2 ms·
From an ecological perspective, replacing cattle with buffalo wouldn't be much of a win. There are too many meat-eating people on the planet to make either anim
by xiaoma 10y ago
From an ecological perspective, replacing cattle with buffalo wouldn't be much of a win. There are too many meat-eating people on the planet to make either animal the primary source.
- mod 10y agoIs there a problem with having a 'revolving' population of 60M? That is, we are eating out of the population, and it is replacing itself (with our help)? Assume we could feed all the meat-eaters on a revolving 60M cattle--would we then have solved the problem? Or are we supposed to maintain a smaller-than-original population?
- xiaoma 10y ago60M is possibly double the population there ever was, and that was a time when far, far more land was devoted to them. The only way to have that many now would be an extremely concentrated population (with its methane output) plus all the other outputs of humanity. There is no single answer about what we're "supposed to" do, but it is clear that cattle are driving the increase of methane production and that methane is a far, far more potent greenhouse gas than C02. A plant-based replacement wins hands-down in any ecological analysis.