3 ms·
Well even if it's not for environmental sustainability, just sustainability in general is not given with the current western diet, since it takes a lot more lan
by KitDuncan 9y ago
Well even if it's not for environmental sustainability, just sustainability in general is not given with the current western diet, since it takes a lot more land to farm livestock, than to farm plants. With population and meat consumption rising it will be impossble to sustain your diet.
Also however you look at it, you can't agree with deforestation for cattle grazing land. The livestock industry is responsible for the extinction of most animals today. It's a shame we are sacrificing wild live diversity, just because we can't stop eating meat with three meals a day.
- nxc18 9y agoThose are all very good points. Personally I'm a big fan of sustainability and at the very least emphasizing poultry over beef would be a good move, with vegetable alternatives being a longer term aspiration. Even today I've found a lot of e.g. veggie burger type things are better than the beef alternative and more sustainable. I would just prefer to see legitimate, provable, current consequences used to convince people. The "we need it for our very survival" is unconvincing on its own right, and downright harmful when it takes the place of legitimately compelling reasoning. The public (who are the ones that need convincing) have a hard time grasping cause and effect on timescales greater than they lifespan.