Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.
If alien species more powerful and smart came to earth i would rather be molested than killed and turned into a sausage.
Wise choice, Mr. Schopenhauer.
From what I’ve been told by rape victims, I’d much rather be murdered.
Who do you personally consider a bigger criminal?
- Human murdering other animal without their consent?
- Human raping other animal without their consent?
(We are making judgments solely based on the animal’s perspective. So we can’t include disingenuous human arguments like “They died a noble death for our survival”.)
raping an animal is still worse. Morally, killing animals is bad but it does provide a method of survival wether it’s moral or amoral, raping an animal is just a sick and twisted desire that is not only gross and unnatural but also does not provide any method for survival, so while no it’s not noble like your premise claims the argument to be it’s just seem as societally gross for a good reason.
From the animal’s perspective, you could argue rape continues their species and therefor is natural like killing, cannibalism etc. but that doesn’t change the dynamic between humans and animals. To the animal, dying is death and it’s something every living thing has to do, getting raped/rape is not
Through Animal’s perspective - Raping an animal is bad but Killing is worst outcome as it removes them from the gene pool, which means they can’t be able to produce their offspring and continue their progeny/generation. ~ Humans justify killing animals because they think through their own benefits, because they neglect animal’s perspective.
Right, I think a lot of my understanding does revolve around being a human and I cannot separate myself from that morality & most animals are driven by survival if that makes sense. This question is so fucking wild
One is torture.
The other is a means of survival.
It’s acceptable to kill for survival.
It’s not acceptable to torture and hurt for sexual gratification that can be gained solo with no one else involved.
You do not need meat to survive lmao. You eat it because you like it, at least be honest with yourself
Valid argument - assuming you live in the woods and hunting and gathering is the only way you can get food.
I get what you mean, but as somebody that hasn’t eaten meet in 35 years I would argue its not needed for survival.
Modern meat consumption is very disconnected from survival for most people though.
More humans could survive with more food if we reused the land growing food for animals for growing food for humans to eat. We would need so much less land that we could rewild a lot of it, and massively reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere as well.
But people like meat and will react badly to anyone suggesting that eating less is a good idea for everyone.
I do feel like most people I talk to irl seem to agree that eating less meat is good for everyone, but that’s very local of course, and agreeing and doing it is also not necessarily connected 😅
agree that eating less meat is good for everyone
I think this is just human nature, you say the socially acceptable thing to move the conversation along even if it wont impact their behavior. In a situation where the topic comes up (even staunch pro-meat doctors) the path of least resistance is to smile nod and “agree”.
More humans could survive with more food if we reused the land growing food for animals for growing food for humans to eat.
Animals are raised on grass land, which is different from cropland. Even if all the animals disappeared tomorrow we wouldn’t have any extra cropland.
That doesn’t address grass land vs cropland.
It just complains people are turning forests into cropland.
So shouldn’t the same logic dictate that it is not acceptable to kill for culinary satisfaction, if nutrition can be gained without killing a creature? (Which is very possible in most parts of the world)
- Zoophilia is Rape (sex without consent)
- Killing animal is Murder .
In both cases we should be considering animal’s perspective (what animals feel in both cases). We can’t just involve human’s perspective for our own convenience. Do animals consent to be murdered? I don’t think so.
Perhaps zoophilia affects the human doing it negatively; eg the human may start to hurt other people some time?
You’re not worried about killing and eating animals having the same effect?
There was an article many years ago about people working in the meat industry, and how they are under extreme stress. So yes, the meat processing industry has detrimental effects on people. Is there evidence that these people commit more violent crimes? It is well documented that psychopaths / serial killers usually have a history of torturing / raping animals in their youth. Taken together, this may be an additional reason beyond laws against sex with animals. (Before you pop a vessel: I am vegetarian and most of my meals are vegan).
No, most people who eat meat wouldn’t wanna kill an animal themselves
Edit: i guess the question is more directly about killing animals than eating meat though
I’ve spent a lot of time around German butchers, who specialize in two of three areas during their training: 1-slaughtering, 2-meat production, and 3-sales. In my experience (so take this with a big grain of salt), people who specialized in 1 are significantly more callous towards human life than those who didn’t.
