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

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

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

#71

Post by frabbit »

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…

Sheep in hills cause erosion. It seems like quite a big problem. A lot of the land that is unusable for farming should probably be left alone. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/meet-the-greatest-threat...

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

#72

Post by nsonha »

open0 wrote: post #70
nsonha wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Why don't you go check it out yourself? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient

check what? You posted some links that explain a metric which was theorized to measure intelligence. That wasn't what I requested source for (it's a theory). I asked for a source that says this theory is the prevalent theory.

Btw I never made any comment about fish's brain size, I said they're generally less intelligent than farm animals, which wikipedia agrees with, fits the brain ratio theory too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_intelligence#Brain

Thanks for derailing the conversation anyway, at the end, there is no such thing as a fish

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

#73

Post by orwin »

etrabroline wrote: post #55
filoeleven wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well, i've seen pigs pens, i've seen an old sow half eaten by her children, i assure you, even the worst chicken farm is nothing compared to an average pig factory.

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

#74

Post by throw0101a »

a_bonobo wrote: post #50
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 crop…

> 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.

Is the amount of water that cattle consume a consideration?

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

#75

Post by throw0101a »

etrabroline wrote: post #39
gpm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are trying to tell me that growing food for animals to eat, and then eating the animals, somehow takes less arable land than directly growing foods for humans to eat? That's just not plausible.

And yet it's true. 2/3rds of pasture is not suitable for agriculture and would be worthless without ruminants. The corn-fed cattle industry in the US is a result of energy being cheap and labor being expensive. Less than 20% of beef is farmed that way.

> And yet it's true. 2/3rds of pasture is not suitable for agriculture and would be worthless without ruminants.

So it's worthless with ruminants. So what? Why not just leave it alone/fallow?

Also, how much water does it take to grow those ruminants and also the animals they feed?

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

#76

Post by Viliam1234 »

sofixa wrote: post #64
pcthrowaway wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm disgusted with that fact that governments are still subsidizing animal products. Move the subsidies to plant-based options and make it easier to take the easy way out. We're literally and figuratively paying as a society for the privilege to raise and slaughter animals when it's 99% unnecessary.

It's actually relatively easy - most countries don't have the land to produce enough plant-based calories, and have plenty of meat-based calorie production. Why would a government bankrupt an existing and well known and visible sector, to be replaced by imports? Lots of people would be pissed.

> most countries don't have the land to produce enough plant-based calories, and have plenty of meat-based calorie production.

Citation needed. How can a country have enough land for plants to feed pigs and cows that humans will later eat, but not enough land for plants to feed the humans?

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

#77

Post by a_bonobo »

throw0101a wrote: post #74
a_bonobo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 crop…

> 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. Is the amount of water that cattle consume a consideration?

Oh definitely! During drought times it's cheaper to shoot the cows on the field than to feed them.

Here's a good article around water-costs for cattle farmers in Australia: https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-08-21/feedlot-restric...

Lot of dodgy things are happening, it's a political scandal pretty much ignored because it's so complex https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-23/water-buybacks-everyt...

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

#78

Post by sofixa »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #76
sofixa wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually relatively easy - most countries don't have the land to produce enough plant-based calories, and have plenty of meat-based calorie production. Why would a government bankrupt an existing and well known and visible sector, to be replaced by imports? Lots of people would be pissed.

> most countries don't have the land to produce enough plant-based calories, and have plenty of meat-based calorie production. Citation needed. How can a country have enough land for plants to feed pigs and cows that humans will later eat, but not enough land for plants to feed the humans?

As explained elsewhere, lots of the land cows and pigs and sheep and etc. inhabit and graze on is unsuitable for regular crops due to the terrain, fertility, or simply crop rotation.

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

#79

Post by tpoacher »

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…

Not sure how the ad hominem is reasonable here (if ever).

If a medical professional made a medical suggestion based on their expertise, would you summarily dismiss it because they've got skin in the game?

Should we stop listening to vegan-positive arguments coming from vegans too?

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

#80

Post by filoeleven »

etrabroline wrote: post #55
filoeleven wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

All factory farms should be banned. You mentioned chickens, a sibling comment mentioned pigs, and I’ll add cows. They’re all horrible places. Animals “raised” in factory farms are better off never having existed.

Small farms are a different story and a mixed bag.

Post reply on HN