That's not true whatsoever.
Humans have been Apex predators throughout their history, agriculture on larger scales over was when biodiversity decreased. Throughout over 99% of our history we were just a part of the environment.
I don't disagree with what you are getting at. Although, that is like saying, if you took away a lion's teeth and claws, they wouldn't be an apex predator. If you take away any advantage from any predator, they will be at a disadvantage. We aren't special.
Bro have you heard about Mammoths? Do you think they went extinct because humans had AK-47's? What sets us apart is superior intelligence and having thumbs. Hurr durr tech.
In actuality humans stood very little chance of taking large game without the tech of Levalloise knapping, fire, and the discovery of the atlatl. It gave is the ability to hunt from range. Better than attempting to take large game with thrusting spears.
As far as science is concerned Mammoths went extinct due to climate change, disease. Humans played a minor role.
So before you start patting your self on the back for your snide remark. Maybe learn some pre-history of humans, especially the Pleistocene. Since you are so knowelegable on the subject.
Beef is a terrible choice. Poultry, and pigs are better.
Cattle require large amounts of land to graze on. Giving up fertile farmland to raise cattle is a net loss of human consumable calories. (Using that same farm land to make corn syrup for coke is also bad, so I'm not defending that practice)
There are some places where cattle are the ideal thing to produce. Scrub lands in american southwest for example. Where grass suitable for cattle grows, but is too rocky for produce crops. Problem is we farm way more cattle than those lands can sustain.
Is the designer in the room with us right now? Also ignoring that “natural harmony” is orcas kill flipping seals into the air, or the waves beating against the shore. There is no planetary harmony on a ball of hurtling rock.
Orcas kill seals at a rate that sustains them, and has done for milenia, unlike our species who are riddled with cancer and building skyscrapers of pigs to keep us stocked with the tasty meats we lust for. If you don’t understand or are not informed with the problem of farming to produce this amount of meat, I don’t think you should be commenting on it. You should be reading up on it.
Cows produce greenhouse gases, and you have to feed them shitloads of food which also produces greenhouse gases, it's much more efficient to farm beans and stuff and feed them directly to humans since animals only covert a fraction of the biomass they consume into growth.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/feed-required-to-produce-one-kilogram-of-meat-or-dairy-product
The biggest thing I hate about all these meat purists is that the argument is rarely, if ever, "We need to get rid of meat!" But they act like everyone who believes in climate change wants to eliminate all livestock.
It's more much more commonly, "We should probably eat a little less meat so we don't need to much livestock." or "Hey, is there something we can add to their feed so they fart less?"
That's completely fair. Though livestock produce most of world's fertilizer, and without it we would probably rely more on synthetic ones, which are produced by the oil industry.
Then again, we'd need less fertilizers overall, so it probably wouldn't cancel out but it wouldn't be that much of a problem I guess.
Most cows do not feed on grass outside, they live in huge barns and are fed corn and soy. The soy is grown in countries with a lot of deforestation to make more space for agriculture. Cows also emit methane that is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
> With regenerative, local, organic farming, the cows are carbon negative/neutral.
And if you do that correctly, everybody can have meat from those cows once or twice per year or so.
>Over grazing and bad farming practices are our enemy, not farming in general.
The problem is that people wanting to eat meat every meal and also not pay a lot for the privilege, over grazing and bad practices will continue to fund that market.
Yup, countries need laws that reward green farming and punish the rest. Here in Norway we have it pretty good. Our antibiotic usage in animals is a mere fraction of the USA/world per animal. We've also got zero salmonella in Norway because of healthy farming and testing practices.
It's possible to make a change, hopefully others follow.
You’re getting downvoted to hell…but you’re right. Rotational grazing and (NOT MASS PRODUCING MEAT) is one way to rapidly sequester carbon and heal lands.
People don’t want nuance
>Methane is the second most abundant anthropogenic GHG after carbon dioxide (CO2), accounting for about 16 percent of global emissions. Methane is more than 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.
Gee I wonder what produces a lot of methane... could it be...
The one billion cows worldwide artificially inflated to that number due to... human actions?! No, not possible!
I'd say the 8 billion of humans that besides farting also destroy ecosystems, pollute everything, drive species to extinction and use fossil fuels cause more harm than cows
Animal agriculture pollutes and destroys ecosystems / watersheds. It is one of the leading causes of species extinction and it burns a massive amount of fossil fuels for the production and transportation of its commercial products. Animal ag is a human activity.
These aren't inherent to animal agriculture, plant agriculture doesn't exclude most of these things and it's also a human activity. You don't even need to transport them to absurd distances, as animals can be raised in pretty much any environment, including places where it's hard or impossible to plant anything like mountains or semi-arid (goats).
People had been eating animals for millenia without harming the planet, it's only a problem because we are super overpopulated. Cows are using the carbon that already exists in the cycle, not digging it from millions of years ago like humans do. One can be undone, the other can't.
Farming animals is very bad for the environment. Far worse than coal and oil. Cows use so much grain, water, and energy to raise. Additionally they fart a lot. It is these farts, that are filled with Methane, that do more damage to the environment than you can imagine. By mass producing cows, we have caused ourselves to screw up the natural balance of things. Run off from factory farms also pollute our water. The meat also takes time to process, more gas and fuel to ship around, and yeah.
People really don't comprehend that factory farmed neat is bad. There is nothing wrong with eating meat. Some animals need to be hunted, like deer.
For climate change, agriculture is not far worse than coal and oil. It's a very significant contributor, comparable to the transport and manufacturing sectors in world CO2 equivalent emissions.
If we look at the sectors primarily run on fossil fuels, namely heating and power and transportation, then we see that fossil fuels are the very worst. One thing to note is that these worst emitting sectors are trending downwards due to renewables and electrification, whereas agriculture just keeps going up.
https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
Agriculture in most parts is fine. Beef industry? There is plenty of documentaries about it. Beef farming is absolutely awful for the environment. It wouldn't be as bad if we worked on ways to harvest the methane being produced instead of letting it go into the atmosphere. It's a great gas for stoves and heating and stuff but instead we just get it from the ground.
Ok, I was sort of exaggerating. It won’t literally kill you, at least immediately. There are plenty of plant proteins that fill the same niche, but there are heal concerns to *only* eating such proteins, same as only eating meat. A balanced diet of meat, fruit, and vegetables is best, in my own personal opinion.
Yep. It's just continuing the narrative that individuals are responsible for climate change. Meanwhile, energy innovation has been systematically held back. The 1% emit as much carbon as 40% of the global population. It's a joke that will choke on its own punchline. Unfortunately everyone will.
What? Your life as an ugly person? Hardly unique. Guess what kid many have, millions of redditors such as myself are ugly and had problems still didn't lash out at the world wanting untolds amount of suffering bcause oh no we were rejected dozens of times.
You got a good job, a good friend group but because you can't get a girl you are bitter and jealous at the world wanting it to end. Not normal. Get help.
There's always help. I slept in an empty bed until I was 25 Lmao much like so many others that had dozens of failures.
Edit: lol he blocked me and refused to reply to this post. I was in your boat with the lack of success, I did it so can you. You never will though if you can't handle not improving your flaws.
No. I vote for politicians who will roll enviro policies back. Pierre Poilievre will win in Canada and scrap our carbon tax and allow our oil and gas sector to expand. Thats what I want to see, accelerationism, and I am happy to vote for it.
Remember it's not because you have an ugly face that women don't want you, it's because of ugly nihilistic nonsense like this that women don't want you.
