Ditching meat isn’t the answer for climate change. Better farming is • Hacker News Board

Re: Ditching meat isn’t the answer for climate change. Better farming is

#41

Post by drooby » Sun, May 16, 2021, 2:23 AM UTC

etrabroline wrote: post #35

drooby wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Vegetarian/Vegan diets use a fraction of the land compared to a omnivores diet. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

That land is called marginal land, or pasture. You can't grow crops there economically r do anything else really. Removing the grazing animals from the land changes nothing and does not improve the environment at all. That land would be worthless if not for grazing animals. I'm not sure there is enough arible land to support the human population without grazing animals. I suspect anything is possible with enough tech…

Read the article.

One third of all pasture is suitable for growing crops.

Removing grazing animals from the land can allow for reforestation and increase biodiversity and carbon sequestration.

Re: Ditching meat isn’t the answer for climate change. Better farming is

#42

Post by numtel » Sun, May 16, 2021, 2:23 AM UTC

etrabroline wrote: post #35

drooby wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Vegetarian/Vegan diets use a fraction of the land compared to a omnivores diet. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

That land is called marginal land, or pasture. You can't grow crops there economically r do anything else really. Removing the grazing animals from the land changes nothing and does not improve the environment at all. That land would be worthless if not for grazing animals. I'm not sure there is enough arible land to support the human population without grazing animals. I suspect anything is possible with enough tech…

Many cattle pastures are cleared forests. In the east bay hills of northern California, there are significantly fewer trees where cows graze because they eat any small shoots, preventing new trees from growing. Forest is not worthless, it supports biodiversity and captures carbon.

Re: Ditching meat isn’t the answer for climate change. Better farming is

#43

Post by edoceo » Sun, May 16, 2021, 2:23 AM UTC

loceng wrote: post #17

windlep wrote: post #13

Not sure a pig farmer has the best perspective on this. I've been on farms in my area, that have land that is not usable for farming, too many rocks, too hilly, etc. The land has enough natural rain-fall and grasses that grow on it to sustain sheep/cattle where there would otherwise be nothing but a fire hazard come the dry season (California). In this one and perhaps not common scenario, I think eating meat from the…

Eating higher quality meat will always be healthier than factory farmed lower quality, quantity needn't be part of that statement; it's what else you eat that causes problems, not unprocessed, high quality meat.

Quantity is important (according to my food scientist friend, so I don't have a cite-able source).

Only four/five generations ago we (humans) weren't having 120g of meat every day.

Re: Ditching meat isn’t the answer for climate change. Better farming is

#44

Post by nsonha » Sun, May 16, 2021, 2:25 AM UTC

readflaggedcomm wrote: post #14

yesenadam wrote: post #2

"Ditching meat isn't the answer", "Writing meat off completely is taking the easy way out", by someone who runs "a small, family-operated pig farm", and writes about how "beneficial and rewarding" sustainable farming can be. I'm not sure if they notice they make their living killing pigs. Another point: in the sentence >Commercial meat production got to be the monster it is because corporate interests monopolized the…

Putting human well-being above animals in work, sustenance, and sustainability is not odd or grotesque. Animal welfare secures the future of humanity, which seems enlightened to me, though the author doesn't engage in that pretense or emotional language.

Human can survive well without meat. Even if you don't want to go full vegan, fish is another option, fish are way less intelligent than farm animals.

I'm all for human survival and well-being, but this is more like convenience: it tastes good, easy to get and cheap. We can at least change to make it not cheap and easy anymore. Values in our economy are artificial anyway. It's not like we have much else to innovate for the next centuries, besides making more internet apps and going to Mars.

Re: Ditching meat isn’t the answer for climate change. Better farming is

#45

Post by readflaggedcomm » Sun, May 16, 2021, 2:28 AM UTC

ericffr wrote: post #34

readflaggedcomm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting human well-being above animals in work, sustenance, and sustainability is not odd or grotesque. Animal welfare secures the future of humanity, which seems enlightened to me, though the author doesn't engage in that pretense or emotional language.

I disagree. Killing animals just because humans have been doing is not the answer. I'd rather go with plant-based diet than ignoring the harm even small family farms do to animals, and the environment.

Animal husbandry is an answer to human survival, among other things.

Does there have to be one answer, to such a strong degree, that this mode of survival needs to be treated like a science-fiction oddity?

Re: Ditching meat isn’t the answer for climate change. Better farming is

#46

Post by etrabroline » Sun, May 16, 2021, 2:29 AM UTC

ericffr wrote: post #34

readflaggedcomm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting human well-being above animals in work, sustenance, and sustainability is not odd or grotesque. Animal welfare secures the future of humanity, which seems enlightened to me, though the author doesn't engage in that pretense or emotional language.

