10 ms·

50% of habitable land on earth is taken up by agriculture, 77% of which is used for meat & diary (including the crops grown for livestock to eat), which contrib

50% of habitable land on earth is taken up by agriculture, 77% of which is used for meat & diary (including the crops grown for livestock to eat), which contributes only 18% to the global calorie supply because of the inefficiency of animal products: https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets I wonder how much of an impact it would have to return the land used by meat & diary to nature (40 million km^2 out of the 104 million km^2 of habitable land, minus some for more crops for humans). Wild animals would have more of chance, they'd be more forests to capture more carbon, and industrial animal farming wouldn't be polluting the planet with carbon, methane and waste products that are contributing to climate change. I don't know a practical solution to the above, but people are in denial about how much damage animal farming is doing globally and the insane scale of it (about 70 billion animals are used for food each year). The general attitudes of "well, people are never going to reduce their use of animal products to help so..." and "lab based meat will save us at some point in the future and then I'll probably switch if they're indistinguible from real meat" is depressing. We're running out of time.

chongli 6y ago
I think these figures are pretty misleading. First of all, they only look at calories, not protein. If you wanted to replace all the meat and dairy with equivalent protein substitutes you’d be looking at huge amounts of land for growing soybeans, peanuts, tree nuts. Replace all the milk with almond milk and you’re still dealing with huge water and land use for a product that has inferior protein and nutrients. Second of all, you can raise livestock like cattle, sheep, and goats on extremely rough terrain. Good luck growing soybeans on a bunch of jagged cliffs. Those areas may be highly inefficient in terms of land area per gram of protein, but it’s not going to be productive farmland otherwise.
- latch 6y ago
  Saying that someone's figures are misleading because the alternative is "huge" isn't a compelling argument. What's the amount? How much does it depend on the crop? What about rice and lentils? Why almond milk? Why not another alternative? Why do we need milk at current quantities at all?
- seanwilson 6y ago
  > I think these figures are pretty misleading. First of all, they only look at calories, not protein. See the link - 63% of the global protein supply already comes from crops while crops only make up 23% of agriculture land so meat isn't as efficient a source anyway: https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets > If you wanted to replace all the meat and dairy with equivalent protein substitutes you’d be looking at huge amounts of land for growing soybeans, peanuts, tree nuts Most livestock aren't eating grass though, they're eating crops like soy because soy is full of protein (and that land use is included in the 40 million km^2 figure). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean "Around 80% of the global soybean crop is used to feed livestock.[46] Soya imports represent 47% of Europe’s deforestation footprint" > Replace all the milk with almond milk Or rice milk, oat milk, or soy milk. When cows are eating soybeans to produce milk right now, soy milk is always going to be more efficient. Plant based milks are all significantly more efficient than diary milk for emissions, land and water use too: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46654042 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46654042 Also, the focus on protein is just a distraction. It's not difficult to get protein from plants alone and most Americans eat too much protein already: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/well/eat/how-much-protein-do-we-need.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/well/eat/how-much-protein... "Most American adults eat about 100 grams of protein per day, or roughly twice the recommended amount." > Good luck growing soybeans on a bunch of jagged cliffs. If we were only farming grass fed cows on jagged cliffs, it would be less of a problem compared to mass deforestation to grow soybeans to feed to cows in intensive farms. The latter is the reality right now for everyone to have access to cheap meat but it's not sustainable.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- edjrage 6y ago
  > If you wanted to replace all the meat and dairy with equivalent protein substitutes you’d be looking at huge amounts of land for growing soybeans, peanuts, tree nuts In addition to the other replies, I'd like to point out that insect farming is an often overlooked solution. But of course it's just not sexy enough for most westerners. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: > Edible insects contain high quality protein, vitamins and amino acids for humans. Insects have a high food conversion rate, e.g. crickets need six times less feed than cattle, four times less than sheep, and twice less than pigs and broiler chickens to produce the same amount of protein. Besides, they emit less greenhouse gases and ammonia than conventional livestock. Insects can be grown on organic waste. Therefore, insects are a potential source for conventional production (mini-livestock) of protein, either for direct human consumption, or indirectly in recomposed foods (with extracted protein from insects); and as a protein source into feedstock mixtures. http://www.fao.org/edible-insects/en/ http://www.fao.org/edible-insects/en/
  - seanwilson 6y ago
    > In addition to the other replies, I'd like to point out that insect farming is an often overlooked solution. What is the actual problem that needs a solution though? I feel like "but where will we get our protein from?" is a common fallacy on the subject of meat that people accept without evidence. We're eating more meat now than ever and most Americans eat too much protein: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/well/eat/how-much-protein https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/well/eat/how-much-protein... "Most American adults eat about 100 grams of protein per day, or roughly twice the recommended amount."
    - toxik 6y ago
      Who recommends 50 grams of protein per day? That’s way too little for an adult male.
      - seanwilson 6y ago
