255 grams per week. That’s the short answer to how much meat you can eat without harming the planet. And that only applies to poultry and pork.
Beef cannot be eaten in meaningful quantities without exceeding planetary boundaries, according to an article published by a group of DTU researchers in the journal Nature Food. So says Caroline H. Gebara, postdoc at DTU Sustain and lead author of the study."
Our calculations show that even moderate amounts of red meat in one’s diet are incompatible with what the planet can regenerate of resources based on the environmental factors we looked at in the study. However, there are many other diets—including ones with meat—that are both healthy and sustainable," she says.
Meh. I wouldn’t eat chicken these days either. You should see how it’s made. Corporate farming is abhorrent.
I’m kinda in this camp as well. Barely eat any meat and the meat I do buy is from small local producers where I can meet (hihi) and greet the animals.
How does that work? Do you never eat meat when you go out?
There aren’t a ton of places in the world with a good supply of vegetarian/vegan food AND enough of an ag industry you can go around petting your meat.
A majority of restaurants where I live offer at least one vegetarian option on their menu, and commonly also a vegan option (they might be the same)
Going out I have lots of vegan options so that isn’t an issue generally. And am not rigid in my principles, being a bit moderate makes me less of an obnoxious cunt. Easier to cook for, take along on outings etc.
If I hold hard on any principle it is that to not let perfect stand in the way of good. Being able to do 90% ethical consumption I find to be much better than failing to be 100% pure.
Dafuq?
So when you buy meat you try to buy local. but when you are not being an obnoxious cunt outside you just eat any old meat?
Just like everyone else on the Internet when the topic of animal ethics comes up.
i literally only have meat on special occasions because of this, the entire meat industry is horrible for animals, for your health (red meat) and for the environment.
nothing helps me enjoy a truly special occasion like a little cruelty, violence, atrocity, and self-harm.
what are you going to do, I’m not immune to social pressure, still a step in the right direction if you ask me
You’ll eat beef but not chickens? You consider cows to be treated differently to how chickens are treated?
Yes, not good, but better. I’ve worked in industrial chicken and been fairly close to industrial beef, industrial cows are treated mildly better because it is literally impossible for a cow to survive in the conditions chickens are kept in.
Also, their comment said that they wouldn’t eat chicken either, not that they wouldn’t eat chicken but would eat beef.
You seem to be talking about material conditions. What concerns me more are the psychological conditions and I don’t believe there to be any difference in that respect.
Do you believe that the beef which enters a person’s body will be in some way less harmful, all else being equal, than chicken? Solely because of the absolute difference in the material conditions?
No, but the beef which enters a person’s body won’t be harmful to them (the person) at all.
I may be misunderstanding you. Are you talking about the harm caused in its production? As in pound for pound the harm caused by the production process? Because I would like to emphasize that I don’t think beef production is less harmful, the additional harm caused to the planet in industrial grade beef far outweighs the difference in animal welfare. It seems slightly weird to me to talk about the meat itself being harmful as it enters the person’s body when the harm is in the production.
I also don’t understand what you mean by separating “material” vs “psychological” conditions. If you’re talking about the psychological state the animals are in while they are alive, as far as I know, the statement stands, industrial cattle live slightly better lives (more space and such,) which results as far as I know, in a better psychological state*.
That’s not to say that beef is ok while chicken is not, if chicken is off the table for you, beef definitely should be as well.
*Though it is now occurring to me that comparing the psychological states of chickens and cows may not be an activity with a point.
I differ completely.
Well there’s no psychological state when they’re dead :-)
Cows having more absolute space than chickens doesn’t imply that cows will have a better psychological state. What matters is how much space the animals have relative to how much space the animals need. I would expect farms to give animals precisely as little space as the farm can get away with, meaning the degree of suffering will be exactly at the point of maximum suffering while still surviving, for cows and chickens.
Regardless, I think there’s likely more harm to meat eaters due to the psychological impact of being slaughtered.
Generally, there’s no data on these issues so it’s all just opinion either way. Suffice it to say that to me, your position seems naive.
Ok, I’m going to leave the rest of this alone, because as you said, it seems like mostly opinion either way, but still don’t understand how you think meat eaters are being harmed by the poor psychological state of the animals while they were alive.
Psychological state has a great impact on the physical body. Hormones, neurotransmitters, etc., can be released or suppressed depending on psychological state. When you consume part of an animal, you consume part of that system. Think of the rush of chemicals (cortisol, adrenalin, etc.) in an animal as they’re being slaughtered.
I could say more about subtle energy and karma but you probably get the idea.