You're viewing a single thread.
We aren’t carnivores, we are omnivores. An advantage that surely allowed the growth of our brains and allowed us to become the dominant species in the planet.
Our teeth our designed in a way to both rip/tear meat and also grind up plants.
It is great that some sector of the population can be vegetarian or vegan, but it isn’t a realistic option if everyone did so. Farming is destroying hundred of thousands of acres of land every year. Keeping up with a plant-based only diet for 8 billion people isn’t feasible with the current technology and farming practices of today.
Raising animals consumes even more resources because first you have to grow plants to feed to the aninals.
While in general you're right, you're neglecting the fact that theres plenty of land that is suitable for raising animals which isn't suitable for farming. Specifically: The Norwegian population would have been incapable of surviving historically without a bunch livestock living in the un-farmable mountains most of the year.
This is an interesting edge case you're presenting, but it's not representative of the overwhelming majority of agricultural land devoted to livestock, and it's been largely solved by modern supply chains and distribution.
That's not an edge case, plenty of countries have little to no arable land. Scotland and Japan have around 10% of arable land, New Zealand has 2%. Growing veggies is a luxury, especially in northern parts of the world.
Yes, but shipping veggies has negligible GHG emissions compared to livestock farming. You're hung up on a small fraction of livestock production when the vast majority is factory farmed.
We are always working at solving problems. Right now the world is trying to figure out how to have its meat and eat it too, and spending all of our energy and money on that.
If we decided the problem was figuring out how to grow plants in those conditions, I bet you'd find we would improve that too.
Take a look at a map of Norway. If you find a way of growing crops on rocks that are dozens of kilometres from the nearest road, and covered in snow 8/12 months a year, please let me know.
Well you'd have to make exceptions for those that can't have their food shipped from better climates and also can't grow their own food. I'd imagine those peoples lives wouldn't change much from now were the rest of the world to stop eating meat.
Everyone who has the ability to avoid eating meat, should. Bringing up exceptions doesnt negate that position, its built in.
Which is why I said "in general, you're right". However, that doesn't take away the fact that most livestock from some countries is primarily raised on land that can't be farmed.
Speaking of supply chains: We could do the math on whether shipping a vegetable-based calorie from Brazil to Norway is more or less of an environmental burden than a meat-based calorie produced in Norway.
Here you go:
Did you read the text on that graphic?
... land conversion for grazing and feed ...
I'm not talking about meat production in general (which I think should be minimised), I'm specifically talking about meat production from land that is not viable for other uses.
This was exactly my point: I'm legitimately interested in how that graphic looks if you consider meat produced on land that cannot be used for other types of agriculture, and which is local so that transportation is a negligible cost, and feed production is close to non-existent, because the livestock primarily lives off the land.
Why are you bringing up historical facts? Noones planning to go back in time to make people vegan earlier.
We are talking about now, and right now, could those Scandinavian countries get by with substantially less meat? I'm not sure but quite a few of them are trying limited promotions like a vegan day of the week to promote health.
Meat is not good for us in large amounts, people need to understand that. They seem to with fish, just apply that to the other meat too, just it kills you slower than mercury poisoning would.
I've seen an operation where someone grew a small food forest on 12 inches of manure spread on an abandoned parking lot, in the midwest.
The idea of what land is suitable for crop use is likely based on what's suitable for industrial monoculture, a highly inflexible cookie-cutter system, which is a problem in and of itself.
I agree, and I'm most interested in what innovations we can come up with in as people start to care more and more about their health and diet, and learn that animals and humans deserve respect no matter how far away they are.
Point being that there is land that is capable of raising livestock and not crops. If you broaden the number of people eating exclusively plants, you need more farmable land, and while that may be possible in the long run, it's not without some significant change. A more practical solution is to reduce where possible, and make slow changes that don't completely uproot ways of life.
I'm not bringing up the state of access to agricultural land as some historical trivia. It's just as true today as ever before.
The point is that plenty of countries/regions cannot be self-sufficient regarding food production without resorting to livestock. There are several reasons to be, at least in part, self-sufficient. From environmental considerations arising from the transport of food from other places, to food security in the case that conflict or crisis strikes the region supplying you with food, a region which you don't control.
Stop acting like this is black and white, and that there's absolutely no reason a country would want the capability of providing for its own people, as if that's a thing of the past.
