[dkersten]

If it damages the world or society, then why not? Would you say that I have the right to eat pets? Humans? Animals (or plants) that are on the brink of extinction?

There are plenty of valid reasons to restrict what people are allowed to eat.

[chrisco255]

By pets what do you mean? Is it ethical for me to have a cat, when cats are obligate carnivores that not only have to eat meat but also independently kill billions of birds a year? Is it not okay for me to eat a chicken but it's perfectly ok to own a python or boa and feed it live mice?

Cows are not killing the planet. They are one of the few things you can raise that doesn't require pesticides or chemical fertilizers. They and other ruminants are important parts of grassland ecosystems.

The megafauna that existed on planet Earth just 200, 500, and 12,000 years ago were far more numerous than the number of livestock cows today.

This reductionist mindset about the environment that doesn't even attempt to quantify trade offs or factor for the important role livestock plays in crop production is beyond tiresome.

We also happen to need meat for healthy brain function. We need lots of Omega-3 fatty acids the kind that animal foods only provide and plants are not as healthy as they're made out to be. They have tons of oxalates, phytic acids, and inflammatory agents that harm human health in large doses. Not to mention the absurd amount of carbs we already consume from plant based foods.

[dkersten]

> This reductionist mindset about the environment that doesn't even attempt to quantify trade offs or factor for the important role livestock plays in crop production is beyond tiresome.

I'm not the one who wrote the UN report on climate change that recommends reducing meat consumption. Maybe take it up with the UN instead.

> Not to mention the absurd amount of carbs we already consume from plant based foods.

Speak for yourself. I eat a plant-heavy low-carb diet (I do eat fish, eggs and meat too).

But... you're not replying to what I was saying and that is that there are perfectly valid reasons to restrict what people are allowed to eat. I didn't say anything about not eating cows or whatever, you took my comment out of context, which was simply "There are plenty of valid reasons to restrict what people are allowed to eat." The first paragraph was simply giving examples of reasons that various people might have to do so.

[buckthundaz]

> I'm not the one who wrote the UN report on climate change that recommends reducing meat consumption. Maybe take it up with the UN instead.

Appeal to authority.

> There are plenty of valid reasons to restrict what people are allowed to eat.

Name one. Sounds very tyrannical to me.

[dkersten]

> Appeal to authority.

Uhhh.. the person implied that I was saying cows are killing the planet, I simply stated that I never said that, the UN did, so take it up with them instead of me. Why are you are you taking what I said out of context?

> Name one.

Are you just replying without reading the thread? My very first message named a few. I never said they were good reasons, but they are reasons nonetheless.

[perfunctory]

> Cows are not killing the planet. They are one of the few things you can raise that doesn't require pesticides or chemical fertilizers.

True in theory. Not in practice. Unfortunately most beef we eat doesn't come from grass fed animals. And if we were to convert the entire industry to grassing only, we wouldn't have enough land to produce the same quantity of meat. Which would imply exactly reduced meat consumption.

[chrisco255]

Yes it does. Beef cows spend the majority of their lives in pasture. Very little of it is spent on a feed yard. It's not even always profitable to send a beef cow to a feed yard for finishing so it's not always done. Even there, most of their diet is a mix of hay and grain. Think of it, grass is free while grain must be paid for, so it doesn't even make economic sense. The manure collected and composted at feed yards serve as fertilizer for crops. And no, we don't eat enough meat. We are eating way too many carbs and artificial foods that are destroying our health. Meat is one of the healthiest things you can eat.

[magduf]

>Is it ethical for me to have a cat, when cats are obligate carnivores that not only have to eat meat but also independently kill billions of birds a year?

Properly-kept housecats stay inside and don't kill any birds. I suspect the vast majority of those bird deaths are caused by feral cats, not pets (though of course, most ferals probably are or descend from pets that were abandoned or escaped). Our society could be doing a better job with dealing with feral animals like this, because they are bad for ecosystems; they're basically invasive predators.

Bird-killing aside, the environmental impact of pets is actually pretty staggering. It's probably worse for dogs too, since they're much larger animals on average.

>The megafauna that existed on planet Earth just 200, 500, and 12,000 years ago were far more numerous than the number of livestock cows today.

Citation needed. Yes, there were millions of buffalo on the American plains 1000+ years ago, but a quick Google search shows there's over 94 million cows in America today. Also, from what I've read, there are more plains now than in the past, because forests were destroyed by humans to make grasslands.

[matz1]

It's depends on which society. It certainly damage the society who perfer to eat meat.

Right is something that you or someone else has to fight for it. If you prefer to eat meat you have to fight for your right, likewise with the non meat eater.