this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
319 points (88.6% liked)
science
14806 readers
112 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
there is no reason to think this is going to happen. they'll build a mall or a skyscraper.
"This is an area the size of North America plus Brazil"
It's going to be one hell of a mall then
whose land is it, and what is their prediliction for money?
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.
Do you have a source more reputable than the Science journal and the Oxford university?
the papers themselves. look at their LCA references
I don't have the current knowledge nor the time to reach the level of researchers in the domain to make my own meta analysis. Where can I read a reputable rebuttal to this meta analysis?
you can read the sources that poore-nemecek cite. they are explicit that their research cannot be combined with other LCAs
I am skeptical that researchers and reviewers of Science wouldn't have accounted for that. I made some research about rebuttal to this study, so far the only ones I have found are from farmer related or anti-vegan communities, which are likely more biased than a scientific journal. I will need at least a contradictory peer reviewed article to convince me this meta analysis is incorrect.
if the source material can't convince you, then live in ignorance
When you are not an expert of the domain, it is easy to get mislead by arguments such as the one you gave, maybe you're correct, maybe you're misleading, I don't have the knowledge to verify by myself. That's why I need to rely on reputable source, and it's hard to do more reputable than a meta-analysis in Science. If you are correct, the rebuttal will eventually be published in a peer reviewed journal, I'll will be happy to read the conclusions then.
it's stated explicitly in the papers cited by poore-nemecek. all you need to do is read
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.
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.
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.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/how-to-maintain-a-balanced-diet-as-a-vegetarian-or-vegan#%3A%7E%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.
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.
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.