Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

51–60 of 83 posts

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

#51
post #34

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 also advocate for a plant-based diet, but your comment misses something about it mentioned in the article:

> Often, pea, soy and potato crops don’t resemble natural ecosystems — they are vast monocultures that rely on large machinery, intensive processing and global distribution, just like the industrial system that produces meat on a large scale.

So yes, let’s end factory farming, and start with the factory farming of animals. Let’s also not pretend that large-scale monocular farming of plants is a silver bullet.

Regenerative farming is the thing to aim for at the moment. That will reduce both awful conditions for animals and the harm to our ecosystems. It affects animal factory farms to a greater extent. Fighting for a globally plant-based food source can be done in parallel, just don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

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

#52
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, HO…

Your point is was that “you can’t do anything else with the land” - which is flat wrong. We can allow it to reforest. Which is doing something.

Your claim that the human population cannot survive on a vegetarian diet is also wrong. The article I linked explains why.

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

#53
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> is it really less cruel for these animals to never exist at all?

I’ve seen this question asked time and time again, and it makes no sense to me. People commit suicide out of (often transient) emotional pain, and less frequently out of physical pain. If we who have the capability to envision a better future decide to opt out of suffering via death, why do you imagine that a chronically-suffering animal’s life is better than not facing that suffering in the first place?

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

#54

Animal welfare doesn't move people who want their Big Macs and don't have to think about how it got to their mouths. Climate change, pandemic risks, and antibiotic resistance are the main existential risks of animal agriculture. That's why I don't eat meat: because it's immoral to put others and yourself at unnecessary risk. It's like FF ICEs: there's no innovating our way out of something that's fundamentally irrede…

FF ICE = fossil fuel internal combustion engine

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

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> is it really less cruel for these animals to never exist at all? I’ve seen this question asked time and time again, and it makes no sense to me. People commit suicide out of (often transient) emotional pain, and less frequently out of physical pain. If we who have the capability to envision a better future decide to opt out of suffering via death, why do you imagine that a chronically-suffering animal’s life is bet…

>chronically-suffering animal’s life

I don't think most farm animals are suffering through their entire life. They seem pretty all right to me. Factory chicken farms should be banned but not all meat.

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

#56
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…

[deleted]

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

#58
post #44

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.

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 f…

> fish are way less intelligent than farm animals

There is no concrete evidence of this. A lot of sea creatures, including fish, have skin cells that can create polarized light and some seem to have developed communication systems with pulses of polarized light.

Just the other day it was found that some fish can pass the mirror test, didn't you see that?

The prevailing theory is that ratio of brain mass to body mass is more telling than the absolute size of the brain. Fish may fare worse on this metric but I suspect it's just an area where we have very little understanding yet.

Being vegetarian or vegan is not so hard. It is one of many fundamental changes that society should pursue to avert the current ecological crisis and mitigate species loss.

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

#59
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> is it really less cruel for these animals to never exist at all?

Yes, without question.

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

#60
post #58
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

> fish are way less intelligent than farm animals There is no concrete evidence of this. A lot of sea creatures, including fish, have skin cells that can create polarized light and some seem to have developed communication systems with pulses of polarized light. Just the other day it was found that some fish can pass the mirror test, didn't you see that? The prevailing theory is that ratio of brain mass to body mass…

> The prevailing theory is that ratio of brain mass to body mass is more telling than the absolute size

A bit weird nitpicking when you yourself make an insubstantial claim about some "prevailing" theory. I think we can both agree that reducing meat consumption is the right thing to do, it's just sometimes to convince people you need to show some leeway.

Post reply on HN