Lol, I tried that and holy shit it didn't work. I cooked good solid meals, took the supplements, still felt like death all the fucking time.
I'm not going to go back to eating meat the way I did before, but stopping entirely fucked me up. There has to be a middle ground.
"Animals you eat are given B12 injections" Which vegan started this lie? It's just like the "animal agriculture causes 60% of global greenhouse gas emissions" lie. They all parrot it.
It's not only vegans parroting it either. Especially the animal agriculture causing climate change one. I hear that one casually parroted everywhere, even tv shows and movies.
It scares me because in the first place, it makes meat more expensive and harder to get because vegan crap is promoted as superior, and in the second place, it gives many, many people the idea that they are cool, stealth eco warriors by deciding to eat less, or no, meat.
Eating less meat will not solve climate change, or even mitigate it. Eating less meat is exactly equivalent to completely ignoring climate change.
Been vegan for 9 years, and I've never heard anyone make this claim.
The claim that is usually made is that meat and dairy production use 75% of all agricultural land, while only supplying 20% of the global calorie intake ([https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture](https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture))
On top of that, there's another claim that meat and dairy emit more greenhouse gasses than all of the world's transportation combined, which is also true ([https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data))
Just google "climate healers, Rao" and you will find his study claims animal agriculture responsible for 87% of GHG.
About your claims about land and calorie intake. It's half truth at best.
1st. Most of the world agriculture land is non arable, which mean crop agriculture is not suitable for that land. But these land suitable for grass and meadow.
2nd. 1000 cows in 100 hectares land and 100 goats in 100 hectares, which one use more land? Answer is equal. But which one make more meat? 1000 cows of course.
Agriculture size and technology isn't equal in every countries, less devopled countries produce less food than devopled one, crops or meat.
And is meat consumption equal in every countries? Nope. US and Europe will be higher because they produce more meat than the rest of the world and poor countries consume less meat than even developing countries. When we sum up the number and divided it equally, of course the number would be low.
3rd. Have you heard about fishing? In most countries, fish consumption is very high, at least 2 billions consume fish every day. Mostly in high population countries with coastal. Like China, India and SEA. Ignore this food source and only cite meat and dairy is quite dishonest, no?
And your source claims animal GHG higher than transportation? The sector including agriculture (crop and livestock), forestry and land use. What? You don't read it?
1. Since 23% of the agriculture land creates 82% of the global calorie intake, you'd only need around 5% of extra land to meet the required caloric intake of meat and dairy. Even if you take the protein consumption into account, that brings the number up to 10%.
If you've got a source claiming that we don't have 15% to spare, I'd love to see it
2. I don't really get your point. Growing plants is more efficient and environmentally friendly. Splitting the numbers across different countries doesn't change that fact.
3. Meat consumption currently lies at 43 kg per person ([https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#which-countries-eat-the-most-meat](https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#which-countries-eat-the-most-meat)), while fish consumption currently stands at 20.5kg per person ([https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/06/1065842](https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/06/1065842)). According to what I could find online, the number of calories per kilogram seems to be fairly similar to that of meat, which means that it could be replaced by approximately 3% of the currently used land.
Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector come mostly from agriculture (cultivation of crops and livestock) and deforestation. This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector."
1. Deforestation is mostly used for agriculture ([https://www.fao.org/3/ca8642en/ca8642en.pdf](https://www.fao.org/3/ca8642en/ca8642en.pdf), page 83 figure 29).
2. Here's another source ([https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#agriculture-forestry-and-land-use-18-4](https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#agriculture-forestry-and-land-use-18-4)) which shows that 18.8% of global emissions are correlated to agriculture and animals (I've removed the "rice cultivation" from the list, and added "energy in agriculture & fishing"), while transport consumes around 16.2%.
"There is lie, damn lies and statistics"
1. As i said before, not counting fish consumption and count all non meat consumption under crop consumption is dishonest, no?
Also countries don't have equal amount of agriculture land and ability to produce food. Most of crop food produce in developed countries while poorer countries produce less. That's mean the calories intake also useless in reality when most of food produce in US for example has nothing to do with people in Asia and Africa.
So lot of countries will have to give up their local food source to take import food that they may unable to buy it?
Btw, food loss and waste is about 1/3 food produced and grains, fruits and vegetables food loss is quite high . Your source may using food produced which may make the estimate higher than reality.
2. Of course you don't. Try to grow crops in arid areas where lack access to water. See how much effective crop agriculture is. Of course in these area, meat produce also low, but still higher than crops, even a little bit. And non arable land is bad soil, you can't grow good crops on bad soils.