My husband’s hopefully passing his licensing exam today and though he specialized in 2&3 (hence the big grain of salt), he still had to work at a slaughterhouse for a few weeks during his training. He’s not a squeamish person at all (he once knowingly selected The Lullaby’s Smile [trigger warning: this is very effective body horror that so paralyzed me with anxiety to listen to that I couldn’t make myself get up to turn it off] to fall asleep to and is a big fan of schlocky horror movies), but he could not stand it. He hasn’t paid for meat since (though he does save things from the trash, both for himself and for a network of people we know who are happy to accept free meat past its sell-by date and capable of determining whether it’s safe to eat) and will work at a vegan butcher shop after his licensing as a direct result of his experiences at the slaughterhouse.
vegan butcher shop
Uh, what?
They sell vegan meat imitation products made by actual trained butchers. Some of their stuff is wild. I used to eat meat, but I’ve never been able to digest pork and it’s never appealed to me, and I find their pork-style products way too realistic to eat (confirmed to be accurate and not just unappealing by my husband, lol).
Wow, that’s… Interesting. TIL
Society condemns one and accepts the other
This is the reason.
I was looking for the logical consistency. They are accepting killing of animals (murder without consent) while condemning the rape (sex without consent) of animals.
People aren’t looking at the animal’s rights.
They are condemning the humans who act in a disgusting way.
Most people would have the same reaction if you were cohabiting with a lawn mower.
Bonus…
Gene Wilder makes love to a sheep. SFW
It’s about squick.
Think about how they call sex with animals “bestiality”. It’s not “oh it’s because it hurts the animals!”, it’s because “ew, gross, you’re stooping to the level of an ANIMAL!”.
I don’t think it’s about consent, either. If you were somehow able to communicate well enough to actually get consent (which, to be clear, is pretty iffy what with the whole language barrier and such), people would still be squicked.
(also I’m pretty sure “zoophilia” is more about being into animals rather than actual sex with them, which is the whole “bestiality” thing. You can be into someone/a group of people without wanting to rape them.)
It’s probably because most of society fundamentally doesn’t see other animals as people, and therefore killing them is totally fine (“what? they’re not people!”), but having sex with them is Evil and Bad (“why would you want to have sex with them? they’re not even a person!”).
Yeah it makes no sense.
I’m pretty sure “zoophilia” is more about being into animals rather than actual sex with them
I wasn’t sure about this, due to the common link with sexuality - but it looks like - at a semantic level - you’re right.
From the original Greek via Aristotle;
philia is commonly translated as friendship or affection. Its conceptual opposite is phobia
Continued today with Bibliophilia, Dendrophilia, Thalassophilia etc (Books, trees, the sea) - all non-sexual, and there are hundreds of other examples “used in everyday language to describe completely normal, passionate hobbies and aesthetic appreciation”
Is there any historical evidence that relates zoophilia to decreasing the domesticated animals’ population thus causing food scarcity? Is there a material basis for the condemnation? [Some religious scriptures suggest to kill the animal after performing copulation.] I never thought that way.
I can’t imagine that it would ever have enough impact to reduce their population significantly
Different taboos in different places, I guess.
False premise. Zoophilia isn’t condemned because animal rights etc. It’s condemned because ‘ew WTF we don’t want people doing that, to the extent that we will make laws against it.’
It’s the same reason that we have laws against incest. Had laws against homosexuality.
I’m not saying it should be allowed because we (some of us) grew up and realised that laws against homosexuality were stupid. Just that, that is the reason. Collective societal disgust. It’s only justified by using animal rights (and rightly so, because EW) the same way we justified antihomo laws because it goes against some obscure biblical / Koranic rule.
It’s the same reason that we have laws against incest. Had laws against homosexuality.
I don’t think this is right. We have laws against incest, because we were programmed by evolution to think incest is bad. The causal chain is:
- Incest lowers survival rates,
- Evolution causes humans to find incest disgusting to increase survival rates,
- Humans create laws to abolish incest because they find it disgusting.