        NHS for one: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/body-building-sports-supplements-facts/ https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/body-building-spor... > The Department of Health advises adults to avoid consuming more than twice the recommended daily intake of protein (55.5g for men and 45g for women). https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/what-are-reference-intakes-on-food-labels/ https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/what-are-reference-int... > Protein: 50g Also, not that it's hard to get protein with plants anyway, but if you're really concerned with getting lots of protein, look into making seitan: https://www.menshealth.com/uk/nutrition/food-drink/a25976250/steak-seitan-which-is-better/ https://www.menshealth.com/uk/nutrition/food-drink/a25976250... > Steak (25g protein per 100g) > Seitan (75g protein per 100g) Its main component is wheat flour with everything washed away but the gluten so it's super cheap to produce and make. I think "you need meat for protein" is just a persistent meme/myth people cling on to to justify eating meat. Where do people think the animals are getting their protein from?
- danimal88 6y ago
  As I understand it, humans are overconsuming proteins
- atweiden 6y ago
  > I think these figures are pretty misleading. First of all, they only look at calories, not protein. If you wanted to replace all the meat and dairy with equivalent protein substitutes you’d be looking at huge amounts of land for growing soybeans, peanuts, tree nuts. Replace all the milk with almond milk and you’re still dealing with huge water and land use for a product that has inferior protein and nutrients. I don't follow — I get my protein mostly from grains and a small amount of legumes. In Australia, about 2/3rds of all crop production is grown as animal feed, and 90% of the food given to farmed chickens and pigs are grains [1]. > Second of all, you can raise livestock like cattle, sheep, and goats on extremely rough terrain. Good luck growing soybeans on a bunch of jagged cliffs. Those areas may be highly inefficient in terms of land area per gram of protein, but it’s not going to be productive farmland otherwise. And you can grow crops inside vertical farms within urban areas. [1] https://www.veganaustralia.org.au/impact_of_a_vegan_agricultural_system_on_land_use https://www.veganaustralia.org.au/impact_of_a_vegan_agricult...
- adrianN 6y ago
  You can raise livestock on rough terrain, but the vast majority of the world's livestock is not raised like that. Meat prices would explode if we did that. You don't have to ban all meat to get most of the effect, not everyone has to become vegan. Livestock are part of a healthy agriculture; for example by turning waste into manure. Grazing is also important for maintaining certain biomes. What we need to stop is industrial meat production. Americans eat nearly 100kg of meat per year. How about we reduce that to 25kg like in Turkey for a start. That's still a steak per week.
  - lrem 6y ago
    Switzerland does a lot of raising livestock near mountaintops and I think none of the cows in boxes factory farming. Prices of beef in shops seem to not exceed $100/kg, for most cuts hover around $50/kg ($22.5/pound). How does that compare?
- unicornporn 6y ago
  Inefficiency of meat and dairy production and land use were major arguments for switching to a vegan diet (when I did so) 20 years ago. Others have chimed in with data, so here's today's anecdotal evidence: today I'm surrounded by fields and farmland. Fields make up roughly 60% of land. 20% of this land houses cattle and 80% grows barley which no human will ever consume. It's only grown for the cattle I think it comes as no surprise that less land could produce more food for humans if the crops didn't have to pass through the cattle. Some farmers not far from here are growing quinoa. It has a very good nutritional profile and offers a more effective use of land.
- cranekam 6y ago
  A bunch of people have said it already but I have to add my voice in the hope the message is heard: humans don't need tons of protein. Most sources list less than a gram per kilo of bodyweight per day, e.g.: https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients-food-and-ingredients/protein.html https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients-food... It's quite easy to achieve this with a no or low animal product diet. I don't know for sure but I expect the obsession with protein is down to carbohydrates being demonised in the last couple of decades of fad diets (much as fat was before that).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
playingchanges 6y ago
Surely a portion of grazing land is also habitat to a significant amount of wildlife. Whereas large mono crops leave no room for competition and result in much death in the automated processing of crops. Not a lot of great options with billions of people to feed.
- rbg246 6y ago
  I think you are right, there are only nuanced, localised level solutions to this issue. But to not address the parent's issue is really not an option.
- analog31 6y ago
  True, but we could grow less acreage of mono crops if we weren't feeding livestock.
- _jahh 6y ago
  most beef is not grazed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_Animal_Feeding_Operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_Animal_Feeding_Op...
ubertoop 6y ago
The unfortunate reality is that mankind as we know it, probably developed to the level it did, in part due to the consumption of meat. Meat is absolutely PACKED with bioavailable nutrients in a way that most plant products simply aren't. Add to that, the growing evidence that much of the plant material we're eating may have inflammatory side effects of consumption. The point I am making is that a solution isn't a solution if it means getting rid of one of the most dense forms of nutrition we have.
- rbg246 6y ago
  From all the history I have read of civilisation, it's been grain that has been the foundation of human society as we know it, meat couldn't get us anywhere. Meat eating among the poor in European societies and derived societies is a new phenomenon at least in the idea that every meal has meat in it. Take a look outside of Europe or even within less wealthy areas of Europe and their diets are magnitudes lower in their meat consumption. I've read the opposite re: inflammatory side effects of meat that we are discovering. WHO a few years ago put eating sulfite infested meat as being carcinogenic.