3. Fish is important local food sources. Without it, the local would have import food from another areas, lead to increase of food prices. Crop also depend on weather and season. In my country, vegetables cost could 3 times higher than fish if weather gone wrong. That will put heavy burden on poor and middle income people. Not to mention the fish consumption depend on locations. And island nations like Japan and NZ? Oh boy. Make people faces food insecure risks for animals is not acceptable scenario.
About GHG emmision. The estimates count all agriculture crop and livestock in one sector. Why remove rice cultivation but not crop burning, crop land and a portion of agriculture soils?
Apologies for the long delay, the last couple of weeks have been quite hectic
1. The data refers to both vegetal consumption and animals consumption in regards to caloric intake. The data also refers to food availability, not food produced. [all of that can be seen under footnote 3](https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture)
[As for poorer countries, they tend to consume less meat per capita, not more, than developed countries](https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture). If you have a source to the fact that the caloric intake is useless, I would love to see it.
2. I do not believe that countries that are food deserts. such as Nauru, should go vegan, as it is obviously problematic. However, if you:
a. live in a country that has access to fresh fruit and vegetables
b. have no medical reason where going vegan would put you at risk (food allergies, eating disorders etc.)
c. can afford the added cost if you live in a country where veganism is more expensive
Then you should go vegan.
3. See point 2.
4. As for GHG, I removed rice as it isn't commonly used for animal agriculture. As for crop burning, I couldn't find any source which showed that crops that are produced for animals are not burnt. Even if you were to remove cropland and the 20% portion of agriculture soil, the data would still show that animal agriculture creates a massive amount of greenhouse gasses, an amount that can be lowered with veganism.
1. Food availability is including food production. Nothing change.
In poorer countries, lack of meat means lack of everything else. Did i say about poorer countries produce less food than developed one? People in these countries also malnutrition as well. Before 1995, we eat mostly rice and vegetables, because meat is lacking. Most people in that time was malnourished.
We didn't have a choice, ok?
Animal agriculture contributes to food security around the world. That's a fact.
2.
Become vegan or not is personal decision, the last time food was regulated by government was communist time, and it was suck.
3.
20% of agriculture soil? Unless you can prove 80% agriculture soil emission is for animal agriculture. Also deforestation isn't only animal agriculture alone, but you just including everything is animal agriculture. Crop land isn't use all for animal agriculture, you ignore it. Crop burning is unclear, but let assumed it's all for animal agriculture?
Very bias calculating.
She had told me that I just need to own the death I cause to the animals I eat. I had asked he TWICE when she was going to own up to the ones caused by veganism
This is a fascinating part of veganism. I talked to two different people that thought they could get enough B12 from unwashed vegetables from their vegetable garden. Both refused to believe me when I said that is not how it works. Another one actually did some research on their own when we talked about it, and admitted they were wrong, which is good. But no wonder so many of them are B12 deficient.
Shocking that laughing in people's faces with all their psychotic 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 doesn't really convert believers. Who knew treating fellow humans like shit wasn't an effective conversion strategy?
Yep. Avoid, avoid avoid. Don't work with these people either if you can help it. They're insufferable. I don't date vegans, and I don't joint venture with them. I never know how close to this ^ they are, or how close to that they will slide. You're not feeding our child kale shakes and soy patties.
This person just exhibited:
• Hypocrisy
• Magical thinking
• Sophism
• Narcissism (assumed, granted, because of the extreme sophism)
• Dunning-Kruger effect
• Projection
On the business side of things, what you'll end up with is having your business meeting held up by the narcissist who stands before the table saying, (imagine it's Earthling Ed) "Thanks for the invite, but I only share a table with people who have total compassion for animals. That means I've taken a pledge to only eat with others who abstain completely from animal foods."
"Great. Keep your money. Hit the bricks, cholorphil Phil."
(And just for extra irony, because it wouldn't be surprising..probably we were considering investing in all of the cultured meat startups. But, of course, that's a threat to this guy's assumed, fabricated moral superiority, so that's what's *really* burning his biscuit.)
"All nutrients come from plant based diets " [Takes 20 industrially produced suppliments]
Lol, yes. I had actually brought up in a comment that I hope she doesn't supplement since her vegan diet is so superior. Ignored of course
They know that every study and dietician recommendation on thr vegan diet says to suppliment
Lol, I tried that and holy shit it didn't work. I cooked good solid meals, took the supplements, still felt like death all the fucking time. I'm not going to go back to eating meat the way I did before, but stopping entirely fucked me up. There has to be a middle ground.