Homosexuality is not like that at all, if I understand correctly (which I may not, tbf). Homosexuality may in fact be a evolutionary trait that is selected for in a certain sense, or it may just be a side-effect of other evolutionary efforts. For instance, having a homosexual uncle could be beneficial to you, as he would spend less time taking care of his own kids (obviously won’t have any) and more time taking care of you. The uncle’s genes would have no incentive to do this and evolution would not pressure the uncle to become homosexual, but your common ancestor (your grandparents on one side) would benefit as your genes would be helped along by your uncle, and so evolution could have caused homosexuality to occur ever so often, to produce one of these “helpful uncles”.
It’s the same reason that we have laws against incest.
I’d argue it’s also the fact that because of the low genetic diversity of the parents children born from incest have a higher chance of developing genetical diseases.
The chance is lower than most people presume but at the same time: why gamble?
Those laws and customs predates knowledge of genetics significantly.
Humans may not have consciously known that incest was bad, but evolution made us think so before we were even humans. All animals avoid incest, not just humans. We only created those laws and customs because evolution already made us believe that incest is bad. It’s pre-programmed in us, so to speak.
All animals avoid incest
That isn’t even remotely true.
Fair - but humans are definitely not the only animals that do.
That’s a great justification for the EW
Yes but that is also a rationalization after the fact. First, it was ew, then we figured out that there were also rational reasons against it.
It’s been the norm in many countries for centuries, so can’t have been seen as EW as you claim
First, it was ew, then we figured out that there were also rational reasons against it.
Well, actually, it’s the other way around. Evolutionary speaking, there was a disavantage to inbreeding, so the “ew” evolved because of that. We think inbreeding is wrong because evolution taught us that it lowers the chance of survival for our offspring.
the “ew” evolved because of that.
i don’t know how you could possibly prove this, but i would love to see you try.
You can’t really definitively prove a theory like that I think. I’m no biologist so I’m not an expert by any means, but we can’t go back in time to see why evolution did what it did. We can only guess from what we have right now.
That said, such an “ew” response to incest surely is not just coincidence. It must have arose for a reason, just like all of our emotions evolved for a reason. For example, we also experience disgust when smelling or tasting rotten milk, because drinking rotten stuff is bad for survival too, so evolution made us have that response, because it would lower the chance of us drinking spoiled milk. There’s nothing “inherently disgusting” about incest or spoiled milk. We only find those things disgusting because they are bad, evolutionarily speaking.
And btw this isn’t restricted to humans obviously, all animals avoid having offspring with their close family, so this is a very deep-rooted behavior.
Actually, that’s assigning too much rational complexity to a blind system. Less the aversion to inbreeding and more the selection of genetic robustness of external mate mingling. To a certain degree.
The histocompatibility of another gauged through smell and taste (i.e. kissing) ensures a preference for a certain degree of separation from one’s genetic pool to ensure protection from local viral and bacterial adversaries. But not too far away! Or it is too alien and doesn’t confer the advantages of mixed immunities.
The ‘ew’ factor is just the societal reinforcement of the Westermarck effect. While surely there is some genetic component at play there it appears to be primarily motivated by the primate social adaptation system.
This can be seen by studying peer groups. Even people far removed from one’s genetic pool will feel like icky siblings if they are raised together. Conversely, many cases of siblings and other relations separated at birth who later meet and fall in love/have relations.
Edit: link for the curious. Fascinating stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect
While surely there is some genetic component at play there it appears to be primarily motivated by the primate social adaptation system.
This seems like a strange argument, because “the primate social adaptation system” is also ultimately governed by evolution. Obviously a primate group with a social tendency towards incest would have worse survival rates than a primate group with a social aversion to incest, and that social fabric definitely is tied to evolution (unless you mean to imply that our social fabric did not arise from evolution, but I don’t think that’s what you’re saying).
Also, I don’t see how this can have anything in particular to do with primates and their social constructs as incest is avoided by all animals, as far as I am aware. It is not a purely human or primate thing, incest is bad for all animals and so they have all evolved via evolution to avoid it. I’d say the Westermarck effect is just the result of that evolution - obviously humans can’t directly read genetic code, so the mind assumes that whoever you grew up with must be your close relatives, and that’s good enough of a signal in 99% of cases, so that’s what evolution went with.