  - _jahh 6y ago
    its appropriate both you and op can be right in that he said meat was essential for mankind and you say grain is foundation for society. grain was the way civilization was enforced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Grain:_A_Deep_History_of_the_Earliest_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Grain:_A_Deep_Hist...
    - rbg246 6y ago
      'The unfortunate reality is that mankind as we know it' The only was I can read that quote is mankind as we know it is the grain society that was enforced you point out.
      - toxik 6y ago
        Right but then there is the theory that cooked meat is responsible for our big brains and upright gait. That’s kinda defining for our species.
solinent 6y ago
Animal farming simply doesn't have to be so destructive. There's a simple solution to a simple problem. Look at New Zeland, regenerative agriculture. By allowing cattle to eat grass instead of grain (ha) we can avoid using pesticide and actually increase biodiversity, while planting trees as well. This increases carbon sequestration and has plenty of other benefits to the local wildlife. In fact, it can have a positive carbon impact (well, negative, but you catch my drift). In short, the solution: buy grass-fed or pasture raised animals.
- seanwilson 6y ago
  > In short, the solution: buy grass-fed or pasture raised animals. It's worth noting though that for this to work we'd need to eat less meat and pay more for it because grass-fed takes much more land. The reason we have industrial animal farms with soy fed cattle is we need so much meat and we want it cheap (and countries that used to eat less meat want more meat as they get richer).
  - burlesona 6y ago
    Seems like that would be a fine compromise. This is a frequent paradox of industrialization: it makes certain things too cheap and that turns out to actually not be good for us. Corn Syrup, as one case in point. Plastic packaging as another. Traffic congestion on roads. Carbon in general. If we were more comfortable pricing in externalities we could accomplish massive societal change in a quick and easy manner without most people even noticing too much. This was done all over the west to mostly eliminate smoking, and I'm surprised it isn't used more often. So, to take your point, pass regulatory reform that only pasture raised cattle with appropriate limits on density etc. to be actually regenerative, and then the price of meat would go up quite a bit, and naturally most people would start to see it as a delicacy and eat less of it (and more importantly, expect less of it).
  - solinent 6y ago
    I've found that I perform way better when I eat well. So that has allowed me to eat more grass-fed meat. I think it's easily possible to do it in a ecologically conscious way if it was something anybody cared about. But they care more about the coast line they're still holding on to that's inevitably eroding. We can also plant trees, it doesn't have to be a traditional farm. If we planted a certain number of conifers we could easily soak up all of that c02 and even convert it into oxygen, if that's your biggest concern.
CamperBob2 6y ago
"lab based meat will save us at some point in the future and then I'll probably switch if they're indistinguible from real meat" Why isn't that the answer? Nobody wants to be out of the animal husbandry business more than the meat producers do. Even if they haven't realized it yet.
- seanwilson 6y ago
  > Why isn't that the answer? Nobody wants to be out of the animal husbandry business more than the meat producers do. Even if they haven't realized it yet. Because lab based meat isn't here yet: - You can't buy it in supermarkets or for cheap, and I haven't heard a realistic timeline for when this is going to change. - Is there going to be realistic lab based cuts of steak, duck, pork and chicken? Whole chickens? Lab based ground beef is one thing but lab based versions of everything the public wants is another. - Beyond burgers and similar are already here which some people say are as good a beef burgers, yet there isn't a stampede to change over by either consumers or manufacturers. Why would lab based meat be different? I can see people demanding the "real thing" on principle. We don't have time to wait when climate change is here now. Lab based meat is not a solution if it takes decades to make an impact. People that say they'll switch from real-meat when lab based meat is here are essentially saying they'll change when they don't have to change anything.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    We don't have time to wait when climate change is here now Yes, we do, and we will. Everything you've said could apply equally to electric vehicles, which people like yourself said were never going to be "the answer" for a hundred different reasons, yet which are, nevertheless, happening. Be patient. Failing that, deal with it.
    - seanwilson 6y ago
      > Yes, we do, and we will. The point is we should be doing something now and adopting lab based meat when it actually arrives, instead of doing nothing and hoping it comes. The catastrophic impact of climate change is coming on the scale of decades - we really don't have time to wait. > which people like yourself said were never going to be "the answer" for a hundred different reasons What a weird thing to write. You don't know anything about what I think of electric vehicles or my wider views.
mtalantikite 6y ago
It’s super frustrating to hear people defend their meat eating as if it has no impact on the world. Or that it’s a requirement for health or it’s the reason why we evolved (both of which don’t seem to be true). It’s one of the easiest and most straightforward changes a person can make to have a positive impact on the environment and their own health. In many ways it reminds me of addiction, with people reacting in the same way any addict would in defense of their toxic habit. The path out of the addiction takes some initial thought and sustained effort (and even a bit of mental and physical withdrawal), but the other side isn’t that hard to get to in this case. Isn’t having compassion for the environment, the animals, and each other worth it though? If you look at it deeply you begin to see how much unnecessary suffering it causes in the world due to how interdependent everything is.

