• VonReposti@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    The divide is most often made between carnivore and herbivore. “Shit” flows up, meaning all the nasty stuff an animal eats lower in the food chain, goes up and accumulates in their predators. Carnivore meat is usually more disease ridden and unhealthy for consumption. Our culture has kinda evolved to this point naturally as a protection mechanism.

    It’s also the reason you should avoid eating too much of bigger fish species due to heavy metals. Smaller fish don’t absorb as much, but bigger fish accumulates heavy metal for each small fish they eat.

    • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      I think the point isn’t about practicality, but ethics. It’s less practical to eat carnivores, but is it unethical? If it’s ethical to kill and eat a cow, is it also ethical to kill and eat a horse? A dog? A cat?

      • Hazel@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        53
        ·
        3 days ago

        I think you misunderstood the argument.

        It’s okay to eat puppies and kittens because they haven’t accumulated as much 😌

        • burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          3 days ago

          I had a professor who was native american, and yeah, he spoke quite honestly about how they breed the dogs for meat, and the puppy is more tender. He said his friends would always joke with him when he went back to the reservation for holidays. I can’t remember the exact joke, but it was something about how he would have to dig deep into the stew because the puppy was at the bottom.

          • ulterno@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 day ago

            would have to dig deep into the stew because the puppy was at the bottom

            I am having a hard time getting that.
            If puppy is more tender, it would be because its tissue is lighter and composed more of fat and areolar tissue than muscle and dense connective tissue. Then in a stew full of meat from multiple ages of dog and what not, the puppy should be more buoyant than the dog, making it float higher.
            How then, does the puppy end up at the bottom?

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Some parts of my country used to eat & sell dog meat during WW2. Now not anymore, for above reasons.
        I think it’s perfectly clear; the line is neccessity and taste vs. friend and practicality.
        Also, third-level consumers are a waste of ressources in most cases, due to metabolic inefficiencies.

        And yeah, horse meat is still a thing. Moschtbrökli (some dried good parts kept in apple juice) a more or less local speciality. Quite tasty btw.