3 ms·

Not necessarily. Whatever vegans eat today still contributes to cruelty to animals to some extent (like animals used for farming, animals killed in the process

Not necessarily. Whatever vegans eat today still contributes to cruelty to animals to some extent (like animals used for farming, animals killed in the process of growing and harvesting plants, etc.). Being vegan is about causing significantly lesser harm and doing things that many may consider inconvenient. Even if plants are shown to suffer from pain, if one is inclined to reduce suffering, it still makes sense to eat plants directly than feed them to animals and eat those animals. The conversion inefficiency is of the order of five times or higher - that is, to produce a unit quantity of meat, at least fives times that amount of plants have to be fed to the animals (this is a very general and inaccurate figure - depending on what one compares, this could be very different and be a lot higher too). In general, eating animals still kills significantly more plants than eating plants directly. Of course, if plants are irrefutably shown to suffer pain, then there will be more focus over time in finding alternatives to eating them, like synthetic food. Whatever be the approach, it's impossible for anyone to exist without causing harm to others (intentionally or unintentionally). Doing nothing (possibly claiming hopelessness or futility) is not better than doing something.

Swizec 10y ago
> The conversion inefficiency is of the order of five times or higher - that is, to produce a unit quantity of meat, at least fives times that amount of plants have to be fed to the animals This is the part I never understood about veganism, maybe you can help. As a global apex superpredator, wouldn't you rather reap the rewards of the rest of the ecosystem doing that work for you than doing it yourself? Or do you think there's a way we can produce those 5x plants efficiently enough to feed you without going 2nd hand? Or is the argument that with modern farming we're already producing those pkants anyway, and the meat step is unnecessary? Is it more economical to deal with logistics of 5 units of plants or 1 unit of meat? These are the questions that keep me up at night and I haven't found a satisfactory answer that wasn't mired with propaganda.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Jill_the_Pill 10y ago
  The argument is that you eat one of those 5 units, and the other 4 are available for the hungry. Feeding livestock rather than people is the problem. That argument isn't airtight -- there are certainly issues of logistics -- but there's no propaganda. A second argument is environmental: farming takes land (deforestation), water and fertilizer, and it pollutes via runoff and ghg emissions, so the less production needed, the better. Also, livestock produce worse runoff and emissions than vegetable or grain farming. "Reaping the rewards of the rest of the ecosystem" isn't sustainable for 7 billion people.
  - eveningcoffee 10y ago
    "Reaping the rewards of the rest of the ecosystem" isn't sustainable for 7 billion people. And whose fault is this, that there are 7 billion people living in the world? I would say that this race to the bottom is not sustainable. What if every family will get sustainable and will not have more than two offspring (on average)?
    - Jill_the_Pill 10y ago
      Er yeah, fine, but placing blame doesn't change our current situation or inform whether it might be wise to restrain meat consumption. People are already here and need food, space, clean air and water, and climate stability.
      - eveningcoffee 10y ago
        Well, I was not much placing blame but rather I was pointing out that in fact we are in the war and this war is not engaged by the guns. So lets take India for example. Can India in fact afford to loose its edge in fertility or when it does, does it risk to be overthrown by its historical enemy that has been engaging genocide against its population for many centuries? From another point, in fact you are telling me that I have to change my behaviour because of the people who do not even consider to change their hostile practises. Yes, I may have to, but do you consider it fair, reasonable? Lets take for example Egypt, whose population has raised from 20 million in 50s to 80 million today. This population is comparable to Germany, whose population has stagnated. If we compare arable land of these countries then it is 196,460 km^2 in Germany against only 35,350 km^2 in Egypt. Are you suggesting that Germans should give up their sausages so that people living in Egypt can again double their population regardless of their actual capacity to feed them? What I suggest here is that instead of putting blame on sustainable nations, it should be instead agitated for the so far irresponsible nations to constrain their birth rate such that we can have stability in the population growth.
