In a paper published in the journal, PLoS ONE, scientists at Wageningen University in The Netherlands proposed that eating mealworms is a more sensible way of acquiring protein in the diet than eating chicken, pork or cattle. Per the article:
Compared to a kilogram of edible protein in meat from cows, chickens or pigs, production of the same amount of mealworm protein emits fewer greenhouse gases and requires much less land to grow. The findings support the argument that environmentally conscious eaters may do well to include beetle larvae in their diets. "This study demonstrates that mealworms should be considered a more sustainable source of edible protein," the team writes in a paper published yesterday in the journal PLoS ONE...Among the things that the worm-like larvae have going for them, they don't emit methane. Also, they are prolific. Depending on the species, females release up to 1,500 eggs over a lifetime. Larvae develop quickly and they convert their food into protein efficiently, at a similar rate to chicken but better than pigs and cattle.
Meat is a very efficient source of nutrients.
If you mean calories, when you say nutrients, that's a point, but why does that matter? Who has problems getting enough calories, nowadays? Calories-per-dollar is more important for people in poverty-stricken areas, so they're not going to eat much meat, anyway.
If you're referring to essential vitamins and minerals, you'll do much better with a wide assortment of vegetables. Who cares if we have to eat more biomass to get the same calories? Your digestive tract will thank you. It does better when you give it lots of fiber and roughage.
There is some evidence that a modest quantity of lean meat even strengthens muscle fibers in the heart.
Although, I bet you'll come out ahead, in terms of heart-health, by cutting out cholesterol, getting a lot of exercise to strengthen your heart, and getting all of the amino-acids you need from the many lean vegetable sources. I usually get over 120 grams of protein a day, from mostly vegetable sources. My heart has plenty of material to work with.
Our digestive and nervous systems have evolved on a diet that included meat.
... which isn't any more valid of an argument than it was the first time you made it.
I would not be surprised if we find that we perform best on a diet that includes large amounts of vegetables and fruits along with some nuts, berries, eggs, and meat.
Well, let me know when we find that. Until then, you're making shit up and spinning wildly to justify your choice of diet, with no evidence.
Damn, I have a perfect comparison to theistic arguments that resemble exactly what you just said. It's the sort of fine-tuning nonsense that they often pull up. I hate when people start with the bullshit, "You're arguing like a theist!" But this one lined up so perfectly with arguments I've heard them make, and I wanted to share. I just can't put my finger on it, with a Google search, and my 15 minutes for editing is about to expire.
It's the classic, ultimate, Argument from Ignorance. I've heard lots of apologists follow up the fine-tuning argument and God-of-the-Gaps with something about how as we learn more about science, we're going to find that new science proves God.
Sure, it hasn't happened YET ...
At any rate, I would hesitate to jump into any extreme diet.
Veganism isn't an extreme diet.
And we can think of cleaner, more environmentally-friendly ways of dealing with the meat issue.
What's cleaner than not eating it? Did you mean to say that we can come up with other, less-effective ways to clean up our environment, compared to not giving a damn and despoiling it whenever we feel like it?
Joseph, it's not my article.
So? I don't care about the article. I care about the arguments you're making.
But I wanted to show that we are not somehow naturally vegans.
Which isn't a valid argument. I smell naturalistic fallacy.
I also wanted to show that rather than being some great evil meat has, in the past granted, greatly benefited us.
Which has nothing to do with how it factors into our current existence, the same as when you tried that argument the last two times.
I think that in this day and age we have access to too many calories, but calories aren't the only issue here. Meat is nutrient rich (B-12, calcium, protein, etc), and if you have a certain type of anemia, meat is superior to supplements.
We've already been over nutrient-sourcing. There are plenty of vegan sources of B12 and calcium. If you think you can't get enough protein from vegetables, you really haven't looked into it. Hell, whole wheat has a fairly high protein-concentration per calorie. My bread has 6 grams of protein and 90 calories per slice, plus whatever I put between the two slices. Lentils have much more protein per calorie than that.
I actually know a vegan girl who is prone to anemia. She eats lots of seaweed and other greens. Her iron-count is higher than most people who aren't anemic.
Joseph, you're ranting. Calm down. Take a deep breath. Get yourself a cup of hot cocoa.
Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
Projection much? I'm not ranting. I'm pointing out the silly things you're saying. I have difficulty believing that you can't see all of the many things wrong with what you're saying, as the words leave your lips ... err fingers.
If you do want to annoy me, keep suggesting that I'm being irrational, when I'm not. If I say something wrong, then refute it. This hand waving isn't impressing anyone.
We all have beliefs, and we all seek evidence that tends to confirm our beliefs. The hallmark of a good scientific hypothesis is that it is falsifiable. We must seek disconfirming evidence to refute our conjectures. A theory stands until it is disproven.
Whoooooooooooooooaaaaah. Hold up there. Someone doesn't understand science. You have to provide a preponderance of evidence, before something even becomes a theory.
You haven't reached that point. Disproof isn't necessary, when something hasn't been sufficiently supported with evidence. Where's yours?
The problem here as you pointed out is that there is not enough evidence to come to an incontrovertible conclusion on what exactly is the optimal diet. It is sub judice.
What I see is Pamela providing evidence and you spinning like crazy. That's where I jumped in.
And yes we clearly have evolved to be capable of digesting meat, but I agree that it would be committing the genetic fallacy to say that because our ancestors ate meat we should too.
Sooooooo ... why do you keep saying it, then ... as if it supports some sort of need to eat meat?
And like I said, when I brought it up, I don't mean to pull the, "You're arguing like a theist," bullshit. I hate when atheists pull that, as a generic insult against another atheist. I just thought the comparison to that particular argument might help you see where you were going wrong, with that line of thought.
... and the comparison simply amused me, and I wanted to share.
When somebody invents tasty mealworm "burgers", without the yuck factor, get back to me.
I'm sure it could be done. And considering ground beef is usually made from the crappiest bits of meat left over on the slaughterhouse floor....you might prefer the mealworm-burger!!
I do understand that a theory is a well-supported hypothesis with a large amount of evidence backing it.
K, cool. It sounded like you were scrambling up terms or something. I can relate to being half-cooked from the flu or something similar. I had a headache last night, and I probably wasn't at my most coherent. Of course, the advantage of a bad headache is that it prevents you from looking at an LCD screen. ^.^
I might continue eating meat however simply because I enjoy it.
Now, that's an argument I can respect. :-D Why do I remain vegetarian (almost), rather than vegan? The vegan milk-replacements suck, in my tea and coffee. I guess my palate could acclimate, eventually, but I don't feel like doing it. I like creamy chai.
You are a practiced logician. Feel free to sharpen your claws on my posts. I look forward to chatting again!
Well, I don't know if I would go that far, but thanks. I'm obsessive-compulsive (the actual psychotic disorder), which helps me get in a lot of practice with picky semantics, because ... well, I'm obsessive-compulsive; it's what we do.
I've got a bit of practice from crafting punchlines, for my standup. I guess that contributes a little.
I've listened the entire way through the archive of The Atheist Experience and a few similar shows, too. That sort of show is a great crash-course in argumentation.
Cool, I'll check it out. I've got a few similar books, but not that title. I'll add it to my list when I'm ready for another Amazon order. I tend to order books in batches of 10 or so.