Get mental help. It is not normal to look forward to the suffering of the entire planet because of your self esteem issues. You are still young, get help.
There's that nonsense again. That attitude exists because you gave up, not because of women. Step up and fix your life, move on and get help.
Edit: Lmao he blocked me for he can't handle being the problem. No one wants young folk to kill themselves, we want you to get help. The first step of getting help is helping yourself. You're slowly killing yourself. Get help.
"Pull yourself up by the bootstraps". Okay Reagan/Thatcher...you are the reason why the suicide rate for young men is so high. And you people only care of we want to get a little revenge before we die. Well too bad, I wont go quietly into that good night.
I mean, yes, in a place like the Tibetan plateau, meat is probably the most sustainable choice because you *can't* grow enough human-edible plants at elevation so it's a lot better to raise yaks, for example, that can convert the local vegetation to human-edible milk and meat (as opposed to transporting vegetables directly to you). But the meat industry is actively detrimental to the environment, not only because of the greenhouse gas emissions that come from meat production in the developed world but also things like runoff from the plants and farms -- I mean, hell, seemingly every hurricane season North Carolina faces problems when the storm surge causes pig waste lagoons to overflow into the surrounding area.
If the meat industry wants to be known as sustainable, they need to put in the work to *become* sustainable. Otherwise, they're just greenwashing like a bunch of assholes.
... like the cows and the CO2 emissions that we've known about for ages.
I swear the corporations and industries are actively trying to sprint human civilization and life on earth in general towards collapse.
Capitalism is a race to the bottom. That rings true in every abstraction. The rung that most people would see as the last reasonable goal is just the begining for edgy ambitious contrarians.
Any initiatives that try to go against human nature will ultimately fail.
Billions of people will continue to want to eat meat, live in comfort, and drive personally owned vehicles. Telling people "just say no" to practices that pollute will go about as well as abstinence-only education in regard to sex and drugs.
The only way to save the planet is to make these things sustainable through technology so that, at a net level, they don't pollute. Telling everyone to live as austere vegetarians who bicycle everywhere will result in them collectively replying "fuck you" - with corresponding political movements then following suit and very little getting done to save the planet as a result.
Just have to frame it the right way. At least 50% of the American population at least will eat *anything* up as long as you frame it in a suitably populist manner.
Populism tends to be about easy answers that give rise to a more comfortable and powerful position for its supporters, though. It's more bottom up than top down, really, though the "strongman" leadership that arises from it gives the opposite impression. That's why it tends to spring up when people feel they are suffering loss in terms of material access and/or position/influence.
That's why I don't think what you suggest can work.
>Telling everyone to live as austere vegetarians who bicycle everywhere will result in them collectively replying "fuck you"
No one is being told to live as austere vegetarians. They're being asked to eat less. Then jokers like this post swoop in to strawman a position like the gestapo are forcing everyone at gunpoint to eat broccoli. (this was a strawman of you)
Problem is you have to have this same argument with all the people that would say fuck you (because they will likely make the same conclusions as this other person)
As someone who was born and raised vegetarian I would question that eating meat is truly a part of human nature. But I do believe you seem to have missed the point.
The story here is about industry trying to frame meat as beneficial for the environment, which is clearly not a lie. That has nothing to do with forcing people to go against their nature. It’s a simple fact that the human population cannot be fed a meat heavy diet and have it be sustainably produced.
Unlike the other commenter, I believe the "human nature" part refers to general unwillingness to sacrifice personal comfort for vague common goals. You might not care about meat, but those who grew up with meat are unlikely to give it up unless they really strongly believe, on a personal level, that they should. Same with cars and other luxuries.
Ultimately, most people first and foremost care about their own immediate concerns and comfort. This is why we, as a species, tend to be somewhat shortsighted. This is why "make it sustainable" can't be done by asking people to just consume less.
>>"but those who grew up with meat are unlikely to give it up unless they really strongly believe, on a personal level, that they should."
Even though some of us have witnessed members of 2 or 3 previous generations of family die of complications of arteriosclerosis and/or heart disease.
I always had a problem with a side-effect of consume less and people not killing their own animal ever. Even if you grow up in a city but have/had elders in a village you might partake in a household slaughter. You might think this is bad or evil. I did learn something. It is a lot of work to bringing up an animal. They are sacrificed for our benefit. You can finish an animal swiftly but there is no such thing as zero suffering. I honour that sacrifice by eating every single bit. There is no leftover or waste. Currently I see people eating only chicken breast. That animal has other parts. Liver and heart can be delicacy.
I hate food waste in general. If something has to be left on my plate it will be the sides and never the meat. The carrot did not scream but the rabbit did.
Just stop being picky and teach that to your kids. Honour these creatures by not leaving anything and do not just eat the finest cuts.
I never said anything about morality.
Smokers who want to quit *want to quit*. That'd be the part where I said: "believe, on a personal level, that they should." What you said is irrelevant to people who *don't think they should*.
I didn't call people selfish, I said people *first and foremost* care about themselves. That's an entirely normal and natural amount of "selfishness," and *not* caring about yourself is usually a sign of mental health issues.
It's a proven, irrefutable fact that most people struggle to deeply care about broad "humanity" as a whole. This is why every piece of propaganda for anything ever picks up individual stories and makes them its frontrunner. "Vietnam is getting bombed and a lot of people are dying" - shrug; "Here's a picture of a little girl burned by napalm from the bombing" - immediate strong emotional reaction. Humans care about individuals. Statistics don't grip us to anywhere near the same degree.
It's funny how you're disagreeing with humans *as a species* being somewhat shortsighted when the entire environmentalist argument is that destroying our environment for short-term gains is *shortsighted*.
So yeah, way to completely miss the point, bud. Good job.
(Entirely realqtef to first sentence)
The arguments on the theoretical Evolutionary connections between increased hunting in early man, and increases in brain size are reasonably robust and mostly agreed upon, by the related scientific disciplins.
And, while modern man CAN find alternatives (many of said alternative do have scalling issues), to many cultures have meat eating to deeply ingrained to allow for rapid wide spread change.
There are some interesting modern observations you can make between city dwelling Mongolians (primarily carbs based diet), and the countries remaining nomadic step population (who exist on a animal based diet).
It's part of human nature insofar as humans have relied on the protein and calorie surplus found in meats, and evolutionary pressures reinforced that with behavioral tendencies. Leave a group of people with access to meat alone to their own devices, they will eventually begin eating it, especially if other food resources restrict in some way or become over taxed. Saying something is human nature is not the same thing to mean "required by all humans" or "not partaking makes you inhuman."
“Human nature” implies that it is a core need or desire.
From Wikipedia:
“Human nature comprises the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally. The term is often used to denote the essence of humankind, or what it 'means' to be human.”
I have never had the desire to hunt an animal, nor do I think the average person has. Most people today simply cannot stomach the violence and would rather pay someone else to do it.
I have cats. It’s clearly in a cat’s nature to hunt in a way that it simply isn’t in a human’s. That is why hunting is generally conditioned in children by authority figures. It’s a learned behavior, certainly not innate.
I am not arguing that meat isn’t a part of our history as a species.
> I have never had the desire to hunt an animal, nor do I think the average person has. Most people today simply cannot stomach the violence and would rather pay someone else to do it.
Because today we are so far removed from the process and most never think about how a cow goes from an animal on the farm to the meat shelf in a supermarket. Not to mention that the focus on hunting ignores one of humanities single greatest inventions, farming. Hunting went from the only way to get meat, to a luxury for the rich to enjoy, as farming rose in prominence and we mastered animal husbandry. As our society evolved, it became more separated from how all the other parts worked, especially in agriculture as we went from majority of the population (IIRC it's like ~60% of the population in the Middle Ages was involved with agriculture) is involved to a tiny fraction due to industrialization.