I never argued each could try should be self-sufficient. Globalism has made it so most people are capable of eating vegan diets, should they choose to. Countries depending on each other to trade food is fine by me, most western countries do this already.
We also dont need to keep growing the human population globally the way we have been, its alright to slow down and figure out how to take care of the people (and animals) that already exist.
You are the one acting like its black and white, saying its either a ban or not at all. Exceptions will need to be made for many reasons were this to be implemented today: for those who can't grow or ship their food in, for those that have to deal with the environmental considerations you mentioned, or those with any number of medical conditions that affect nutrition and diet.
If the self-sufficiency thing is so important to you, can you tell me which countries currently meet that label? Is it most countries? How are the self sufficient countries doing overall?
It seems like you've misunderstood what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that
A) There are legitimate reasons for a country to want to have some degree of self-sufficiency.
B) The environmental impact of producing meat is hugely different depending on how the livestock gets its food, and the environmental impact of transporting goods cannot be neglected.
C) There are countries with terrain suitable for livestock that cannot be used for farming.
Of course: Almost no countries are, or need to be, 100% self-sufficient, because we have trade, but there is a huge difference between 10% and 50% self-sufficiency. If we are to cut out meat entirely, many places would be incapable of maintaining any notable degree of self-sufficiency.
With you third paragraph, it seems like you actually agree with me. I don't know how you got from me saying "there are legitimate reasons to produce meat", to me saying this is a black and white issue. I'm explicitly trying to say that it's not black and white, both because of self-sufficiency arguments, and because of the environmental cost of transportation. Thus, we need a nuanced approach. This means that we should minimise (or eliminate) the use of farmland for livestock production, without condemning livestock production as a whole, because there are legitimate reasons to have livestock, as argued above.
I think the only disagreement I have is that I think we do need to condemn it as a whole, and set the ultimate goal of abolishing the practice. We can still compromise on the way there. I think this is a problem we could solve if we could agree on the goal, although its most important we are heading in the right direction regardless of the end goal.
Guy haven't heard about fish or wild life.
You think it's feasible for the majority of humans to survive off wild life?
You think it was a default option to export avocados from South America to Sweden?
It's strange believing we can't live how we lived for thousands of years because we changed our habits the past 300. Explosive human growth is not a necessity for human life. It's a necessity for capitalism to thrive.
Of course: if we just let a significant portion of the human population starve to death THAT will result in us living ethically!
Our population has also exploded in that time
Avocados are relevant to what, exactly?
The question of how much energy is used to feed people. Is it more energy efficient to grow an avocado to ship it to sweden, or raise a cow in sweden?
in case you actually want to know the answer:
it's the avocado being shipped. and by, like, a mile and a half. it's not even close.
raising cattle is the single most energy, water, and CO2 intensive food production there currently is.
Raising cattle doesn't require anything.
???
except:
- lots of land
- feed (which requires a LOT of land)
- massive amounts of water
- insane amounts of antibiotics and assorted other medicine
- stupid amounts of electricity
- etc.
raising cattle on a commercial scale requires mind boggling resources!
every single study on environmental impacts of food production lists beef as the number 1 worst food source in terms of environmental impacts period.
"Raising cattle doesn't require anything." - yeah, in fantasy land.
Farm animals are generally not anymore fed by grazing, but rather from crops that have been grown on farm land. The animals use up energy to sustain their own life, so eating the plants directly is actually more efficient.
Here's a random source, for example: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
On a cow-calf operation, which is where most beef production starts, a typical cow will graze and/or eat hay for about 12 years while breeding, then get slaughtered pretty much the day they're shipped because they aren't worth fattening at that age, they're just going to ground beef.
The culls (mid-life cows, failed to get pregnant) might see a couple months of their at least 36 month existence on grain before slaughter. Older ones might just go straight to slaughter.
Steers and cull heifers (which is most of what gets used for choice cuts like steak) typically see about 14 months typically on pasture and silage/grain being backgrounded on farm, then about 3 months being intensively fed in a feedlot at up to 80% ration before slaughter.
So, by far, the largest proportion of feeding of most cattle is by grazing or stored forage as part of the backgrounding process. It's only when they enter the feedlot that it becomes a grain-intense operation, and that part of the production is very short because feedlots don't make money feeding cows from calf-age to slaughter.
Also, many larger cow-calfs will also hold on to steers and push them, selling them as "fats", which sees much less intense feedlot experience. This isn't a huge proportion of the final months of most steers, but is still an appreciable proportion of the market.