chongli 6y ago

I think these figures are pretty misleading. First of all, they only look at calories, not protein. If you wanted to replace all the meat and dairy with equivalent protein substitutes you’d be looking at huge amounts of land for growing soybeans, peanuts, tree nuts. Replace all the milk with almond milk and you’re still dealing with huge water and land use for a product that has inferior protein and nutrients. Second of all, you can raise livestock like cattle, sheep, and goats on extremely rough terrain. Good luck growing soybeans on a bunch of jagged cliffs. Those areas may be highly inefficient in terms of land area per gram of protein, but it’s not going to be productive farmland otherwise.

latch 6y ago
Saying that someone's figures are misleading because the alternative is "huge" isn't a compelling argument. What's the amount? How much does it depend on the crop? What about rice and lentils? Why almond milk? Why not another alternative? Why do we need milk at current quantities at all?
seanwilson 6y ago
> I think these figures are pretty misleading. First of all, they only look at calories, not protein. See the link - 63% of the global protein supply already comes from crops while crops only make up 23% of agriculture land so meat isn't as efficient a source anyway: https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets > If you wanted to replace all the meat and dairy with equivalent protein substitutes you’d be looking at huge amounts of land for growing soybeans, peanuts, tree nuts Most livestock aren't eating grass though, they're eating crops like soy because soy is full of protein (and that land use is included in the 40 million km^2 figure). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean "Around 80% of the global soybean crop is used to feed livestock.[46] Soya imports represent 47% of Europe’s deforestation footprint" > Replace all the milk with almond milk Or rice milk, oat milk, or soy milk. When cows are eating soybeans to produce milk right now, soy milk is always going to be more efficient. Plant based milks are all significantly more efficient than diary milk for emissions, land and water use too: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46654042 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46654042 Also, the focus on protein is just a distraction. It's not difficult to get protein from plants alone and most Americans eat too much protein already: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/well/eat/how-much-protein-do-we-need.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/well/eat/how-much-protein... "Most American adults eat about 100 grams of protein per day, or roughly twice the recommended amount." > Good luck growing soybeans on a bunch of jagged cliffs. If we were only farming grass fed cows on jagged cliffs, it would be less of a problem compared to mass deforestation to grow soybeans to feed to cows in intensive farms. The latter is the reality right now for everyone to have access to cheap meat but it's not sustainable.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
edjrage 6y ago
> If you wanted to replace all the meat and dairy with equivalent protein substitutes you’d be looking at huge amounts of land for growing soybeans, peanuts, tree nuts In addition to the other replies, I'd like to point out that insect farming is an often overlooked solution. But of course it's just not sexy enough for most westerners. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: > Edible insects contain high quality protein, vitamins and amino acids for humans. Insects have a high food conversion rate, e.g. crickets need six times less feed than cattle, four times less than sheep, and twice less than pigs and broiler chickens to produce the same amount of protein. Besides, they emit less greenhouse gases and ammonia than conventional livestock. Insects can be grown on organic waste. Therefore, insects are a potential source for conventional production (mini-livestock) of protein, either for direct human consumption, or indirectly in recomposed foods (with extracted protein from insects); and as a protein source into feedstock mixtures. http://www.fao.org/edible-insects/en/ http://www.fao.org/edible-insects/en/
- seanwilson 6y ago
  > In addition to the other replies, I'd like to point out that insect farming is an often overlooked solution. What is the actual problem that needs a solution though? I feel like "but where will we get our protein from?" is a common fallacy on the subject of meat that people accept without evidence. We're eating more meat now than ever and most Americans eat too much protein: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/well/eat/how-much-protein https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/well/eat/how-much-protein... "Most American adults eat about 100 grams of protein per day, or roughly twice the recommended amount."