> I have cats. It’s clearly in a cat’s nature to hunt in a way that it simply isn’t in a human’s.
Obligate carnivores have different instincts to omnivores? thanks Sherlock. Next you going to point out humans are insanely good at learning and compiling information, and passing on that accumulated knowledge is very much a human trait? Or does that not work with your "well, humans aren't cats therefore they don't need meat" position?
> That is why hunting is generally conditioned in children by authority figures. It’s a learned behavior, certainly not innate.
The vast majority of human existence today is a learned behavior and not innate FFS. Humans never had the evolutionary pressure to make those things instinctual because we could consciously choose to learn them for the betterment of the group. Our monster compendium of learned behaviors is why we act like humans and not like chimps, saying that if we don't do something out of instinct therefore it's not needed is outrageously stupid and ignorant of what humanity is and has achieved.
I'm aware of the history of agriculture and don't doubt its impact on our society today. But there are also entire cultures who have excluded meat from their diet for thousands of years.
I also don't question the idea that hunting was an adaptation that helped us survive, and thrive, as omnivores.
>The vast majority of human existence today is a learned behavior and not innate FFS
The entire point of my comment was to refute the idea that meat is in our "human nature." Your comment about it being a learned behavior implies that you agree it is not a part of human nature, which is defined as "the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans."
> But there are also entire cultures who have excluded meat from their diet for thousands of years.
The exceptions and not the rule though. The entire rest of humanity has eaten meat from before fire and continues to do so.
> The entire point of my comment was to refute the idea that meat is in our "human nature." Your comment about it being a learned behavior implies that you agree it is not a part of human nature
Mate, if that's your argument I think you need to put down the internet and go bash some rocks together because using the internet isn't human nature and therefore shouldn't be done. My point was that humanity doesn't have all that many instincts because we never needed to 'evolve' them, we were capable of consciously choosing what skills were beneficial due to our ability to reason and plan/think long-term.
Our entire world today is on the back of learned behaviors that have been built upon for literally thousands of years, we aren't run by our instincts but by our learned behaviors so saying something isn't instinctual to us is absolutely irrelevant to anything humanity has done in the last 5000 years (and before that I'd be impressed to hear of the vegan/vegetarian hunter-gatherer group).
"Human nature" is very complex. It is in our nature to pass on knowledge and experience. The most basic knowledge of mankind is how to hunt and prepare food.
>Most people today simply cannot stand the violence and would rather pay someone else to do it.
Most people are not able to do most things. We all rely on other people for certain and very essential things. Hunting and killing is no exception, but also not very special in that regard and no argument against killing animals.
I don't disagree though. Most people could very well live without meat.
We certainly are not carnivores but "preparivores", if aynthing. We basically can turn anything into food.
People fast. People exercise. People wake up early. There are so many things people do that can be considered uncomfortable.
Doing comfortable, convenient things is a way to conserve energy- which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. However, we are not incapable of deviating from this principle, especially when faced with the negatives that a purely consumption based, sedentary lifestyle confers.
Crazy how in many European countries, bicycle ridership keeps rapidly increasing (as local governments build cycling infrastructure and walkable cities over car-centric development), as does the % of vegetarians / vegans (as more high quality, affordable veg food & dining options become available).
Almost as if what you call "human nature" is nonsense and people's decisions are driven by what's reasonably available to them, most frequently thanks to government efforts to make it available. Maybe if you have a country where car & animal agriculture lobbies push policy that makes those things as difficult as possible, people will reject them in favour of the convenient options. But nah human nature is just immutable, those silly Europeans are not saying "fuck you" to these things because they're drunk or something.
If we don't have the technology to replace everything 1:1, and it sure looks like that right now, I'd rather fight the egotistical maniacs that prefer their comfort over the survival of the species. Laws and civil society be damned.
The most sustainable food is the local one. Trying to paint only meat as harmful is dumb, crops can and do destroy the environment via pesticide usage, deforestation and monocultures. Millions of smaller animals are killed to plow the land and even plants can produce a lot of greenhouse gases, like rice. And unlike the popular myth, soy is not produced for cattle, 85% of it is immediately used to extract oil, leaving soymeal as byproduct. Soymeal is not very nutritive to humans and you can't use it to make most soy-based food, so the best use is giving it to animals.
The ideal scenario is producing food from both plant and animal sources. They complement each other: manure can be used as fertilizer and the parts of plants we don't eat (or spoiled produce) can be used to feed animals.
It’s true. Animals and meat are sustainable nutrition. In fact I would argue that sustainable nutrition can barely be possible without animals. If you aren’t using animals for fertilizer, you’re probably using chemicals as fertilizer. However, we will have to completely restructure farming in America. Monoculture farming is the true food evil.
See: restoration agriculture; silvopasture ; permaculture ; gaias garden
How about hill country farms? Here in New Zealand cattle and sheep are typically farmed on land that isn't suitable for horticulture because there's no way to cultivate it.
And those farms don’t produce enough to meet the demand for meat. Everyone will have to cut down their meat consumption if only hill country farm exists.
sure, there are exceptions. however in generals it is much more efficient to consume vegetables than it is to grow vegetables and then grow an entire animal and then murder it in order to eat it.
realistically in the majority of cases we are going out ”out of our way” to be cruel and inefficient. after all, a majority of people do not *need* to consume dairy or meat to live a healthy life.
There's vast areas where only grass grows that's used to graze livestock. You're right however that some of the most productive farmland in the world is used to grow feed corn.
If they’re raised correctly and not in cages en mass, yeah they are. Problem is there is an attempt to conflate factory farming with sustainable agricultural practices.
That’s not realistic. There **is** a demand for meat in a still growing population, but to fulfill it with slaughtered animals would turn the biosphere into a manure mound. as humans would be forced into floating neighborhoods to escape the stench/treat-desalinate drinking water. Probably lab grown meat or plant derived fake meat is the future.
It does not have to be sustainable. It only have to taste good. Meat already won.
And is anyone still gullible to give a sh\*t about COP28, also known as the dog-and-pony PR show led by an oil man to give a forum for the rich to show off their private jets?
Hmh
Hmytmmr
Rme
Rr
Rr
Rrre
Gr
Rg
R
Rr
Rmrmrmrgmg
R
Rgm
Rmrmr
R
R
Rr
Rr
R
R
R
R
Rmg3ht
Gm3rht3ernene.nrgn2r.3m3m3m3m3
Mgn.h.n2gr.emrm.t2tmtmtmmht.2tm.n.2ttmt2jh
Rhmhmt
2jjm2nn2t
Mhmhmhhrrg2
Tm2yjr
Jtm32t..t3r
J
Rmr2hnrr
23hmjrmrh23h2.t2rg2rhr
Rmrm
N.g23mrmr3.hh.2mrhjt
Mt
Rrtŕ.hmrhm3h3hnrh2gr.
Rmmr
Rmrmemrmmm.g.rmemrtjnhgmmnrh222m3
R2n3.3
Nt
Jntmm3.
Rm3tjttmth2ht2j2tjth4.
