Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

shift.newco.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#61

Post by schlowmo »

Kliment wrote: post #50
schlowmo wrote: post #36

Besides some flimsy claims about who consumes the most staples the article just basically says: - buy local - eat with the seasons - many small local farms are better than few big (remote) - there's need for a better market for those small farms Is it just me not getting what this has to do with the cons of "vegetarian diets"? At least where I live eating meat isn't a sign for any of those points. Although I'm a sarc…

As another person living in that region, rutabaga is not the only locally available crop - cauliflower, a whole variety of cabbages, corn lettuce (feldsalat), parsnips, and a bunch of other related plants are in season now, as are cultivated mushrooms. We mostly eat fresh stuff from the local farmer's market and it certainly doesn't feel hippie-like at all - it's just normal winter food. As an aside, rutabaga has an…

I told you I'm a sarcastic person ;). I confess using the rutabaga example knowing its bad reputation for the sake of aggravation. Although I grew up in that region with food-conservative parents,[0] I'm still fan of occasional rutabaga mash or rutabaga gratinée - withstanding the lack of understanding from my flatmates.

[0] Means: regional/seasonal food not as ideology, but because it's the food one has eaten since childhood; or in other words: "What the farmer doesn't know he doesn't eat."

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#62

Post by mklarmann »

jdietrich wrote: post #40
cies wrote: post #11

TL;DR: Terrible article, I suggest not waste your time on it. Why? * Author writes """it’s more accurate to say that vegetarian diets are “less awful,” not “better,” than omnivorous diets""". He gives no hard numbers to back it up. Less awful IS OBVIOUSLY the same as better. According to many sources, that are well presented in the Cowspiracy documentary (among others) it is shown that a vegetarian diet, and speciall…

There's also a total absence of data. Had the author consulted the literature, he'd know that the environmental credentials of grass-fed beef are extremely suspect; some studies suggest that the carbon footprint is actually greater than intensive feedlot beef and the land use is absolutely vast. He'd know that only a handful of animal sources of protein have equivalent CO2 emissions to plant sources - intensively rea…

Indeed. Organic beef has more CO₂, because it is about twice as long on the field (and releases therefor more methane into the air). Things become questionable - chickens are way better on CO2/kg of meat, because they are cramped into small cages. Trade-offs...

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#63

Post by creshal »

torrent-of-ions wrote: post #37
cies wrote: post #11

TL;DR: Terrible article, I suggest not waste your time on it. Why? * Author writes """it’s more accurate to say that vegetarian diets are “less awful,” not “better,” than omnivorous diets""". He gives no hard numbers to back it up. Less awful IS OBVIOUSLY the same as better. According to many sources, that are well presented in the Cowspiracy documentary (among others) it is shown that a vegetarian diet, and speciall…

> And meat eating is simply not sustainable. I don't know about this. Eating meat as a staple like Americans currently do is certainly not sustainable. But you can raise meat in such a way that it makes use of resources that you can't otherwise use. For example, pigs can live quite comfortably on waste like vegetable peelings. Cows can live on land that is not arable like meadows. Lamb is a by-product of raising shee…

And then there's seafood, which can be perfectly sustainable, as long as there's sensible enforced fishing quotas.

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#64

Post by dTal »

jdietrich wrote: post #40
cies wrote: post #11

TL;DR: Terrible article, I suggest not waste your time on it. Why? * Author writes """it’s more accurate to say that vegetarian diets are “less awful,” not “better,” than omnivorous diets""". He gives no hard numbers to back it up. Less awful IS OBVIOUSLY the same as better. According to many sources, that are well presented in the Cowspiracy documentary (among others) it is shown that a vegetarian diet, and speciall…

There's also a total absence of data. Had the author consulted the literature, he'd know that the environmental credentials of grass-fed beef are extremely suspect; some studies suggest that the carbon footprint is actually greater than intensive feedlot beef and the land use is absolutely vast. He'd know that only a handful of animal sources of protein have equivalent CO2 emissions to plant sources - intensively rea…

>the land use is absolutely vast

Not quibbling with the broader point, but... is this actually a problem? When I see center-pivot irrigation circles laid out on a square grid, wasting 20% of the land, I don't get the impression we're short of the stuff.

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#65

Post by lngnmn »

kagamine wrote: post #47
lngnmn wrote: post #22

The vegan nonsensealists perhaps should consider the role of hunting and animal husbandry in the ability of humans to inhabit northern and semidesert regions of the planet and to sustain a population. It is also good idea to read about the causes of malnutrition in poor communities.

With 54% [1] of the world's population in urban areas already (rising to over 70% in the developed world) [1] that "role of hunting and animal husbandry in ... regions of the planet" is becoming an ever increasing rarity. By 2050 the 54% is expected to rise to 66% [2] so I doubt there will be many hunter gatherers left anywhere. Here in 'the North' at longitude ‎10.757933 people only hunt for sport. Although they mak…

That was a hint on the cause - why this evolutionary adaptation would emerge in the first place.

For everything else - think what would happen in any urban area if a few poultry farms would close for a month. India is one single example of mostly vegetarian traditionalist population, but even in India in the tribes populated north and north-west regions vegetarian diet cannot sustain a population.