- newscracker 10y ago
  > As a global apex superpredator, wouldn't you rather reap the rewards of the rest of the ecosystem doing that work for you than doing it yourself? Or do you think there's a way we can produce those 5x plants efficiently enough to feed you without going 2nd hand? Or is the argument that with modern farming we're already producing those pkants anyway, and the meat step is unnecessary? Most animals consumed or used by humans in today's world are bred into existence by humans (through artificial insemination, forced and frequent pregnancies, etc.) and are fed 'well designed' feed (to maximize growth), which in turn uses vast resources like land and fresh water to grow plant food to feed the animals (essentially, this plant food is grown in one place and transported to another place to feed animals). Most (or all, depending on the location) of this feed is composed of plants that humans can consume (or the land can be used to grow plants that humans can consume). > Is it more economical to deal with logistics of 5 units of plants or 1 unit of meat? As mentioned above, the logistics to deal with five units of plants and processing them so animals can be fed these plants is already in use to produce animal based food and other items. So we don't really need to create new logistics to transport plant food in higher volume to humans. We just have to use what we have differently. I don't have a source or citation for this, but I've read somewhere that if humans use the arable land (currently in use to grow plants for humans and for the animals whom humans consume) for growing plant food to feed humans, we could potentially feed 11 billion people. Considering the significant negative environmental impact of animal agriculture, humans and other animals on this planet can last longer and benefit a lot by more people consuming more plants instead of consuming animals. To get an idea of the order of magnitude difference in fresh water used ('water foot print') for growing plants compared to growing animals for meat (including per calorie comparisons), look at this brief comparison on Waterfootprint.org. [1] (Not all plant foods are the same - so you may see some plants consuming more water than animal based foods) You could also skim through this study (linked on the previous page) and check the tables that have more information. [2] The interactive tools on that website are also interesting to learn from. [3] You could watch the documentary "Cowspiracy" [4] to get an idea about the overall impact of animal agriculture on the environment and how it's not sustainable or even possible to feed all humans on the planet with dairy and meat that does not come from factory farming operations. Intensive factory farming is a prerequisite if this is a goal. (As with all documentaries, it is a bit biased, but most figures and stats quoted in it are true or close to the truth). This is tangential, but humans are not 'apex super predators' and are not at the top of the food chain ('trophic level'). On average, globally, and on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being plants and 5 being an apex super predator), humans come at 2.21 (less than half way). [5] [1]: http://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ http://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-f... [2]: http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2012-WaterFootprintFarmAnimalProducts.pdf http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-... [3]: http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/ http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/ [4]: http://cowspiracy.com/ http://cowspiracy.com/ [5]: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/where-do-humans-really-rank-on-the-food-chain-180948053/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/where-do-humans...

