganism is more prominent in higher income countries because of food processing and “health food” taxes cost money, so many vegan items aren’t inexspensive. Those people that are too impoverished to afford a full vegan diet would starve without meat. Also consider those places where the land can’t be fertilized and farmed. Those people as well would starve. Trade could resolve that only if they can afford it.
So this is a bit of a non sequitur, I just think it’s interesting.
We already evolved FROM being exclusively meat-eating animals. When the first land animals (our direct ancestors) enter the fossil record, there were no plants on land that were edible to them. We already evolved INTO herbivores.
See, I don’t really understand why you think we would need any evolution for this. For what it’s worth, we are already very well capable of thriving on a plant-exclusive diet with our current genetic setup.
meat free lifestyles would most likely push different evolutionary traits in a few million years
Most probably not - or at least not to great extent. You need a selection pressure for evolution to happen. I.e. you need natural selection. And since our food-choices influence our chances for reproduction very little in our modern days. Humans removed them selves to a great extent form “evolution by natural selection” anyways in our age.
you have to consider cultural influences as well
Cultural influences can be used as an explanation for a status quo, but are a bad justification for future behavior most of the time.
Additionally, veganism is more prominent in higher income countries because of food processing and “health food” taxes cost money, so many vegan items aren’t inexspensive.
I can not agree with you on that statement in any way. The cheapest staple foods you could get are mostly vegan (Grains, Legumes, Dried goods, seeds, vegies, fruit, potatos). Meat and animal products are quite expensive to produce in comparison. Most of the time this just does not seem like it, because animal ag is extremly subsidized to keep this industry economically viable. If anyone would need to pay the FULL price of animal products, most of us would not be able to afford then on a regular basis.
Those people that are too impoverished to afford a full vegan diet would starve without meat.
Completely backwards. “Poorer” regions that have a climate suited to produce crops often have traditionally a very plant heavy diet, since things like grains and legumes have a great shelf life and are very cheap. Meat is fucking expensive. It boils down to basic thermodynamics. You need to put so much calories into an animal that you will never be ably to retrieve by consuming their body. It is wasteful.
Also consider those places where the land can’t be fertilized and farmed. Those people as well would starve.
No one in their right minds would say that some indigenous tribes or the Inuit need to be eating veggie burgers tomorrow. We are talking about the vast majority of people on this planet - like you and me. And we have the choice. Diverting the argument over to some hypothetical about foreign tribes or poor people is not necessary and also not at the heart of the arguments.
Correct. But these early humans had no supermarkets or global trade systems. We (and our food selection process) has very little to do with the constraints that these previous generations had. Your argument basically boils down to "it is natural for us to eat meat. This is called “appeal to nature” and is a logical fallacy (i.e. not a very good argument).
Kudos to you for acknowledging that.
I do not agree, as meat is lacking in some of the essential nutrients or has a suboptimal composition of them. But even if it was the best source, that would not necessarily justify everything we do (i.e. harm other sentient beings) to get it. To give you an (over the top) counter example: Human meat would even be much better in terms of it’s nutrient composition - but no one would argue for canibalism because of that fact.
What I was getting at is that it’s harder to fight evolution and it takes time. Advocating for meat free lifestyles would most likely push different evolutionary traits in a few million years. And you have to consider cultural influences as well. Additionally, veganism is more prominent in higher income countries because of food processing and “health food” taxes cost money, so many vegan items aren’t inexspensive. Those people that are too impoverished to afford a full vegan diet would starve without meat. Also consider those places where the land can’t be fertilized and farmed. Those people as well would starve. Trade could resolve that only if they can afford it.
So this is a bit of a non sequitur, I just think it’s interesting.
We already evolved FROM being exclusively meat-eating animals. When the first land animals (our direct ancestors) enter the fossil record, there were no plants on land that were edible to them. We already evolved INTO herbivores.
See, I don’t really understand why you think we would need any evolution for this. For what it’s worth, we are already very well capable of thriving on a plant-exclusive diet with our current genetic setup.
Most probably not - or at least not to great extent. You need a selection pressure for evolution to happen. I.e. you need natural selection. And since our food-choices influence our chances for reproduction very little in our modern days. Humans removed them selves to a great extent form “evolution by natural selection” anyways in our age.
Cultural influences can be used as an explanation for a status quo, but are a bad justification for future behavior most of the time.
I can not agree with you on that statement in any way. The cheapest staple foods you could get are mostly vegan (Grains, Legumes, Dried goods, seeds, vegies, fruit, potatos). Meat and animal products are quite expensive to produce in comparison. Most of the time this just does not seem like it, because animal ag is extremly subsidized to keep this industry economically viable. If anyone would need to pay the FULL price of animal products, most of us would not be able to afford then on a regular basis.
Completely backwards. “Poorer” regions that have a climate suited to produce crops often have traditionally a very plant heavy diet, since things like grains and legumes have a great shelf life and are very cheap. Meat is fucking expensive. It boils down to basic thermodynamics. You need to put so much calories into an animal that you will never be ably to retrieve by consuming their body. It is wasteful.
No one in their right minds would say that some indigenous tribes or the Inuit need to be eating veggie burgers tomorrow. We are talking about the vast majority of people on this planet - like you and me. And we have the choice. Diverting the argument over to some hypothetical about foreign tribes or poor people is not necessary and also not at the heart of the arguments.
Did you read the articles?