3 ms·

>the Earth is having a really tough time Pointless statement because you are anthropomorphizing the planet. The only way the plan ceases to exist is if we mana

>the Earth is having a really tough time Pointless statement because you are anthropomorphizing the planet. The only way the plan ceases to exist is if we manage to blow it up. Otherwise it's fine. Be more precise in your words. >the ocean is full of trash Again, it's not full. Don't be hyperbolic when convincing someone of an argument. >It simply does not scale to 7.5 billion people There is no evidence of this. The lifestyle of a vegan westerner who does not travel frequently scales extremely well.

knieveltech 9y ago
You're seriously going to attempt to advance the claim there is no evidence to support the assertion that global consumption doesn't sustainably scale to 7.5 billion people in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (you might want to look into Global Warming and the anthropocene mass extinction as a start) and then have the cheek to claim veganism is some kind of magic bullet? I'm guessing you aren't conversant with what percentage of total global consumption of fossil fuels is used by the agricultural industry, either as fertilizer or as part of the sow->harvest->packaging->delivery pipeline. You also really won't enjoy a clear-eyed examination of the impact of the agricultural industry's use of pesticide and herbicides.
- hueving 9y ago
  It's almost as if you didn't read my post. We will be able to sustain our population pretty easily because we can adapt, farm further north, use more energy, etc. If anti-science people would stop blocking nuclear energy then we would have a clear path to low emissions energy for the entire planet. If by 'sustainably' you mean some hand-wavy 'no impact to anything on the planet' then no, we cannot. We will certainly need to farm a lot and that takes land which will displace something. Also, the ecosystem of the planet itself is not sustainable because of the competitive and evolutionary nature of life. Even without humans, animals and plants continually go extinct and have mass extinction events and yet life continues.
  - knieveltech 9y ago
    Your assertions are faith-based unless you have a plan for what we eat when (for example) pollinators go extinct? You cannot simply handwave away a collapsing ecosystem.

knieveltech 9y ago

You're seriously going to attempt to advance the claim there is no evidence to support the assertion that global consumption doesn't sustainably scale to 7.5 billion people in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (you might want to look into Global Warming and the anthropocene mass extinction as a start) and then have the cheek to claim veganism is some kind of magic bullet? I'm guessing you aren't conversant with what percentage of total global consumption of fossil fuels is used by the agricultural industry, either as fertilizer or as part of the sow->harvest->packaging->delivery pipeline. You also really won't enjoy a clear-eyed examination of the impact of the agricultural industry's use of pesticide and herbicides.

hueving 9y ago
It's almost as if you didn't read my post. We will be able to sustain our population pretty easily because we can adapt, farm further north, use more energy, etc. If anti-science people would stop blocking nuclear energy then we would have a clear path to low emissions energy for the entire planet. If by 'sustainably' you mean some hand-wavy 'no impact to anything on the planet' then no, we cannot. We will certainly need to farm a lot and that takes land which will displace something. Also, the ecosystem of the planet itself is not sustainable because of the competitive and evolutionary nature of life. Even without humans, animals and plants continually go extinct and have mass extinction events and yet life continues.
- knieveltech 9y ago
  Your assertions are faith-based unless you have a plan for what we eat when (for example) pollinators go extinct? You cannot simply handwave away a collapsing ecosystem.