• SupraMario@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    3 days ago

    Unless you count grass and non-human consumables and non-potable water…sure…until then that’s bullshit.

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      How is that bullshit? I am not vegan, but that’s just a scientific consensus and a major reason why plant diet is way lower carbon than a meat diet. If you need to grow plant food for your animal food, eventually you have to grow way more plant food.
      Most animals raised for meat consumption are fed with crops, notably soy, not wild grass.
      Thinking animals raised for meat only consume resources (land (first cause of biodiversity loss), plants, water, energy) that would not be useful to humans anyway is undoubtedly wrong.

      Researchers Poore and Nemecek are a great source of meta-analysis information about those subjects. Check this summary here for example: http://environmath.org/2018/06/17/paper-of-the-day-poore-nemecek-2018-reducing-foods-environmental-impacts/

      Let me know if I misunderstood your point.

      • jerkface@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        It’s less important that such arguments be factually accurate than that they are superficially convincing enough to distract the person giving the argument from thoughts and feelings they are unwilling to process.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        3 days ago

        https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/50901500/px-based_v3.2/educ-matrls/pdfs/HO_what-cows-eat.pdf

        We do not feed them food we can eat, it would be such a waste to do so. We literally feed them shit we cannot consume. Feeds are made from roots/stalks/inedible plants.

        The vegan industry doesn’t like this, so they say well that land could be used for other things, when in reality it’s already being used for the food that we eat.

        • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          They are also fed grains and soy in varying percentage depending on regions and countries.
          There is also still the use of land, energy, fresh water and the methane emissions typical of cows.

          This is another break down of the above-mentioned study: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

          You can see that indeed, the USA does better than other countries on not dedicating crops to animal feed, but it is still about 14%, while the world average is around 40%. Isn’t that a lot that could be earned back?

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            3 days ago

            The majority of the land used for cattle grazing is not suitable for farmland. It’s either to hilly or rocky or just plain doesn’t have great soil. Not to mention the level of crops it would require to feed people and the amount of people who just cannot sustain on a all vegan diet. There is a reason we are omnivores and not herbivores.

            • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              3 days ago

              This is also covered by the study and the article I shared above. It would require using more lands for crops that feed people, but that’s ridiculously small compared to the land that would be regained from stopping animal agriculture, which is 75%. Just removing cows would do the vast majority of that.

              Crops for feed can be regained and if most pasture land is inappropriate for crops, some are, so we would gain from freeing those too. Furthermore, this land can be given back to biodiversity, which will also benefit us in the long term, if just protecting biodiversity for the sake of it is not a good argument for you.

              Again, I am not vegan, I mostly advocate for reducing, not forbidding, consumption proportionally to ecological impact. If some people for medical reason require meat, I’m completely fine with it, this would likely be a small percentage of the current consumption.

              Omnivore, not obligate carnivore except for a few exceptions maybe, so we could use a low meat diet or a fully plant based diet fine.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                this land can be given back to biodiversity,

                there is no reason to think this is going to happen. they’ll build a mall or a skyscraper.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                poore-nemecek is based on misreading LCA studies. LCA as a measurement is not transferable between studies. poore-nemececk just went through and did averages. it’s not good science. it’s not even science.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                2 days ago

                This is also covered by the study and the article I shared above. It would require using more lands for crops that feed people, but that’s ridiculously small compared to the land that would be regained from stopping animal agriculture, which is 75%. Just removing cows would do the vast majority of that.

                Again the majority of the land used for cattle is not suitable for crops. So unless you plan on putting houses on that land it’s not going to be used for anything anyways.

                Crops for feed can be regained and if most pasture land is inappropriate for crops, some are, so we would gain from freeing those too. Furthermore, this land can be given back to biodiversity, which will also benefit us in the long term, if just protecting biodiversity for the sake of it is not a good argument for you.

                O it would be great to have more biodiversity, we need all the insects we can get, but cows aren’t killing off our insect populations, growing crops and spraying pesticides are. Which don’t even get me started on organic…they use organic pesticides which are way more devastating to the environment.

                Again, I am not vegan, I mostly advocate for reducing, not forbidding, consumption proportionally to ecological impact. If some people for medical reason require meat, I’m completely fine with it, this would likely be a small percentage of the current consumption.

                In honesty, we need vertical farms and lab grown meat. If that could be pulled off then we’d be golden. I’m not against eating plants, but I’m not someone who likes that militant vegans come in and spew bullshit just because they want to feel morally superior to people who eat meat.

                Omnivore, not obligate carnivore except for a few exceptions maybe, so we could use a low meat diet or a fully plant based diet fine.

                https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/how-to-maintain-a-balanced-diet-as-a-vegetarian-or-vegan#%3A~%3Atext=Opt+for+vitamin+D-fortified%2CStarting+slowly.

                The issue isn’t that we can’t, it’s that the majority of people already eat like crap, which meat helps fill in the blanks. If we went to all plant based, people would still eat like crap and be missing vitamin D and protein.

                Also a good chunk of us are already eating a low meat diet because that shit is expensive.

