Wait do you think farming doesn’t hurt animals? I’m all for not eating meat, but pretending you’re not harming millions of insects, birds, and various mammals every time you eat a salad, you’re confused about how food production works.
The moral thing people can do is stop making so many people. And hopefully we find ways to produce food in a better way one day. But farming on the scale that feeds billions of people is absolutely fucked.
If you have the choice to avoid certain types of foods that kill more animals than other types of foods I don’t see much difference other than a relativism. So no coffee. No tea. Only organic local foods that are in season grown on a small farm you personally know the SOPs of…
Btw I avoid meat almost entirely. I just think the moral righteousness I see from Whole Foods Amazon vegetarians to be wholly laughable.
Taking a step crazier, there are some animals that produce SO MANY calories that they represent less animal deaths per calorie than eating crops. Cows and Pigs are an example of that. I’m not going to get into hard numbers because everyone likes to hate on the other side’s numbers and my experience living in a farming community looks more like the numbers that make animals look bad. If you want to math it out, the farm industry estimates about 40 mouse deaths per acre farmed, and vegan advocates defend a 15 total animal deaths per hectare figure. Grass-fed cows are more death-efficient than corn (the gold standard efficient crop, if less efficient than potatoes) at around 10 deaths-per-acre of farmland. I’ve never seen an acre of farmland without at least 10 animal carcasses on it in a full growth+harvest cycle.
How many people do you estimate could be fed with grass-fed cows? What about the usage of water? What is with the thousands of hectare of forest that have been rode for pastures? What about the water you need for this type of farming? What about the fact that, if everybody would switch to a meatless diet you would need much less farmland overall?
I know why you do not want to get into hard numbers. Because they would refute your weak arguments.
How many people do you estimate could be fed with grass-fed cows?
Why are we going back to “grass-fed”? Do you have plans for that inedible plant waste that currently only ends up in animals or landfills?
What about the usage of water?
What about it? I’m not sure you understand how water works in agriculture/horticulture. Are you looking at “water footprint”? That’s its own complicated topic with as many landmines. I’d like to point out that cows are basically as efficient as nuts (or any real vegetable protein), and even the waterfootprint site just suggests having a mix of chicken and beef.
From your unkind reply to me elsewhere… If you had to pick between the environment and fewer animal deaths, which would you choose? I like to talk cows with vegans because a mixed diet with beef as the only meat clearly consists of fewer animal deaths than a vegan diet. 700,000 calories a death is pretty hard to beat. Environmentally speaking (and water), the best way to get protein is from animals that have to die and locally sourced chicken. Chicken are pretty death inefficient though, aren’t they?
What is with the thousands of hectare of forest that have been rode for pastures?
What about factory farms in third world countries with no safety controls? There’s as much of a veg-packing industry as there is a meat-packing one. Are you going to stop eating vegetables because SOME FARM SOMEWHERE does something wrong? The meat I eat doesn’t come from places where “thousands of hectares of forest have been rode for pasture”.
What about the fact that, if everybody would switch to a meatless diet you would need much less farmland overall?
You seemed to have backed yourself into a corner with a non-argument argument. Is this from a position that land usage is unacceptable? Because the world is nowhere near overpopulated yet. Is this from an environmental standpoint? Then land use is the wrong figure. Are you really happy if we use less farmland but produce MORE net GHG? We need more farmland per calorie of crop if we don’t have sufficient fertilization. But the fertilizers (synethic and manure) are the potential problem. To use less farmland overall, you need to produce more GHG overall. The balance for farmland is to have localized ecosystems of livestock fertilizing local plant farms which in turn use their waste to feed.
I’m gonna be crystal clear. I’m NOT saying beef is perfect. I prefer chicken and seafood from an environmental perspective. But I know a lot of vegans care more about “saving animal lives” than they do the environment. So I talk cow. I’ll concede it straight - beef should NOT be foundational to your diet any more than veganism should be if your goal is a single sustainable diet for the entire world.
