For me it's a neuropsychological issue, not a digestive one.

I "can't" eat most fruits and vegetables because they trigger my gag reflex so hard I can't swallow them. After years of working with a dietician and a therapist, I've managed to get to the point where there are a few things I can eat that aren't meat, bread, or ultra processed trash, but it's hard.

Also: to be clear, I have just as much or more disdain for any other voluntary dietary restrictions. Kosher and Halal get the same side eye from me, having lived to middle age with both the constant side-eye from people who like to rag on "picky eaters" and the constant struggle of trying to find something to eat when out with friends, I view anyone who limits their eating options just because they can and they think there's any kind of morality to what you eat as a person throwing away the massive gift of being able to just eat.

Do you have an allergic reaction when you consume non-meat foods?

Something kinda like that, yeah.

Ikr? Makes no sense. It's like if 12 + 4 equals 25^3

Hush, don’t ruin it.

Sounds fake.

But that is not entirley true since humans don't eat grass. And not all land is good for crops.

Forgive my ignorance, but how tf are you alive?

Well you have to understand that elements, much like molecules aren't really made of things, they're made of the math, physics, and chemistry acting on the things that're there

self cannibalism or just cannibalism??

Important to note: "grass-fed" doesn't actually mean grass-fed, they use plenty of supplemental grain almost everywhere. Trying to scale a pure grass-fed system up works rather poorly and even increases methane emissions

We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates

[…]

If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401

Cropland use goes down on plant-based diets, so we don't need all land to be usable for crops

we show that plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1713820115

Someone couldn't just be trying to be funny after they've gone vegan?

Someone couldn’t just be trying to be funny after they’ve gone vegan?

Maybe open the article, you're not the first person to consider this. Hint: "human-edible"

Yeah possible honestly

Multivitamins and luck, mostly

I'm skeptical of this... I think it's because vegan-ism is so puritanical, and everyone hates puritans.

It would be different if 1) it was necessitated by a health concern, or 2) they were just people who tried to eat as few products made from commercial farming as possible, but would eat animal products as circumstances necessitate. But they cut out all animal products, to the point that it can be really really difficult to prepare food for them. And I understand that usually vegans try to be accommodating and just bring their own food; they aren't trying to be dicks to everyone. But they still forgo the aspect of social bonding created by preparing food for others and sharing food with others, which drives social distance between themselves and others on purely ideological grounds.

like the point is that is should be theirs?

But the "gains" weren't really "theirs" either, since they previously belonged to an organism lower in the food chain. It's the circle of life.

For the plants part, it's worth mentioning that it takes more plants for animal products than it does to eat them directly

I'm not arguing for or against eating anything, I'm saying that no matter what you eat, you're "getting their gains."

I got downvotes for mentioning I'm planning on taking some of our overpopulated deer.

Maybe we should reintroduce wolves instead, eh?

Extending human ethics toward non-humans is a questionable endeavor at best. That being said, I personally don't like extra unnecessary suffering, which is why I prefer eating humanely raised and killed animals.

Taking the minimization of suffering to its logical conclusion, however, animals suffer in the wild without human intervention, so the most humane thing to do would be to exterminate them all. This would prevent any future suffering entirely.

Surely you see a problem with such a utilitarian approach?

hey you're more merciful than the wolf

deciding to kill something, because you think it is best for them

My argument is that from a utilitarian viewpoint it's not just best for them, but it prevents future suffering for all their offspring. Not just the suffering of one, but of untold millions.

Obviously I don't think a utilitarian approach like this is the right way to proceed.

potential suffering that might happen in the future

WILL happen in the future. Is guaranteed to happen in the future.

Practically speaking.