Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Accidental-Genius t1_j2znvy5 wrote

I’ve eaten way more than 7 ducks and I’m not that old.

66

fail-deadly- t1_j3083t1 wrote

Conversely, I have never eaten a duck. I don't see any goats or sheep on the list graphic, and I have had both goat and lamb in my life.

Also, no bison on the list graphic.

EDIT: Deer should be on the list graphic, as well as fish and shellfish.

EDIT 2: While the graphic visualizing the animals does not have it, the website discusses sheep, goats, bison, as well as saying Americans eat 16 pounds of seafood per year on average, which includes 4 pounds of shrimp. Deer are not mentioned.

15

Accidental-Genius t1_j308dck wrote

I love lamb but goat is a coin flip for me.

5

fail-deadly- t1_j308wny wrote

There was this Greek restaurant that I used to live close to that had a good goat gyro. I liked it quite a bit. Lamb, I wasn't very fond of, but I haven't had it much.

Bison burgers are awesome though.

3

amatulic t1_j301pp6 wrote

Fish isn't considered an "animal"? It's conspicuously absent from that chart, and seafood is my primary source of meat. Due to that, I am skeptical of the value and correctness of this chart.

27

CSDragon t1_j30w3wr wrote

So, yes and no. Linguistically the words "animal" and "meat" are old words, older than the classification of kingdom, phylum, order, etc. And back in the day they referred specifically to land mammals and the flesh thereof. And those definitions of the word are still culturally relevant in some places

4

qeny1 t1_j32xt0i wrote

Yep, definitely a big omission. The page notes "Not shown here, Americans also each eat about 16 pounds of seafood, with shrimp the biggest component at over 4 pounds. This represents on the order of several ten billion fish and shellfish."

There are probably a few relevant factors in their decision to omit all sea animals:

  • Perhaps the data isn't as good or as clear for number of sea animals. Sometimes it may be measured by weight, and then there are the problems of bycatch and sea animal bodies that are fed to farmed fish.
  • Historically, traditionally, sometimes the word "meat" has referred to mammal (and bird) flesh. Maybe this is because fish are and other sea animals are seen as quite different than mammals (and birds).
2

Holyvigil t1_j32s6uq wrote

So is Goat. That's a pretty big animal to eat.

1

Loose_Sun_169 t1_j30bu5i wrote

Less than that. Been vego 36 years and I'm never going back

8

The_Paradoxigm t1_j2zjvfh wrote

Except those animals aren't saved.

It's not like meat farms are sending animals to shelters when demand falls.

7

Beavshak t1_j2zmd0j wrote

It makes a backwards sense for a large mass of people over a long period of time. Less animals will be bred to meet demand. So they’re not killed.. they’ll just for the most part never live.

24

cgspam t1_j33ax08 wrote

Land use is an important component. Natural forest and grassland gets razed and turned into farms when demand for meat increases. It kills wildlife and biodiversity. Reducing meat consumption s good for land use, and beef in particular produces a lot of methane gas which is bad for climate change.

2

The_Paradoxigm t1_j2znr30 wrote

Either way, that's 1 less cow that's alive.

−7

JPAnalyst t1_j2zpnao wrote

So now a 1 cow not being bred for suffering and being killed is the same as 1 cow being bred for suffering and being killed. Good lord, how do you get through life with such a lack of common sense.

8

The_Paradoxigm t1_j2zqenr wrote

I never said that. I'm saying either way you aren't saving a cow.

That's the key word. No cow is being "saved". Which is what this chart is saying.

2

PfizerGuyzer t1_j32mhhk wrote

A cow is being saved from a life of torture, and is getting no life in return.

1

JPAnalyst t1_j2zr6uy wrote

You said this

> Either way, that's 1 less cow that's alive.

In response to this

> Less animals will be bred to meet demand. So they’re not killed.. they’ll just for the most part never live.

