[watchtheworld]

The idea of the vegan diet being "good for humanity" isn't solely about land use which this article focuses on. It's mostly about use of energy.

Vegan diet: food from land -> truck -> grocery store -> my mouth.

Meat/dairy/what have you: food from land -> truck -> animal's mouth -> truck -> grocery store -> my mouth.

And when it comes to meat it means years feeding and water etc. until the product can actually be sent to the store. That's the idea behind it being "good for humanity". A lot of energy/pollution/water use is going into something we simply do not need in such large portions. If we ate less meat (like humans have been doing for most of our history) things would be a lot better for the environment and therefore humanity.

[Turing_Machine]

"And when it comes to meat it means years feeding and water etc. until the product can actually be sent to the store. "

Years? No. Chickens are normally slaughtered at around 40 days. Pigs, 4-10 months. Beef cattle around 14 months.

[watchtheworld]

Got me there

[toasterlovin]

It's a pretty common trope that meat requires more resources to produce than plants, but it is wildly inaccurate.

Rather than breaking things down by meat or plant, we should just be looking at cost per calorie.

There are classes of plants which use much less resources than meat to produce a single calorie. These are generally grains, potatoes, and anything which produces edible oils (olive oil, canola oil, etc.)

There are also classes of plants which require much more resources than meat to produce a single calorie. Generally speaking, all fruits and vegetables, especially leafy greens (which are an order of magnitude more expensive per calorie than meat).

So, veganism or vegetarianism are not necessarily good for the environment. If you switch to being a vegan/vegetarian, but your grocery bill stays the same, then you environmental impact is probably about the same.

[passivepinetree]

Your grocery bill point isn't valid because of a) the complicated state of farming subsidies (in the U.S. at least) and b) the interests certain companies take in pricing various items (for example, at McDonald's a burger is much cheaper than a salad, but one could argue this is because McDonald's has invested much more in making their burger production efficient and has a vested interest in making their customers eat burgers rather than salads).

The bottom line is that your food bill in no way accurately reflects the cost required to produce your food.

[toasterlovin]

Yeah, but we're talking orders of magnitude here, not a few percent.

So, lettuce, for example, is an order of magnitude (10x) more expensive per calorie than ground beef. And ground beef is almost an order of magnitude more expensive per calorie than cereal grains.

My guess as to the reason for these differences is some aspect of the chemistry involved in creating the foods, combined with how easily they spoil during transport. And I don't think it's any accident that the advent of human civilization coincides with domestication of grains.

[eggy]

I think focusing on calorie cost is a good start, but has its caveats. A cup of lettuce is 8 calories, an ounce of beef is 70 calories. People generally eat a cup or less of lettuce in their serving of salad. Whereas they eat 8 oz. or more of beef per serving (16 oz. burgers anyone?).

For decades my bodyweight would not go below 195 lbs. I turned vegetarian and now vegan, and my bodyweight is 178 lbs. I can do more pull ups, my body fat is at 14% vs. 21%, and I feel more energetic than before. I am very active compared with the average person.

One of the great revelations to me was how many calories I was actually consuming compared to what I thought I was consuming. When I was an omnivore, I was trying to keep my caloric intake to 1900 to 2200 calories per day given my activity level and weight. When I actually counted every piece of food put in my mouth for two weeks, I realized I was generally consuming 2500 to 2800 calories. It was cultural and habitual.

When I went vegetarian, and became more conscious of what I was putting in my mouth, I was down to 1850 or less calories a day. My body has stabilized at this weight. All of my standard blood tests show I am in good health.

My point of this expose was to point out that at 10x the expense eating green or vegan gets chipped away at by:

1. I only eat one-tenth of the lettuce or leafy greens based on calories vs. old beef consumption. 2. I eat 33% less calories per day as a healthy, active person. 3. If everyone ate healthier, and more greens (but less calorically), I think the numbers work out better.

[bitL]

Tell that to someone forced to paleo diet due to health/performance reasons. We obviously don't have as complicated ingestion system as cows nor as simple as cats so we aren't "designed" to eat vegetables/meat only but most likely both.

[collyw]

I find it hard top believe that we need both. People have populated (almost) every part of the world for centuries, and have vastly different diets wherever you go. Indians are vegetarian in general, while I imagine that Inuits traditionally ate pretty much anything but plants.

[bitL]

We should probably look at dominant human type and dominant diseases in populations skewed to a particular diet to see what the effects are. I would be interested in looking at strength/muscle/fat ratios, how does their tooth decay, % of population affected by frequent vegetable/fruit toxins and % of population affected by gout and similar illnesses caused by excessive meat consumption.

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

What kind of "performance" reasons are we talking about, because I'm having trouble thinking of "force"ful ones.

[bitL]

Athletic and mental performance. Paleo alongside intermittent fasting is super popular amongst endurance athletes reporting significant energy increase comparing to popular liquid vegan diet; a low-carb, high fiber, medium fat/protein diet also has significant positive effects on some mental disorders (like the currently "popular" BPD or ADHD). And you often see vegans with significant health problems later in life as well (cancer), though this might be side effects of past extremes such as eating junk fats like margarine and plenty of sugar because of mistaken belief those were healthier alternatives, making them as ill as frequent red meat consumers. Will see how this would fare for Soylent users in a few decades.

We probably shouldn't be on either side of extreme - vegan vs meat-only but rather figure out what works for our DNA/RNA-based protein factory best (maybe using personalized ML?) and exercise self-restraint.

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

No-one's "forced" to be an endurance athlete tho.

[bitL]

Not if you are a female; males are thrown into a hypercompetitive world to fight for resources/females and anything that gives you an edge helps.

[watchtheworld]

I never said anything about not eating meat at all. If everyone had a paleo diet we would still be eating A LOT less meat.

[rimantas]

Omg, people go and find out how agriculture works if you only have that primitive view of it. Field, truck, my mouth… my ass.

[jahewson]

I don't really see the energy problem here, I mean it's not like cows are powered by electricity.

[jogjayr]

Lol, surely you're not serious?

In case you are, the energy problem comes from having to ship the cows, lighting, heating, water pumping and fodder shipping to house and feed them. Then further energy requirements for processing the meat, freezing or refrigerating it during shipping, packaging etc. Some of these costs (refrigeration, mostly) are shared with plant-based foods, but most others are extra.