  - toxik 6y ago
    Who recommends 50 grams of protein per day? That’s way too little for an adult male.
    - seanwilson 6y ago
      NHS for one: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/body-building-sports-supplements-facts/ https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/body-building-spor... > The Department of Health advises adults to avoid consuming more than twice the recommended daily intake of protein (55.5g for men and 45g for women). https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/what-are-reference-intakes-on-food-labels/ https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/what-are-reference-int... > Protein: 50g Also, not that it's hard to get protein with plants anyway, but if you're really concerned with getting lots of protein, look into making seitan: https://www.menshealth.com/uk/nutrition/food-drink/a25976250/steak-seitan-which-is-better/ https://www.menshealth.com/uk/nutrition/food-drink/a25976250... > Steak (25g protein per 100g) > Seitan (75g protein per 100g) Its main component is wheat flour with everything washed away but the gluten so it's super cheap to produce and make. I think "you need meat for protein" is just a persistent meme/myth people cling on to to justify eating meat. Where do people think the animals are getting their protein from?
danimal88 6y ago
As I understand it, humans are overconsuming proteins
atweiden 6y ago
> I think these figures are pretty misleading. First of all, they only look at calories, not protein. If you wanted to replace all the meat and dairy with equivalent protein substitutes you’d be looking at huge amounts of land for growing soybeans, peanuts, tree nuts. Replace all the milk with almond milk and you’re still dealing with huge water and land use for a product that has inferior protein and nutrients. I don't follow — I get my protein mostly from grains and a small amount of legumes. In Australia, about 2/3rds of all crop production is grown as animal feed, and 90% of the food given to farmed chickens and pigs are grains [1]. > Second of all, you can raise livestock like cattle, sheep, and goats on extremely rough terrain. Good luck growing soybeans on a bunch of jagged cliffs. Those areas may be highly inefficient in terms of land area per gram of protein, but it’s not going to be productive farmland otherwise. And you can grow crops inside vertical farms within urban areas. [1] https://www.veganaustralia.org.au/impact_of_a_vegan_agricultural_system_on_land_use https://www.veganaustralia.org.au/impact_of_a_vegan_agricult...
adrianN 6y ago
You can raise livestock on rough terrain, but the vast majority of the world's livestock is not raised like that. Meat prices would explode if we did that. You don't have to ban all meat to get most of the effect, not everyone has to become vegan. Livestock are part of a healthy agriculture; for example by turning waste into manure. Grazing is also important for maintaining certain biomes. What we need to stop is industrial meat production. Americans eat nearly 100kg of meat per year. How about we reduce that to 25kg like in Turkey for a start. That's still a steak per week.
- lrem 6y ago
  Switzerland does a lot of raising livestock near mountaintops and I think none of the cows in boxes factory farming. Prices of beef in shops seem to not exceed $100/kg, for most cuts hover around $50/kg ($22.5/pound). How does that compare?
unicornporn 6y ago
Inefficiency of meat and dairy production and land use were major arguments for switching to a vegan diet (when I did so) 20 years ago. Others have chimed in with data, so here's today's anecdotal evidence: today I'm surrounded by fields and farmland. Fields make up roughly 60% of land. 20% of this land houses cattle and 80% grows barley which no human will ever consume. It's only grown for the cattle I think it comes as no surprise that less land could produce more food for humans if the crops didn't have to pass through the cattle. Some farmers not far from here are growing quinoa. It has a very good nutritional profile and offers a more effective use of land.
cranekam 6y ago
A bunch of people have said it already but I have to add my voice in the hope the message is heard: humans don't need tons of protein. Most sources list less than a gram per kilo of bodyweight per day, e.g.: https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients-food-and-ingredients/protein.html https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients-food... It's quite easy to achieve this with a no or low animal product diet. I don't know for sure but I expect the obsession with protein is down to carbohydrates being demonised in the last couple of decades of fad diets (much as fat was before that).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

