91–100 of 137 posts
Does anyone have a realistic comment that isn’t some Malthusian doomerism? There must be a solution to this problem besides drastically curtailing people’s lifestyle, even if it involves technologies that aren’t quite here yet like genetic engineering, space travel and fusion power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Growing plants to feed animals and then consuming those animals is an inefficient way of obtaining calories and nutrients. Shifting to a plant-based diet would allow us to feed more people with less land, reducing the pressure on wild habitats. Not true. Ruminant grazing animals (like cows) use land that generally is not fit for farming plants that humans would consume. They make land productive that otherwise would…
> They make land productive that otherwise would not be. Productive according to our fictions re: "value", destructive according to the ecology of systems that we rely on for survival.
Why were there tens of millions of bison in North America before human development?
>value
This entire discussion is about the proper use of land. That discussion is impossible without some notion of value, or highest and best use. Any other consideration just ends in "all humans should die". If that's your position then its a waste of time even discussing the situation with you.
Does anyone have a realistic comment that isn’t some Malthusian doomerism? There must be a solution to this problem besides drastically curtailing people’s lifestyle, even if it involves technologies that aren’t quite here yet like genetic engineering, space travel and fusion power.
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Capitalism says that's good because market is growing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Growing plants to feed animals and then consuming those animals is an inefficient way of obtaining calories and nutrients. Shifting to a plant-based diet would allow us to feed more people with less land, reducing the pressure on wild habitats. Regarding this point, it's important to remember that animals have the ability to transform materials we can't get any sustenance from, because they're not edible, into food…
> Regarding this point ... they eat the pig. I'm aware. Not necessary in 21st century (in most of the world). > proteins coming from vegetables are low quality Protein "quality" relates to the presence of essential amino acids. Animal proteins contain all nine essential amino acids and are thus considered "complete." Plant proteins often lack one or more essential amino acids. However, they aren't "low quality" - you…
Having a “varied” diet is much easier said than done. Even people who are well off, living in rich and developed countries have difficulty maintaining this balance. This is a personal observation, but I suspect a lot of people underestimate how hard it is to maintain this lifestyle.
Another aspect that I don’t see discussed anywhere is that you need to have diversity of vegetables just to maintain a functional diet, what will happen to people when for some reason there are problems in the supply chain of a specific crop, you have a bad year with low yields and the price goes to the roof?
Another false assumption is that everyone can accommodate a purely plant-based diet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. > grazing animals use land that generally is not fit for farming plants ... make land productive that otherwise would not be Not every land has to be "productive". This thinking got us where we are. > In order to farm soy beans or whatever plant you eat, you have to tear up the soil and in doing so you will kill every ground squirrel, ground nesting bird ... Crop fields do indeed disrupt the habitats of wild ani…
This is your brain on veganism. You have no concept of how cattle are actually raised. They are grazed on grassland. No farmer is cultivating food plots of soy beans and bringing them to the cattle. You are thinking of feedlots which cattle go to before slaughter where they are fed corn or soy for a short period of time in order to fatten them up. The existence of a feedlot does not change the fact that for the vast…
While it's true that cattle are often raised on grasslands, the global demand for beef has led to many operations utilizing grain-based feedlots, which do have environmental implications. It's estimated that about a third of the Earth's arable land is used to grow crops for animal feed.
Furthermore, the conversion of forests and other natural habitats to grassland for cattle grazing is a significant driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss, particularly in places like the Amazon.
> The existence of a feedlot does not change the fact that for the vast majority of the animal's life it is on a grassland eating grass that would otherwise just grow and die in the winter. The vast majority of the energy that goes into growing cattle would otherwise go completely unused without them. That is why ruminants are special. They turn grass into protein, which is necessary for life, especially brain function.
Indeed, ruminants play a unique role in converting grass into protein. However, the issue isn't as straightforward as just utilizing grasslands. The environmental footprint of raising cattle, even on grasslands, includes water use, greenhouse gas emissions, and land degradation. This, combined with the growing global demand for meat, creates a sustainability challenge that cannot be overlooked.
> You just want to eat your disgusting soyburger and treat it as some kind of penance so you can then parade around as if you are morally better than people who eat meat. Sorry, we will never stop eating meat and you will never acknowledge the reality that ruminant grazing is good for the environment.