The stockyards of Kansas aren't the typical beef production scenario. They're just very visible.
Thanks for the interesting info!
basically all beef cattle graze for the first year or so.
It's important to note the types of farming that use the most land:
This is a good infographic because:
- It uses the graphic medium to convey information that requires graphics (the ratios of land space and how the categories relate down the list) (lots of infographics could just be a bullet list or a paragraph without any information lost; this one actually utilizes the graphical medium
- It lists its data source
You are spreading misinformation. Veganism requires vastly less land and water resources. Type “land use food calculator” into google
None of what I said was misinformation. Turning everyone vegan doesn’t resolve factory farming crops. Chemicals to ensure we can actually grow food, monocultures that are terrible for the environment, limitations of where things can grow.
I’m all for reducing meat consumption, but the utopian world where everyone is vegan has many hurdles to overcome that aren’t just magically resolved. Sure, right now we might be able to reduce land usage for farming, but that is one small aspect of commercial farming under capitalism.
How do people afford food when they don’t live in a place that can grow it? How do we ensure we can continue to grow food when we are so dependent on chemicals to do so? How does a developing country support agriculture without the huge subsidies currently required in developed nations? How do you educate 8 billion people on how to properly get the nutrients they need from new sources of food? How do convince society that GMOs aren’t bad?
These are rhetorical, but moving to veganism requires us to think about these types of things before claiming “but less farm land”
They didnt say everyone needed to be vegan, just that being vegan become the norm. There will always be edge cases, and people can do whatever they want in the wild of course.
We can push forward and try to figure out how to slaughter even more despite all the problems that are coming with increased line speeds, or we can choose a different direction and tackle those problems.
Noone said the solution was perfect, just better. Are you afraid of improving yourself?
How do people afford food when they don’t live in a place that can grow it? How do we ensure we can continue to grow food when we are so dependent on chemicals to do so? How does a developing country support agriculture without the huge subsidies currently required in developed nations? How do you educate 8 billion people on how to properly get the nutrients they need from new sources of food? How do convince society that GMOs aren’t bad?
Almost all of those are just straight up the same problems that already exist in the current system though?
Except people who can eat animals can live off fishing and hunting, in places where they can’t grow food.
Also, I think he was making some point about food staying cheap enough so people can buy it even if they don’t produce it, but I’m not sure what factor is being expected to make food more expensive.
And do you have plans to resolve them? I didn’t just make that all up to make veganism sound bad. They are realities that need to be dealt with if we made the ethical decision to not consume animal products anymore. With 80% of the grocery store, currently, relying on animal products, how do we replace them? With agriculture. Those problems now only don’t go away, they get exacerbated. Not to mention all of the pollinator populations dwindling.
I don’t have the solutions, I’m just some fucking guy. But if we don’t want more and more people suffering while reducing or removing animal products from our diets, we would have to take many steps before doing so.
And the person who posted this meme is called “MilitantVegan” and straight up doesn’t seem to understand human evolution or science. I’ve only said things that are true, or what my opinion is based on that truth. It might not be great, it might not be true in 50 years, but just watch a documentary on modern agriculture and you will see that these things are our reality. We farm the soil until it becomes barren, and fix it with pesticides and fertilizers for the sake of commercialization. We can’t keep cutting down natural habitats in the search of usable soil to replace those things without completely ruining the lives of animals…the goal of reducing or eliminating the use of animal products.
They are realities that need to be dealt with
if we made the ethical decision to not consume animal products anymore.Ftfy
It's kind of just whataboutism. I don't really have a horse in this race, but I find it somewhat unlikely that most reasonable people are suggesting every human immediately stop eating animal products forever. A transition to a world where people eat less of them doesn't need us to figure out how to feed the people of Longyearbyen right now.
Wanna know the most abundant chemical that helps plants grow?
Carbon dioxide.
I’m not sure if you just aren't aware or are being intentionally obtuse, but that isn’t what keeps the soil healthy or enables plants to grow. Have you grown plants ever?
Sure, photosynthesis takes in CO2 and sunlight and converts that into sugars, but plants need much more than that from the soil and water, which we have to add using modern agriculture.
Growing food on the scale to feed our population now requires crop rotations, fallow fields, nitrogen, phosphates, potash, insecticides, and billions of dollars in agricultural subsidies. You can grow a field of crops once or twice before adding all of the fertilizers and pesticides, but any amount of regular farming requires much much much more than CO2.
