Banning meat?

[ComfortablyNumb]

"The new generation of cause bearers..."

C'mon now. These folks are no different than any other generation that has passed before them. Every generation or two has its causes. Remember when alcohol was banned (and later un-banned)? Remember when women's suffrage was a cause? As a non-smoker, I am delighted that some common sense restrictions were put in place to limit where folks could smother me (and my clothing) with their deadly and foul smelling exhaust.

On a planet with an ever increasing population, a changing climate, and declining resources (some of which are going to hit agriculture particularly hard) meat production at higher (and even current) levels is likely to become unsustainable or affordable. Won't really need to worry about taxing meat to try and limit demand/consumption as free market pricing itself is likely to address the problem.

Then you'll be glad to have that Impossible Whopper to fall back on!

Actually, I would say these folks are different than other generations that have passed before them. They have social media and the ability to communicate globally instantly, which allows them to organise and spread information (or mis-information) to a degree their predecessors could not even imagine.

As a non-smoker I have benefitted just the same as you, however that was not the point. The point was they don't go for an outright ban at first as that would not get support. So they start small, and keep adding until they have achieved their agenda. One of the ways they achieved it was by educating the youth. When I was growing up smoking was 'cool'. After a few decades of anti-smoking education it's 'disgusting and gross'. If you don't think Vegans have a similar agenda, you might want to wake up and smell that coffee.

Nothing like a good doom and gloom scenario to attempt to make a point moot. I suppose if it gets that bad it won't be a free market adjustment, rather people killing one another for food and resources. That is if the other predictions of humans destroying the earth don't come first.

But hey, let's keep it all in perspective. They want to ban meat, not animals. And, with a few sharp knives and a bit of skill, as long as we have animals, we have meat. So you can keep your Impossible Whopper.

[Histrix]

Actually, I would say these folks are different than other generations that have passed before them. They have social media and the ability to communicate globally instantly, which allows them to organise and spread information (or mis-information) to a degree their predecessors could not even imagine.

As a non-smoker I have benefitted just the same as you, however that was not the point. The point was they don't go for an outright ban at first as that would not get support. So they start small, and keep adding until they have achieved their agenda. One of the ways they achieved it was by educating the youth. When I was growing up smoking was 'cool'. After a few decades of anti-smoking education it's 'disgusting and gross'. If you don't think Vegans have a similar agenda, you might want to wake up and smell that coffee.

Nothing like a good doom and gloom scenario to attempt to make a point moot. I suppose if it gets that bad it won't be a free market adjustment, rather people killing one another for food and resources. That is if the other predictions of humans destroying the earth don't come first.

But hey, let's keep it all in perspective. They want to ban meat, not animals. And, with a few sharp knives and a bit of skill, as long as we have animals, we have meat. So you can keep your Impossible Whopper.

No doubt there are tools available these days that speed the spread of information. Those tools certainly allow reaching a wider audience and may well shorten some timelines for action. However, in an age of astroturfing, gaslighting, trolls, bots, etc. whether those tools are a net positive or a net negative is still unclear.

Smoking restrictions took place over many decades not because the tools available in the past were inferior to the tools of today. It took a while for the science and the widespread health costs/impacts to catch up to the politics and lobbying money that protected tobacco for far too long.

Of course, "Big Meat" is no different than any other corporate lobby and they’ve had a long advantage in hiding/protecting many of the negative aspects of their industry.

Certainly vegans have an agenda (don’t we all?) and I’m quite familiar with the vegan agenda (my sister is a vegan and PETA’s world headquarters is a couple blocks from my house). Almost all the vegans I know are of the more laissez-faire type more interested in using peer pressure rather than working towards a government ban. Which is logical on their part because an outright ban on meat production by government fiat is never likely to happen in the USA or UK.