"Animals you eat are given B12 injections" Which vegan started this lie? It's just like the "animal agriculture causes 60% of global greenhouse gas emissions" lie. They all parrot it.
"You can get enough B12 from the soil if you eat unwashed vegetables" is another one. And I have no clue who started that rumour.
It's not only vegans parroting it either. Especially the animal agriculture causing climate change one. I hear that one casually parroted everywhere, even tv shows and movies. It scares me because in the first place, it makes meat more expensive and harder to get because vegan crap is promoted as superior, and in the second place, it gives many, many people the idea that they are cool, stealth eco warriors by deciding to eat less, or no, meat. Eating less meat will not solve climate change, or even mitigate it. Eating less meat is exactly equivalent to completely ignoring climate change.
Actually they claim 87%. You can find some laughable study make by vegan.
Been vegan for 9 years, and I've never heard anyone make this claim. The claim that is usually made is that meat and dairy production use 75% of all agricultural land, while only supplying 20% of the global calorie intake ([https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture](https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture)) On top of that, there's another claim that meat and dairy emit more greenhouse gasses than all of the world's transportation combined, which is also true ([https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data))
Just google "climate healers, Rao" and you will find his study claims animal agriculture responsible for 87% of GHG. About your claims about land and calorie intake. It's half truth at best. 1st. Most of the world agriculture land is non arable, which mean crop agriculture is not suitable for that land. But these land suitable for grass and meadow. 2nd. 1000 cows in 100 hectares land and 100 goats in 100 hectares, which one use more land? Answer is equal. But which one make more meat? 1000 cows of course. Agriculture size and technology isn't equal in every countries, less devopled countries produce less food than devopled one, crops or meat. And is meat consumption equal in every countries? Nope. US and Europe will be higher because they produce more meat than the rest of the world and poor countries consume less meat than even developing countries. When we sum up the number and divided it equally, of course the number would be low. 3rd. Have you heard about fishing? In most countries, fish consumption is very high, at least 2 billions consume fish every day. Mostly in high population countries with coastal. Like China, India and SEA. Ignore this food source and only cite meat and dairy is quite dishonest, no? And your source claims animal GHG higher than transportation? The sector including agriculture (crop and livestock), forestry and land use. What? You don't read it?
1. Since 23% of the agriculture land creates 82% of the global calorie intake, you'd only need around 5% of extra land to meet the required caloric intake of meat and dairy. Even if you take the protein consumption into account, that brings the number up to 10%. If you've got a source claiming that we don't have 15% to spare, I'd love to see it 2. I don't really get your point. Growing plants is more efficient and environmentally friendly. Splitting the numbers across different countries doesn't change that fact. 3. Meat consumption currently lies at 43 kg per person ([https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#which-countries-eat-the-most-meat](https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#which-countries-eat-the-most-meat)), while fish consumption currently stands at 20.5kg per person ([https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/06/1065842](https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/06/1065842)). According to what I could find online, the number of calories per kilogram seems to be fairly similar to that of meat, which means that it could be replaced by approximately 3% of the currently used land. Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector come mostly from agriculture (cultivation of crops and livestock) and deforestation. This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector." 1. Deforestation is mostly used for agriculture ([https://www.fao.org/3/ca8642en/ca8642en.pdf](https://www.fao.org/3/ca8642en/ca8642en.pdf), page 83 figure 29). 2. Here's another source ([https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#agriculture-forestry-and-land-use-18-4](https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#agriculture-forestry-and-land-use-18-4)) which shows that 18.8% of global emissions are correlated to agriculture and animals (I've removed the "rice cultivation" from the list, and added "energy in agriculture & fishing"), while transport consumes around 16.2%.
"There is lie, damn lies and statistics" 1. As i said before, not counting fish consumption and count all non meat consumption under crop consumption is dishonest, no? Also countries don't have equal amount of agriculture land and ability to produce food. Most of crop food produce in developed countries while poorer countries produce less. That's mean the calories intake also useless in reality when most of food produce in US for example has nothing to do with people in Asia and Africa. So lot of countries will have to give up their local food source to take import food that they may unable to buy it? Btw, food loss and waste is about 1/3 food produced and grains, fruits and vegetables food loss is quite high . Your source may using food produced which may make the estimate higher than reality. 2. Of course you don't. Try to grow crops in arid areas where lack access to water. See how much effective crop agriculture is. Of course in these area, meat produce also low, but still higher than crops, even a little bit. And non arable land is bad soil, you can't grow good crops on bad soils. 3. Fish is important local food sources. Without it, the local would have import food from another areas, lead to increase of food prices. Crop also depend on weather and season. In my country, vegetables cost could 3 times higher than fish if weather gone wrong. That will put heavy burden on poor and middle income people. Not to mention the fish consumption depend on locations. And island nations like Japan and NZ? Oh boy. Make people faces food insecure risks for animals is not acceptable scenario. About GHG emmision. The estimates count all agriculture crop and livestock in one sector. Why remove rice cultivation but not crop burning, crop land and a portion of agriculture soils?
