I get annoyed how the debate around veganism, or the general concept of reducing meat consumption, often drifts towards “meat alternatives” and “replacing meat”. Why meat should have to be replaced ? I think its consumption should just be reduced
Well, it was certainly cruelty-free, as well as yellow, mushy, and plainly disgusting! Why didn’t she just make a guacamole? Or to be more locavore, a black bean dip, or roasted chestnuts?
There are a million “alternatives” to meat that aren’t made in a lab, and most of them are tastier. Roasted sweet potatoes are vegan and delicious. So is lentil soup. So are pasta with stir-fried veggies, a meat-less chili, or any variation of vegetable fried-rice.
The problem is not meat consumption in itself, it’s how much we consume. I think most people could reduce their meat intake by 80 or 90%, not change anything else about the way they eat, and keep on with their daily lives just fine. That certainly would help the environment.
(and to clarify, I’m not some angry, crazy, super-activist vegan dude, I actually LOVE meat, but reduced my consumption over the last years, down to about once a week, trying to make it twice a month. I still really enjoy it, but also enjoy what I eat on the daily, and feel super fine physically)
pseudonamedhero
3 years ago
There is no need for faux-meat to be a vegan.. there are plenty of traditional plant-based ways to get enough protein using more natural traditional farming methods. I agree that faux-meat will not save the planet, but generally most people who use it are vegans because they care about animal cruelty. Not all vegans are doing it for the environment’s sake, and those that are often never touch faux-meat.
Those who consider the environment when choosing their diet recognise that small amounts of animals can be beneficial for the soil but that we must DRASTICALLY reduce meat consumption.. and if we did shift to more soil-regenerating methods of food production we would just not be capable of producing so much meat anyways as it is only possible to produce this much meat through very unnatural, unethical, crowded industrial practices.
pseudonamedhero
3 years ago
There is no need for faux-meat to be a vegan.. there are plenty of traditional plant-based ways to get enough protein using more natural traditional farming methods. I agree that faux-meat will not save the planet, but generally most people who use it are vegans because they care about animal cruelty. Not all vegans are doing it for the environment’s sake, and those that are often never touch faux-meat.
Those who consider the environment when choosing their diet recognise that small amounts of animals can be beneficial for the soil but that we must DRASTICALLY reduce meat consumption.. and if we did shift to more soil-regenerating methods of food production we would just not be capable of producing so much meat anyways as it is only possible to produce this much meat through very unnatural, unethical, crowded industrial practices.
ladyellarebecka
3 years ago
The salient point is completely evaded here: It is to save habitable life itself that we must cease the torturing of animals (for torture is the experience of all enslaved and murdered animals in the evil agriculture industrial complex). By the torturous practices of fHarming or animals we destroy our collective inner well-being. There can be no peaceful future, no spiritual awakening or enlightenment, while humans torture the sentient beings who have equal, if not more, right to life on the planet. The saving of the planet is of secondary import to the saving of our collective ‘humanity’.
I get annoyed how the debate around veganism, or the general concept of reducing meat consumption, often drifts towards “meat alternatives” and “replacing meat”. Why meat should have to be replaced ? I think its consumption should just be reduced
And the idea comes as much from vegans as never-could-be-vegan. My cousin is a vegan, and last christmas meal (remember when we could enjoy christmas as a whole,large family?) she cooked this faux-gras paté thing, a plant-based foie gras.
Well, it was certainly cruelty-free, as well as yellow, mushy, and plainly disgusting! Why didn’t she just make a guacamole? Or to be more locavore, a black bean dip, or roasted chestnuts?
There are a million “alternatives” to meat that aren’t made in a lab, and most of them are tastier. Roasted sweet potatoes are vegan and delicious. So is lentil soup. So are pasta with stir-fried veggies, a meat-less chili, or any variation of vegetable fried-rice.
The problem is not meat consumption in itself, it’s how much we consume. I think most people could reduce their meat intake by 80 or 90%, not change anything else about the way they eat, and keep on with their daily lives just fine. That certainly would help the environment.
(and to clarify, I’m not some angry, crazy, super-activist vegan dude, I actually LOVE meat, but reduced my consumption over the last years, down to about once a week, trying to make it twice a month. I still really enjoy it, but also enjoy what I eat on the daily, and feel super fine physically)
There is no need for faux-meat to be a vegan.. there are plenty of traditional plant-based ways to get enough protein using more natural traditional farming methods. I agree that faux-meat will not save the planet, but generally most people who use it are vegans because they care about animal cruelty. Not all vegans are doing it for the environment’s sake, and those that are often never touch faux-meat.
Those who consider the environment when choosing their diet recognise that small amounts of animals can be beneficial for the soil but that we must DRASTICALLY reduce meat consumption.. and if we did shift to more soil-regenerating methods of food production we would just not be capable of producing so much meat anyways as it is only possible to produce this much meat through very unnatural, unethical, crowded industrial practices.
There is no need for faux-meat to be a vegan.. there are plenty of traditional plant-based ways to get enough protein using more natural traditional farming methods. I agree that faux-meat will not save the planet, but generally most people who use it are vegans because they care about animal cruelty. Not all vegans are doing it for the environment’s sake, and those that are often never touch faux-meat.
Those who consider the environment when choosing their diet recognise that small amounts of animals can be beneficial for the soil but that we must DRASTICALLY reduce meat consumption.. and if we did shift to more soil-regenerating methods of food production we would just not be capable of producing so much meat anyways as it is only possible to produce this much meat through very unnatural, unethical, crowded industrial practices.
The salient point is completely evaded here: It is to save habitable life itself that we must cease the torturing of animals (for torture is the experience of all enslaved and murdered animals in the evil agriculture industrial complex).
By the torturous practices of fHarming or animals we destroy our collective inner well-being.
There can be no peaceful future, no spiritual awakening or enlightenment, while humans torture the sentient beings who have equal, if not more, right to life on the planet.
The saving of the planet is of secondary import to the saving of our collective ‘humanity’.
A human being can be murdered. An animal can not. At least use the right language.