LogFAQs > #930503051

Esrac posted...

I don't see how the meat is acquired matters. We have a lot of people to feed, of course we'd want to breed animals in a way that produces as much meat as we can.

We've been domesticating and breeding animals for their meat for more than 10,000 years, so of course our ancestors were breeding meat for what they could get out of the animals. On top of that, we've been hunting animals for more than 2 million years. Eating meat is entirely natural for our species.

You can argue that we may be eating too much meat, in the same way we're eating too much sugar, but that seems to be a different point than what you seemed to be getting at. Unless I misread you.

You can't make an argument from evolution and nature if the best you can do is we started domesticating animals 10,000 years ago (which is extremely recent in human existence, and certainly not paleolithic which started over 3 million years ago). The nature argument is bad for a pile of reasons, but my entire point is nothing about our current society is like the state of nature we used to live in (which is good since most of us would be long dead based on life expectancy from those times). You can't say we evolved to eat this, and then eat stuff that is nothing like what we evolved to eat.

And like the person above pointed out, raising meat is horribly inefficient so you can't just compromise your own argument to say we have to modify meat from nature to feed more people. These paleo people just come off as completely unfounded because we don't live in the state of nature, we didn't live very long when we did, and the food they are eating is nothing like what people ate when they did live in the state of nature.

---

Favorite Games: BlazBlue: Central Fiction, Street Fighter III: Third Strike, Bayonetta, Bloodborne
thats a username you habe - chuckyhacksss