5 ms·

A plant-based diet has been proven to prevent many of the leading causes of death and is also what is best for the planet. Our modern diet has way too much anim

A plant-based diet has been proven to prevent many of the leading causes of death and is also what is best for the planet. Our modern diet has way too much animal flesh and animal byproducts, all kinds of evidence in our anatomy, genetics, and biochemistry. The amount of land and water use for animal agriculture is insane, the greenhouse emissions and life-killing pollution are another set of externalities. A lot can change for the individual organism and the whole biosphere with a simple diet change. I think a plant-based society is the only kind that could live harmoniously with our home planet and expand successfully onto other planets.

rimliu 10y ago
I fail to see how switching from meat to plants will decrease the usage of land and water. Also, planet could not care less what we eat or what we do.
- good_vibes 10y ago
  "Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. The US food production system uses about 50% of the total US land area, 80% of the fresh water, and 17% of the fossil energy used in the country. The heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable. The use of land and energy resources devoted to an average meat-based diet compared with a lactoovovegetarian (plant-based) diet is analyzed in this report. In both diets, the daily quantity of calories consumed are kept constant at about 3533 kcal per person. The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet. The major threat to future survival and to US natural resources is rapid population growth. The US population of 285 million is projected to double to 570 million in the next 70 y, which will place greater stress on the already-limited supply of energy, land, and water resources. These vital resources will have to be divided among ever greater numbers of people." http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full
- Kbelicius 10y ago
  Because growing 1000 calories worth of a plant takes less space then growing 10000 calories. And if you want a 1000 calories of cow meat you will need to feed it much more then 10000 calories of plant.
  - losvedir 10y ago
    That's not necessarily true since the plants are different.
    - Kbelicius 10y ago
      It is necessarily true that you need to put more calories in a cow then you get back.
      - vilmosi 10y ago
        Not if the cow is grass fed in a natural environment. Yes, it's a lot of calories they consume, but those calories were never going to be used by humans.
        good_vibes 10y ago
        Cows, lambs, pigs, goats produce a lot of methane. The contribution to total greenhouse emissions is another hidden cost people don't normally account for. We clear forests to make room for more farms to feed the growing demand for meat around the world. If a plant-based diet doesn't become more popular and mainstream, we are headed for trouble by mid century.
        Kbelicius 10y ago
        Whatever you may think it is still true that it takes more calories to grow a cow then you get from a cow. No matter what kind of food a cow consumes. Weather those calories were going to be used by humans or not that land is now used to feed some cows that will feed a few people. Instead we could use that land to grow plants and feed more people then with cows. Also, AFAIK, that natural environment where cows are fed is mostly created by destroying forests.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
  It is a bit more complicated, but one scenario is obvious: you can feed a cow 10,000 calories of corn to produce roughly 2,000 calories of beef. If you simply eat the feed instead, you'd be eating calories that are 5 times more efficient. However, beef can also be produced on marginal lands (grazing) that aren't suited to crop production. In this way, livestock can be seen as an efficient land use (caveat environmental damage from grazing, etc.). However, this does not represent much of current livestock production.

rimliu 10y ago

I fail to see how switching from meat to plants will decrease the usage of land and water. Also, planet could not care less what we eat or what we do.

good_vibes 10y ago
"Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. The US food production system uses about 50% of the total US land area, 80% of the fresh water, and 17% of the fossil energy used in the country. The heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable. The use of land and energy resources devoted to an average meat-based diet compared with a lactoovovegetarian (plant-based) diet is analyzed in this report. In both diets, the daily quantity of calories consumed are kept constant at about 3533 kcal per person. The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet. The major threat to future survival and to US natural resources is rapid population growth. The US population of 285 million is projected to double to 570 million in the next 70 y, which will place greater stress on the already-limited supply of energy, land, and water resources. These vital resources will have to be divided among ever greater numbers of people." http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full
Kbelicius 10y ago
Because growing 1000 calories worth of a plant takes less space then growing 10000 calories. And if you want a 1000 calories of cow meat you will need to feed it much more then 10000 calories of plant.
- losvedir 10y ago
  That's not necessarily true since the plants are different.
  - Kbelicius 10y ago
    It is necessarily true that you need to put more calories in a cow then you get back.
    - vilmosi 10y ago
      Not if the cow is grass fed in a natural environment. Yes, it's a lot of calories they consume, but those calories were never going to be used by humans.
      - good_vibes 10y ago
        Cows, lambs, pigs, goats produce a lot of methane. The contribution to total greenhouse emissions is another hidden cost people don't normally account for. We clear forests to make room for more farms to feed the growing demand for meat around the world. If a plant-based diet doesn't become more popular and mainstream, we are headed for trouble by mid century.
      - Kbelicius 10y ago
        Whatever you may think it is still true that it takes more calories to grow a cow then you get from a cow. No matter what kind of food a cow consumes. Weather those calories were going to be used by humans or not that land is now used to feed some cows that will feed a few people. Instead we could use that land to grow plants and feed more people then with cows. Also, AFAIK, that natural environment where cows are fed is mostly created by destroying forests.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
It is a bit more complicated, but one scenario is obvious: you can feed a cow 10,000 calories of corn to produce roughly 2,000 calories of beef. If you simply eat the feed instead, you'd be eating calories that are 5 times more efficient. However, beef can also be produced on marginal lands (grazing) that aren't suited to crop production. In this way, livestock can be seen as an efficient land use (caveat environmental damage from grazing, etc.). However, this does not represent much of current livestock production.