9mo ago

Rule

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

219 comments

Except for the deforestation needed to increase pasture area and for growing more feed. Destroying habitats and pushing indigenous people further from their homes. Meat on a large scale doesn't work because it is energetically less efficient. Farmed animals produce waste products like methane which are large contributors to global warming. Even if the land used by livestock was completely unusable for other purposes, they would still be polluting the environment through eutrophication and destroying locally endangered species.
- Everything you just said...is the same shit that happens for plants as well. Deforestation isn't something that happens only with livestock. It also only really exists now in poor countries for people who are trying to survive by any means. You also are assuming that plants don't use nutrients from the soil or that the ground has to be fertilized or sprayed with pesticides or that large machinery has to be used to harvest it.
  
  You forget that the food required to make even small quantities of meat is much higher than just growing plants for human. Better to directly eat the energy produced by autotrophs. Deforestation doesn't happen in "poor countries" just so people can survive, it happens because corporations lobby the government of corrupt countries like Brazil so they can destroy habitats for feed and pastures.
  Meat production is a simple maths problem to see that wasted energy used by livestock (to survive and grow) is lost energy.
  
  Let me know how it works out for you eating grass, brush and stalks and roots of plants, that's what livestock mainly eat.
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013
  86% of the global livestock feed intake in dry matter consists of feed materials that are not currently edible for humans
  
  All you did was step around the problem. I am not arguing that what is fed to livestock should be fed to humans, I am saying that livestock take up useful space, pollute the air with methane (which is near to 100x a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2), that the lands are cleared of their native plants to feed the ever growing meat industry, and on a large scale animal feed has to come from somewhere (which is why I bring up the inefficiency of not sourcing the energy from autotrophs). Animal feed may be inedible, but it is also grown specifically to be feed. I am not suggesting the complete veganizing of the whole planet, just the meat on a large scale is killing the planet.
  
  Ok but we use twice as much land to grow animal feed than we do human food and it has all the same drawbacks. And then the meat we get still only provides 18% of our calories.
  
  No we do not. Provide a source that shows we grow crops directly to feed livestock in any meaningful amounts.
  
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/
  36% of corn grown in the US goes to feeding livestock. Not including the stuff you're talking about like byproducts from ethanol and such.
  
  Yep, and that 36% is dead corn that the gov tells farmers to grow, they pay farmers to grow it so we don't have a famine. The majority is sold over seas and turned into ethanol. The rest that we eat is mainly HFCS. So no we don't grow it directly to feed animals, it's grown and not used, so the stuff left in the fields to dry is harvestes whole and tossed into grain. You might want to read your own article.
  
  You keep trying to have it both ways. You've finally conceded that there's 36% of land used to grow livestock feed. But now it's time to shift the poles somewhere else. At least you've started reading and trying to back up what you're saying.

219 comments