playingchanges 6y ago

Surely a portion of grazing land is also habitat to a significant amount of wildlife. Whereas large mono crops leave no room for competition and result in much death in the automated processing of crops. Not a lot of great options with billions of people to feed.

rbg246 6y ago
I think you are right, there are only nuanced, localised level solutions to this issue. But to not address the parent's issue is really not an option.
analog31 6y ago
True, but we could grow less acreage of mono crops if we weren't feeding livestock.
_jahh 6y ago
most beef is not grazed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_Animal_Feeding_Operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_Animal_Feeding_Op...

ubertoop 6y ago

The unfortunate reality is that mankind as we know it, probably developed to the level it did, in part due to the consumption of meat. Meat is absolutely PACKED with bioavailable nutrients in a way that most plant products simply aren't. Add to that, the growing evidence that much of the plant material we're eating may have inflammatory side effects of consumption. The point I am making is that a solution isn't a solution if it means getting rid of one of the most dense forms of nutrition we have.

rbg246 6y ago
From all the history I have read of civilisation, it's been grain that has been the foundation of human society as we know it, meat couldn't get us anywhere. Meat eating among the poor in European societies and derived societies is a new phenomenon at least in the idea that every meal has meat in it. Take a look outside of Europe or even within less wealthy areas of Europe and their diets are magnitudes lower in their meat consumption. I've read the opposite re: inflammatory side effects of meat that we are discovering. WHO a few years ago put eating sulfite infested meat as being carcinogenic.
- _jahh 6y ago
  its appropriate both you and op can be right in that he said meat was essential for mankind and you say grain is foundation for society. grain was the way civilization was enforced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Grain:_A_Deep_History_of_the_Earliest_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Grain:_A_Deep_Hist...
  - rbg246 6y ago
    'The unfortunate reality is that mankind as we know it' The only was I can read that quote is mankind as we know it is the grain society that was enforced you point out.
    - toxik 6y ago
      Right but then there is the theory that cooked meat is responsible for our big brains and upright gait. That’s kinda defining for our species.

solinent 6y ago

Animal farming simply doesn't have to be so destructive. There's a simple solution to a simple problem. Look at New Zeland, regenerative agriculture. By allowing cattle to eat grass instead of grain (ha) we can avoid using pesticide and actually increase biodiversity, while planting trees as well. This increases carbon sequestration and has plenty of other benefits to the local wildlife. In fact, it can have a positive carbon impact (well, negative, but you catch my drift). In short, the solution: buy grass-fed or pasture raised animals.

