RomansFiveEight

Well I guess the part I'm having trouble with is why eating meat isn't sustainable but vegetation is. Due to overpopulation we're short on both. We could just as easily eat away all of our vegetation; especially if we all stopped eating meat. Ancient hominids have tried it, vegetarianism isn't new (though it wasn't a pseudo-moral issue; so much as it was a lack of availability or ability); and their bones are smaller, weaker, they died younger, and had higher infant mortality. We know more now which is why veganism isn't dangerous like it once was, but even so. We are the product of millions of years of evolution which has adapted to eat meat. Conversely, what we typically eat tends to be rapidly breeding hardy animals that have evolved to handle harsh conditions; I don't think that's a coincidence. Early hominids ate a lot of rodents and small mammals which of course, "breed like rabbits" (pun intended). We still eat chicken and fish which are plentiful and beef which is very hardy (I don't really eat much beef personally, but it certainly has it's evolutionary advantages as a food animal).

I get some of the health benefits of a healthy vegetarian/vegan diet (with supplementing certain foods to insure the necessary protein intake); but sustainability is a new one for me. I appreciate your insight and answering my questions but I just can't wrap my head around what makes vegetation more sustainable than meat; or vice versa. It seems they coincide well and part of our evolutionary superiority is our ability to eat both and our diet consisting of both. I just can't fathom why meat is "unsustainable", other than overpopulation; which is just as equally true of vegetable matter. We may not realize it in the developed world which not only produces it's own food but imports it from other countries as well; but food is in short supply; including and especially fresh vegetables and fruits.