One doesn’t need a dystopian future to believe that, due to a variety of factors, a few decades on, market forces are more than likely to price many meat (and seafood) products high enough that many consumers will likely change their dietary habits to tilt more heavily to the plant side. No government action necessary.

Good point about knives/skills. Perhaps the militant vegan crowd would be more successful in achieving their agenda if they try to get laws requiring that everyone has to kill and butcher the animal themselves that they want to buy parts from.

[KenC52]

Perhaps the militant vegan crowd would be more successful in achieving their agenda if they try to get laws requiring that everyone has to kill and butcher the animal themselves that they want to buy parts from.

Works for me.

[smokin fool]

What's black and brown and would look good on a vegan lawyers neck?

A vicious Doberman!

Like, I mean good freakin luck with this one bro....

[ComfortablyNumb]

No doubt there are tools available these days that speed the spread of information. Those tools certainly allow reaching a wider audience and may well shorten some timelines for action. However, in an age of astroturfing, gaslighting, trolls, bots, etc. whether those tools are a net positive or a net negative is still unclear.

Smoking restrictions took place over many decades not because the tools available in the past were inferior to the tools of today. It took a while for the science and the widespread health costs/impacts to catch up to the politics and lobbying money that protected tobacco for far too long.

Of course, "Big Meat" is no different than any other corporate lobby and they’ve had a long advantage in hiding/protecting many of the negative aspects of their industry.

Certainly vegans have an agenda (don’t we all?) and I’m quite familiar with the vegan agenda (my sister is a vegan and PETA’s world headquarters is a couple blocks from my house). Almost all the vegans I know are of the more laissez-faire type more interested in using peer pressure rather than working towards a government ban. Which is logical on their part because an outright ban on meat production by government fiat is never likely to happen in the USA or UK.

One doesn’t need a dystopian future to believe that, due to a variety of factors, a few decades on, market forces are more than likely to price many meat (and seafood) products high enough that many consumers will likely change their dietary habits to tilt more heavily to the plant side. No government action necessary.

Good point about knives/skills. Perhaps the militant vegan crowd would be more successful in achieving their agenda if they try to get laws requiring that everyone has to kill and butcher the animal themselves that they want to buy parts from.

It's more than just tools, there are now alliances formed. For example, this vegan lawyer is pitching an environmental angle, so environmentalists who are not necessarily opposed to meat may lend support and vice versa.

Granted big tobacco money and lobbyists were hindrances, but in 1964 when the Surgeon General first issued a warning nearly half of all adult Americans smoked. To attempt to ban smoking in buildings, public events, restaurants, etc. would have been met with public backlash. First came domestic air flights. Then TV and magazine advertising. Educational programmes were instituted, especially geared towards the youth. Bit by bit they were able to enact more laws, induce more taxes, and now the percentage of American adults that smoke to less than 20%. Now the shoe is on the other foot, rather than backlash, there is now more outcry for bans.

So how would that work with meat? First step might be to try to ban meat, or severely limit, in school meal programmes, sold as healthier options and money saved by not buying expensive meat. People who vote aren't in school and wouldn't protest much, especially if they could be led to believe their tax dollars would be stretched further. Besides, they can take little Johnny to Mickey D's after school for nuggets or a burger. That's when the education programme kicks in, start grooming the youngsters that meat is bad for your health, bad for the environment, and cruel to animals. In a couple of decades the ball will pick up momentum.

Plant based food isn't immune to price increases. When I was young corn was a dozen for a dollar. Now I see it as high as a dollar an ear, at Costco no less.

I've said for years that if people had to butcher their own meat there would be a lot more vegetarians than there is now. But then, there would be a lot of starving people if supermarkets and restaurants disappeared. Even if they grew it, they wouldn't know what to do with it.

[KenC52]

Environmental concerns and their proposed solutions all ignore one basic fact: if the human population continues to grow at the current rate no solution will work in the long run. We either control our population or mother nature will find a way to do it for us, just as she does with population explosions in other animals. And she can be a real nasty b%#$&!