That’s beyond stupid. I’m sorry, but I feel like you’re being dumb on purpose. You’re arguing in bad faith and I’m not wasting any more time.

−2

The_Paradoxigm t1_j2zrcq3 wrote

And you're resorting to insults instead of making a point.

5

purple_yosher t1_j2zu9ex wrote

idk I thought they made a solid point.

8

The_Paradoxigm t1_j2zukjn wrote

They're arguing a completely different point than I am while insulting me.

That's not how discussions work.

2

trentgibbo t1_j2zymwb wrote

Why do vegans always just revert to insulting people. Like that ever changed someone's mind.

−2

JPAnalyst t1_j30asht wrote

Im not a vegan, and I’m not interested in changing your eating habits. I just call out bullshit when I see it. If you’re believing that decreased demand doesn’t decrease supply you’re also willfully dumb. You’re both proof that people will believe whatever the fk they want regardless of what they were taught. Just eat meat, without being liars.

2

trentgibbo t1_j30hxvr wrote

Firstly. Calling out bullshit and being an asshole about it are different things.

Secondly, you want to talk economics? OK let's do it.

Price of meat is actually artificially high due to high demand and lower supply. This prices people out of the market (particularly premium cuts). You can easily see this in the price of beef over the last 10y.

What do you think will happen when demand softens by 1/7th?

Price will soften which will increase demand again and you'll have a net zero change.

It's basic economics and you're being willfully dumb.

4

Rorik1356 t1_j2zsk9i wrote

I mean, their statement is true? You may not like how they frame it, but that doesn't make it false.

Are you possibly a PETA supporter? Because your viewpoint seems to be aligned with theirs.

−3

JPAnalyst t1_j30bkyi wrote

I’m not a PETA supporter and their statement is not true unless your being a pedant for the sake of arguing in vary bad faith. The spirit of the post, and we all know this, is by reducing your meat consumption by a day a week “for the rest of to it life” less animals will be killed.

Mr arguing for arguments sake is only arguing for a point in time, which isn’t “the rest of your life” and isn’t the spirit of the post. Reducing the demand for meat, reduces the production and harvesting of meat. It doesn’t kill the same mount of animals. Why is this such a hard concept for you all to understand?

3

Rat-Majesty t1_j3016i8 wrote

If your existence was to be trapped and tortured for the entirety of your life until you’re needlessly slaughtered for the pleasure of another species… not being born would be salvation.

14

The_Paradoxigm t1_j301bq4 wrote

Not the point.

5

Rat-Majesty t1_j301kze wrote

Definitely the point.

3

The_Paradoxigm t1_j3022wp wrote

No it's not. The chart says cutting back on meat will save animals.

No. It will either lead to death or non-existence of animals. Neither of which is saving them.

2

MochiMochiMochi t1_j309er1 wrote

You're kinda missing the point, which is marginal change transforming demand, which would reduce the number of animals bred and slaughtered.

You're thinking of a snapshot in time of X number of animals and thinking that's the point.

2

The_Paradoxigm t1_j309z6u wrote

Yes a reduction in population, you're not saving any animal.

If everyone stopped eating chicken, they're just going to slaughter the existing chickens as a waste of money, get nothing out of them, and then stop breeding chickens.

No chickens are saved, they either die pointlessly, or never exist.

It's not like someone is sending them to a chicken sanctuary everytime you skip a KFC bucket.

2

pookiedookie232 t1_j31f6r1 wrote

But you can't "not be born"

You would have to already exist in order for someth8ng to not happen to you

0

torchma t1_j3206d0 wrote

That's not how the subjunctive mood works.

1

pookiedookie232 t1_j32gjif wrote

It's how reality works, though

0

torchma t1_j32h1fm wrote

Thankfully we humans have the ability to think in the subjunctive mood. Helps with planning for the future and learning from past mistakes. Are you human?