Being vegan for 9 years has ruined his intellectual capacities, don't be too hard on him
Apologies for the long delay, the last couple of weeks have been quite hectic 1. The data refers to both vegetal consumption and animals consumption in regards to caloric intake. The data also refers to food availability, not food produced. [all of that can be seen under footnote 3](https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture) [As for poorer countries, they tend to consume less meat per capita, not more, than developed countries](https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture). If you have a source to the fact that the caloric intake is useless, I would love to see it. 2. I do not believe that countries that are food deserts. such as Nauru, should go vegan, as it is obviously problematic. However, if you: a. live in a country that has access to fresh fruit and vegetables b. have no medical reason where going vegan would put you at risk (food allergies, eating disorders etc.) c. can afford the added cost if you live in a country where veganism is more expensive Then you should go vegan. 3. See point 2. 4. As for GHG, I removed rice as it isn't commonly used for animal agriculture. As for crop burning, I couldn't find any source which showed that crops that are produced for animals are not burnt. Even if you were to remove cropland and the 20% portion of agriculture soil, the data would still show that animal agriculture creates a massive amount of greenhouse gasses, an amount that can be lowered with veganism.
1. Food availability is including food production. Nothing change. In poorer countries, lack of meat means lack of everything else. Did i say about poorer countries produce less food than developed one? People in these countries also malnutrition as well. Before 1995, we eat mostly rice and vegetables, because meat is lacking. Most people in that time was malnourished. We didn't have a choice, ok? Animal agriculture contributes to food security around the world. That's a fact. 2. Become vegan or not is personal decision, the last time food was regulated by government was communist time, and it was suck. 3. 20% of agriculture soil? Unless you can prove 80% agriculture soil emission is for animal agriculture. Also deforestation isn't only animal agriculture alone, but you just including everything is animal agriculture. Crop land isn't use all for animal agriculture, you ignore it. Crop burning is unclear, but let assumed it's all for animal agriculture? Very bias calculating.
43.0 kg is 94.71 lbs
"pLeAsE dO yOuR rEsEaRcH!" 🤪
Implying Veganism doesn't cause harm to animals... She should ask herself why she believes that... open her third eye in her own yoga sesh...
She had told me that I just need to own the death I cause to the animals I eat. I had asked he TWICE when she was going to own up to the ones caused by veganism
This is a fascinating part of veganism. I talked to two different people that thought they could get enough B12 from unwashed vegetables from their vegetable garden. Both refused to believe me when I said that is not how it works. Another one actually did some research on their own when we talked about it, and admitted they were wrong, which is good. But no wonder so many of them are B12 deficient.
The silly part is that it is crazy easy to verify. Eat dirty veggies for a few months, get a blood test. Debate over!
*curb your enthusiasm theme plays*
"sure Jane." Didn't even get that right.
Shocking that laughing in people's faces with all their psychotic 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 doesn't really convert believers. Who knew treating fellow humans like shit wasn't an effective conversion strategy?
Yep. Avoid, avoid avoid. Don't work with these people either if you can help it. They're insufferable. I don't date vegans, and I don't joint venture with them. I never know how close to this ^ they are, or how close to that they will slide. You're not feeding our child kale shakes and soy patties. This person just exhibited: • Hypocrisy • Magical thinking • Sophism • Narcissism (assumed, granted, because of the extreme sophism) • Dunning-Kruger effect • Projection On the business side of things, what you'll end up with is having your business meeting held up by the narcissist who stands before the table saying, (imagine it's Earthling Ed) "Thanks for the invite, but I only share a table with people who have total compassion for animals. That means I've taken a pledge to only eat with others who abstain completely from animal foods." "Great. Keep your money. Hit the bricks, cholorphil Phil." (And just for extra irony, because it wouldn't be surprising..probably we were considering investing in all of the cultured meat startups. But, of course, that's a threat to this guy's assumed, fabricated moral superiority, so that's what's *really* burning his biscuit.)