Swizec 10y ago

> The conversion inefficiency is of the order of five times or higher - that is, to produce a unit quantity of meat, at least fives times that amount of plants have to be fed to the animals This is the part I never understood about veganism, maybe you can help. As a global apex superpredator, wouldn't you rather reap the rewards of the rest of the ecosystem doing that work for you than doing it yourself? Or do you think there's a way we can produce those 5x plants efficiently enough to feed you without going 2nd hand? Or is the argument that with modern farming we're already producing those pkants anyway, and the meat step is unnecessary? Is it more economical to deal with logistics of 5 units of plants or 1 unit of meat? These are the questions that keep me up at night and I haven't found a satisfactory answer that wasn't mired with propaganda.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Jill_the_Pill 10y ago
The argument is that you eat one of those 5 units, and the other 4 are available for the hungry. Feeding livestock rather than people is the problem. That argument isn't airtight -- there are certainly issues of logistics -- but there's no propaganda. A second argument is environmental: farming takes land (deforestation), water and fertilizer, and it pollutes via runoff and ghg emissions, so the less production needed, the better. Also, livestock produce worse runoff and emissions than vegetable or grain farming. "Reaping the rewards of the rest of the ecosystem" isn't sustainable for 7 billion people.
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  "Reaping the rewards of the rest of the ecosystem" isn't sustainable for 7 billion people. And whose fault is this, that there are 7 billion people living in the world? I would say that this race to the bottom is not sustainable. What if every family will get sustainable and will not have more than two offspring (on average)?
  - Jill_the_Pill 10y ago
    Er yeah, fine, but placing blame doesn't change our current situation or inform whether it might be wise to restrain meat consumption. People are already here and need food, space, clean air and water, and climate stability.
    - eveningcoffee 10y ago
      Well, I was not much placing blame but rather I was pointing out that in fact we are in the war and this war is not engaged by the guns. So lets take India for example. Can India in fact afford to loose its edge in fertility or when it does, does it risk to be overthrown by its historical enemy that has been engaging genocide against its population for many centuries? From another point, in fact you are telling me that I have to change my behaviour because of the people who do not even consider to change their hostile practises. Yes, I may have to, but do you consider it fair, reasonable? Lets take for example Egypt, whose population has raised from 20 million in 50s to 80 million today. This population is comparable to Germany, whose population has stagnated. If we compare arable land of these countries then it is 196,460 km^2 in Germany against only 35,350 km^2 in Egypt. Are you suggesting that Germans should give up their sausages so that people living in Egypt can again double their population regardless of their actual capacity to feed them? What I suggest here is that instead of putting blame on sustainable nations, it should be instead agitated for the so far irresponsible nations to constrain their birth rate such that we can have stability in the population growth.
newscracker 10y ago
> As a global apex superpredator, wouldn't you rather reap the rewards of the rest of the ecosystem doing that work for you than doing it yourself? Or do you think there's a way we can produce those 5x plants efficiently enough to feed you without going 2nd hand? Or is the argument that with modern farming we're already producing those pkants anyway, and the meat step is unnecessary? Most animals consumed or used by humans in today's world are bred into existence by humans (through artificial insemination, forced and frequent pregnancies, etc.) and are fed 'well designed' feed (to maximize growth), which in turn uses vast resources like land and fresh water to grow plant food to feed the animals (essentially, this plant food is grown in one place and transported to another place to feed animals). Most (or all, depending on the location) of this feed is composed of plants that humans can consume (or the land can be used to grow plants that humans can consume). > Is it more economical to deal with logistics of 5 units of plants or 1 unit of meat? As mentioned above, the logistics to deal with five units of plants and processing them so animals can be fed these plants is already in use to produce animal based food and other items. So we don't really need to create new logistics to transport plant food in higher volume to humans. We just have to use what we have differently. I don't have a source or citation for this, but I've read somewhere that if humans use the arable land (currently in use to grow plants for humans and for the animals whom humans consume) for growing plant food to feed humans, we could potentially feed 11 billion people. Considering the significant negative environmental impact of animal agriculture, humans and other animals on this planet can last longer and benefit a lot by more people consuming more plants instead of consuming animals. To get an idea of the order of magnitude difference in fresh water used ('water foot print') for growing plants compared to growing animals for meat (including per calorie comparisons), look at this brief comparison on Waterfootprint.org. [1] (Not all plant foods are the same - so you may see some plants consuming more water than animal based foods) You could also skim through this study (linked on the previous page) and check the tables that have more information. [2] The interactive tools on that website are also interesting to learn from. [3] You could watch the documentary "Cowspiracy" [4] to get an idea about the overall impact of animal agriculture on the environment and how it's not sustainable or even possible to feed all humans on the planet with dairy and meat that does not come from factory farming operations. Intensive factory farming is a prerequisite if this is a goal. (As with all documentaries, it is a bit biased, but most figures and stats quoted in it are true or close to the truth). This is tangential, but humans are not 'apex super predators' and are not at the top of the food chain ('trophic level'). On average, globally, and on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being plants and 5 being an apex super predator), humans come at 2.21 (less than half way). [5] [1]: http://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ http://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-f... [2]: http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2012-WaterFootprintFarmAnimalProducts.pdf http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-... [3]: http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/ http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/ [4]: http://cowspiracy.com/ http://cowspiracy.com/ [5]: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/where-do-humans-really-rank-on-the-food-chain-180948053/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/where-do-humans...