Bonus question: how do you imagine a vegetarian Pakistan or any other middle east country?

Do not bother to answer here.

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#66

Post by cmrdporcupine »

Arnt wrote: post #35
cies wrote: post #11

TL;DR: Terrible article, I suggest not waste your time on it. Why? * Author writes """it’s more accurate to say that vegetarian diets are “less awful,” not “better,” than omnivorous diets""". He gives no hard numbers to back it up. Less awful IS OBVIOUSLY the same as better. According to many sources, that are well presented in the Cowspiracy documentary (among others) it is shown that a vegetarian diet, and speciall…

No quibbles with most of it. But meat eating is sustainable in a limited way: Some land is well suited as pasture but not usable for much else. Ie. a 200g steak per day isn't sustainable, but pasta sauces with a few slivers of pancetta are.

More so than that, animals contribute in a positive way to vegetable production.

Chickens are great weeders. Sheep and goats graze down grassy areas (or woody if goats) including areas that are in rotation but currently fallow, so it doesn't need to be mowed down with fossil fuel machines. Pigs are great at rooting up uncultivated areas. And are wonderful waste disposal units. All livestock make great fertilizer. In the case of pigs and chickens at least they make great fertilizer out of stuff we consider garbage.

But yes, meat consumption likely must be curtailed significantly.

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#67

Post by onion2k »

wazoox wrote: post #57
onion2k wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a local, seasonal vegetarian diet is a lot easier to implement in a city environment than a local, seasonal omnivorous diet. So vegetarian is still likely to be a better option in the future, especially if you consider vat-grown meat to be a vegetable.

No, because with your vegetables you get lots of peels and seeds and remains that will be just great to feed a couple of hens for instance. Sustainable agriculture, even at a very small scale, always combines plants and animals. That's the fundamental blind spot of vegans. Anyone actually growing some vegetables and fruits in his backyard will understand this. I know many starry-eyed hippies growing organic stuff in…

Sustainable agriculture, even at a very small scale, always combines plants and animals.

Absolutely, and that's why I said vegetarian rather than vegan. Working animals for eggs, milk, wool, etc are a good idea. That's still not supporting an omnivorous diet though.

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#68

Post by cies »

creshal wrote: post #63
torrent-of-ions wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And meat eating is simply not sustainable. I don't know about this. Eating meat as a staple like Americans currently do is certainly not sustainable. But you can raise meat in such a way that it makes use of resources that you can't otherwise use. For example, pigs can live quite comfortably on waste like vegetable peelings. Cows can live on land that is not arable like meadows. Lamb is a by-product of raising shee…

And then there's seafood, which can be perfectly sustainable, as long as there's sensible enforced fishing quotas.

Even meat can be sustainable with a sensible enforced quota.

We just cannot agree on a quota when those industry are allowed to lobby our gov'ts to bit.

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#69

Post by cies »

Arnt wrote: post #51
latch wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I buy this oft-repeated non-arable land claim. First, aren't GMOs and other technological advances redefining "non-arable". Secondly, doesn't land used for pasture generate more methane and waste and take more energy and water, than if it was just left unused?

https://www.nve.no/media/3576/209_1-navitelva-foto-gunnar-kr... You can have sheep spend the summer there. GMO wheat fields, not. Methane and waste, well, maybe. It's not clear to me that there can be enough sheep there that the waste is a problem. I've never even tried to quantify the methane. Energy and water aren't issues. The energy to gather the sheep in the autumn is a rounding error, and how would you water su…

Transport and storage of meat is more expensive. Besides that, I think you are right (says a vegan) :)

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#70

Post by cies »

forgetsusername wrote: post #42
cies wrote: post #11

TL;DR: Terrible article, I suggest not waste your time on it. Why? * Author writes """it’s more accurate to say that vegetarian diets are “less awful,” not “better,” than omnivorous diets""". He gives no hard numbers to back it up. Less awful IS OBVIOUSLY the same as better. According to many sources, that are well presented in the Cowspiracy documentary (among others) it is shown that a vegetarian diet, and speciall…

> I suggest not waste your time on it. I don't understand this. Why not? You recommend a documentary with opposing views instead; should we only read and watch things that we agree with? > Whoever lives in a cosmopolitan city knows this is not true, or not anymore. Vegetarians compose about 3% of the population. I'd say that's a "margin group". If you live in a coastal city in the US, vegetarians may be over-represen…

> Why not?

I explain why not. Because bad, unsubstantiated arguments are provided.

> should we only read and watch things that we agree with?

Sure not. But when disagreeing, bring evidence pls.

> Vegetarians compose about 3% of the population. I'd say that's a "margin group". If you live in a coastal city in the US, vegetarians may be over-represented.

Someone who does not eat meat/fish for a day, is that person a vegetarian? I do not know definitions, but I just want to say it is not black-white. Not hippie vegetarians vs the normal omnis.

> Blatantly false where I live. Produce is substantially cheaper all summer

Ok. I was comparing the supermarket with the street markets. In street stalls the prices seem to fluctuate much more according to seasonal availability then in the supermarkets. But heay, just and observation :)

Post reply on HN