You just copy pasted the exact same thing I did in one of my previous replies and now you're calling it an entirely different story like you stumbled onto something completely new. I don't have to re-read the article again, you need to re-read your own replies carefully and stop getting confused.
"You claim that plant based diet reduced "food emissions" by 73% ( im not sure what "food emissions" means) but as you have mentioned GHG , can you provide me with one peer reviewed data which clarifies to me it as "73%" , and your claim that ~3.1 billion hectors i.e 76% less farmland, not quite sure what your mean by "76%" here as , do you mean 76% farmland is used for animal farming ?, with basic common sense im pretty sure that the data is fallacious….if not, can you again provide one peer reviewed data which clarify that claim?"
We already had this discussion, remember? You specifically brought up food emissions and I clarified what it meant, I already mentioned that the data was relevant to the United States and also that the reduction of 73% pertained to food emissions which, as I already explained, means GHG caused by agriculture. You also brought up the 76% reduction in farmland which I'm sure you found in the article but decided to ignore. You're going in circles once again and frankly, this is getting exhausting. This isn't news to you, why is it that you're suddenly feeling misguided? You have the ability to understand the meaning of what's written- clearly mentioned reduction of up to 73% of food emissions in the US.
Regarding the UK universities- I was simply correcting you. First, you said that most of the universities I referenced were UK based when it was only Oxford, then you said 90% of the articles I sent were UK based, did you somehow miss the links to the IPCC 2019 Special Report, the link to the 2017 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity and the one to the Position of the American Dietetic Association?
I'm glad that you at least recognize the health benefits of vegetarian food. However, you can't act like you're quoting me and then take the liberty to manipulate the text between the quotes. You've done this in your previous replies as well. What I said was that vegetarians are just as healthy, if not more, than meat eaters. Human beings can survive and be healthy on a vegetarian diet. The third article that you yourself sent says that "Well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets are very healthy" and I've already listed the plant based sources for the nutrients mentioned in the article. So the important question here that you've failed to answer is why kill animals when meat is not a necessity?
Wanna talk about celebrities? Okay, how about Madelaine Petsch who has been vegan her whole life, Joaquin Pheonix who has been vegan since the age of three and Peter Dinklage who has been vegan since childhood? Ariana Grande, Billie Eilish, Pamela Anderson and so many more. And have you forgotten about our own country's population? The people who are vegetarian stay vegetarian, very rarely do people convert to non vegetarians. You might say that it's for religious reasons, but whatever it may be, they live perfectly healthy lives and don't have to consume meat for "health" reasons.
You're the person killing innocent creatures and yet I'm the radical. And I didn't stick to a decision for over a decade simply for the sake of being stubborn to my words…what a ridiculous thing to say.
Regarding the GHG emissions from my diet, again- you haven't accounted for the reduction in emissions from cutting down dairy. Taken from the same article you sent-
"Cattle (raised for both beef and milk, as well as for inedible outputs like manure and draft power) are the animal species responsible for the most emissions, representing about 65% of the livestock sector's emissions."
Moreover, by focusing on my diet, you've completely missed the bigger picture, which is that the global GHG emissions from livestock can be cut down in general by adopting a vegetarian diet which eliminates all meat including beef and therefore, I have every right to advocate for vegetarianism as being better for the environment. You know what's regressive? Not doing anything to help and using the tu quoque argument against those making better decisions.
In case you forgot what you said, let me refresh your memory. "And also your Quick google research you assumed "membership" as "member'".
This is something that you brought up- not me. You tried to act like there was some sort of a difference between being a member and having membership in an organization. The ADA is an association of food and nutrition professionals which includes professors and educators. So again, what's your point? How does him working in Andrew's University mean that he isn't a member of the ADA? They're not mutually exclusive. Regarding the cross checking, I've already mentioned how an organization's stance on something is different from a random article, but it looks like it's falling on deaf ears.
