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

'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’

#41

Post by spacemanmatt »

jka wrote: post #36
myshpa wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> until we have tens of billions of humans We don't even have enough room to supplement the current population on western version of meat-eating diet. We already use more land for beef production, than we have forests. > until we have tens of billions of humans Agree, we have to abandon our current notions of growth, if we want to preserve life for future generations. On our current path we're going to hell (too many…

Just chiming in to add my support for your arguments. I enjoy fast food and drinking beer, and all the moreso when I know that the former is plant-based and that the latter is brewed in an environmentally-friendly manner. I believe that both of those are possible in ways that make better use of existing agricultural land and that are therefore more scalable in terms of provision-of-nutrition -- although transition ca…

> false dichotomies

That's why they create throwaways. They know they're wrong.

Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’

#42

Post by spacemanmatt »

lm28469 wrote: post #38
myshpa wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please see SEASPIRACY if you have a chance. Eating fish is not sustainable. Overfishing and by-catch is a real problem (already more than 90% of sharks are exterminated), and in near future the seas could be totally devoid of life (except for jellyfish). [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaspiracy ] > The argument for full veganism has to be that animals are people I don't agree. (1) We shouldn’t be cruel to animals,…

> SEASPIRACY Every time I see that title I ask myself why they didn't go for "conspirasea"

...The Seamen of Qanon? That has a bit of a ring to it.

Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’

#43

Post by spacemanmatt »

7steps2much wrote: post #31
myshpa wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes - but you're supposed to start at point 1 :) Meat eating is a complex matter - no time & space to cover it extensively here. As I'm convinced, without forests the water cycle gets disrupted and the climate won't be able to support life as we know it [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKL40aBg-7E - The Biotic Pump: How Forests Create Rain]. With cows, there is not enough land to even have forests. And if we can agr…

Can you make any recommendations for replacement of dairy products? Personally i found that dairy stuff (cheese especially) is the one thing that seems to not have any acceptable plant based replacement (IMHO) Most other vegan alternatives aren't good, but they are toleratable. The vegan cheeses i tried so far however were absolutely atrocious.

I have eat vegan for years at a time. You're 100% right about cheese. There is nothing like dairy. But when I'm well nourished on a vegan diet I get over the desire pretty fast. I should probably go back to plants. It was so good for me.

Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’

#44

Post by lm28469 »

vegan_wgat wrote: post #34
0x20cowboy wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood,…

How much difference in cost between 'well planned vegeterian diet' and normal healthy diet with animal products?

> normal healthy diet with animal products

Most people don't eat a "normal >healthy< diet with animal products". It takes as much work to have a meat based healthy diet as a vegetarian based healthy diet.

Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’

#45

Post by annyeonghada »

myshpa wrote: post #28
throwaway22032 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there will be some way of eating that requires 5% of the land of whatever you suggest, ad infinitum, until we have tens of billions of humans and we end up back at square one. A line in the sand will be drawn somewhere, here's mine. I don't believe in infinite growth, it will result in us all drinking Soylent in cages. The objective for me is to have a high quality of life for a reasonable number of people, not a…

> until we have tens of billions of humans We don't even have enough room to supplement the current population on western version of meat-eating diet. We already use more land for beef production, than we have forests. > until we have tens of billions of humans Agree, we have to abandon our current notions of growth, if we want to preserve life for future generations. On our current path we're going to hell (too many…

>Plant-based diet means a higher quality of life for everyone - people

Where is the evidence that vegan/vegetarian diet is beneficial? I've never been more depressed and tired then when I've tried to go all vegan.

Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’

#46

Post by binibus »

myshpa wrote: post #33
binibus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you fit pesticides in that framework of thought? - They are unnecessary. Humanity lived thousands of years without them. - They harm billions of animals. - But not using them would condemn us to a subsistence economy. Edit: though for thought lmao

> They are unnecessary. Humanity lived thousands of years without them. Totally agree. Cca 75% of pesticides/herbicides are used for meat & dairy production (we need 75% of agriculture land for it). > They harm billions of animals. And they harm people, too. Pesticide bioaccumulation in milk has been linked to Parkinson's disease, for example. > But not using them would condemn us to a subsistence economy. I'm not su…

I find your take on alternative forms of agriculture a little too optimistic. Even with rotation and biodiversity famines and plagues were common before the use of pesticides. Our technology and knowledge are better now but even with that, I doubt that we could sustain the current population. Not in a way as predictable as now for sure. And for the figure of 75% it is not that simple. A considerable part of the crops consumed by meat production are conformed by not edible material that would have to be produced anyway. Material that ruminants can magically transform into food.