2

pookiedookie232 t1_j32hztn wrote

Just because you can think something up doesn't mean it makes sense in reality. Sometimes those thoughts end up being useful, of course, but in this case that's not the case.

0

torchma t1_j32i8g9 wrote

You're obtuse as fuck. And a waste of my time.

2

JPAnalyst t1_j2zlwo8 wrote

Say you don’t know how supply and demand works without saying you don’t know how supply and demand works

−8

The_Paradoxigm t1_j2znjck wrote

If everyone went vegan tomorrow, billions of animals would be killed off for no reason.

2

Rorik1356 t1_j2zrnkc wrote

I have often wondered... if everyone went vegan, would anyone keep livestock alive? In the case of cattle, there ancestor is extinct... so would these animals just go extinct?

4

The_Paradoxigm t1_j2ztceo wrote

Maybe not extinct, but billions would be needlessly killed. That I can guarentee

Without a market for them there's no monetary investment for farmers to keep them alive. The leather and animal feed industries don't require that level of volume.

There'd be a HUGE culling.

7

[deleted] t1_j3044nn wrote

The point of veganism is to try to reduce that harm, so if everyone adopted that ideology, they would be huge hypocrites to kill them.

3

JPAnalyst t1_j2zp9bb wrote

That’s obtuse as hell. The current supply yes, but you and I both know that future supply would decrease. I don’t understand why you feel the need to push against commonly known supply and demand theory. The mental gymnastics you people are going through. Just fcking eat meat if you like it, but don’t try to fool other people.

−1

The_Paradoxigm t1_j2zqnr9 wrote

If you're going to argue with me. Keep it to one thread. As I said in my other reply. It's not about supply and demand. This chart says eating less meat will save animals.

It will not.

9

Rorik1356 t1_j2zr53n wrote

Geez, the unreasonable anger is strong with this one.

5

JPAnalyst t1_j2zrc34 wrote

If you have a high tolerance for utter ignorance good for you. You’re a better person than me.

−3

imacatnamedsteve t1_j31ap9i wrote

“Utter” ….. tee hee …… sorry I thought your word choice was fun considering the topic, don’t hate me too much 😬

1

Varnu t1_j30di2n wrote

I mean, insects are animals and we probably eat dozens in some days. And if we include animals that are killed while harvesting crops—voles, shrews, mice, millions of insects and worms—a few shrimp here or there is a rounding error.

7

SardonicSeraphim t1_j2zk1zf wrote

Seeing duck on this chart makes me crave a nice roasted duck breast with a plum sauce or peking duck w/ delicious crispy skin in a bun.

6

[deleted] t1_j2zweho wrote

My salivary glands squirted after reading this.

5

DrTonyTiger t1_j2zqyvd wrote

A major weakness of the analysis is limiting it to domesticated fowl and mammals. Commerical fish and shellfish provide meat as well. But the most individual animals eaten by people are insects and some other small invertebrates. Not knowingly, but those animals are heading down people's guts and need to be included in the answer to the OPs headline question.

6

tules t1_j30jzrv wrote

I'd question how meaningful it would be to have thousands of crickets etc on the graph too though. At that point you'd have to base it on biomass, but OP is just working with the data he had available to him.

4

DrTonyTiger t1_j31bqnx wrote

One of the requirements for making a data presentation beautiful is that it clearly answers the question being asked. This graphic clearly fails to do so.

Since OP does not have the data to answer that question, it would be appropriate to change the question and headline to align with what can be done.

0

DemptyELF t1_j2zkkut wrote

The thought of an afterlife looking into the eyes of all the animals who died just to feed me is why I stopped eating meat for a good while. I am weak, however. Maybe this will get me to cut back again. Thanks for posting this.

2

The_Paradoxigm t1_j2zlgbv wrote

I hope you never have to think about all the people who die to furnish your western lifestyle.

The simple fact is, if you're alive, something/someone somewhere else has died because of your actions, even indirectly.

