Is meat eating sustainable?

Question

A friend and myself were discussing environmental sciences and i am of the opinion that vegetarianism is more so as it makes better sense to feed the plants fed to animals directly to people and he believes 'green' has nothing to do with vegetarianism.Could anyone clarify a little please? Much appreciated.

Answer 1

you're wrong and he's right, the reason people are vegetarians is they can't stand to eat animals and meat isn't that good for you anyway.

Answer 2

Meat eats plants, we eat meat... the circle of life continues.   That is untill Cows find out how to use guns, in which case we'll become livestock for them and they'll cook us on BBQ's.

Answer 3

Well, cows eat grass.  I have no intention of living on grass. So to make his statement true...that's what that would mean. So I kinda get what he's saying but I think he said it wrong. When it comes to have a vegan life style you have to still be getting the same nutrients you would get from meat such as protein. Meat does have it's advantages. Going "Green" means eating things that have not been tainted by chemicals either in the soil they are grown in, or the pesticides they use to keep bugs away from crops. When it comes to meat going green can be not eating any animal that was raised and shoved full of growth hormones. So yes going green does not directly have to do with being a vegetarian but it could be incorporated.  

Answer 4

Yes, meat-eating is very sustainable.

Answer 5

food eating habits depend on topography and habits and taste consider from the environmental point of view plants and animals are equally important in the ecosystem of flora and fauna on the earth the important  for human is to see the balance of the ecosystem is not disturb. the flora and fauna are interrelated and both depends on each other.

Answer 6

The answer to this is yes, and no.  Yes, if society is smart about it and no if we're irresponsible.  Think about supply and demand.  If we demand more meat than we can supply, than a shortage of animals for consumption occurs - not sustainable!  Conversely, if we manage the rate we kill animals for meat production, supply and demand is balanced.  Accordingly, sustainability is achieved.

Please understand this analogy is merely rudimentary.  There are so many factors that contribute to this.  Nevertheless, it's a very good question!

Answer 7

Well, let's think about this for a moment:

Modern man has been eating meat for at least 17,000 years, and Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal have been eating meat for hundreds of thousands of years before that.

So I'd have to argue that based on nearly half a million years of successful experience, that meat eating certainly IS sustainable.

Answer 8

You are right. It requires a fraction of the energy to eat a plant based diet as it does to eat meat.  I am a vegan and I've never felt better.

Answer 9

Supply can never exceed demand, it doesn't matter if it is meat or vegetable.

The problem isn't really about what we eat, it's who much of individual things we eat, how much we waste & over-population.

Cities containing millions of people in such a concentrated area is simply not enviromentally feasible.

The total land area of the world is 148.94 million sq km , the population is  is over 6.6 Billion, therefore there are approximately 43 people per square km. How long do you think that many people could survive on a sq km in the worlds natural state? Not even being vegetarian can sustain that kind of population density! Even including the total area of the world gives you a whopping 12 people per sq km!

Also the amount of vegetarian material that a vegetarian needs to eat to maintain a balanced diet throws the balance out of whack. Eg. Iron, it is far more ecology sustainable for everyone to eat the minimal amount of red meat required (about 150g, 3 times a week) than to grow enough vegetables to meet that same requirement (no pun intended).

& if you take supplements, how much energy & wastage goes into each tablet?

It's never black & white...

Answer 10

Yes, it is.  It's sustainable, because it's renewable.  Petroleum is non-sustainable, because it takes so long to have usable petroleum.

Answer 11

At present, yes. While it takes roughly ten pounds of vegetation to produce a pound of meat (substitute whatever weight measure you want), we cannot sustain ourselves on grass, the way cattle can. It also requires fertilizer and, usually, irrigation to produce the vegetable matter we eat. Hogs, fat-tailed sheep, and goats can be fed on garbage. Do you want to cut out the "middle man"?

Answer 12

No, meat eating is non-sustainable. In order to eat meat you have to grow vegetables to feed the animals and then eat them. If you just eat the vegetables you're skipping that whole step.

Answer 13

The grain it takes to feed one cow would feed a person for a long time. But we evolved into omnivores for a reason. We obtain a variety of minerals and vitamins, and perhaps other things such as immunities, through meat.  

Answer 14

I agree with him. Being vegetarian has nothing whatsoever to do with being green. Vegetarians can be just as anti-green as anyone else who eats meat or not. The food chain sustains life in the animal world and in the human world. If meat eaters didn't eat meat (animals) then certain animals would become dominant and things would get all messed up. The world as it is at the present time was designed to support meat eaters. I am not saying one way of life is better than another. I agree both are right for those that choose them and either can be "Green" Because vegetable waste and animal waste(as in the p**p and the carcases)  are both environmentally friendly.

Answer 15

It's not necessarily eating meat or not eating meat that's a sustainability issue so much as how that meat is produced.  

First eating locally native and available choices is much more sustainable than eating imports or animals that require a modification to the local environment.

Second -it is more efficient to eat animals that can work for you while they're alive.  For example they can be pack animals, milked, sheared, or produce eggs as opposed to say a pig that really can't do anything for you while it's alive.  But this rarely happens in our current system - milk cows don't necessarily become meat cows.

Third, the major issue is our current agriculture system is highly based on transportation and mechanization which requires a lot of fuel energy. For example the beef rancher ships in food for his cows rather than growing it and it was cultivated, irrigated, and harvested by machine.  

Answer 16

god no!

Answer 17

i feed my wife my meat constantly and she seems to be doing fine.