The point I am making is that there isn’t a aversion away from something, there is simply a preference towards something. We don’t eat wood chips and don’t like the way they taste, not because they are bad for us, but rather because we would rather eat potato chips. The potato chips are more advantageous to our survival. This may seem I am splitting hairs but it’s important to make that distinction because the following arguments are based on such distinctions and it’s important to assign the correct motivation to our evolutionary drives.
It’s not that our blind systems somehow know that screwing our siblings makes disadvantaged babies (which it doesn’t know that and nor does it compared to mating with someone with a more prominent genetic issue- at least not for the first few generations) it doesn’t code that far ahead for cause and effect. It only instills a preference for slightly exogenous mates to confer immunity advantages.
The Westermarck effect shows strong evidence for a higher (socially speaking) system influencing our mate preference BECAUSE it can be “circumvented” by the evidence that even siblings raised away from each other show no inhibitions towards mating. If there were purely a genetic aversion towards inbreeding there wouldn’t be a statistically significant event of long lost relatives copulating. I’m stretching a bit on the statical significance but it happens often enough to be reported on.
Also, inbreeding is very common in the animal kingdom. Less between direct descendants, like mother/child, but on the whole most creatures make little distinction between relations. Which makes sense if the options are mate with your brood or potentially die without performing our evolutionary imperative command of passing on our genes.
https://theconversation.com/incest-isnt-a-taboo-in-the-animal-kingdom-new-study-160937
We don’t eat wood chips and don’t like the way they taste, not because they are bad for us, but rather because we would rather eat potato chips.
I’m sorry but I find this premise completely ridiculous - obviously we don’t like how they taste because they are bad for us. Evolution isn’t only about preference, it’s also about avoiding stuff, like poison or rotten food or woodchips or whatever. I don’t think we can come to an agreement on such a premise.
What about same sex incest, or where one or both partners are sterile, or between adopted siblings who aren’t related genetically? That would still be considered wrong, right? Even though there wouldn’t be genetic consequences
Personally? IDGF about what two consenting adults do in bed. My only objection is when it comes to children being born from incest because of the higher risk of genetic diseases.
between adopted siblings who aren’t related genetically?
Don’t know where you from but AFAIK that’s perfectly legal in Germany.
My only objection is when it comes to children being born from incest because of the higher risk of genetic diseases.
But that’s still not a 100% consistent argument and it leans into another morally complex topic: eugenics.
Because, if you argue that way, you’d have to clarify your stance towards people with genetic diseases/disabilities in general.
And if you follow the logic, we would also have to shun/abolish sexual relations between people with genetic disease or who carry the respective alleles, so that their offspring have a higher chance of inheriting a disease (in some cases way higher than with random siblings).
It might be the root cause, why there seem to be marriage rules in most human societies, that exclude intermarrying of siblings (especially considering that the risks increase drastically if you keep procreating that way for generations), but the current taboo is not entirely rational and seems more based on cultural tradition than current understanding.
Again, personally: As I have one confirmed genetically transmitted condition and one suspected genetically transmitted condition this is a dilemma close to my heart and TBF I haven’t reached a final conclusion for myself yet. On one hand I think it is unethical to conceive a child knowing full well, that they have a considerable higher risk of disease, and yet I don’t think GATTACA was meant as an instruction manual. As so often in life the answer is somewhere in the middle.
Why do so many vegans seek conflict instead of educating others? It’s pretty clear that this post seeks solely to declare non-vegans hypocrites.
Good idea using your shit-stirring alt for this one though.
I have no mischievous intent against any group. I just saw some moral inconsistency. So I though let’s AskLemmy about their opinion on this topic. People are answering pretty rationally and are not just outright dismissive.
Your question is clearly dismissive itself. I have no reason to think it’s in good faith, especially considering you seem to only post from this account rarely and to stir up shit
I am sorry for making you feel this way.