By bringing up constitutional rights, you're bringing up the law, by which you're using legality as a means to justify things. I asked you what gives you the right to take an animal's life and you replied with
" Why do you think a constitutional society "for the people and by the people", care to take consent from animals?"
by which you're basically saying that animal cruelty (slaughtering of cows, pigs, chickens etc) is okay simply because they do not have constitutional rights. And oh, nice try. Except that I didn't compare animal liberation to human liberation. I simply mentioned slavery as an example of something that was legal in the past, yet completely cruel and immoral.
When you pay for meat, you're paying for animals to be bred, raised and then slaughtered on your behalf because you want to consume their flesh which is why death, here, is a certainty. Yes, it is unfortunate that rodents and mice die in agriculture. In case you didn't know, vegans are pretty vocal about using alternate, humane methods of crop production that do not harm small creatures. Furthermore, around 70 billion land animals are raised and killed for food each year which means that more land is used in order to grow food for these animals than for people (7 billion). Remember the 76% reduction in farmland? Since the amount of land used for a meat based diet would actually be more than the land needed for a vegetarian/vegan diet, going meat-free would save lots of rats and mice. A vegetarian diet causes deaths as well, but the number of deaths (even of rats and mice) is way lesser than that of a meat-eater's diet. Also, just because we can not avoid unintentional deaths that occur during agriculture, it doesn't mean that we should go ahead and add to those deaths by intentionally slaughtering more animals.
Yeah, you're right. Paneer doesn't kill a cow- at least not immediately. But it does kill the male calves who are snatched away from her for meat and drastically reduces the length of her life due to the strain put on her body for higher milk yield…not to mention mastitis, lameness and other painful conditions.
Coming to soy, if you're concerned about the environmental effects of soy or rodents being killed in the process of soy farming, you should go vegan. 80% of the world's soybean crop is fed to livestock, especially for beef and
chicken, eggs and dairy- all of which you consume.
Therefore, reduction in livestock would not only mean lesser soy being produced, but it would also mean lesser rodents being killed in the process of soy farming. Besides, not all vegans rely on soy as their source of protein. There are plenty of other plant based sources such as mushrooms, lentils, beans, peas and nuts to name a few.
Human beings are not innately carnivorous. Our earliest ancestors lived on a plant-based diet, it was only around 2 million years ago that our ancestors became opportunistic and and began to consume meat due to a drop in the availability of fruits, flowers and leaves. As a result, we became omnivorous, not carnivorous. Also, it doesn't matter whether or not our ancestors ate meat. Back then their goal was survival and we live in very different times where we can choose what we put in our meals. Right now, at this very moment, we can not only survive, but also be perfectly healthy on a meat-free diet. So again, what gives you the right to take an animal's life for no reason?
Regarding caging you with a lion, let's face it- you wouldn't stand a chance. If you were truly a predator, you wouldn't need weapons to kill. No, not even crude weapons. The Masai tribe uses spears to hunt down lions. How am I talking nonsense? Why would you need weapons to hunt down your prey if we're biologically meant to be carnivorous/predators as you claim? Apex predators are those who don't have any predators themselves. However, if you were to go out into the jungle, a tiger or a lion wouldn't hesitate to tear you into pieces in a matter of seconds.
"In the global food web, we discover that humans are similar to anchovy or pigs and cannot be considered apex predators"
Eating up the world's food web and the human trophic level
And next, coming to the alternatives.
"so far iv been discussing about if the there is even a necessity of "alternative" , there is difference between "can" and "should" , we "can" have alternatives does not mean we "should" have alternatives"
Well, why "shouldn't" we? Meat products require slaughter, alternatives don't and there's a growing demand for alternatives. As the industry grows, so does its revenue and there's nothing you can do to stop it. Trying to see the positive side of an industry that tortures animals does not make you logical, it makes you cruel. There are a lot of immoral things that you could make loads of money out of, doesn't mean that the monetary aspect of it justifies the act.
Yeah, thanks. I'll go paint the wall pink- at least it's better than making weak arguments against vegetarianism and casually accusing people of plagiarism online. Goodbye.