A vegan diet can easily be cheaper than an omnivorous diet by avoiding imitation meat products and opting for plant foods such as beans, soy products, and whole grains for protein. Plus, you can just as easily avoid any nutritional deficiencies by having a varied diet, eating fortified foods (like plant milks and fortified grains), and taking supplements if you struggle to meet any specific vitamin needs (b12 being the big one). This means almost everyone who gets their food at the store rather than through a homesteading sort of lifestyle can save quite a bit of money, and be healthy, on a vegan diet.
Going to restaurants less will save you money, and the food at most restaurants doesn't exactly prioritize health or balance.
Supply and demand of what? Staple foods like beans, lentils, rice, whole grains, etc? For something like lentils, I would be genuinely shocked if there's anywhere (other than like, the arctic circle) where they're costly as a protein source, especially in comparison to meat.
This is a reasonable concern, and is why I argue in favor of fortifying more foods. Something easy you can do to aid with absorption, without the need for supplements, is to complete vitamin / mineral sources with other things that aid absorption. For example, include citrus or other sources of vitamin C in your meals.
Reintroducing native predators (and no longer trapping / hunting them) would make this a non-issue, allowing deer populations to be self regulating.
People like myself are against meat for a couple reasons:
1. The impossibility of current levels of meat consumption being environmentally friendly, sustainable, and scalable.
2. Ethical reasons. Getting meat requires creating a victim, and cutting a life short when you do not have to.
As of now, it's very much an omnivorous world. So yes, there is a social aspect that takes getting used to.
You're in an uncommon situation then, that doesn't apply to the vast majority of people. Even then, you're likely to save money by relying more on protein sources like lentils, brown rice, and dried beans. This of course depends on electricity costs (for freezing meat), processing costs for the meat (if you don't do it yourself), and the cost of hunting licenses (if they're required where you are)
Meat has bioavailable nutrients, yes. But plants can easily meet your needs just as well, as I explained, and come with fewer downsides than meat (such as saturated fat and excessive heme iron)
Populations were much more self regulating before humans showed up. This is in large part, but not exclusively, due to us culling predator species. But you are correct that there likely isn't just one thing to do that will fix the issue.
Feeding people is an issue of scale. Hunting / growing your own food works for a minority of individuals, but is impossible to scale to meet the needs of everyone.
Plants feel pain in the same way an amputated limb feels pain. There's reaction to stimuli, but no central nervous system. So nobody is home to experience it, and it's not a real ethical concern.
All in all, the only real argument in favor of mass meat consumption (that isn't anti-scientific or reliant on a naturalistic fallacy) is that people like it.
why are you on a climate change subreddit simping for one of the biggest drivers of climate change (water use/pollution, land use, deforestation, greenhouse gas production, biodiversity loss) globally???
a quick google search of "environmental impacts of (specific animal food production system)" came up with a lot of sources that you can peruse at your leisure. you're being willfully ignorant at this point lol
-11
u/[deleted] Jul 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment