4 ms·

> It’s natural and organic and proven process that’s been around for thousands of years. Which is a good example how "natural" and "been around for thousands o

by hannob 6y ago

> It’s natural and organic and proven process that’s been around for thousands of years. Which is a good example how "natural" and "been around for thousands of years" does not equal "is good for the environment".

eznzt 6y ago
Nobody said it does?
- hannob 6y ago
  The top poster seems to imply that these are good things.
  - cccc4all 6y ago
    I am clearly stating that raising cows and livestock for meat are better than industrial crops ground up with food coloring and odd shapes. Eating cow and livestock meat is better for people and environment.
    - Falling3 6y ago
      Ah yes. The well-known environmental impact of rectangular shaped foodstuffs. Seriously, this amounts to nothing more than a Naturalistic Fallacy.
cccc4all 6y ago
Cows and livestock are great for environment. They eat plants and clear vegetation and the poop converts to nutrients in soil. People should demand and buy better meat from better farms with better practices.
- xsmasher 6y ago
  The type of meat production you are talking about is not typical or representative of the industry.
- Falling3 6y ago
  There is no way to satisfy the growing demand for meat in a way that is not damaging to the environment. And that's leaving aside any questions of ethics for the animals themselves.
  - sixstringtheory 6y ago
    What about pricing in all externalities and letting the price equilibrium find a natural state be removing subsidies? People will only buy what they can afford.
    - Falling3 6y ago
      That would certainly be a potential solution for the environmental issues. I still don't find it to be ethical for the individuals being farmed.
  - bearbawl 6y ago
    There is no way to satisfy the growing in a way that is not damaging to the environment. And that’s leaving aside any questions of ethics themselves.
    - Falling3 6y ago
      Sorry, I'm not following what you were trying to do there. Are you trying to bring this back around to human population growth?
      - bearbawl 6y ago
        Exactly. I think we’re way too much and this is the part that is not sustainable. Unfortunately it’s apparently way more trendy to become vegan than to say we’re simply too much.
        Falling3 6y ago
        I became a vegan 15 years ago because I couldn't morally justify the unnecessary raising and killing other individuals. You may not agree, but writing that decision off as "trendy" is more than a bit condescending. Every study I've seen on the Earth's carrying capacity came to the conclusion that we could support at least a few more billion humans. So why you believe it's more correct to say we have a population problem than a consumption problem?
- drewg123 6y ago
  The ever growing demand for meat is a leading cause of deforestation. Forests remove far more CO2 than grasslands (think 3 dimensions vs 2 dimensions). Cows require orders of magnitude more land to be devoted to them than plant based food, simply due to the inefficiencies of the sunlight -> plant -> meat -> food production process. If you cut the middle-man out (meat), then the process becomes orders of magnitude more efficient. This reminds me that if by "better farms with better practices" you mean free-range type farms, then they are actually far worse for the environment because they are less efficient. Eg, you need more land per pound of meat produced. Cows also produce vast quantities of methane, which is a leading greenhouse gas. The quickest way to slow down global warming would be to cease livestock farming entirely. Watch the documentary "Cowspiricy" (https://www.netflix.com/title/80033772 https://www.netflix.com/title/80033772) Or for a shorter view, Mark Rober's "Feeding Bill Gates Fake Burger (to save the world) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-V3ESHcfA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-V3ESHcfA
bearbawl 6y ago
First of all, I’m pretty sure animals live there, in the « environment ». And animals eat animals, in this « environment ». As far as tv documentaries present this to me (sorry I’ve never been in the real nature in the real life), it’s not « induced ». The question then is more about how much we eat, what do we consider « ok » to eat, how many are we, and how do we farm to sustain all this.
mytailorisrich 6y ago
In itself it's neither good nor bad for the environment. In fact some ecosystems depend on the vegetation being kept in check by herbivores so arguably keeping at least some cattle in those ecosystems is 'good' for the environment. The problem is the scale, which is also a problem with the industrial growing of crops and industrial fishing. In rich countries we probably eat too much meat both for our health and for the impact on the environment, but the bottom line is that feeding 8 billion people and counting, who are getting richer globally, is going to hit the environment hard. IMHO, the best way to reduce meat consumption is to ban subsidies and to increase regulatory quality standards, which would make prices go up significantly. But that's politically unpalatable.
wtetzner 6y ago
Are we convinced growing these crops are good for the environment? Not to mention how terrible plant-based “meats” are for your health.
- bearbawl 6y ago
  I’m actually pretty sure anything we do too much is bad somehow. The question is more around the « too much » than around what we do.
- hannob 6y ago
  > Are we convinced growing these crops are good for the environment? They don't have to be good, just less bad than producing meat. It is almost impossible to create any food that has a larger impact than beef [1]. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
- redisman 6y ago
  What do you think the meat machines / cows are fed with? Even more of the same crops but with a high percentage of loss of calories since they only transform a small part of it into edible meat
  - wtetzner 6y ago
    Calories aren't the only metric by which to measure food.
alacombe 6y ago
7 billions homo sapiens sapiens is not good for the environment either, so you should welcome war, genocides, pandemic and anything reducing its population.

by hannob 6y ago

eznzt 6y ago

Nobody said it does?

hannob 6y ago
The top poster seems to imply that these are good things.
- cccc4all 6y ago
  I am clearly stating that raising cows and livestock for meat are better than industrial crops ground up with food coloring and odd shapes. Eating cow and livestock meat is better for people and environment.
  - Falling3 6y ago
    Ah yes. The well-known environmental impact of rectangular shaped foodstuffs. Seriously, this amounts to nothing more than a Naturalistic Fallacy.

cccc4all 6y ago

Cows and livestock are great for environment. They eat plants and clear vegetation and the poop converts to nutrients in soil. People should demand and buy better meat from better farms with better practices.

xsmasher 6y ago
The type of meat production you are talking about is not typical or representative of the industry.
Falling3 6y ago
There is no way to satisfy the growing demand for meat in a way that is not damaging to the environment. And that's leaving aside any questions of ethics for the animals themselves.
- sixstringtheory 6y ago
  What about pricing in all externalities and letting the price equilibrium find a natural state be removing subsidies? People will only buy what they can afford.
  - Falling3 6y ago
    That would certainly be a potential solution for the environmental issues. I still don't find it to be ethical for the individuals being farmed.
- bearbawl 6y ago
  There is no way to satisfy the growing in a way that is not damaging to the environment. And that’s leaving aside any questions of ethics themselves.
  - Falling3 6y ago
    Sorry, I'm not following what you were trying to do there. Are you trying to bring this back around to human population growth?
    - bearbawl 6y ago
      Exactly. I think we’re way too much and this is the part that is not sustainable. Unfortunately it’s apparently way more trendy to become vegan than to say we’re simply too much.
      - Falling3 6y ago
        I became a vegan 15 years ago because I couldn't morally justify the unnecessary raising and killing other individuals. You may not agree, but writing that decision off as "trendy" is more than a bit condescending. Every study I've seen on the Earth's carrying capacity came to the conclusion that we could support at least a few more billion humans. So why you believe it's more correct to say we have a population problem than a consumption problem?
drewg123 6y ago
The ever growing demand for meat is a leading cause of deforestation. Forests remove far more CO2 than grasslands (think 3 dimensions vs 2 dimensions). Cows require orders of magnitude more land to be devoted to them than plant based food, simply due to the inefficiencies of the sunlight -> plant -> meat -> food production process. If you cut the middle-man out (meat), then the process becomes orders of magnitude more efficient. This reminds me that if by "better farms with better practices" you mean free-range type farms, then they are actually far worse for the environment because they are less efficient. Eg, you need more land per pound of meat produced. Cows also produce vast quantities of methane, which is a leading greenhouse gas. The quickest way to slow down global warming would be to cease livestock farming entirely. Watch the documentary "Cowspiricy" (https://www.netflix.com/title/80033772 https://www.netflix.com/title/80033772) Or for a shorter view, Mark Rober's "Feeding Bill Gates Fake Burger (to save the world) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-V3ESHcfA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-V3ESHcfA

bearbawl 6y ago

First of all, I’m pretty sure animals live there, in the « environment ». And animals eat animals, in this « environment ». As far as tv documentaries present this to me (sorry I’ve never been in the real nature in the real life), it’s not « induced ». The question then is more about how much we eat, what do we consider « ok » to eat, how many are we, and how do we farm to sustain all this.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

In itself it's neither good nor bad for the environment. In fact some ecosystems depend on the vegetation being kept in check by herbivores so arguably keeping at least some cattle in those ecosystems is 'good' for the environment. The problem is the scale, which is also a problem with the industrial growing of crops and industrial fishing. In rich countries we probably eat too much meat both for our health and for the impact on the environment, but the bottom line is that feeding 8 billion people and counting, who are getting richer globally, is going to hit the environment hard. IMHO, the best way to reduce meat consumption is to ban subsidies and to increase regulatory quality standards, which would make prices go up significantly. But that's politically unpalatable.

wtetzner 6y ago

Are we convinced growing these crops are good for the environment? Not to mention how terrible plant-based “meats” are for your health.

bearbawl 6y ago
I’m actually pretty sure anything we do too much is bad somehow. The question is more around the « too much » than around what we do.
hannob 6y ago
> Are we convinced growing these crops are good for the environment? They don't have to be good, just less bad than producing meat. It is almost impossible to create any food that has a larger impact than beef [1]. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
redisman 6y ago
What do you think the meat machines / cows are fed with? Even more of the same crops but with a high percentage of loss of calories since they only transform a small part of it into edible meat
- wtetzner 6y ago
  Calories aren't the only metric by which to measure food.

alacombe 6y ago

7 billions homo sapiens sapiens is not good for the environment either, so you should welcome war, genocides, pandemic and anything reducing its population.