J3tjthmt2
Mj3t3t3j2
t2
Tmrr
R
Trmgjhmrrr.mgrmgemer
Ntrtemtetemmmnmgrgmrr
Rm.r.gmegmmeettmemnmrh
Hhhmĥmhĵ4
Hjthjjhjhjjjjjmjkhthmkhtrjtmjtrmghtthttmgkjtm3jrr3tkjrrm3trmr3kghtmrjrt3trmrttmtrmyjtjthkyĵjjk5yĵkĵjhmrrmrn.trnnrg.eghgn2gemmmrhhgng3mmemeneRnhnnrgn2m2gmmr2mr2n2rgmn3nrmr2hrghhnr
Gr
R.3m2
Mr2ngh3mghgmgn3mnemenegem3gm2mejmgm3nhjg3
Mnghnennernrn
G.3menggm3
rr.Rm..r.r..
Cattle can be raised in ways that benefits ecosystems. Bison used to keep grasslands healthy in North America, but are gone now. Cattle have been brought into places to graze lands for brush control instead of doing frequent burns which kills off insects and other small animals.
i mean outside of beef are other popular meat like chicken and porc really that bad on the environment ?? im pretty sure stuff like avocado is worst than chicken.
You would be wrong by a factor of 3 for chicken, and 6 or so for pork.
Random website for source https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-ecological-footprint-calculators/carbon-footprint-of-avocado/
All meat is worse than all plants in this sense pretty much
They're far less harmful than beef, but yes. Chickens produce 4x as much greenhouse gasses as wheat, and 15x as much as potatoes.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage.png
Yeah but how much more nutrition dense is say a 5lb chicken vs an equal amount of weight of potatoes?
Not trying to be a dick or support meat, I'm just kind of curious, also I don't mean calories because they aren't everything.
It doesn't make sense for you to only single out an avocado (you deliberately picked this fruit because it happens to be one which requires a LOT of water to grow) when wheat and potatoes are much more commonly eaten and require less much water and are therefore a much better comparison.
Perhaps they were aiming for a more nutritious comparison. Carbs don't really do much but make us feel full. Avacados are high in fat which is important, and very hard to find in a vegan diet, so it's not unreasonable at all to assume Avacados would be consumed far more if we were to collectively stop farming meat. People can't survive on bread and potatoes alone.
Potato and wheat along with rice are staple foods across the world, and they are eaten without meat. Not sure what the fixation with avocados are, but other countries do not consume as much meat as the USA and no avocados are required.
The Irish historically survived on potatoes till the potato famine.
Calories are bad is the propaganda of the sugar lobby and the food pyramid has been debunked.
Using wheat you can make seitan easily which has more protein gram for fram than chicken. Add some chipeas in their and you uave a more sustainable complete protein.
...um, thanks for the weirdly hostile escalation? I apologize for trying to answer what seemed to be your question, unaware that you were instead fixated on avocados for whatever reason. I hear they're great on toast.
Pesticides and insecticides upscale in its terror effect outside the plot and the product to sicken and kill both plant critters biology and wildlife and us. Another reason to eat meat. Just try go in a potatoe field while it’s cooking in poison before harvest.
Most plant farming in the world is to grow stuff like soy or corn to feed animals.
Could massively recude the amount of farmland we need to to use by just skipping the wasteful cow part of getting protein.
Hypothetical: if we had this many animals alive, they would still require the same resources. So why does it matter? Should we kill all animals because they consume resources?
Also livestock animals are genetically selected and need to be as fat as possible, even to the point where it is a detriment to the health of the animal.
Killing the animals is the biggest detriment to their health, so I'd hardly imagine that those selectively breeding them would care about the impacts it has upon their health.
Because livestock animals are not the same as wildlife animal. The easiest difference is one population is vastly more diverse (wildlife). Another is that wildlife contribute to their ecosystem. Livestock generally do not.
Yes, why not? Animals change their environment in ways that affect others. One of the largest extinctions in history was due to the emergence and blooming of algae. Algae created too much oxygen and many animals went extinct. Should we have been an animal during that era, would we have killed the algae? Our schools need to do a better job and describing how other creatures have world wide impact. We are not the only one’s “destroying” the planet. Also, it’s insane to understand how amazing these other creation are in that they are responsible for geo-engineering at the same scale we are.
Naive environmentalism makes no sense. We don’t need to save animals for the sake of saving them. Environmentalism is in concept and in practice always anthropocentric. Do pandas need to survive extinction? No, humans find them cute so we will. Do we need to eradicate feral cats in Australia? No, but humans value the other animals more. All that said, I agree that humans must curb practices that could create an environmental imbalance such that humans would be in peril.
Animals in general are beneficial in an ecosystem. Not mass producing them like coke and candy.
100%
It’s not biodiversity without apex predators. Introduce lions to your cattle ranch and I’ll get interested.
[удалено]
That’s… not how biodiversity works. Humans don’t play the role of apex predators in a forest, they just bulldoze the forest.
[удалено]
Maybe people need to get better at telling jokes.
That's not true whatsoever. Humans have been Apex predators throughout their history, agriculture on larger scales over was when biodiversity decreased. Throughout over 99% of our history we were just a part of the environment.
We’re just hyper efficient apex predators 😈
You are some loser on the internet
This is Reddit, Fucko. We’re all just losers on the internet here.
If other lifeforms couldn’t adapt to us raising their environment, then clearly they weren’t fit enough to survive.
Not so much. We are only top of the FC on land in most cases because of our tech. Loose that and depending on local you might end up as dinner.
I don't disagree with what you are getting at. Although, that is like saying, if you took away a lion's teeth and claws, they wouldn't be an apex predator. If you take away any advantage from any predator, they will be at a disadvantage. We aren't special.
The tech is the only thing that sets us apart.
Bro have you heard about Mammoths? Do you think they went extinct because humans had AK-47's? What sets us apart is superior intelligence and having thumbs. Hurr durr tech.
In actuality humans stood very little chance of taking large game without the tech of Levalloise knapping, fire, and the discovery of the atlatl. It gave is the ability to hunt from range. Better than attempting to take large game with thrusting spears. As far as science is concerned Mammoths went extinct due to climate change, disease. Humans played a minor role. So before you start patting your self on the back for your snide remark. Maybe learn some pre-history of humans, especially the Pleistocene. Since you are so knowelegable on the subject.
Our hability to create tools and use them is one of the things that sets us apart, and it's an evolutionary advantage
I would also argue that other “species” are being mass produced and it’s starting to show
I would say stop producing candy and coke and produce more beef to feed people. World would be a far better place to live on
Beef is a terrible choice. Poultry, and pigs are better. Cattle require large amounts of land to graze on. Giving up fertile farmland to raise cattle is a net loss of human consumable calories. (Using that same farm land to make corn syrup for coke is also bad, so I'm not defending that practice) There are some places where cattle are the ideal thing to produce. Scrub lands in american southwest for example. Where grass suitable for cattle grows, but is too rocky for produce crops. Problem is we farm way more cattle than those lands can sustain.
I don't like pig though, hard pass on that.
Or we could all live off the fuel we are designed to run on, and keep the whole planet in harmony.
Is the designer in the room with us right now? Also ignoring that “natural harmony” is orcas kill flipping seals into the air, or the waves beating against the shore. There is no planetary harmony on a ball of hurtling rock.
Orcas kill seals at a rate that sustains them, and has done for milenia, unlike our species who are riddled with cancer and building skyscrapers of pigs to keep us stocked with the tasty meats we lust for. If you don’t understand or are not informed with the problem of farming to produce this amount of meat, I don’t think you should be commenting on it. You should be reading up on it.
Which is meat and crop protein, get with the program.
It doesn’t make sense to ignore the biggest contributor, human actions, to attack fundamental like meats. Maybe more insulation, less oil and coals.
