[ghostzilla]

In ancient Greece they supposedly ate meat only during festivals. That was not only better for people but also allowed animal populations to recover.

I firmly believe that the level of meat consumption today is unnaturally high, simply because people of the old did not have refrigeration, to say nothing of how the animals are raised today. I eat meat here and there, and I enjoy it, but try to limit consumption to a few times per month.

Another point of reference: the Church forbade Crusaders to eat meat from warm-blooded animals more than two times a week. If a warrior under full armor is good with two portions of meat a week, most of us should be too.

[nonameiguess]

I doubt the crusaders were really "good." Most likely nearly all soldiers historically were badly malnourished, but considered expendable and many were going to die no matter what. That isn't to say contemporary humans don't still overeat, probably everything, not just meat. Neither the calorie nor protein requirements of a sedentary office worker are comparable to a medieval soldier.

[ghostzilla]

I had always thought they had some sort of special treatment but wasn't sure of their social status. I found a bit on that:

https://www.quora.com/Where-specifically-did-the-Crusaders-c...

"Most seem to think they were warrior monks, or high ranking nobles or poor peasants. In some cases that’s correct, but on the whole often not the case.

Most who fought in the holy land and there were other places where they had crusades, were usually lower nobles, knightly class or franklin, usually richer farmers. They weren’t poor peasants, but they were no rich kings either. They were often people who could barely afford to travel accross the land and have some equipment. Not for nothing did the Byzantine empire get pillaged sometimes.

Picture them as mostly young men of upper middle class background, basically comparable to your modern day average college or university brat. They were relatively well off, but not exactly rich upper class either. Basically up and coming social climbers."

[satvikpendem]

> I firmly believe that the level of meat consumption today is unnaturally high, simply because people of the old did not have refrigeration, to say nothing of how the animals are raised today. I eat meat here and there, and I enjoy it, but try to limit consumption to a few times per month.

It depends on how you define "natural." In our hunter-gatherer days, it was very common to eat meat, and lots of it, since we did not have much caloric intake through plants alone. We see this today in certain tribal groups that still have that way of life.

That is to say, appealing to nature is not a good argument and is in fact considered a logical fallacy [0], because not all that is natural is good and not all that is unnatural is bad.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

[ghostzilla]

How much -- not whether -- something is natural is determined by the statistical processes that make the thing. "Appeal to nature fallacy" misses that critical point.