But for the sake of the argument let's say you are right. I'm not as interested in the pesticides example as in knowing how much are you willing to sacrifice in order to follow that logic. Let me rephrase my question then.

- Having more than 2 kids per couple is unnecessary (even less than that for some time).

- Each extra human consumes resources necessarily damaging the animals and the earth.

Would you pass a law banning having children whenever the birth rate surpasses 2?

Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’

#47

Post by yakak »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #25
myshpa wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating pigs & poultry requires less than 5% of land than beef. Eating something more sustainable is not equal to reducing the human experience. That's just your taste buds talking. You could say, that the only way to have the entire human experience, is to eat carnivores (lions, anyone?). With carnivore diet how many people you think the planet would support? Would there be a place for yourself, now? What about your…

And there will be some way of eating that requires 5% of the land of whatever you suggest, ad infinitum, until we have tens of billions of humans and we end up back at square one. A line in the sand will be drawn somewhere, here's mine. I don't believe in infinite growth, it will result in us all drinking Soylent in cages. The objective for me is to have a high quality of life for a reasonable number of people, not a…

That's really arguing against your own strawman. How will living well bellow your means cause extreme population growth? Living above your means while depleting resources is not constraining future resource problems.

Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’

#48

Post by uptime »

I do think that vegan diets are a good goal and industry will catch up. It will come down to comfort, not avarice. Vegan diets lower inflammatories and increase meaningful longevity. Joints hurt less over time, lots of expensive cardio issues go away. Tom Brady of NFL fame eats that way specifically for injury recovery properties etc. and no one would call him a treehugger.

I don’t think I’ll ever be pure vegan but I’ll see how far I can get. Except for cheese as noted elsewhere, most meals are not lacking anything in terms of taste or satiation.

Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’

#49

Post by uptime »

lm28469 wrote: post #44
vegan_wgat wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much difference in cost between 'well planned vegeterian diet' and normal healthy diet with animal products?

> normal healthy diet with animal products Most people don't eat a "normal >healthy< diet with animal products". It takes as much work to have a meat based healthy diet as a vegetarian based healthy diet.

This. Any healthy diet today involves actively choosing and avoiding products marketed to us. Eating meat is not magical, and I called myself a vegetarian for a while when I was really a carb-etarian and my fitness suffered.

Re: 'On a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200M people’

#50

Post by myshpa »

binibus wrote: post #46
myshpa wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are unnecessary. Humanity lived thousands of years without them. Totally agree. Cca 75% of pesticides/herbicides are used for meat & dairy production (we need 75% of agriculture land for it). > They harm billions of animals. And they harm people, too. Pesticide bioaccumulation in milk has been linked to Parkinson's disease, for example. > But not using them would condemn us to a subsistence economy. I'm not su…

I find your take on alternative forms of agriculture a little too optimistic. Even with rotation and biodiversity famines and plagues were common before the use of pesticides. Our technology and knowledge are better now but even with that, I doubt that we could sustain the current population. Not in a way as predictable as now for sure. And for the figure of 75% it is not that simple. A considerable part of the crops…

> I find your take on alternative forms of agriculture a little too optimistic.

I've read a lot about alternative agriculture systems and methods. Maybe that's where my optimism comes from.

> the figure of 75% it is not that simple

I know that 75% is not so simple. But meat industry needs cca 75% of the agriculture land and meat is produced mostly by feeding the animals seeds and vegetable oils, so ... yes, it's a guess, but if we'll account for other stuff, like antibiotics ...

> conformed by not edible material that would have to be produced anyway

The ruminants supply a fraction of our nutritional needs, so I would argue, that we don't need them and that we can switch to more sustainable (less land expensive) sources of food. I would return that "non-edible" areas into forests for wildlife/biodiversity, which they were previously and which could even reverse our climate/extinction events currently happening.

Other non-consumable material could be composted and/or left in the fields as a mulch. Exposed soil kills microbes/fungi in the soil.

> Would you pass a law banning having children

No, I would not, because I now know that there is better way.

That population is still growing is a result of our exploitation of poor countries, poverty, a lack of education, and our religious and governmental practices. As we see in western countries, the developed and educated countries have a tendency to stabilize their population.

So the current growth will stop on its own, in time. But we have to make sure that we set the correct example for the new billions, or we'll together eat the Earth dry, till nothing than deserts will remain.

Post reply on HN