just because we’re adapted for something doesn’t mean we should continue that behavior.
So you’re saying, rather than consider how our population affects us and our world, we should go against what millions of years of evolution has come to as being appropriate for us?
Red meat is not carcinogenic, if it is, why don’t we see carnivores dying of cancer constantly? Cancer is a growth due to mutated DNA, are you saying red meat mutates our DNA?
And if what you take from me is that we shouldn’t consider how our population affects us and the world then either I seriously fucked up in communicating or your reading comprehension is garbage. The way our population affects us and our world is why people should be vegan in the first place. When we consider our impact seriously and without bias, going vegan is the biggest, easiest thing to do first to reduce our impact
Red meat consumption is associated with increases in cancer. Correlation does not imply causation. What is the alleged mechanism of cancer inducement?
I agree, more people should be vegan (well not really, just veganish), and I’m glad you are, but that’s not the solution to our problems. Asking billions to deny a huge part of their biological hunger imperative and changing fundamental aspects of long-term human culture is just not going to happen on a wide enough scale to help in time to do much about climate change.
our biological hunger imperative doesn’t imply eating animal products. Roadkill, freshly killed animals, dairy, eggs are not inherently appetizing to humans. If anything it’s the opposite, a dead body is repulsize to most people. A huge percentage of humans are lactose intolerant. Raw eggs are gross. Fruits are about as close as you can get to biological hunger imperative, the other stuff we learn to like and/or cook to make it taste good
Yeah, I mean if you look at how carcinogenic red meat is to humans, it’s unlikely we ate all that much of it
but even so, just because we’re adapted for something doesn’t mean we should continue that behavior.
So you’re saying, rather than consider how our population affects us and our world, we should go against what millions of years of evolution has come to as being appropriate for us?
Red meat is not carcinogenic, if it is, why don’t we see carnivores dying of cancer constantly? Cancer is a growth due to mutated DNA, are you saying red meat mutates our DNA?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu9w4klc-B4 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455534 and more sources in the description. Red meat definitely is carcinogenic lmao.
And if what you take from me is that we shouldn’t consider how our population affects us and the world then either I seriously fucked up in communicating or your reading comprehension is garbage. The way our population affects us and our world is why people should be vegan in the first place. When we consider our impact seriously and without bias, going vegan is the biggest, easiest thing to do first to reduce our impact
Red meat consumption is associated with increases in cancer. Correlation does not imply causation. What is the alleged mechanism of cancer inducement?
I agree, more people should be vegan (well not really, just veganish), and I’m glad you are, but that’s not the solution to our problems. Asking billions to deny a huge part of their biological hunger imperative and changing fundamental aspects of long-term human culture is just not going to happen on a wide enough scale to help in time to do much about climate change.
Inflamation caused by heme iron, iirc
our biological hunger imperative doesn’t imply eating animal products. Roadkill, freshly killed animals, dairy, eggs are not inherently appetizing to humans. If anything it’s the opposite, a dead body is repulsize to most people. A huge percentage of humans are lactose intolerant. Raw eggs are gross. Fruits are about as close as you can get to biological hunger imperative, the other stuff we learn to like and/or cook to make it taste good