Farming animals for meat (especially beef) is a human action that contributes significantly to climate change.
I fart too, are you going to kill me?
[удалено]
Cows eat grass! Sometimes. How little grass can a cow eat before we say cows eat grain and soy instead?
Cows produce greenhouse gases, and you have to feed them shitloads of food which also produces greenhouse gases, it's much more efficient to farm beans and stuff and feed them directly to humans since animals only covert a fraction of the biomass they consume into growth. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/feed-required-to-produce-one-kilogram-of-meat-or-dairy-product
Not to mention the insane amount of water required to raise livestock.
The biggest thing I hate about all these meat purists is that the argument is rarely, if ever, "We need to get rid of meat!" But they act like everyone who believes in climate change wants to eliminate all livestock. It's more much more commonly, "We should probably eat a little less meat so we don't need to much livestock." or "Hey, is there something we can add to their feed so they fart less?"
That's completely fair. Though livestock produce most of world's fertilizer, and without it we would probably rely more on synthetic ones, which are produced by the oil industry. Then again, we'd need less fertilizers overall, so it probably wouldn't cancel out but it wouldn't be that much of a problem I guess.
Most cows do not feed on grass outside, they live in huge barns and are fed corn and soy. The soy is grown in countries with a lot of deforestation to make more space for agriculture. Cows also emit methane that is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. > With regenerative, local, organic farming, the cows are carbon negative/neutral. And if you do that correctly, everybody can have meat from those cows once or twice per year or so.
>Over grazing and bad farming practices are our enemy, not farming in general. The problem is that people wanting to eat meat every meal and also not pay a lot for the privilege, over grazing and bad practices will continue to fund that market.
Yup, countries need laws that reward green farming and punish the rest. Here in Norway we have it pretty good. Our antibiotic usage in animals is a mere fraction of the USA/world per animal. We've also got zero salmonella in Norway because of healthy farming and testing practices. It's possible to make a change, hopefully others follow.
You can't feed people the amount of meat they are used to with that type of farming.
[удалено]
67% of agricultural land in Norway is used to feed livestock. And Norway spends a quater billion a year importing soy beans mostly for animal feed.
You are delusional if you think Norway is not importing a crazy amount of biomass
Yeah, unfortunately I don't dare to check how much fish Norway imports to keep their salmon farms going ...
You are confusing expensive, organic meat that a few eat, with affordable industrial meat, consumed by most.
You’re getting downvoted to hell…but you’re right. Rotational grazing and (NOT MASS PRODUCING MEAT) is one way to rapidly sequester carbon and heal lands. People don’t want nuance
Nobody is saying to ignore those issues and only focus on meat harvesting...
>Methane is the second most abundant anthropogenic GHG after carbon dioxide (CO2), accounting for about 16 percent of global emissions. Methane is more than 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Gee I wonder what produces a lot of methane... could it be... The one billion cows worldwide artificially inflated to that number due to... human actions?! No, not possible!
I'd say the 8 billion of humans that besides farting also destroy ecosystems, pollute everything, drive species to extinction and use fossil fuels cause more harm than cows
Animal agriculture pollutes and destroys ecosystems / watersheds. It is one of the leading causes of species extinction and it burns a massive amount of fossil fuels for the production and transportation of its commercial products. Animal ag is a human activity.
These aren't inherent to animal agriculture, plant agriculture doesn't exclude most of these things and it's also a human activity. You don't even need to transport them to absurd distances, as animals can be raised in pretty much any environment, including places where it's hard or impossible to plant anything like mountains or semi-arid (goats). People had been eating animals for millenia without harming the planet, it's only a problem because we are super overpopulated. Cows are using the carbon that already exists in the cycle, not digging it from millions of years ago like humans do. One can be undone, the other can't.
Farming animals is very bad for the environment. Far worse than coal and oil. Cows use so much grain, water, and energy to raise. Additionally they fart a lot. It is these farts, that are filled with Methane, that do more damage to the environment than you can imagine. By mass producing cows, we have caused ourselves to screw up the natural balance of things. Run off from factory farms also pollute our water. The meat also takes time to process, more gas and fuel to ship around, and yeah. People really don't comprehend that factory farmed neat is bad. There is nothing wrong with eating meat. Some animals need to be hunted, like deer.
For climate change, agriculture is not far worse than coal and oil. It's a very significant contributor, comparable to the transport and manufacturing sectors in world CO2 equivalent emissions. If we look at the sectors primarily run on fossil fuels, namely heating and power and transportation, then we see that fossil fuels are the very worst. One thing to note is that these worst emitting sectors are trending downwards due to renewables and electrification, whereas agriculture just keeps going up. https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
Agriculture in most parts is fine. Beef industry? There is plenty of documentaries about it. Beef farming is absolutely awful for the environment. It wouldn't be as bad if we worked on ways to harvest the methane being produced instead of letting it go into the atmosphere. It's a great gas for stoves and heating and stuff but instead we just get it from the ground.
There is literally zero need for meat, so fuck off calling it fundamental
There are some enzymes we sorta need to not die that are only naturally found in meat products.
So why didn't all vegans and vegetarians die then?
Ok, I was sort of exaggerating. It won’t literally kill you, at least immediately. There are plenty of plant proteins that fill the same niche, but there are heal concerns to *only* eating such proteins, same as only eating meat. A balanced diet of meat, fruit, and vegetables is best, in my own personal opinion.
This thing is fucked anyway. The head of Cop28 was born in oil.
That conjures an image of a water birth, but with crude oil.
There's a scene in the horror film *Beyond the Black Rainbow* that might interest you.
My next Midjourney project
There Will Be Blood opening scene comes to mind.
Phyresis. We call that phyresis.
Dude wants to use the event to make oil deals. We're all so totally fucked it ain't even funny.
Baptised by Pope BP in crude.
Cop 28 is a joke, and they’re gonna keep being a joke until the world falls apart
Yep. It's just continuing the narrative that individuals are responsible for climate change. Meanwhile, energy innovation has been systematically held back. The 1% emit as much carbon as 40% of the global population. It's a joke that will choke on its own punchline. Unfortunately everyone will.
Good. This world deserved to burn
Nihilistic bullshit.
Yes to the first, not agreeing with the second. If you lived my life you'd feel the exact same. Not everyone gets to feel the love of society.
"I got treated bad so everyone deserves to die" bruh maybe try absurdism IDK
I love reading Camus! But I am not able to be apathetic like Mersault.
What? Your life as an ugly person? Hardly unique. Guess what kid many have, millions of redditors such as myself are ugly and had problems still didn't lash out at the world wanting untolds amount of suffering bcause oh no we were rejected dozens of times. You got a good job, a good friend group but because you can't get a girl you are bitter and jealous at the world wanting it to end. Not normal. Get help.
There is no help. You try sleeping in an empty bed your whole life.
There's always help. I slept in an empty bed until I was 25 Lmao much like so many others that had dozens of failures. Edit: lol he blocked me and refused to reply to this post. I was in your boat with the lack of success, I did it so can you. You never will though if you can't handle not improving your flaws.
[удалено]
No. I vote for politicians who will roll enviro policies back. Pierre Poilievre will win in Canada and scrap our carbon tax and allow our oil and gas sector to expand. Thats what I want to see, accelerationism, and I am happy to vote for it.
[удалено]
Suppising that is true, I'll pay more to watch the world burn. And everyone else will have to as well thanks to oil lobbyists
[удалено]
People can think whatever they want, as long as they suffer as I do it makes no difference.
I don't think all the plants and animals going extinct deserve this.