It's not about moral superiority but about finding sustainable and ethical ways to meet our nutritional needs. While ruminant grazing can have some environmental benefits, it's not universally "good" for the environment given the issues like:
- Greenhouse gas emissions
- Deforestation
- Land degradation
- Water pollution
- Water overconsumption
- Loss of biodiversity
- Antibiotic resistance
- Ocean dead zones
- Inefficient land and resource use
- Ethical concerns regarding animal welfare
- Contribution to zoonotic diseases
- Air pollution
- Eutrophication
- Soil erosion
- High energy consumption
- Chemical runoff from pesticides and fertilizers
- Destruction of habitats and ecosystems
- Inequality in global food distribution
- Public health risks from foodborne illnesses
- Nutrient pollution
- Strain on waste management systems
> You will never consider why there were tens of millions of ruminant bison covering North America for thousands of years. They were a tool of the balance of nature that helped the ecosystem.
The comparison between modern cattle farming and historic bison populations is not entirely valid. Bison roamed freely, contributed to nutrient cycling, and didn't contribute to the same environmental problems associated with large-scale livestock farming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Growing plants to feed animals and then consuming those animals is an inefficient way of obtaining calories and nutrients. Shifting to a plant-based diet would allow us to feed more people with less land, reducing the pressure on wild habitats. > Not true. Ruminant grazing animals (like cows) use land that generally is not fit for farming plants that humans would consume. You are arguing a different point from GP.…
GP doesn't understand how cattle ranching works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Regarding this point ... they eat the pig. I'm aware. Not necessary in 21st century (in most of the world). > proteins coming from vegetables are low quality Protein "quality" relates to the presence of essential amino acids. Animal proteins contain all nine essential amino acids and are thus considered "complete." Plant proteins often lack one or more essential amino acids. However, they aren't "low quality" - you…
They are low quality precisely because they are less rich in types of amino acids. Given the option of having animal or vegetable-based proteins you would always pick animal, all other things being equal. Having a “varied” diet is much easier said than done. Even people who are well off, living in rich and developed countries have difficulty maintaining this balance. This is a personal observation, but I suspect a lo…
But all other things will never be equal because animal protein costs 10x more energy to produce.
> what will happen to people when for reason there’s a problem in the supply chain of a specific crop or you have a bad year with low yields and the price goes to the roof?
Have you been to a produce department? Most of them in the US could be reduced to 25% their current size and still have 200% the diversity of the meat department. Being unable to find one or more amino acids is just not a problem that vegetarians have.
The problem is constantly having to cook for yourself because vegetarian options at most restaurants (or prepared by well-meaning carnivore friends) are just "leave the meat off" and not designed from the ground up to be nutritional without meat. Cultural change would make it easy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think lots of people care but nobody knows what to do.
I think that if everyone gave up air travel, individual automobile transport, and meat and dairy and lived in a max 110m2 apartment you could say that. But it seems that there are a lot of people who simply don't care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Growing plants to feed animals and then consuming those animals is an inefficient way of obtaining calories and nutrients. Shifting to a plant-based diet would allow us to feed more people with less land, reducing the pressure on wild habitats. Regarding this point, it's important to remember that animals have the ability to transform materials we can't get any sustenance from, because they're not edible, into food…
To your second point, we'll agree that a plant-based diet with supplements is feasible for human health. Your first point is misleading because we currently grow a lot of food to feed animals to eat, and clear out forests to make pasture. - "More than three-quarters (77%) of soy is used as feed for livestock."[1] - "Seventy per cent of formerly forested land in the Amazon, and 91% of land deforested since 1970, is us…
How much of that land could be used for farming food for humans? Brazil has famously poor soil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I already live in a tiny apartment and take the bus to work, so clearly my individual contribution didn’t fix the problem. I don’t know how to make everyone do that, so, I still don’t know what to do.
Yeah - individual changes will never change anything - I think the discussion has been poisonned, and we are blind to the actual solutions, which all seem unthinkable even though they are self evident
The idea that individuals have no responsibility or power is part of how it has been poisoned. I've known people who genuinely would say something like "did you know a half dozen companies put out the majority of emissions? so we don't need to consume less or differently, everything is those companies' fault".