I’m familiar with agriculture, having gone to school, read books, and grown plants.
It seems that you are the one being intentionally obtuse. You and I both know that carbon dioxide is kept elevated in greenhouses on purpose because doing so increases the yield of plants grown in those greenhouses.
Yes, other chemicals are necessary to build a plant. The most abundant one however is carbon dioxide. It’s where like 99% of the plant’s mass comes from. And the levels of carbon dioxide in the air change the rate of plant growth.
Nitrogen is also a big limiting factor, but fortunately we’ve found out how to extract nitrogen from the air efficiently using methane, so we can have enough nitrogen fertilizer to feed everyone.
Veganism requires vastly less land and water resources
This too can cause misinformation.
Supporting a vegetarian diet requires less land and water resources.
Veganism requires the overuse of pesticides to the point that it makes the soil become unusable faster and hence needs higher treatment upkeep, essentially causing faster consumption of the limited energy resources we have.
You are spreading misinformation.
You were correct until here, but the land use food calculator will actually only be giving information pertaining to a normal (non-vegan) crop.
What do pesticides have to do with veganism?
Sounds like the problem is with pesticides.
What you are missing here is that we wouldn’t need to grow more food than we do now, we would need to grow less. Whatever issue you can point at for growing enough plants to feed the world, we’re already dealing with now. We already grow enough plant based calories to feed the world over, we just feed it to cows and other livestock. We would need to use less pesticides (not to mention antibiotics) even if everyone was vegan.
You are also narrowing in on obscure edge cases. As others have pointed out not all problems need to be solved and not all people need to adopt a vegan diet for us to make progress towards sustainability. It would be like worrying about the grid and battery technology and strip mining required to create solar panels etc. in the transition to renewable energy. worthy causes for sure but not justification to keep using fossil fuels.
And people don’t even have to change their moral judgment in the case of doing it for climate reasons. They are free to keep believing however they do. Though I suspect that once people stop eating meat for pragmatic reasons the motivated reasoning behind their moral judgment will collapse.
What I am putting up there, is that, stopping meat is not the problem.
The problem arises with using the veganism buzzword, which will make people think that paying those who advertise vegan stuff would make anything better.It would most definitely make it worse than whole vegetarian (which includes putting up with the insects and worms that come during farming) and might even end up being as much of a burden as the meat industry.
People will think they are doing better, while not actually doing better, which is worse than the status quo.
Veganism requires the overuse of pesticides
What makes you think that? Why would growing grain for humans require more pesticides than growing grain for animals, for example?
Why would growing grain for humans require more pesticides than growing grain for animals
Growing grain for the vegan brand will require more pesticides. It's as if noone is really reading.
You’re entirely wrong.
No, that's a myth. Growing meat is a lot more efficient.
Do you have a source on that?
We have plenty of countries like New Zealand and Scotland which barely have any arable land and yet animal farming is allowing them to sustain much bigger populations than they could otherwise and even export meat elsewhere.
You're leaving out that they import a lot of produce and non-meat foods.
Literally impossible, due to energy/biomass transfer up the food chain. The bottom will always be the most efficient.
Except that you can't eat grass.
Most meat eaters are not eating meat that feed on grass. Mostly it’s corn and wheat which humans can eat. If we even made the simple change that banned meat consumption of non grass fed cows that would mitigate 90% of the issue. Also beef will cost like $100 a pound, so
What do you mean most? There's no corn/wheat fed meat in Europe. And pretty much anywhere else except for US. Growing special food for animals when you have shitloads of free grass is dumb.
The use of corn-based feed for animals seems to be a universal trend. In Europe it's done less than in the US, but it's an option everywhere and driven by prices. And those prices do not consider the CO2 cost to the ecosystem.
https://www.dairyherd.com/news/european-cows-eat-more-foreign-corn-global-glut-erodes-price
Did someone say Omnivore?
Farming in of itself isn't the problem, rather the process. Too many shortcuts and foreign substances, at least in the U.S.
Amazing, you managed to pack so much patently false bullshit into so few words. Elegant.
Says the person who posted a meme showing sharks with human teeth as an argument against meat consumption.
Well since they were trying to stoke conversation, and you are conversating now, seems like it worked just fine.
They succeeded in making fools of vegans. Success indeed!