[Huskee]

I'm in favor of banning the overcooking and burning of meat.

[Huskee]

I've said for years that if people had to butcher their own meat there would be a lot more vegetarians than there is now. But then, there would be a lot of starving people if supermarkets and restaurants disappeared. Even if they grew it, they wouldn't know what to do with it.

On a similar note I've said for years that if grocery stores disappeared, or if a person were stranded somewhere, Survivorman style, there'd be no such thing as a vegan. You want to eat? You hunt or you fish. I think veganism is a product of a comfortable lifestyle in developed lands filled with many easy options.

[mountainsmoker]

We will never be able to feed the planet on the principal of Veganism. It just can't happen. It takes more land to grow the grains and vegetables to feed our 6+ billion people than there is to feed them the mixed diet their bodies need to get the proteins needed. Some of them can only be grown in certain parts of the world. Some are difficult to find now. Our bodies require a mix of protein molecules to survive. It can be achieved on a Vegan diet but it takes a concerted effort to do so.

Where are you going to get all of the organic fertilizer you need for the fields. How are you going to harvest the crops without using non-organic methods. How much are you going to pay the pickers of your organic produce and fruit.

Does Veganism become more than the fad than it is now? Probably. Will it ever cost less than main line food? No, it takes to much processing or buying of ingredients.



All opinions are those of the author through his readings and from learning from his wife a Home Care Nurse who had to learn how to handle Vegan patients and meal plan for them. Also through a best friends husbands who works for management for one of the major players in the Vegan/Vegetarian food market.

[ComfortablyNumb]

Vegans are concerned with animal welfare, not necessarily organic. Although many may lean towards organic, not all do. Conventionally grown produce is acceptable to many vegans, and modern farm equipment is not an issue, likely preferred over draft animals. A vegan diet need not be costly, rice, beans, lettuce and salsa rolled in a tortilla would be vegan fare. As for protein, there is a long list of vegan foods that supply protein. https://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.php

[Troutman]

We will never be able to feed the planet on the principal of Veganism. It just can't happen. It takes more land to grow the grains and vegetables to feed our 6+ billion people than there is to feed them the mixed diet their bodies need to get the proteins needed. Some of them can only be grown in certain parts of the world.

Speaking of parts, don't mean to be too gross here but I was listening to this guy on the boob tube talking about how in the near future we just may have to feed people parts.....human parts. He was dead serious about that. Now I'm sure that will be a time when yours truly will be long gone but it's not very far fetched to conceive. Anyone want to open up a can of Soylent Green.......?

[ComfortablyNumb]

Nice pic, I guess we 'can' see them on store shelves in a couple of years....

[Porkies]

2022 is just around the corner!

[Histrix]

We will never be able to feed the planet on the principal of Veganism. It just can't happen. It takes more land to grow the grains and vegetables to feed our 6+ billion people than there is to feed them the mixed diet their bodies need to get the proteins needed...

That is just not true. Those sort of calculations have been done many times over many years. Here's a classic comparison for you:

"On the same amount of land that it requires to feed one person the Typical Western Diet (TWD), you can feed 14 people the vegan diet. Source: Diet for a Small Planet, Frances Moore Lappe. 1982, page 69."

Protein is not a concern as all the protein a human needs is readily available from a variety of plant sources. You don't need meat to consume adequate amounts of protein. Just ask an elephant.

The only nutrient that is problematic for strict vegans is vitamin B12 and that is readily addressed by supplements or fortifying some foods.

[Troutman]

Wonder if Francis Moore Lappe’s ever had an A5 Wagyu steak?

[mountainsmoker]

Well since only a small part of the world eats the TWD, shall we say 1 billion in 1982 out of 4.6 billion world wide. Now you have to go with me on this the same source puts the world at 7.7 billion this year. Source:Worldometers: World Population by Year. A book written in 1982 is no longer valid and I so happen to have read that book. Didn't believe it then, don't believe it now..

