3 ms·

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 arg

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.
dandelion_lover 10y ago
>>A second argument is environmental More information for those interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...

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.

dandelion_lover 10y ago

>>A second argument is environmental More information for those interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...