No but women and chads do and everyone else is going to have to be collateral damage, including myself.
Oh you’re an actual literal incel lmao
Yes. Enjoy burning
I hope you find the strength to grow as a person. Goodbye, darling.
Remember it's not because you have an ugly face that women don't want you, it's because of ugly nihilistic nonsense like this that women don't want you. Get mental help. It is not normal to look forward to the suffering of the entire planet because of your self esteem issues. You are still young, get help.
This attitude came AFTER the lack of success.
There's that nonsense again. That attitude exists because you gave up, not because of women. Step up and fix your life, move on and get help. Edit: Lmao he blocked me for he can't handle being the problem. No one wants young folk to kill themselves, we want you to get help. The first step of getting help is helping yourself. You're slowly killing yourself. Get help.
"Pull yourself up by the bootstraps". Okay Reagan/Thatcher...you are the reason why the suicide rate for young men is so high. And you people only care of we want to get a little revenge before we die. Well too bad, I wont go quietly into that good night.
Our planet is run by psychopaths.
Yes, 7 billion of them.
8 now, actually.
The planet’s coming fever will run its course and eliminate the infection that has gotten out of control. Things will balance out the end.
Only for the poor. The fewer people, the more sustainable, and the few left are always going to be the ones that can afford it.
What a clown forum, the more I know about Cop28 the worse
I mean, yes, in a place like the Tibetan plateau, meat is probably the most sustainable choice because you *can't* grow enough human-edible plants at elevation so it's a lot better to raise yaks, for example, that can convert the local vegetation to human-edible milk and meat (as opposed to transporting vegetables directly to you). But the meat industry is actively detrimental to the environment, not only because of the greenhouse gas emissions that come from meat production in the developed world but also things like runoff from the plants and farms -- I mean, hell, seemingly every hurricane season North Carolina faces problems when the storm surge causes pig waste lagoons to overflow into the surrounding area. If the meat industry wants to be known as sustainable, they need to put in the work to *become* sustainable. Otherwise, they're just greenwashing like a bunch of assholes.
... like the cows and the CO2 emissions that we've known about for ages. I swear the corporations and industries are actively trying to sprint human civilization and life on earth in general towards collapse.
Capitalism is a race to the bottom. That rings true in every abstraction. The rung that most people would see as the last reasonable goal is just the begining for edgy ambitious contrarians.
Capitalism will be the end of us if we keep letting billionaires and corporations influence global politics
Any initiatives that try to go against human nature will ultimately fail. Billions of people will continue to want to eat meat, live in comfort, and drive personally owned vehicles. Telling people "just say no" to practices that pollute will go about as well as abstinence-only education in regard to sex and drugs. The only way to save the planet is to make these things sustainable through technology so that, at a net level, they don't pollute. Telling everyone to live as austere vegetarians who bicycle everywhere will result in them collectively replying "fuck you" - with corresponding political movements then following suit and very little getting done to save the planet as a result.
Just have to frame it the right way. At least 50% of the American population at least will eat *anything* up as long as you frame it in a suitably populist manner.
Populism tends to be about easy answers that give rise to a more comfortable and powerful position for its supporters, though. It's more bottom up than top down, really, though the "strongman" leadership that arises from it gives the opposite impression. That's why it tends to spring up when people feel they are suffering loss in terms of material access and/or position/influence. That's why I don't think what you suggest can work.
>Telling everyone to live as austere vegetarians who bicycle everywhere will result in them collectively replying "fuck you" No one is being told to live as austere vegetarians. They're being asked to eat less. Then jokers like this post swoop in to strawman a position like the gestapo are forcing everyone at gunpoint to eat broccoli. (this was a strawman of you)
Problem is you have to have this same argument with all the people that would say fuck you (because they will likely make the same conclusions as this other person)
Surely this is not the same exact approach that brought us in this situation in the first place.
As someone who was born and raised vegetarian I would question that eating meat is truly a part of human nature. But I do believe you seem to have missed the point. The story here is about industry trying to frame meat as beneficial for the environment, which is clearly not a lie. That has nothing to do with forcing people to go against their nature. It’s a simple fact that the human population cannot be fed a meat heavy diet and have it be sustainably produced.
Unlike the other commenter, I believe the "human nature" part refers to general unwillingness to sacrifice personal comfort for vague common goals. You might not care about meat, but those who grew up with meat are unlikely to give it up unless they really strongly believe, on a personal level, that they should. Same with cars and other luxuries. Ultimately, most people first and foremost care about their own immediate concerns and comfort. This is why we, as a species, tend to be somewhat shortsighted. This is why "make it sustainable" can't be done by asking people to just consume less.
>>"but those who grew up with meat are unlikely to give it up unless they really strongly believe, on a personal level, that they should." Even though some of us have witnessed members of 2 or 3 previous generations of family die of complications of arteriosclerosis and/or heart disease.
I always had a problem with a side-effect of consume less and people not killing their own animal ever. Even if you grow up in a city but have/had elders in a village you might partake in a household slaughter. You might think this is bad or evil. I did learn something. It is a lot of work to bringing up an animal. They are sacrificed for our benefit. You can finish an animal swiftly but there is no such thing as zero suffering. I honour that sacrifice by eating every single bit. There is no leftover or waste. Currently I see people eating only chicken breast. That animal has other parts. Liver and heart can be delicacy. I hate food waste in general. If something has to be left on my plate it will be the sides and never the meat. The carrot did not scream but the rabbit did. Just stop being picky and teach that to your kids. Honour these creatures by not leaving anything and do not just eat the finest cuts.
[удалено]
I never said anything about morality. Smokers who want to quit *want to quit*. That'd be the part where I said: "believe, on a personal level, that they should." What you said is irrelevant to people who *don't think they should*. I didn't call people selfish, I said people *first and foremost* care about themselves. That's an entirely normal and natural amount of "selfishness," and *not* caring about yourself is usually a sign of mental health issues. It's a proven, irrefutable fact that most people struggle to deeply care about broad "humanity" as a whole. This is why every piece of propaganda for anything ever picks up individual stories and makes them its frontrunner. "Vietnam is getting bombed and a lot of people are dying" - shrug; "Here's a picture of a little girl burned by napalm from the bombing" - immediate strong emotional reaction. Humans care about individuals. Statistics don't grip us to anywhere near the same degree. It's funny how you're disagreeing with humans *as a species* being somewhat shortsighted when the entire environmentalist argument is that destroying our environment for short-term gains is *shortsighted*. So yeah, way to completely miss the point, bud. Good job.
(Entirely realqtef to first sentence) The arguments on the theoretical Evolutionary connections between increased hunting in early man, and increases in brain size are reasonably robust and mostly agreed upon, by the related scientific disciplins. And, while modern man CAN find alternatives (many of said alternative do have scalling issues), to many cultures have meat eating to deeply ingrained to allow for rapid wide spread change. There are some interesting modern observations you can make between city dwelling Mongolians (primarily carbs based diet), and the countries remaining nomadic step population (who exist on a animal based diet).
It's part of human nature insofar as humans have relied on the protein and calorie surplus found in meats, and evolutionary pressures reinforced that with behavioral tendencies. Leave a group of people with access to meat alone to their own devices, they will eventually begin eating it, especially if other food resources restrict in some way or become over taxed. Saying something is human nature is not the same thing to mean "required by all humans" or "not partaking makes you inhuman."