seanwilson 6y ago
> In short, the solution: buy grass-fed or pasture raised animals. It's worth noting though that for this to work we'd need to eat less meat and pay more for it because grass-fed takes much more land. The reason we have industrial animal farms with soy fed cattle is we need so much meat and we want it cheap (and countries that used to eat less meat want more meat as they get richer).
- burlesona 6y ago
  Seems like that would be a fine compromise. This is a frequent paradox of industrialization: it makes certain things too cheap and that turns out to actually not be good for us. Corn Syrup, as one case in point. Plastic packaging as another. Traffic congestion on roads. Carbon in general. If we were more comfortable pricing in externalities we could accomplish massive societal change in a quick and easy manner without most people even noticing too much. This was done all over the west to mostly eliminate smoking, and I'm surprised it isn't used more often. So, to take your point, pass regulatory reform that only pasture raised cattle with appropriate limits on density etc. to be actually regenerative, and then the price of meat would go up quite a bit, and naturally most people would start to see it as a delicacy and eat less of it (and more importantly, expect less of it).
- solinent 6y ago
  I've found that I perform way better when I eat well. So that has allowed me to eat more grass-fed meat. I think it's easily possible to do it in a ecologically conscious way if it was something anybody cared about. But they care more about the coast line they're still holding on to that's inevitably eroding. We can also plant trees, it doesn't have to be a traditional farm. If we planted a certain number of conifers we could easily soak up all of that c02 and even convert it into oxygen, if that's your biggest concern.

CamperBob2 6y ago

"lab based meat will save us at some point in the future and then I'll probably switch if they're indistinguible from real meat" Why isn't that the answer? Nobody wants to be out of the animal husbandry business more than the meat producers do. Even if they haven't realized it yet.

seanwilson 6y ago
> Why isn't that the answer? Nobody wants to be out of the animal husbandry business more than the meat producers do. Even if they haven't realized it yet. Because lab based meat isn't here yet: - You can't buy it in supermarkets or for cheap, and I haven't heard a realistic timeline for when this is going to change. - Is there going to be realistic lab based cuts of steak, duck, pork and chicken? Whole chickens? Lab based ground beef is one thing but lab based versions of everything the public wants is another. - Beyond burgers and similar are already here which some people say are as good a beef burgers, yet there isn't a stampede to change over by either consumers or manufacturers. Why would lab based meat be different? I can see people demanding the "real thing" on principle. We don't have time to wait when climate change is here now. Lab based meat is not a solution if it takes decades to make an impact. People that say they'll switch from real-meat when lab based meat is here are essentially saying they'll change when they don't have to change anything.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  We don't have time to wait when climate change is here now Yes, we do, and we will. Everything you've said could apply equally to electric vehicles, which people like yourself said were never going to be "the answer" for a hundred different reasons, yet which are, nevertheless, happening. Be patient. Failing that, deal with it.
  - seanwilson 6y ago
    > Yes, we do, and we will. The point is we should be doing something now and adopting lab based meat when it actually arrives, instead of doing nothing and hoping it comes. The catastrophic impact of climate change is coming on the scale of decades - we really don't have time to wait. > which people like yourself said were never going to be "the answer" for a hundred different reasons What a weird thing to write. You don't know anything about what I think of electric vehicles or my wider views.

mtalantikite 6y ago

It’s super frustrating to hear people defend their meat eating as if it has no impact on the world. Or that it’s a requirement for health or it’s the reason why we evolved (both of which don’t seem to be true). It’s one of the easiest and most straightforward changes a person can make to have a positive impact on the environment and their own health. In many ways it reminds me of addiction, with people reacting in the same way any addict would in defense of their toxic habit. The path out of the addiction takes some initial thought and sustained effort (and even a bit of mental and physical withdrawal), but the other side isn’t that hard to get to in this case. Isn’t having compassion for the environment, the animals, and each other worth it though? If you look at it deeply you begin to see how much unnecessary suffering it causes in the world due to how interdependent everything is.