I disagree. Killing animals just because humans have been doing is not the answer. I'd rather go with plant-based diet than ignoring the harm even small family farms do to animals, and the environment.

I can respect that. Slaughterhouses are not pretty places. The weirdness is when you consider that the animals only exist because people raised them for their meat, is it really less cruel for these animals to never exist at all? I think we have to accept that both man and nature can and must be cruel at times.

Re: Ditching meat isn’t the answer for climate change. Better farming is

#47

Post by tootie » Sun, May 16, 2021, 2:30 AM UTC

etrabroline wrote: post #35

drooby wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Vegetarian/Vegan diets use a fraction of the land compared to a omnivores diet. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

That land is called marginal land, or pasture. You can't grow crops there economically r do anything else really. Removing the grazing animals from the land changes nothing and does not improve the environment at all. That land would be worthless if not for grazing animals. I'm not sure there is enough arible land to support the human population without grazing animals. I suspect anything is possible with enough tech…

We also grow a ton of crops to use as animal feed. If we only raised meat with natural grazing we'd produce a lot less, it would cost more and we'd heavily mitigate the climate cost. And switch all that feed production to growing human edible plants.

Re: Ditching meat isn’t the answer for climate change. Better farming is

#48

Post by paulcole » Sun, May 16, 2021, 2:30 AM UTC

Glench wrote: post #40

paulcole wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree about your comment saying I sound like I’ve given up. I’ve never driven a car, don’t use AC and run heat as little as possible, don’t use a clothes drier, live in a tiny apartment, eat plant-based, never fly in a plane, won’t have kids. I think I’m the only one trying and everybody else has given up!

Well if that's what it feels like to you no wonder you sound hopeless! :) I also have never owned a car, ride my bike, eat mostly vegetarian, and eschew travel by planes! Solidarity! And definitely feel your frustration with people. I think if there was clear guidance and leadership, financial help to make good climate decisions, and it became part of a cultural expectation that making bad climate decisions like buyi…

Yeah dang sorry. Didn’t realize Rewiring America was working on making ovens and clothes dryers more efficient. Brighter days ahead!

Re: Ditching meat isn’t the answer for climate change. Better farming is

#49

Post by etrabroline » Sun, May 16, 2021, 2:32 AM UTC

drooby wrote: post #41

etrabroline wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That land is called marginal land, or pasture. You can't grow crops there economically r do anything else really. Removing the grazing animals from the land changes nothing and does not improve the environment at all. That land would be worthless if not for grazing animals. I'm not sure there is enough arible land to support the human population without grazing animals. I suspect anything is possible with enough tech…

Read the article. One third of all pasture is suitable for growing crops. Removing grazing animals from the land can allow for reforestation and increase biodiversity and carbon sequestration.

> Removing grazing animals from the land can allow for reforestation and increase biodiversity and carbon sequestration

Ok. How much land could be reforested that way? Most grazing happens in places that are naturally pasture and were never forest like Texas and Argentina. Northern cali isn't exactly known for beef.

2/3rds of land used for grazing being unsuitable for farming sounds like a lot to me.

EDIT: drooly, HOW MUCH land would become forested if cattle were removed? Because if it's like 1 acre then its not really a good argument for banning all meat. Also I explicitly said I DO think we could survive on an all vegetarian diet I just don't see any reason to do it.

Re: Ditching meat isn’t the answer for climate change. Better farming is

#50

Post by a_bonobo » Sun, May 16, 2021, 2:33 AM UTC

windlep wrote: post #13

Not sure a pig farmer has the best perspective on this. I've been on farms in my area, that have land that is not usable for farming, too many rocks, too hilly, etc. The land has enough natural rain-fall and grasses that grow on it to sustain sheep/cattle where there would otherwise be nothing but a fire hazard come the dry season (California). In this one and perhaps not common scenario, I think eating meat from the…

> I've been on farms in my area, that have land that is not usable for farming, too many rocks, too hilly, etc. The land has enough natural rain-fall and grasses that grow on it to sustain sheep/cattle where there would otherwise be nothing but a fire hazard come the dry season (California).

Australia has a huge cattle industry for similar reasons, lots and lots of space, but much of the land is not suitable for crops. Cattle will survive, but not many.

Anna Creek Station in South Australia is the size of Israel (!!!), and the land can only support like 10,000 to 20,000 cattle. If you look at photos of Anna Creek Station you'll know why, it's mostly arid, almost desert-like. You can't grow any crops there.