Your children will survive not eating meat one day of the week - in fact it's probably beneficial to only eat meat every other day or less (not by eating processed food like beyond/impossible etc just eating "normal" vegetarian meals).

I know a lot of people who eat meat twice a week. That seems like a very good balance.

They would also survive a beating one day per week. I would prefer that their life is optimized for the good.

If you believe that a vegan or vegetarian diet can't supply adequate nutrition, then your information is outdated.

Source: my wife who is a Registered Dietitian Nutritionist.

A balanced non meat diet is at the very least as healthy as a balanced meat diet.

Nothing is in the same ballpark as red meat in terms of nutrition density and bioavailability.

A beef steak is about 270 calories for 30g of protein, cooked lentils are about 22g for the same number of calories. I'm not researched enough in bioavailability to comment on that part.

For an 80kg man, the "recommended" protein intake is about 64g, the difference in calories is fairly minute (assuming you compare 100% meat vs 100% lentils). If you're training/weightlifting and following the advice of 2-3g per kg of bodyweight, you're almost certainly going to supplement your protein intake anyway. Protein supplements are 2-3x the density of red meat, and available in vegan options if that's your thing.

The bioavailability of protein from lentils is about 60%. So your cherrypicked comparison has about 50% of the useful protein content of beef.

Macronutrients are not the entire picture. If you look into micronutrients you’ll find all of the essentials in beef, some are not found at all in plant sources.

Be careful about all fda recommendations, they were heavily influenced by lobbying from the sugar / grain / cereal industry and are not being updated in step with science.

India has the highest rates of depression and one of the highest rates of heart disease, I posit this is because their exceptionally low intake of nutrition from animals.

Hong Kong, with the highest consumption of meat per capita, has the highest life expectancy in the world.

I eat burgers for my health. Often with no bun or fries. The more of my calories come from beef, the better I feel.

Feels != facts

My original comment was clearly anecdotal, which is not the same thing as being '100% feels'.

Potatoes are a complete, if poor, protein source. You'll live. For a long while at least.

This kind of misallocation is really the only thing keeping velocity of money high enough to sustain the economy

While I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, I think it's worth questioning the unspoken premise here:

Is there no other way to support human life than these accelerating grinding gears of money-shuffling?

Or those losses the only thing preventing the creation of even greater things

Well, of course. Problem is that, apparently, we're doing the best we can.

Could you expand that a little for us slowpokes?

Aside, I assume you mean "to sustain the [USA] economy"? Perhaps you mean World economy, or EU, or ...?

You mention this ad hominem so you can extrapolate beliefs that may be completely fabricated.

Why do you try to read my mind? It violates the laws of physics and I explicitly wrote why I mentioned his political views. I don't think he has the views I extrapolated, which is why I wonder why he has the ones he says he has.

I did not read your mind. I summarized your actions. I never assumed intent or motivation. You are the one who did those things. Projection.

Perhaps that assumption you made that you apparently don't believe was a completely made up figment of your imagination, which is what my comment illustrates.

What you're writing doesn't make any sense, sorry.

Libertarians don't generally attribute poor people's situation to laziness. Conscientiousness would be a closer approximation, but still pretty bad.

Can you please explain what they do attribute it to (or link an explanation)? The very reason I mentioned Barkley's views is that they made me realize that I don't understand Libertarians.

Why are you making all of these assumptions?

I think most of the assumptions I have made a pretty reasonable. We are talking about the evolution of possibly thousands of different genes which could contribute to IQ. This can't be compared to altering the pod size of a pea plant, a rather simple genetic selection, which still takes many generations to take effect.

culture dependent like the wheel.

When given the task "What is the next number in this sequence: 3, 5, 7" my first thought would be 9, since we are counting odd numbers. But that's kind of dumb, nobody would ask something this simple. So maybe the answer is 11, since we might be counting prime numbers. That's probably good enough for an IQ test, but if this was an interview question at Google the better answer might be 13 (counting Mersenne exponents, integers so that 2^n - 1 is prime, a well known method to find large primes). On the other hand 23 is the next prime whose digits are also prime. 9 is also the next Columbian Number, but 13 is the next fortunate number.

Now a good question would give me only one of these as possible answer, but in practise having multiple viable answers happens and I have to judge how complicated the question was supposed to be, what the test's expectations are etc. If you ask a Japanese you might get a different answer than if you ask a French simply because of how different their academic cultures are.

What does a carefully chosen straw man IQ question (may never have appeared in an IQ test in history, afaik) have to do with the fact that no sub saharan african society had developed the wheel before colonialism?

yes, all those pesky mathematics involved in constructing things like, well, buildings, or the wheel. Very much socially constructed.

That's not the point. Nobody denies that mathematics is involved in bridge-building. What is malleable is the perception whether bridge-building is a feat of intellect, and the position in the social hierarchy people with that ability occupy.

so you’re saying the value of bridges is a “social construct”.