Their responses are clear and methodical, giving the impression that OP is genuinely trying to discuss a potentially-tricky subject in a calm, rational manner. If they were here to “stir up shit,” surely they’d be responding in a way that encourages more drama. From the evidence, I don’t believe that’s their intent at all.
Sometimes people want to discuss difficult topics, even if there’s a risk of people taking it the wrong way. I’d say OP’s doing a decent job encouraging civility, and that’s something I wish we could see more of online.
Carnists: Murder, rape, torture, slavery
Vegans: Once in a blue moon literally just saying something about it in public
One of these is immoral. You’ll be shocked at which this boomer reference username thinks it is!
no one is murdering, torturing, rapping, or enslaving animals
“It doesn’t count because we use different words”
words mean things
And I use them very deliberately, stupid.
Would killing you not count as murder because you lack higher brain function to speak in sentences? Did I just step on your argument?
this is a strawman
a strawman of what argument? either fill the vacuum or shut up
Hmm I wonder if the definitions of any of those words requires human beings to be involved 🤔.
Sounds like you’re stretching.
Isn’t it cool how you can do that to, say, Jews or Palestinians? You just label them as not human, and then it stops being murder!
What a handy tool that doesn’t demand reflection!
No, no it’s not cool at all. And what you’re referring to is called dehumanization. Definitely calls for some reflection on your part, lol.
You’re the one with the moral framework specifically designed so that you can carry out the acts of murder, rape, torture and slavery and not hold yourself at fault for them because different word. But I’m the one who needs to reflect? Shut up you fucking moron.
Murder rape and slavery all have definitions. Unless all of a sudden were saying cows and chickens are people, you need to adjust your language or nobody will ever take you seriously. Angy li’l vegan, ain’t ya?
Everybody takes you seriously because you are getting mad while arguing that you can fuck a sheep and it’s not rape
Using the word carnist is like screaming “I am a huge asshole and I think I’m superior”. I won’t be seeing your replies.
Ps. Hilarious you think anything from the 90s is for boomers. You’re just telling me you’re an awkward gen z
Dick Tracy, famous pulp comic from the 1990s
I won’t be seeing your replies.
I’M NOT CIS I’M NORMAL REEEEEEEEEEE
(They’re afraid of talking to someone with above a 5th grade vocabulary)
Technically Dick Tracy is pre-boomer as it started in the 30s. Though it ran till the 70s I think so kinda works both ways. Simply biazzare that the other guy thinks it started in the 90s though either way.
Yeah the 90’s was when it petered out as a cultural reference. There was a movie that did well.
In a perfect utopian society I would hope we wouldn’t be doing either.
Thanks for acknowledging the inconsistencies within social values and showing optimism for the ideal outcome.
Everybody’s gotta eat, but not everyone’s gotta fuck a dog
No one has to eat meat, in fact with all the space used for animals we could produce way more food instead.
No one has to eat meat
People with crohn’s or colostomy bags would disagree.
in fact with all the space used for animals we could produce way more food instead.
The space used for animals is grassland and doesn’t have the right soil to be cropland. i.e. if all animals disappeared tomorrow we wouldn’t get any more cropland at all.
With one exception being the animals that are fed with crops.
We wouldn’t grow more crops in total, but more would be available for human consumption.
We wouldn’t grow more crops in total, but more would be available for human consumption.
The bulk of animal food from crops isn’t human edible, i.e. the leftover waste. Cows have an amazing ruminant digestive system that can process plant food that humans can’t!
Cool idea: don’t presuppose what literally every human needs based on your narrow worldview. Without significant animal fat and protein I wouldn’t be able live.
No, I’m not going to get into specifics, but also, no, I cannot get my current nutritional needs (and still desire to eat) by cutting animal products and biproducts in my diet.
Are there more people then having sex with dogs than there are those who eat them?
Then who has to fuck a dog? Didn’t you mean noone has to fuck a dog?
Paging lemmy.world/u/noone
what do you have to say for yourself?
I think their point is that there are options to not eat the dog either.
But zoophilia is not about consent at all!
Scientists use dummy ostriches to collect sperm. Ostriches approach and… use the dummies, by their own volition.