Brazil is burning there forests and other areas to provide farmland. So are other countries. Will we survive?

[hogdog6]

"I don't eat what my food eats". Ron Swanson
We will survive!

[Oak Smoke]

I quit smoking years ago because it was the right thing to do. I quit drinking 5 months 11 days, 16 hours and about 39 minutes ago because the keto folks said I couldn't do keto and alcohol. Now I'll be darned if I'll give up meat. I'm probably not as amiable as many of you, I enjoy the freedom to choose what's right for me. Have you been around a true vegan? They contribute greatly to the problem they're blaming on the cows! What will they feed their cats? Yes there are going to be some adjustments because of population density, but there are vast tracts of land that are only fit for grazing. I don't see this becoming an issue in my lifetime. I've also accepted the fact that Ron White brought to our attention, "You can't fix stupid".

[Oak Smoke]

Guilty! I wasn't a heavy drinker, but I loved sitting on the back porch watching the sun go down with a nice straight bourbon and a couple of ice cubes. True peace on earth.

[Histrix]

You can do keto and alcohol as long as the alcohol is not beer or wine and is just straight distilled spirits (and not mixed into some sugary cocktail).

Beer and wine have carbs.

Whiskey, gin, vodka, rum, etc. do not have carbs and thus are keto friendly so you actually can enjoy a couple fingers of bourbon on ice and watch the sun go down.

[hogdog6]

Or Oak Smoke you've made this far stay the course.

[Porkies]

I've been running around this planet for a few years. The older I get, the more I see almost everything political/government related as attached to Control; both individual and population. Tobacco control is a prime example. We are told that smoking is putting a real strain on taxpayers, even though the extra tax on tobacco has been around for awhile. I hear nothing about the extra strain on taxpayers for all of the problems associated with pharma and doctors shoving pills into the pockets of adults, and children, some of which end up in landfills and drinking water.
I take issue with people telling me what to do when what I am doing has nothing to do with them, especially when they do not know, or do not wish to consider, just how many practices in this world are much worse, or are going to cause much worse conditions, than smoking, eating meat, having a drink.

Perhaps a better example is texting while driving versus drinking while/and driving. I don't condone either, but the former is considered okay by some who would turn in a person they saw raise a beer while driving.

Of course, all of this is my take on society and I am just as likely to be wrong as the next person!

[aladdin4d]

That is just not true. Those sort of calculations have been done many times over many years. Here's a classic comparison for you:

"On the same amount of land that it requires to feed one person the Typical Western Diet (TWD), you can feed 14 people the vegan diet. Source: Diet for a Small Planet, Frances Moore Lappe. 1982, page 69."

This sounds nice but it isn't a paragon of accuracy either. Land and resource use can get real complicated real quick. I have yet to see a model that accurately reflects the real world from any side of the debate. Using this one as an example, it assumes all land used by livestock is equally suitable for vegan diet production. Point blank - it isn't. Pasture land for cattle or other ruminants is typically not suitable for much anything else without serious efforts like irrigation. Irrigation shifts the water footprint from a minimal impact green water footprint with a minimal grey water waste impact (sustainable pasture cattle) to a high impact blue water footprint and a medium grey water waste impact. That really isn't a good trade off.

It also completely ignores multi-use crops that can be used by humans for food and other things and serve livestock at the same time. Corn can go to a refinery to provide ethanol and poly lactic acid for plastic and the waste from that can still be used as a ruminant feed stock. Tricky to dry it for that purpose I admit but it can be and is done. A grapefruit grove can provide not just the fruit but juice, citric acid and pectin can be extracted from the peels. The waste from that is used as a feed stock. There are numerous other examples but the moral of the story is anytime anybody tries to throw out anything as simplistic as what Frances Moore Lappe did here it's going to be horribly wrong regardless of what side it comes from.