661–663 of 663 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel there's a different way to ask this question and potentially get a better answer.
I don't think there's anything wrong with this question. What's a better way to ask?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. It's a synonymous fallacy. We get it. Apparently we cannot move on until everyone is elevated to the same level of reading comprehension. Stop trying to score petty points, and discuss the issue that yes, there is some pretty nasty shit that is manufactured by chemical companies and put into our food, and stop trying to derail the argument to "own the libs." In other words: grow up.
You just said that someone is claiming that water and bleach are identical. Let me put it to you this way, instead of saying "everything is a chemical": If you stand with the poster above worrying about "chemicals", perhaps state your question more clearly so we know exactly what we're getting ourselves into. I will even give you some examples. Do you perhaps mean chemicals known to cause cancer or other diseases? Wh…
You've just played the no true scotsman on me. Well done!
It's a pretty easy choice for me: I literally eat no food with added chemicals. I simply don't know what is good and what is bad because I've given up following research and meta-studies. There is literally no way to be informed, even if I had a PhD and spent a lifetime studying nutrition and the relevant sciences.
Know what the easy answer is? I'm vegan. I literally eat nothing with added preservatives or chemicals. Nothing. Except when I got to restaurants every now and then, and I don't know what's in the food I ordered. But it isn't 12 meals a year that change you, it is 1,000 meals a year.
It is trivial for me to bypass the good/bad chemical debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better to leave natural habitat on that land rather than clear-cutting forest for grazing land, as happens so much these days and in the past. Better food production efficiency means less forest razed which is a significant win.
Other forms of agriculture also contribute to deforestation. There are also situations where some grasslands may be suitable for grazing but cannot be sustainably made suitable for crops, and situations where livestock can be fed with byproducts of other agriculture. Livestock are a central part of traditional agriculture and they're more or less essential for people who want to operate small-scale sustainable farms.…
And many grasslands that cannot be sustainably be used for crops could be returned to wilderness rather than plant agriculture, if we were to increase caloric efficiency of food production. They probably should be, in fact. This doesn't preclude some animals being raised, but if we don't greatly reduce the amount of land used for raising animals, deforestation, desertification and other harms will continue to degrade ecosystems.