> To the point that veganism requires industrialized farming: this may be true, I don't know.
It's a fact. You can't even be a vegan on a family farm. Try it and find out. How is an innuit in siberia or alaska going to survive on veganism when native tribes in the amazon or lush jungles can't even survive on veganism?
> A lot of currently cultivated farmland produces feed for livestock (Vox estimates 36% [0]);
Don't link to vox garbage. They know as much about farming as they do about [fill in the blank]. A lot more farmland would need to be created for human consumption.
> This paper [1] estimates that switching land currently used for animals to plants would lead to a manifold increase in nutrient output per acre;
But it's not 1 to 1. Most of that nutrient output won't be any good for humans. And secondly, most of those nutrients can't be grown in the places you grow grain to feed animals. Meaning you can't grow avocado's, almonds and all the other virtue signaling vegan products in nebraska or iowa. Okay?
> * The BBC [2] estimates that "A meat-eater’s diet requires 17 times more land, 14 times more water and 10 times more energy than a vegetarian’s;"
Don't link to BBC garbage. Also,we were talking about vegans, not vegetarians. Nice try. That's another debate altogether.
> but I think overall, environmentally and ethically, it would be an improvement.
Nope. The most immoral ( both to humans and animals and plants ) is the vegan diet. Veganism is environmental catastrophe. It's mostly naive children who think a perfect utopia is possible. The kind of lunatics that try to force veganism on their infants/pets and starve them to death. Go ask any farmer or any person who has experience with life. It's like as a child wondering why we don't just send out garbage to the sun.
> I think the answer is to eat oysters, clams and mussels, which are high in iron, protein, and fish oil, but don't have capacity for pain/experience, as far as we know.
So, eat meat? I'm glad you finally came around.
> This is called ostroveganism and I picked up the idea from Michael Huemer
It's called pathetic rationalization.
1. If eating meat is wrong because of "pain/experience", then we shouldn't eat plants either.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109-plants-can-see-hear-...
Plants actually scream.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-record-...
Plants actually communicate and warn their neighbors about danger.
https://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/
I'll make it simple for you.
1. Science shows that plants can experience/feel pain/communicate, then should virtue signalers abstain from eating plants?
2. If it is immoral to kill an animal for meat, then is it okay to eat roadkill?
3. If it is immoral for animals to be killed, then is it immoral to own pets ( dogs, cats, snakes, etc ) that eat meat?
4. If it is immoral for animals to be killed for meat, then must we protect animals from other animals? Should we stop wolves, bears, etc from killing other animals?
Or have the privileged pathetic few gotten so rich and lazy that their want to feel superior over nonsense?
Like I said, we can end industrialized farming and go back to an omnivore diet like our ancestors. But we can't end industrialized farming and go to a vegan diet because everyone would starve to death. I wish all the self-righteous and hypocritical vegans in the world would get together and buy a large farm and practice what they preach. Veganism would disappear within a season.