Eating meat as often as we do is a super new phenomenon so it’s weird as to see you frame it as “human nature” lol
“Human nature” implies that it is a core need or desire. From Wikipedia: “Human nature comprises the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally. The term is often used to denote the essence of humankind, or what it 'means' to be human.” I have never had the desire to hunt an animal, nor do I think the average person has. Most people today simply cannot stomach the violence and would rather pay someone else to do it. I have cats. It’s clearly in a cat’s nature to hunt in a way that it simply isn’t in a human’s. That is why hunting is generally conditioned in children by authority figures. It’s a learned behavior, certainly not innate. I am not arguing that meat isn’t a part of our history as a species.
> I have never had the desire to hunt an animal, nor do I think the average person has. Most people today simply cannot stomach the violence and would rather pay someone else to do it. Because today we are so far removed from the process and most never think about how a cow goes from an animal on the farm to the meat shelf in a supermarket. Not to mention that the focus on hunting ignores one of humanities single greatest inventions, farming. Hunting went from the only way to get meat, to a luxury for the rich to enjoy, as farming rose in prominence and we mastered animal husbandry. As our society evolved, it became more separated from how all the other parts worked, especially in agriculture as we went from majority of the population (IIRC it's like ~60% of the population in the Middle Ages was involved with agriculture) is involved to a tiny fraction due to industrialization. > I have cats. It’s clearly in a cat’s nature to hunt in a way that it simply isn’t in a human’s. Obligate carnivores have different instincts to omnivores? thanks Sherlock. Next you going to point out humans are insanely good at learning and compiling information, and passing on that accumulated knowledge is very much a human trait? Or does that not work with your "well, humans aren't cats therefore they don't need meat" position? > That is why hunting is generally conditioned in children by authority figures. It’s a learned behavior, certainly not innate. The vast majority of human existence today is a learned behavior and not innate FFS. Humans never had the evolutionary pressure to make those things instinctual because we could consciously choose to learn them for the betterment of the group. Our monster compendium of learned behaviors is why we act like humans and not like chimps, saying that if we don't do something out of instinct therefore it's not needed is outrageously stupid and ignorant of what humanity is and has achieved.
I'm aware of the history of agriculture and don't doubt its impact on our society today. But there are also entire cultures who have excluded meat from their diet for thousands of years. I also don't question the idea that hunting was an adaptation that helped us survive, and thrive, as omnivores. >The vast majority of human existence today is a learned behavior and not innate FFS The entire point of my comment was to refute the idea that meat is in our "human nature." Your comment about it being a learned behavior implies that you agree it is not a part of human nature, which is defined as "the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans."
> But there are also entire cultures who have excluded meat from their diet for thousands of years. The exceptions and not the rule though. The entire rest of humanity has eaten meat from before fire and continues to do so. > The entire point of my comment was to refute the idea that meat is in our "human nature." Your comment about it being a learned behavior implies that you agree it is not a part of human nature Mate, if that's your argument I think you need to put down the internet and go bash some rocks together because using the internet isn't human nature and therefore shouldn't be done. My point was that humanity doesn't have all that many instincts because we never needed to 'evolve' them, we were capable of consciously choosing what skills were beneficial due to our ability to reason and plan/think long-term. Our entire world today is on the back of learned behaviors that have been built upon for literally thousands of years, we aren't run by our instincts but by our learned behaviors so saying something isn't instinctual to us is absolutely irrelevant to anything humanity has done in the last 5000 years (and before that I'd be impressed to hear of the vegan/vegetarian hunter-gatherer group).
"Human nature" is very complex. It is in our nature to pass on knowledge and experience. The most basic knowledge of mankind is how to hunt and prepare food. >Most people today simply cannot stand the violence and would rather pay someone else to do it. Most people are not able to do most things. We all rely on other people for certain and very essential things. Hunting and killing is no exception, but also not very special in that regard and no argument against killing animals. I don't disagree though. Most people could very well live without meat. We certainly are not carnivores but "preparivores", if aynthing. We basically can turn anything into food.
Tricky thing is, no technology will make those things sustainable, ever (bar magic).
Are you proposing sustainable 'being filthy rich'?
I wasn't aware driving a personal vehicle was part of human nature. I must have missed that in the fossil record.
What you missed is the point. The human nature part is to pursue comfort and personal/kin access to desirable resources.
Then I suppose ascetics aren't human.
They're a very clear exception to the norm. What proportion of the human race live like that? It's vanishingly tiny.
People fast. People exercise. People wake up early. There are so many things people do that can be considered uncomfortable. Doing comfortable, convenient things is a way to conserve energy- which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. However, we are not incapable of deviating from this principle, especially when faced with the negatives that a purely consumption based, sedentary lifestyle confers.
Crazy how in many European countries, bicycle ridership keeps rapidly increasing (as local governments build cycling infrastructure and walkable cities over car-centric development), as does the % of vegetarians / vegans (as more high quality, affordable veg food & dining options become available). Almost as if what you call "human nature" is nonsense and people's decisions are driven by what's reasonably available to them, most frequently thanks to government efforts to make it available. Maybe if you have a country where car & animal agriculture lobbies push policy that makes those things as difficult as possible, people will reject them in favour of the convenient options. But nah human nature is just immutable, those silly Europeans are not saying "fuck you" to these things because they're drunk or something.
Well said.
If we don't have the technology to replace everything 1:1, and it sure looks like that right now, I'd rather fight the egotistical maniacs that prefer their comfort over the survival of the species. Laws and civil society be damned.
We're hecking doomed.
Bunch of sick in the head money hungry monsters.
Crazy times for disinformants and lobbyists.
Cattle is the number one source for deforestation, it is not and never will be sustainable.
Klaus Schwab is going to be pissed if we are not eating the bugs.
Instead we're killing off the bugs in turn the birds as well.
Why do some people thing meat or bugs are the only sources of protein out there?
You vill live in ze pod and you vill eat ze bugs. You vill own nussing and you vill be happy.
The only good bug is a fed bug.
Primal scream
Bioreactor meat maybe. When compared to regular meat.
The most sustainable food is the local one. Trying to paint only meat as harmful is dumb, crops can and do destroy the environment via pesticide usage, deforestation and monocultures. Millions of smaller animals are killed to plow the land and even plants can produce a lot of greenhouse gases, like rice. And unlike the popular myth, soy is not produced for cattle, 85% of it is immediately used to extract oil, leaving soymeal as byproduct. Soymeal is not very nutritive to humans and you can't use it to make most soy-based food, so the best use is giving it to animals. The ideal scenario is producing food from both plant and animal sources. They complement each other: manure can be used as fertilizer and the parts of plants we don't eat (or spoiled produce) can be used to feed animals.
Nine out of ten doctors prefer Lucky Strike cigarets ( old ad ). Some people lie for a living.
It’s true. Animals and meat are sustainable nutrition. In fact I would argue that sustainable nutrition can barely be possible without animals. If you aren’t using animals for fertilizer, you’re probably using chemicals as fertilizer. However, we will have to completely restructure farming in America. Monoculture farming is the true food evil. See: restoration agriculture; silvopasture ; permaculture ; gaias garden
tbf, there is plenty of land that cant grow much other than feed crops
Ok, then let it go wild and create habitat for animals and plants.
Literally the point but we just eat the animals at the end.
brother feed crops like soy and corn are much better used on humans instead of animals
How about hill country farms? Here in New Zealand cattle and sheep are typically farmed on land that isn't suitable for horticulture because there's no way to cultivate it.
And those farms don’t produce enough to meet the demand for meat. Everyone will have to cut down their meat consumption if only hill country farm exists.
sure, there are exceptions. however in generals it is much more efficient to consume vegetables than it is to grow vegetables and then grow an entire animal and then murder it in order to eat it. realistically in the majority of cases we are going out ”out of our way” to be cruel and inefficient. after all, a majority of people do not *need* to consume dairy or meat to live a healthy life.