Wait do you think farming doesn’t hurt animals? I’m all for not eating meat, but pretending you’re not harming millions of insects, birds, and various mammals every time you eat a salad, you’re confused about how food production works.
The moral thing people can do is stop making so many people. And hopefully we find ways to produce food in a better way one day. But farming on the scale that feeds billions of people is absolutely fucked.
deleted by creator
Yeah. But not all of it. Factory produce framing is murder too.
deleted by creator
We were taking about the death of animals.
If you have the choice to avoid certain types of foods that kill more animals than other types of foods I don’t see much difference other than a relativism. So no coffee. No tea. Only organic local foods that are in season grown on a small farm you personally know the SOPs of…
Btw I avoid meat almost entirely. I just think the moral righteousness I see from Whole Foods Amazon vegetarians to be wholly laughable.
In my experience, my organic local crops still involve animal deaths. And need cows to fertilize.
Balanced is simply better than vegan. Not everyone eats balanced, but people who do should not be shamed for it.
deleted by creator
As long as you eat food you’re doing so.
Taking a step crazier, there are some animals that produce SO MANY calories that they represent less animal deaths per calorie than eating crops. Cows and Pigs are an example of that. I’m not going to get into hard numbers because everyone likes to hate on the other side’s numbers and my experience living in a farming community looks more like the numbers that make animals look bad. If you want to math it out, the farm industry estimates about 40 mouse deaths per acre farmed, and vegan advocates defend a 15 total animal deaths per hectare figure. Grass-fed cows are more death-efficient than corn (the gold standard efficient crop, if less efficient than potatoes) at around 10 deaths-per-acre of farmland. I’ve never seen an acre of farmland without at least 10 animal carcasses on it in a full growth+harvest cycle.
How many people do you estimate could be fed with grass-fed cows? What about the usage of water? What is with the thousands of hectare of forest that have been rode for pastures? What about the water you need for this type of farming? What about the fact that, if everybody would switch to a meatless diet you would need much less farmland overall?
I know why you do not want to get into hard numbers. Because they would refute your weak arguments.
Why are we going back to “grass-fed”? Do you have plans for that inedible plant waste that currently only ends up in animals or landfills?
What about it? I’m not sure you understand how water works in agriculture/horticulture. Are you looking at “water footprint”? That’s its own complicated topic with as many landmines. I’d like to point out that cows are basically as efficient as nuts (or any real vegetable protein), and even the waterfootprint site just suggests having a mix of chicken and beef.
From your unkind reply to me elsewhere… If you had to pick between the environment and fewer animal deaths, which would you choose? I like to talk cows with vegans because a mixed diet with beef as the only meat clearly consists of fewer animal deaths than a vegan diet. 700,000 calories a death is pretty hard to beat. Environmentally speaking (and water), the best way to get protein is from animals that have to die and locally sourced chicken. Chicken are pretty death inefficient though, aren’t they?
What about factory farms in third world countries with no safety controls? There’s as much of a veg-packing industry as there is a meat-packing one. Are you going to stop eating vegetables because SOME FARM SOMEWHERE does something wrong? The meat I eat doesn’t come from places where “thousands of hectares of forest have been rode for pasture”.
You seemed to have backed yourself into a corner with a non-argument argument. Is this from a position that land usage is unacceptable? Because the world is nowhere near overpopulated yet. Is this from an environmental standpoint? Then land use is the wrong figure. Are you really happy if we use less farmland but produce MORE net GHG? We need more farmland per calorie of crop if we don’t have sufficient fertilization. But the fertilizers (synethic and manure) are the potential problem. To use less farmland overall, you need to produce more GHG overall. The balance for farmland is to have localized ecosystems of livestock fertilizing local plant farms which in turn use their waste to feed.
I’m gonna be crystal clear. I’m NOT saying beef is perfect. I prefer chicken and seafood from an environmental perspective. But I know a lot of vegans care more about “saving animal lives” than they do the environment. So I talk cow. I’ll concede it straight - beef should NOT be foundational to your diet any more than veganism should be if your goal is a single sustainable diet for the entire world.