| >It's bad for the environment Burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment. A cow eating grass and dying is not. The part of meat production that's bad for the environment is the machinery used to transport and process the meat. Grain, legumes, and vegetable farming also use machinery for transportation and processing. Outside of that, animals and plants are all part of a carbon-neutral cycle, so long as the plants aren't fertilized with Haber-Bosch excrement. >it's bad for individual health This is nearly 100% certainly wrong. We can say with nearly 100% certainty that a human being cannot thrive without regularly eating meat, or at least dairy or eggs. This is evidenced by human beings having eaten meat for millions of years. Eating meat is Lindy. Million-year-old Lindy things, especially biological things like diet, are robust, resilient, antifragile. Diet is a solved problem. It was solved over millions of years of humans, their predecessors, and their extinct offshoots trying and testing various foods/diets. The ones who survived ate and continue to eat meat. Guess what happened to the other ones. >I don't know what the solution is, because as soon as you mention eating less meat people laugh at you or get super defensive Less is pretty relative, and there is no solution, because there is no problem. It's understandable people are going to get defensive when you attack their means to life. Just eat how your ancestors ate. For a Northern European, that means a lot of milk and meat. If you're Mediterranean, follow the Greek Orthodox tradition - periodic meat and vegetable eating. If you're an Eskimo, eat a bunch of fish. |
Uh...your second sentence is evidence that you can thrive while regularly eating meat, but not evidence that you can't thrive without it.
Meanwhile, your first sentence entails that there's no such thing as a thriving vegan.
Maybe eating meat is natural, and healthy, and moral, but you might want to limit your arguments to those that don't deny basic observable facts.