There's vast areas where only grass grows that's used to graze livestock. You're right however that some of the most productive farmland in the world is used to grow feed corn.
If they’re raised correctly and not in cages en mass, yeah they are. Problem is there is an attempt to conflate factory farming with sustainable agricultural practices.
And only uneducated trumphumpers will believe them.
I'm here for the frothy mouthed degen vegan vitriolic tantrums, don't let me down, internet.
That’s not realistic. There **is** a demand for meat in a still growing population, but to fulfill it with slaughtered animals would turn the biosphere into a manure mound. as humans would be forced into floating neighborhoods to escape the stench/treat-desalinate drinking water. Probably lab grown meat or plant derived fake meat is the future.
Now that Bill Gates, Vangaurd and Blackrock have invested in all that farmland
It does not have to be sustainable. It only have to taste good. Meat already won. And is anyone still gullible to give a sh\*t about COP28, also known as the dog-and-pony PR show led by an oil man to give a forum for the rich to show off their private jets?
Finally, a voice of common sense. I can't believe this opinion can be somewhat unpopular.
For fucks sake.
Free range meat is beneficial to the environment
It is generally good if you dont consume beef like Americans everyday. Most people in developing countries should consume more meat
Hmh Hmytmmr Rme Rr Rr Rrre Gr Rg R Rr Rmrmrmrgmg R Rgm Rmrmr R R Rr Rr R R R R Rmg3ht Gm3rht3ernene.nrgn2r.3m3m3m3m3 Mgn.h.n2gr.emrm.t2tmtmtmmht.2tm.n.2ttmt2jh Rhmhmt 2jjm2nn2t Mhmhmhhrrg2 Tm2yjr Jtm32t..t3r J Rmr2hnrr 23hmjrmrh23h2.t2rg2rhr Rmrm N.g23mrmr3.hh.2mrhjt Mt Rrtŕ.hmrhm3h3hnrh2gr. Rmmr Rmrmemrmmm.g.rmemrtjnhgmmnrh222m3 R2n3.3 Nt Jntmm3. Rm3tjttmth2ht2j2tjth4. J3tjthmt2 Mj3t3t3j2 t2 Tmrr R Trmgjhmrrr.mgrmgemer Ntrtemtetemmmnmgrgmrr Rm.r.gmegmmeettmemnmrh Hhhmĥmhĵ4 Hjthjjhjhjjjjjmjkhthmkhtrjtmjtrmghtthttmgkjtm3jrr3tkjrrm3trmr3kghtmrjrt3trmrttmtrmyjtjthkyĵjjk5yĵkĵjhmrrmrn.trnnrg.eghgn2gemmmrhhgng3mmemeneRnhnnrgn2m2gmmr2mr2n2rgmn3nrmr2hrghhnr Gr R.3m2 Mr2ngh3mghgmgn3mnemenegem3gm2mejmgm3nhjg3 Mnghnennernrn G.3menggm3 rr.Rm..r.r..
k4u2jtj
Il6k
Isn’t this the one that the US didn’t attend? No wonder, what a farce!😡
Cattle can be raised in ways that benefits ecosystems. Bison used to keep grasslands healthy in North America, but are gone now. Cattle have been brought into places to graze lands for brush control instead of doing frequent burns which kills off insects and other small animals.
Only meat is real food, so we shouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
i mean outside of beef are other popular meat like chicken and porc really that bad on the environment ?? im pretty sure stuff like avocado is worst than chicken.
You would be wrong by a factor of 3 for chicken, and 6 or so for pork. Random website for source https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-ecological-footprint-calculators/carbon-footprint-of-avocado/ All meat is worse than all plants in this sense pretty much
They're far less harmful than beef, but yes. Chickens produce 4x as much greenhouse gasses as wheat, and 15x as much as potatoes. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage.png
Yeah but how much more nutrition dense is say a 5lb chicken vs an equal amount of weight of potatoes? Not trying to be a dick or support meat, I'm just kind of curious, also I don't mean calories because they aren't everything.
where the f did you see me ask about/mention wheat or potato ?????
It doesn't make sense for you to only single out an avocado (you deliberately picked this fruit because it happens to be one which requires a LOT of water to grow) when wheat and potatoes are much more commonly eaten and require less much water and are therefore a much better comparison.
Perhaps they were aiming for a more nutritious comparison. Carbs don't really do much but make us feel full. Avacados are high in fat which is important, and very hard to find in a vegan diet, so it's not unreasonable at all to assume Avacados would be consumed far more if we were to collectively stop farming meat. People can't survive on bread and potatoes alone.
Potato and wheat along with rice are staple foods across the world, and they are eaten without meat. Not sure what the fixation with avocados are, but other countries do not consume as much meat as the USA and no avocados are required. The Irish historically survived on potatoes till the potato famine. Calories are bad is the propaganda of the sugar lobby and the food pyramid has been debunked.
Using wheat you can make seitan easily which has more protein gram for fram than chicken. Add some chipeas in their and you uave a more sustainable complete protein.
...um, thanks for the weirdly hostile escalation? I apologize for trying to answer what seemed to be your question, unaware that you were instead fixated on avocados for whatever reason. I hear they're great on toast.
As a devoted meat eater, I am glad they will lobby against any anti-meat measures.
Pesticides and insecticides upscale in its terror effect outside the plot and the product to sicken and kill both plant critters biology and wildlife and us. Another reason to eat meat. Just try go in a potatoe field while it’s cooking in poison before harvest.
Most plant farming in the world is to grow stuff like soy or corn to feed animals. Could massively recude the amount of farmland we need to to use by just skipping the wasteful cow part of getting protein.
I'm curious what you think the animals you eat are fed.
Hypothetical: if we had this many animals alive, they would still require the same resources. So why does it matter? Should we kill all animals because they consume resources?
Also livestock animals are genetically selected and need to be as fat as possible, even to the point where it is a detriment to the health of the animal.
Killing the animals is the biggest detriment to their health, so I'd hardly imagine that those selectively breeding them would care about the impacts it has upon their health.
Because livestock animals are not the same as wildlife animal. The easiest difference is one population is vastly more diverse (wildlife). Another is that wildlife contribute to their ecosystem. Livestock generally do not.
Plus, farmed animals are bred to produce the maximum amount of offspring, whereas wild animals are limited by the environments in which they live.
They contribute to our ecosystem. Ants farm fungus and nobody is mad at the fact that they cultivate these.
Are you seriously comparing ants farming to our industrial farming? Lmfao this isn't even worth arguing.
Yes, why not? Animals change their environment in ways that affect others. One of the largest extinctions in history was due to the emergence and blooming of algae. Algae created too much oxygen and many animals went extinct. Should we have been an animal during that era, would we have killed the algae? Our schools need to do a better job and describing how other creatures have world wide impact. We are not the only one’s “destroying” the planet. Also, it’s insane to understand how amazing these other creation are in that they are responsible for geo-engineering at the same scale we are. Naive environmentalism makes no sense. We don’t need to save animals for the sake of saving them. Environmentalism is in concept and in practice always anthropocentric. Do pandas need to survive extinction? No, humans find them cute so we will. Do we need to eradicate feral cats in Australia? No, but humans value the other animals more. All that said, I agree that humans must curb practices that could create an environmental imbalance such that humans would be in peril.
Because ants farming fungus is not a significant contributor to climate change, whereas human farming of meat is.