8

DemptyELF t1_j2zlqyr wrote

This is true but shouldn’t give one license to throw one’s hands up and disregard the reality of the situation. We can choose to be better - that to me is the magic of life.

9

The_Paradoxigm t1_j2zm2cg wrote

Agreed but as other have said, you're not "saving" any animals by cutting out meat like this chart implies.

Cutting down on meat consumption isn't a bad thing, it can improve your health, but the animals on those farms are still going to die.

It's not like you skipping that hamburger is going to give some cow a happy retirement.

0

DemptyELF t1_j2zn2oi wrote

Can’t grok the “somebody’s got to do it” rationale. If more folks stopped wanting, less creatures would need to die unnaturally and prematurely. You cannot get through this life without causing pain but you can try to minimize the totals and be conscious of and grateful for what you consume. Less is more. Now to practice what I preach.

7

Altruistic_Tennis893 t1_j3169vw wrote

I am so fed up with people trying to argue against veganism without any understanding of how supply and demand works.

−2

The_Paradoxigm t1_j316sla wrote

I'm not arguing against veganism.

I'm arguing against this data claiming animals will be saved by us not eating them.

They will not. No animals are being saved.

Continuing as we are now, results in more animals being killed.

Eating less meat results in less animals being born.

At no point is an animal saved from the slaughter house. There is no happy ending, only death or non-existence.

3

Altruistic_Tennis893 t1_j3188h7 wrote

Fine, if your argument is based on pedantry then so be it.

Nowhere in the source does it say "saved from the slaughter house" so you can equally interpret "saved" as "saved from a life of suffering which will end in brutal slaughter"

−2

The_Paradoxigm t1_j318d8e wrote

But that just means they never existed in the first place. How is that any different? It's still one less cow.

5

fnarpus t1_j318g1e wrote

Do you consider not having kids to be equal to killing a kid?

2

The_Paradoxigm t1_j318o7z wrote

No, but I don't consider it as saving a kid either. The kid still doesn't exist either way.

I mean, if you wanna bring humans into the mix, be careful, cause if we're gonna say that not having a kid is better than letting them be born into terrible conditions... that's dangerously close to eugenics.

3

fnarpus t1_j318wrb wrote

I'm talking at a higher level. If you think that the only think that matters is the existence of a kid, then you are suggesting that using contraception is morally equal to killing a kid.

2

The_Paradoxigm t1_j3198m9 wrote

That's ridiculous.

My argument is over the use of the word saved, nothing is being saved.

Getting an abortion doesn't "save" a kid from a bad life, it just prevents it. Prevention is not "saving". Noone is being rescued. You can't save something that doesn't exist.

4

fnarpus t1_j319j8a wrote

OK. Let's use this as an example.

People were forced to breed to create more slaves. Was this overall a good thing? When this practice was banned, were people saved from slavery?

The people born through this practice were guaranteed a lifetime of slavery. Not being born into this life is preferable.

1

The_Paradoxigm t1_j31a05r wrote

Let's try something more relevant and current.

There are countries where people live in abject poverty, where children starve to death every day.

Should we prevent the people living in those areas from having kids? In order to "save" those kids?

Because, that's literally eugenics.

4

fnarpus t1_j31brv6 wrote

Who is talking about preventing anyone from doing anything? The reality is that it's better to not be born than to starve to death at a young age. Do you agree with that?

1

The_Paradoxigm t1_j31buqx wrote

I have no opinion on that.

My point is not being born isn't the same as being saved.

4

fnarpus t1_j31c1xt wrote

Seems like you're hanging your hat on being pedantic, rather than addressing the point.

1

The_Paradoxigm t1_j33n9xr wrote

That was my argument from the beginning though.

Wanna eat less meat? Fantastic. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you're saving some animals life, cause you're not.

2

fnarpus t1_j33oy7z wrote

You are preventing animals being born into a life of suffering. What word would you prefer?

