▲ 211 ▼ [Answered] Why is the consumption of Meat considered bad (lemmy.world) submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by Skyraptor7@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world 305 comments fedilink hide all child comments I heard something to do with Nitrogen and …cow farts(?) I am really unsure of this and would like to learn more. Answer - 4 Parts Ethical reason for consuming animals Methane produced by cows are a harmful greenhouse gas which is contributing to our current climate crisis Health Reasons - there is convincing evidence that processed meats cause cancer it takes a lot more calories of plant food to produce the calories we would consume from the meat. Details about the answers are in the comments
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) eating a steak does not cause the cow to have been killed, since an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] max@feddit.nl 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) since an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past Agreed. But let's be honest here. If there was no demand for meat, animals would not be killed for meat. So your choice of whether to buy (and eat) meat or not does very much have impact permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) If there was no demand for meat, animals would not be killed for meat. how can you prove that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] max@feddit.nl 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) Supply and demand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 years ago That's not a magic phrase that makes what you said true. it's a theory about price discovery. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] max@feddit.nl 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) since an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past Agreed. But let's be honest here. If there was no demand for meat, animals would not be killed for meat. So your choice of whether to buy (and eat) meat or not does very much have impact permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) If there was no demand for meat, animals would not be killed for meat. how can you prove that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] max@feddit.nl 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) Supply and demand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 years ago That's not a magic phrase that makes what you said true. it's a theory about price discovery. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) If there was no demand for meat, animals would not be killed for meat. how can you prove that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] max@feddit.nl 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) Supply and demand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 years ago That's not a magic phrase that makes what you said true. it's a theory about price discovery. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] max@feddit.nl 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) Supply and demand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 years ago That's not a magic phrase that makes what you said true. it's a theory about price discovery. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 years ago That's not a magic phrase that makes what you said true. it's a theory about price discovery. permalink fedilink source parent