Admirable sentiment, perhaps, but ridiculous in that anyone would think it was a reasonable idea. Also, I never said I was particularly concerned about plant suffering. Sorry that I gave that impression.
You never directly said you were, you just argued about plant 'pain' on multiple pages.
Not sure justify is the right word. Obtaining optimal health for me and mine is enough justification for me. Doesn't mean I'm cool with conventional factory farming or grossly cruel behavior towards livestock.
You care about optimal health, yet you discard huge amounts of medical and nutritional research on a whim. It seems to me that if you really cared about optimal health, you would at least take all those indications very seriously.
As with many things in life, I don't think it's that black and white. There are degrees in between. I prioritize the survival and health of me and mine, but that doesn't mean I have no care for the general well being of animals, even if they are being kept and bred as livestock.
I'm sorry, but there are just way too many variables to draw any meaningful connection between meat consumption and mortality (all-cause at that). An uncontrolled epidemiological study is only going to give you interesting glimpses of things to further research. No one should draw conclusions from them. Note that even the report you linked is careful to use words like "may" and "suggest." You need to account for all factors. It could easily just be that people who lead generally unhealthy lifestyles also happen to be those who eat the most meat (in addition to all sorts of other junk).
As above there are enough 'meaningful connections' between meat consumption and mortality. If you look at the components of meat, you can easily see which factors contribute to this. Cholesterol, carnitine, saturated fats, excessive protein consumption, Neu5Gc, Heme iron etc. etc.
Cooking red meat at high temperature and smoking produces the carcinogens polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs) and heterocyclic amines (HCA) Red meat itself contains certain factors that, under certain conditions, produce carcinogens like N-nitroso compounds (NOCs) Additionally, the heme iron that gives meat its red color may promote carcinogenesis due to its ability to increase cell proliferation in the mucosa, through lipid peroxidation and/or cytotoxicity of fecal water
Some mechanisms that have been suggested for why red meat consumption is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease include: its impact on serum cholesterol, that red meat contains arachidonic acid, heme iron, and homocysteine., its high content of saturated fat. Bacteria in the digestive tract of people who eat meat have been found to produce a spike in TMAO when supplied with carnitine (abundant in red meat). TMAO is a metabolite that promotes atherosclerosis, a thickening of the arteries.
There is a massive amount of statistical data, and focused research that clearly suggest that eating meat (and animal products) pose a health risk.
These facts might be hard to swallow, because the majority of humanity has been consuming animal products for ages, and there is a lot of passion and pride involved too. But nevertheless facts are facts and data is data. I'm a vegan primarily for ethical reasons, since veganism transcends diet alone, but even if we ignore the ethical component, then the nutritional/health benefits of plant-based diets are very compelling and hard to ignore.
Define "truly healthy," "age gracefully," or "live long at all" before proceeding, please.
Why? You can just use a dictionary, since I'm using these words according to their common definitions.
To understand 'truly healthy', reread my comments highlighting the protective qualities of plants, fruit, nuts and seeds and the risky qualities of animal products.
To understand 'age gracefully', look into diseases of affluence and how they are influenced by animal products.
To understand 'live long', compare the average lifespan expectancy of those living on diets consisting of low amounts of animal products vs. those on high amounts of animal products.
The source in this link doesn't seem to be working. What is the primary cause of death in the group of "primitive peoples?" I'm willing to wager it isn't diabetes, cancer, and heart disease.
In the text itself it already tells you the Inuit had higher rates of cancer than the overall Canadian population. But beyond that I can't help you. I'm afraid you'll have to research that yourself.