0

The_Paradoxigm t1_j33q9rq wrote

It doesn't matter what I prefer, that's not the argument I'm making.

I've said repeatedly, eating less meat is not a bad thing. There's plenty of benefits to it. I've even cut down my own portions.

My problem is with believing you're saving animals by doing so.

2

fnarpus t1_j33qqct wrote

So what word would you use that's better?

0

The_Paradoxigm t1_j33xs9f wrote

Talk about the health benefits, or the lessening impact of climate change. Or just present the information without the implication of saving animals.

2

fnarpus t1_j33xwru wrote

So how would you describe the concept in the infographic?

0

The_Paradoxigm t1_j33y85c wrote

"Here's how many animals the average person eats over a lifetime "

Done.

3

fnarpus t1_j349vpz wrote

Right. But this infographic is showing the impact that a single meat based day has on that figure.

So how would you phrase it from that perspective?

−1

The_Paradoxigm t1_j34yvvh wrote

"How many fewer animals you eat by eliminating 1 meal a week"

Come on man, this isn't hard.

3

fnarpus t1_j372n9q wrote

But the animals won't ever have existed to be eaten. So you can't say that.

−2

The_Paradoxigm t1_j38akli wrote

Uh, how so?

2

fnarpus t1_j38dcy2 wrote

The animals aren't born. So you can't not eat what doesn't exist.

−1

The_Paradoxigm t1_j38f3vm wrote

That doesn't make any sense, you're just trying to win the argument at this point lol

You present it as "you will eat fewer animals" which is true, and you let people decide for themselves if the ramifications of that is worth it to them and what it means.

What you don't do is present your data with a blatant lie in the title in order to push people's opinions to your own viewpoint

2

edogg40 t1_j2zrtnm wrote

Does that include the bugs, rodents, and other small animals that get killed during the harvesting process?

In order for one animal to eat, another animal must die. It’s the circle of life. And that’s ok.

1

xylopyrography t1_j303dp9 wrote

Meat requires far more agricultural production per calorie, nearly an order of magnitude.

Eating plant-based reduces the death of animals killed by harvesting by 90% all things being equal, on top of the cruelty reduction of factory farming on slaughter.

There is no such thing as perfect ethics, but that's not a valid reason to make things 10x worse.

6

cgspam t1_j33c5lp wrote

Really interesting analysis, thanks for sharing. If one was trying to save more lives this would suggest switching from chicken to beef, but beef is by far the worst for the environment.

2

restore_democracy t1_j2zlr7a wrote

You missed rabbits, fish, quail, geese, ostrich, kangaroo, iguanas, snakes, deer, elk, and probably some other things I’m forgetting at the moment.

1

Ok-Border-2804 t1_j303fiu wrote

Does it take into account when I order meat, but I’m not hungry, so I don’t finish it? Or when I order meat, and DO eat it, but I also drink a lot so I throw it up later?

1

CSDragon t1_j30vhu1 wrote

These numbers seem way off. That's like 10 years or less of food

1

imacatnamedsteve t1_j319km4 wrote

So the website states the numbers are about “Americans” …….. I’m an American who lives in Germany so do these numbers not apply or only when I visit my family back home?

1

pookiedookie232 t1_j31g5oz wrote

By skipping just one blowjob a week, trillions of lifeforms will be saved over your lifetime you slut

1

jrm19941994 t1_j31lcfb wrote

lol these graphics always act like if we all went vegan then all these farm animals would be living into old age. They are farm animals, they exist solely to be eaten. If there was less demand for meat, these animals in red would not exist.

1

qeny1 t1_j32ypgi wrote

I don't see where anyone is claiming that we would raise animals to live to their natural lifespans. Indeed, if people eat fewer animals, then fewer will be bred.

And that is sort of the point -- it is morally preferable to not raise more animals if their lives are short and full of suffering. If just one fewer chicken lives through the agony of debeaking, confinement and slaughter, wouldn't that be preferable? If one fewer pig has to live through castration, tail docking, ear notching, confinement and slaughter, isn't that preferable?

