The consequences if the world decided to go meat-free
The consequences if the world decided to go meat-free
www.bbc.com
The consequences if the world decided to go meat-free
27 comments
-
-
Only one to level comment and is misinformation. Fiber, people, plants have them and they are the actual solution for the over assimilation of carbohydrates.
-
Because we know carbohydrates, when over consumed, are a major factor in obesity and diabetes. Wouldn't the whole world going meat free drive an increase in carbohydrate eating?
Isn’t this already a problem for people who avoid meat? I mean, it’s a problem for everyone. But, I’m always curious about this dynamic.
-
Type 2 Diabetes is an acquired inability to process carbohydrates, but diabetes is not CAUSED by carbohydrates. We're uniquely evolved to eat starches, it's one of our superpowers, and the preferred energy source of our hungry brains. Carbs good. Refined carbs bad.
You might be interested in: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/can-a-plant-based-diet-reverse-type-2-diabetes
-
Thank you.
-
-
Overconsumption leads to obesity. Doesn't matter the source.
-
I'm not sure why you're assuming someone who moves to a plant based diet would replace meats and dairy with bread and pasta. Veggies (beans, peas, corn, spinach, etc.) Have plenty of protein and also fiber, which is what most people, especially in the West, actually need more of.
Eating plant based is just the food part of vegan though. I also don't pay for animal exploitation when it comes to my shoes, clothes, accessories, etc. It's a full net benefit in every aspect.
-
I'm not sure why you're assuming someone who moves to a plant based diet would replace meats and dairy with bread and pasta.
Well, I’m thinking poorly of my fellow Americans. I don’t think this outcome would be uniform across the world if meat vanished tomorrow. And I’m fixated on the modern advances in meat replacements that are in stores. They can taste pretty good.
But it’s become clear now that people are engaging with me that this just isn’t the sort of conversation appropriate for the sub. Because it’s a cliched question, it comes off as drive-by trolling.
-
-
-
RFK drops his jaw in shock.
-
Ok, that’s probally the answer.
I wasn’t talking about good eaters. I was talking about typical people. And people who would shift to processed foods to replace meat.
I realize this is probably an old talking point. But I’m not familiar with the discussion. And figured people would discuss it. Instead of yelling, downvoting and just saying no.
The fact this article leaves out that most people (in the west, etc) would still struggle to eat healthy, and they would end up ingesting more carbs… I think it lines up with the spirit of the article. Unless the concept includes fixing other things before the meat is removed.
I’m down for meat going away, btw. Let’s go!
-
-
No
-
The appropriate response.
-
-
27 comments
I am curious about how much the carbon reduction from decreased animal cultivation would be offset by the increase needed in plant cultivation.
Edit: leave it to the vegan community to throw down votes for an honest curiosity. I don't care, but I do find it funny because it plays into the stereotypes.
You need more plants for meat than directly providing that to people.
I wasn't aware that it was so stark an amount. Thanks for the comment.
We would decrease plant cultivation as a result of decreasing animal exploitation within the agricultural sector. Far more plants are needed, and land cleared, in an animal based system than a plant based one. There would be no offset. Plant agriculture is, in part, a downstream effect of animal "agriculture".