If there was a human in there, it wouldn’t be very different from the perspective of the real ostrich. So it’d be technically possible to consensually bottom an ostrich.
But why the fuck would you do it?
This is what people actually despise about bestiality. It’s a gut feeling, before any rationalisation
You should see what ranchers do with their cows and horses. More strict bestiality laws are usually defeated at their request, because they artificially inseminate their animals, and jerk off their prized bulls and horses, the semen of which is worth more than gold.
Sick fucks, ranchers are the fucking devil. but that’s another story.
Exactly! The law doesn’t protect animals from sexual abuse, it only cares that humans aren’t directly having sex with them
“Animals can’t consent” is one of the strongest arguments given against zoophilia. Any conditioned trickery by a human would get considered as sexual misconduct.
People raping and killing for their own enjoyment is sick. Someone else doing the dirty work for our enjoyment (i.e. eating meat), well that’s different. If somehow zoophilia were proven to enhance meat flavor, we’d probably be OK with it
Thanks for taking this question in purely analytical manner and questioning the conflicting social values. There are many comments here which tries to answer the question but get engaged into sense of social shame and prejudice rather than focusing into the logical consistency with given premise.
none of it is about consent anyway. it doesn’t even make sense. do you get consent from doors before you jam a key in them, open them, and put your whole body through them?
You can’t compare living animals with inanimate objects. “Animals can’t consent” is a strong argument given against zoophilia. I want you look at the social inconsistent values; where killing animal without their consent is accepted but copulating with animal is condemned by giving the argument that “Animals can’t consent”. Here the consent is inconsistent and getting used for convenience. [Necrophilia is also condemned on the basis of corpses’ inability to consent.]
You can’t compare living animals with inanimate objects.
in regards to whether discussing consent makes any sense, yes I can.
You can, but it’s a weak argument, if any argument at all.
it’s a strong argument
Weak arguments don’t become strong just because you say so, you troll 😄
😄
this smacks of an appeal to ridicule
calling me names doesn’t change the truth of what I wrote
Yes, it’s still a complete non-argument even if we consider you’re serious. Not even worth discussing.
Doors aren’t animals, Victoria. The same way you’re not a door either. Maybe a doorknob?
as everyone else has explained, the objection isn’t about consent but aesthetics. you’ve made a strawman.
I disagree. As I understood it, their point was that an animal is a living thing capable of having feelings about a situation and a door is an inanimate object with no feelings or thoughts at all. Dogs can suffer PTSD from being mistreated but a door has no such capacity.
That would make the first comment a false equivalence and their rebuttal valid. In turn we must either present a better equivalent or justify the validity of the original statement.
the capacity to have feelings has nothing to do with he capacity to consent.
Consent is needed for sexual morally correct intercourse if you want to do it with something capable of having feelings. So having feelings has something to do with consent, because:
Consent is not needed if the thing we’re doing it to is inanimate and doesn’t have the capability of feeling anything.
why are feelings important with regards to consent? consent is the ability to understand and agree. feelings have nothing to do with that. the ability to consent has nothing to do with feelings if you don’t already have the ability to understand and agree.
Consent is needed if you do something with another being with feelings. Feelings aren’t needed to be able to consent. That’s simple logic, if you can’t understand that you’re incapable of discussing that argument.
It’s not that emotion is important for consent, it’s that violation of consent can create trauma. If violation of consent is bad because it’s a negative experience and an animal is capable of experiencing trauma then a violation of its consent is as inherently negative of an experience as it would be for a person.
A door does not experience anything, it is a door.
While klling an animal for food is sure destructive for the animal, it is constructive for the humanity. It allows us to get all those proteins “for free” instead of producing them ourselves from plants like herbivores do and invest the saved energy in our intelligence to create beautiful and complex things. Whereas copulating with an animal is pure destruction. It harms the living being and leads to no babies and no emotional bond strengthening (contrary to human sex).
