[sinemetu11]

Most americans would not meet suggested exercise levels for "relatively active" even if that was at the 30 min. per day level.

16% is 60% more than 10%. Most americans are consuming meat for at least 2 meals a day, possibly 3 for those who are eating sausage or bacon for breakfast.

The general point is that americans consume way more meat than what they actually need. This has been promoted heavily in the high protein diet fads recently. Educating people on what they actually need for a healthy diet would go a long way and cost a lot less than alternatives like lab-grown meat.

[Zababa]

> 16% is 60% more than 10%

Your article suggested that you could aim for 15-25% and not 10%. 16% is at the bottom of that range. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

[sinemetu11]

You don't understand or you don't like it?

People eat more meat than they need. Most people would be healthier if they consumed less of it or none and substituted vegetables/beans/nuts for those calories while still getting proper amounts of protein from non-meat sources.

Reducing meat consumption reduces a bunch of other consumption of resources letting people get their calories more efficiently.

> Meat is considered one of the prime factors contributing to the current biodiversity loss crisis.

> the livestock sector is a major stressor on many ecosystems and on the planet as a whole. Globally it is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity, and in developed and emerging countries it is perhaps the leading source of water pollution.

> farmers would reduce their land use of feed crops; currently representing about 75% of US land use, and would reduce the use of fertilizer due to the lower land areas and crop yields needed. A transition to a more plant based diet is also projected to improve health, which can lead to reductions in healthcare GHG emissions, currently standing at 8% of US emissions [1]

What's not to understand? Stop eating meat. We don't need lab-grown meat. We don't need meat substitutes.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...

[Zababa]

I don't understand why you're mixing a health claim that you failed to prove with an environmental claim that I agree with. If your point is that using arable land to grow cattle or cattle feed is a waste, then I agree with you. If your point is that we should stop eating meat for health reasons, then I wasn't convinced by what you showed me, and disagree with you. If your point is that we should stop eating meat for moral reasons (as in animal rights), then I disagree with you. If your point is that we should stop eating all meat for environmental reasons, then I disagree with you, as not all meat has the same impact, and I think we should avoid blanket statements like that, especially when they are mostly based on what happens in the USA and not around the world. If your point is that we should stop eating meat that has the most ecological impact, like American or Brazilian beef, then I agree. If your point is not any of those things, then I failed to understand it.