                • jerkface@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  Are you not aware that the more meat you eat, the younger you die and the more major diseases you experience? Meat is toxic, people are not better off for having any amount of it in their diet. Plants are made of protein. Calorie for calorie, plants are a superior protein source. There is not one major health consequence in the world today caused by too much not enough protein. The leading cause of death of all humans on earth COMPLETELY GOES AWAY without meat consumption, and so do several others. The idea that a lack of vitamin D and protein is a major health issue for humans who eat mostly plants is ridiculous, and any consequences can be easily mitigated. There is nothing you can take that will prevent meat from killing you.

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    Guessing you didn’t read anything from the john hopkins link…like usual. Meat is not toxic, I don’t know where you got that from, calorie for calorie they are not superior in protein, and the leading cause of death of all humans doesn’t vanish because of stopping meat consumption (hint meat doesn’t turn you into a 800lb whale)…the fuck are you babbling about.

            • ThoGot@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              The majority of the land used for cattle grazing is not suitable for farmland.

              But why should land be treated in that binary? How much biodiversity is being destroyed just to keep cattle or some other animals instead of keeping it in its natural state?

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                In it’s natural state bison would have been grazing on it. That also doesn’t solve the gripe that vegans have which is that land could be used for crops, which really destroys the biodiversity of land. At least with cattle, you just let them eat anything that grows. Horses are usually terrible for biodiversity because people mow the land and want nice lush fields, were as cattle farmers don’t, they let the cows eat roughage which is actually healthier for them. They also rotate pastures a lot more than most horse people do.

            • catloaf@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              3 days ago

              Pretty well, actually. Grasses like corn, wheat, rice, and oats make up a substantial portion of the typical diet.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                3 days ago

                Cool, can’t grow that shit where cattle graze. We also…once again do not feed things that we can consume to cows. It literally would be a massive waste of money.

    • jerkface@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      What figures are you basing your ignorance off of? The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals. Animal ag is one of the largest consumers of fresh (ie “potable”) water. There are ten animals living in human possession for every human on Earth. Without intensive plant agriculture, we could not possibly feed them all. Grass and run-off is not what is producing your food.

      And since we are specifically discussing the hypothetical suffering of plants, why wouldn’t you count grass? You’re triggered.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals

        That’s a lie. 2/3 of the world’s crop calories go directly to people. One third of the world’s crop calories go to livestock, but that’s as the other user is mentioning, mostly crop seconds or parts of plants that we can’t eat.

      • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals.

        It’s not that clear, it depends on the country. See the part about share of cereals dedicated to animal feed in this link, it’s about 15% in the USA and the rest of the feed is byproducts of crops used for human reasons. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        What figures are you basing your ignorance off of? The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals. Animal ag is one of the largest consumers of fresh (ie “potable”) water. There are ten animals living in human possession for every human on Earth. Without intensive plant agriculture, we could not possibly feed them all. Grass and run-off is not what is producing your food.

        No they are not. They eat the shit we cannot eat, they graze the majority of their lives and we use non potable water to water them. The feed we feed them is not made with anything that a human could consume. It’s roots/stalks/inedible plants. This bullshit that keeps being promoted by vegans that everything a cow can eat is bullshit.

        And since we are specifically discussing the hypothetical suffering of plants, why wouldn’t you count grass? You’re triggered.

        Because your entire point was that vegans consume less plants than anyone else, which is basically saying “vegans are still better than meat eaters” it’s more hilarious dick wagging from you chods.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            Lol I’m butthurt? Lol you vegans are fucking hilariously ignorant bunch. You’re like religious zealots too, all high and mighty with an ignorant levels of information being spewed to you.

            • swim@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              This is the epitome of projection, FYI. All this wasted energy and impotent vitriol, railing against a non-existent evil (“the vegan industry?” seriously sad), defending the (actually malignant) status quo for free. It’s exhausting feeling so sorry for you

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 days ago

                What status quo? Lol the majority of your food comes from small farms, not these mega corps that everyone seems to think exist. Farming is a fuck ton of work for little reward, it’s why most younger people are selling their parents farms vs taking over the business.

                • swim@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Accept that you’re misinformed or deliberately misleading. There are no other options, sorry. “Family farms” are simply operators of big agriculture’s bidding, the latter having complete regulatory and market capture.

                  “Only four corporations—ADM, Bunge, Cargill and Dreyfus—control more than 75 percent of the global grain trade. They overwhelmingly push commodity crops like corn and soy on local farmers at the expense of native crops.”

                  “the vast majority of cows in the United States live on factory farms. Factory farms depend on cheap and unsustainable animal feed, such as corn and soy, to maximize profits at the expense of animal welfare.”

                  “Factory farms now account for 72 percent of poultry production, 43 percent of egg production, and 55 percent of pork production worldwide.”

    • NFord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Are you saying grass aren’t plants? Why would it matter if the plant is consumable by humans if vegans are trying to minimize suffering?

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        3 days ago

        Because they’re not about minimizing suffering, it’s about being morally superior to meat eaters and letting everyone know about it. The post I replied to, literally made that a point.