Eating animal is still a contradiction, because destruction is there. So I think this problem does need to be somehow overcome. But at least it’s outweighed by its positive effects, unlike zoophilia.
producing them ourselves from plants like herbivores do
This bit is nonsense. I’ll give you a point for meat consumption being an easy source of protein that allowed for some developments during the evolution of humans, that are unlikely to have happened without it. But that is more a question of availability than nutritious properties. In todays surplus society, where we have industrialized agriculture and optimized crops, there is abundant access to plant protein.
And meat is not a unique source of protein either. First of all, you don’t even have to eat meat to obtain animal protein. Eggs and dairy have it too. And when it comes to the constitution of protein, eggs were even considered the gold standard for a long time.Read the following wikipedia article to learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_digestibility_corrected_amino_acid_score
The listed examples should be interesting to you.
While meats are indeed easily digestable and contain useful protein for the human body, so do many plant sources. Soy protein is even on par with eggs, while meats don’t reach the same score.
And of course we usually don’t eat a single source of protein, and combining different sources, their amino acid profiles can complement each other to form a complete source of protein.This might’ve been a bit of a ramble on a side-note when it comes to discussing the ethics of fucking animals, but I’m sure the discussion benefits from getting the facts straight.
I’m sure the discussion benefits from getting the facts straight.
You talked about a DIAAS (digestable indispensable amino acid score!) - you are my favorite person today.
But let’s contextualize plant proteins by how much food you need to eat, an 68kg adult needs about 110g of protein per day - Eating steak that is 350g of food, eating tofu is 650g of food, lentils is 1600g of food.
As the amount of plant based protein increases so does carbohydrate burden - a significant factor people need to be aware of, as most (94%) western adults have impaired metabolism and thus impaired insulin sensitivity - increased carbohydrate loads need to be carefully considered in their diet.
As a contrived example 1.6kg of lentils is 1900 calories.
graph i whipped up last week
You talked about a DIAAS (digestable indispensable amino acid score!) - you are my favorite person today.
Actually, I didn’t. I just realized, that I linked to PDCAAS, which is a slightly different method. But it didn’t really matter, as I just wanted to illustrate the concept. And I’m not too involved in the topic. I don’t know what you’re doing, that you’re whipping up tables about this stuff, but I’m just a layperson with a little knowledge about nutrition.
Allow me a few remarks though:
-
you’re referencing prepared meat, but raw tofu? In my experience, tofu is usually also prepared in some way, and with most preparations, it looses quite a bit of water content.
-
We don’t have to rely on mostly unprocessed plant food. There’s stuff like texturized vegetable protein, that delievers a more concentrated source.
-
While a table like this gives a good overview and reference, it’s easy to miss the fact, that we usually don’t get our protein from a single source. As I mentioned in my last comment, combining different sources can be a good way to enhance the overall protein quality.
To reflect that, we’d need DIAAS data for prepared dishes, meal plans or a whole diet. -
Can you even use DIAAS to calculate an amount of single protein source food, that you’d have to eat like that? I don’t know if it scales that way, and even if it did, for an incomplete protein source, you’d end up with a lot of excess for the abundant amino acids in that protein source, which I suspect would have to be excreted and I don’t know how your kidneys like that.
-
That table would really benefit from adding references to clarify what you base your assumptions on and where you get your data from.
But I think none of this is all that relevant for the underlying topic in this thread.
Well written! Yes combinations are a great way to complete the liebig amino acid barrel - here is a fun tool that helps do this https://www.diaas-calculator.com/ - but DIAAS cannot be “calculated”, we can guess by adding up amino acids in isolation, but you don’t get a real DIAAS reading unless you feed the combination to a pig then actually measure the amino acid absorption.
-
Why are you pretending that every human is a bodybuilder? Your stated protein needs are way above what science says is actually needed
science says
That is a fun turn of phrase
There isn’t one person who’s opinions encompass “science says” - multiple public health bodies recommend a 1.1-1.6g/kg/day protein intake.
We literally grow food to feed to animals. And then we have to spend time hearding the animals moving. Slaughtering is a decently evolved process (I think). They don’t give us the meet for free, we have to put effort to take it.
Eh…
The Psychological Impact of Slaughterhouse Employment: A Systematic Literature Review
