6 ms·

Do you know what fraction of world calories that type of land is? Otherwise this objection is a case of 'an edge case exists, and I would like you to imagine t

Do you know what fraction of world calories that type of land is? Otherwise this objection is a case of 'an edge case exists, and I would like you to imagine that it is the major determining factor.'

eitland 7y ago
What I am saying is you can kiss goodbye to everything except fruit, potatoes and some easy vegetables on good fields in Norway (except central East Coast and Trøndelag, they have somewhat better conditions). Fruit will be hit or miss in a lot of places and will only be an option in southern parts of the country anyways. Same goes for a number of other places in the world. As I pointed out from the start, the efficiency gained by growing plant food for humans instead of food for animals elsewhere in the world might more than compensate for this, -but going hardcore vegan will reduce global food production compared to a mixed approach. It will also erase a lot of culture and landscapes that depend on active animal farming, but who cares?
- conjectures 7y ago
  I hear what you're saying. The difficulty is that you're another non quant trying to make a general argument and failing. I'll spell out what a strong argument for the point you're trying to make might look like: A) An estimate of the total number of calories coming from purely grazed meat on this sort of land. B) An estimate of the total number of calories of meat consumed. C) A/B > 3/4.
  - eitland 7y ago
    I think I did better than your quant way :-) Without having to resort to any kind of estimates[0] I have demonstrated for anyone interested that a purely vegan alternative will render lots of land unproductive, so - even given an optimal use of the rest of the land - you will still leave unused resources on the table. I can go deeper into this subject, but I think this will suffice for now. And: I'm all for reducing consumption and waste, and actually enjoy the reduce-reuse-part of the reduce-reuse-recycle-idea so this shouldn't be seen as a defense for overconsumption, bad farming practices or anything but rather an attempt to bring some realism into this thread. [0]:really my only given is that not all land is usable for effective production of anything except grass.
    - conjectures 7y ago
      > lots of land. How much in comparison to farming generally? You're attempting a bait and switch: 1) Claim veganism is bad because it would reduce output if everyone switched now. 2) Claim veganism is bad because it would reduce output at the margin of an optimal policy. These two things are quite different scenarios. Scenario 2) is tacitly accepting that most people would be vegan most of the time. But hey, if you want to argue that under both our optimal policies there would be many more plant eaters, fine by me.
      - eitland 7y ago
        > How much in comparison to farming generally? This has already been answered elsewhere in this discussion. > You're attempting a bait and switch: 1) Claim veganism is bad because it would reduce output if everyone switched now. 2) Claim veganism is bad because it would reduce output at the margin of an optimal policy. I'm not doing a bait and switch. Here is what I wrote: 1.) in a sibling thread before this one: > So maybe your idea would work in a more temperate climate. And maybe it would provide extra food for people further north, but it would mean a lot of land that cannot be used for anything but pastures would go out of use. 2.) On top of this thread: > I'm not saying this is not possible. But I am saying - as someone who has grown up on a farm and studied farming - that it might be somewhat more complicated. I write that in reply to you writing a comment in support of this comment: > Yeah, and the vast amounts of land used to grow those things can be redirected to other things that humans can eat. > I have no idea why otherwise smart people get such a brain block on the topic of meat-eating. These "gotcha" points fall apart if you take 10 seconds to think about it. Back to your claim of bait and switch : It is more like as I proceed down the thread I get more and more specific to make my point easier to understand. I still stand by my original claim. My point is that while vast areas can be repurposed other vast areas cannot. I point out early on that it might be possible anyway. I also claim that like a lot of other topics it isn't something you can understand in ten seconds like the comment you supported seems to claim.
        conjectures 7y ago
        So, now you've had a chance to 'get more and more specific' (sic.), this is my understanding of your understanding of an optimal food production policy: 1. Vegan food production wherever possible. 2. Non-vegan food where vegan food is not possible (the Norwegian uplands case). Is that correct? Or would you like to finesse things any more?

Do you know what fraction of world calories that type of land is? Otherwise this objection is a case of 'an edge case exists, and I would like you to imagine that it is the major determining factor.'

eitland 7y ago

What I am saying is you can kiss goodbye to everything except fruit, potatoes and some easy vegetables on good fields in Norway (except central East Coast and Trøndelag, they have somewhat better conditions). Fruit will be hit or miss in a lot of places and will only be an option in southern parts of the country anyways. Same goes for a number of other places in the world. As I pointed out from the start, the efficiency gained by growing plant food for humans instead of food for animals elsewhere in the world might more than compensate for this, -but going hardcore vegan will reduce global food production compared to a mixed approach. It will also erase a lot of culture and landscapes that depend on active animal farming, but who cares?

conjectures 7y ago
I hear what you're saying. The difficulty is that you're another non quant trying to make a general argument and failing. I'll spell out what a strong argument for the point you're trying to make might look like: A) An estimate of the total number of calories coming from purely grazed meat on this sort of land. B) An estimate of the total number of calories of meat consumed. C) A/B > 3/4.
- eitland 7y ago
  I think I did better than your quant way :-) Without having to resort to any kind of estimates[0] I have demonstrated for anyone interested that a purely vegan alternative will render lots of land unproductive, so - even given an optimal use of the rest of the land - you will still leave unused resources on the table. I can go deeper into this subject, but I think this will suffice for now. And: I'm all for reducing consumption and waste, and actually enjoy the reduce-reuse-part of the reduce-reuse-recycle-idea so this shouldn't be seen as a defense for overconsumption, bad farming practices or anything but rather an attempt to bring some realism into this thread. [0]:really my only given is that not all land is usable for effective production of anything except grass.
  - conjectures 7y ago
    > lots of land. How much in comparison to farming generally? You're attempting a bait and switch: 1) Claim veganism is bad because it would reduce output if everyone switched now. 2) Claim veganism is bad because it would reduce output at the margin of an optimal policy. These two things are quite different scenarios. Scenario 2) is tacitly accepting that most people would be vegan most of the time. But hey, if you want to argue that under both our optimal policies there would be many more plant eaters, fine by me.
    - eitland 7y ago
      > How much in comparison to farming generally? This has already been answered elsewhere in this discussion. > You're attempting a bait and switch: 1) Claim veganism is bad because it would reduce output if everyone switched now. 2) Claim veganism is bad because it would reduce output at the margin of an optimal policy. I'm not doing a bait and switch. Here is what I wrote: 1.) in a sibling thread before this one: > So maybe your idea would work in a more temperate climate. And maybe it would provide extra food for people further north, but it would mean a lot of land that cannot be used for anything but pastures would go out of use. 2.) On top of this thread: > I'm not saying this is not possible. But I am saying - as someone who has grown up on a farm and studied farming - that it might be somewhat more complicated. I write that in reply to you writing a comment in support of this comment: > Yeah, and the vast amounts of land used to grow those things can be redirected to other things that humans can eat. > I have no idea why otherwise smart people get such a brain block on the topic of meat-eating. These "gotcha" points fall apart if you take 10 seconds to think about it. Back to your claim of bait and switch : It is more like as I proceed down the thread I get more and more specific to make my point easier to understand. I still stand by my original claim. My point is that while vast areas can be repurposed other vast areas cannot. I point out early on that it might be possible anyway. I also claim that like a lot of other topics it isn't something you can understand in ten seconds like the comment you supported seems to claim.
      - conjectures 7y ago
        So, now you've had a chance to 'get more and more specific' (sic.), this is my understanding of your understanding of an optimal food production policy: 1. Vegan food production wherever possible. 2. Non-vegan food where vegan food is not possible (the Norwegian uplands case). Is that correct? Or would you like to finesse things any more?