3 ms·

> I would love to see something, anything that validates that claim as it is wildly at odds with everything I have seen. This article talks about and links to

> I would love to see something, anything that validates that claim as it is wildly at odds with everything I have seen. This article talks about and links to a paper discussing: https://qz.com/1131428/if-the-entire-us-went-vegan-itd-be-a-public-health-disaster/ https://qz.com/1131428/if-the-entire-us-went-vegan-itd-be-a-... Their estimate was a 2.6% reduction. > You made a typo, you meant increased. I was thinking of beef consumption. Of course, consumption of poultry has increased. Which is supposedly the "healthy" option. https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/01/2018-will-see-high-meat-consumption-us-american-diet-shifting https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/01/2018-will-see-high-meat-con...

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Interesting your first article also links to studies estimating much more CO2 stems from animal agriculture. The article's premise that a vegan switch would be catastrophic for nutrition seems to assume we'll not change crops grown. Nor even reduce amount grown despite now having an additional 23% food surplus in mainly corn and soy. Then estimate 2.6% on those assumptions in their model. Those are some very strange leaps. People will absolutely change their diet to suit, as would manufacturers, and we'd gradually change to a different balance of crops to achieve balanced nutrition. Nor would we expect to just keep on running a 25% surplus indefinitely.
- papatowel 8y ago
  Those are a lot of assumptions you're making. Why don't you link to something that you've based what you're saying on. I have provided some justification for everything I've said and you're just blustering on.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    No assumptions, it's in the paper you linked. They are basing on all land currently used for livestock farming being converted to human food crops. As the article itself notes that results in a significant over production of food: "The sheer amount of food we had available to eat increased by 23%." While interesting, that would not happen for long in the real world or prices would fall and farmers go bankrupt. Or perhaps a new export opportunity and some farmers elsewhere would go under.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Interesting your first article also links to studies estimating much more CO2 stems from animal agriculture. The article's premise that a vegan switch would be catastrophic for nutrition seems to assume we'll not change crops grown. Nor even reduce amount grown despite now having an additional 23% food surplus in mainly corn and soy. Then estimate 2.6% on those assumptions in their model. Those are some very strange leaps. People will absolutely change their diet to suit, as would manufacturers, and we'd gradually change to a different balance of crops to achieve balanced nutrition. Nor would we expect to just keep on running a 25% surplus indefinitely.

papatowel 8y ago
Those are a lot of assumptions you're making. Why don't you link to something that you've based what you're saying on. I have provided some justification for everything I've said and you're just blustering on.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  No assumptions, it's in the paper you linked. They are basing on all land currently used for livestock farming being converted to human food crops. As the article itself notes that results in a significant over production of food: "The sheer amount of food we had available to eat increased by 23%." While interesting, that would not happen for long in the real world or prices would fall and farmers go bankrupt. Or perhaps a new export opportunity and some farmers elsewhere would go under.