2

jrm19941994 t1_j341oxo wrote

Possibly. Hard to really say. Humans tend to prefer the suffering of life to the emptiness of non-existence.

However, that's not a justification for animal cruelty, and I do wish that we as a culture put more emphasis on animal welfare.

A good reason to switch to primarily beef for your meat intake. Generally less cruelty and fewer total animals killed. Also more nutrient dense and tastes better.

1

cgspam t1_j33b7us wrote

From an environmental perspective a bigger issue is that we convert natural wild lands into farms to raise animals for meat. This kills wildlife and reduces biodiversity.

2

jrm19941994 t1_j341a1a wrote

I'm pretty sure most farmland is for food crops.

Agree meat farming practices could be improved.

1

AdamsFei t1_j32ja2o wrote

Has this chart taken into account the potentially unborn animals given a reduced demand? Are they also considered as saved?

1

luctian t1_j2zlf5t wrote

I honestly thought the number would be much higher per person. This data actually encourages me to eat more meat without guilt.

0

pookiedookie232 t1_j31fz3o wrote

The solution is to engineer an animal that grows large enough and fast enough that it only takes one per year to feed everyone in the world.

Same amount of meat, but billions of animals "saved" from being killed.

0

LePetitePoopoo t1_j2zk046 wrote

This isn’t about how many animals you eat, it’s about how many animals you can spare by not eating meat. Which is stupid because regardless of whether you buy the meat or not, every last animal on a farm is destined to be killed.

−7

JPAnalyst t1_j2zlkj0 wrote

This is a stupid comment. Over the long term if a significant amount of people didn’t eat meat 1 day a week, demand goes down and supply goes down - animal production would decrease therefore less animals will be bred for food and less animals will be killed for food.

8

Pressed_Thumb t1_j2zrvec wrote

Your economics analysis is ignoring the price factor.

If a significant amount of people didn’t eat meat 1 day a week, demand goes down, price goes down, many people will buy more meat, demand stays more or less the same, supply stays the same.

You'd be shocked how many people would barbecue everyday if they could.

0

scmrph t1_j30iw9b wrote

Yes and no, in terms of a direct demand side shock effect you are partially right, there is not a 1 to 1 reduction of consumption, but any reduction in demand will equate to a reduction in both price and net consumption, say a 50% reduction in demand leading to a 15% reduction in price and 15% reduciton in total volume consumed (numbers depend on price elasticity and shape of the supply curve)

In the long term though there is profitability to consider, sufficient reduction in demand leads to reduced profit margins (due to decreased price). This will cause suppliers to reduce production/drop out of market until marginal cost=marginal gain again. Depending on the impact of economies to scale on the production side this can drive the price back up to anywhere from somewhat below the original price to wildly above it. Either way with the rebound in price as the supply curve adjusts itself downwards to handle the new reality there will be further reductions in total volume consumed.

I dont really have a side in this debate, I eat meat but food price going down is not a bad thing and even if the meat economies collapse that will redirect fertile land production towards other crops (meat is terribly inefficient land & water-use wise, especially after considering land used to grow feed), but economics doesnt at all dictate a fixed consumption rate, reduced demand will pretty much always lead to *some* reduction in volume consumed. This holds true for any product from oil to diamonds to diapers.

3

LePetitePoopoo t1_j2zmkuh wrote

No one wants to eat less meat, at least not in America. The only thing that will get a significant amount of people to stop eating meat maybe 1 day a week is the cost of meat rising.

−7

JPAnalyst t1_j2zovg0 wrote

Whatever your opinion is on that I don’t care. My point is, your comment about eating less meat not changing the supply and animals getting killed anyway, couldn’t be more wrong. If you want to eat meat because it’s tasty, go ahead, but don’t make up easily debunked tales.

3