10 ms·
Plant-based diet would reduce agricultural land use from 4 to 1B hectares
- cascom 6y agoI’m really sold on the premise that reducing agricultural farmland use is a good thing. It seems one of the best arguments is that it’s a cause of deforestation/bio diversity loss, but it would seem that is primarily driven by urban sprawl, pushing farmland into new areas, rather than a problem specific to agricultural land
- cascom 6y agoLol meant to say I’m NOT really sold...
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoHusbanding the land typically increases its fertility, because animals and nature have evolved simultaneously into a symbiotic relationship. Modern agricultural practices is extremely rough to the land (but getting better). But then again so is modern factory animal raising.
- K0nserv 6y agoProbably one of my own more controversial opinions is an extreme tax on red meat, not unlike the Australian tax on tobaco. This seems entirely possible in particular because tobaco is fraught with the issues around addiction which isn't an issue with meat. I would aim for a tax that makes red meat 7 times more expensive over time. This is based on the idea that most peopple eat meat 7 times a week and by making it 7 times more expensive it would force most people to move to a healthier once a week diet. The money could be earmarked towards efforts to help people eat a healthy and balanced diet that is mostly plant based. Or it could be used towards investment into lab grown meat. Of course I don't expect anyone would ever get elected in a decomracy on this platform so I suppose it'll have to remain only a thought experiment. EDIT: I don't think I expressed myself as clearly as I should've so I'd like to offer two clarifications: 1. I wouldn't propose a 7x increase over night. Instead, much like the Australian tobaco tax, it would be gradual increase(e.g. yearly). 2. I suspect that this tax existing and some of it being invested in lab grown meat research would accelerate how quickly we could have widely available lab grown meat.
- Number157 6y agoMaking food prohibitively expensive is not cool. Leave what other people eat alone. >:-|
- K0nserv 6y agoAnother excellent use of the tax money from this could be subsidising non-meat foods which makes more food cheaper. Anecdotally my own experience switching to a diet with less meat is that food costs have gone down.
- Pfhreak 6y agoRed meat is a luxury item, isn't it? What the parent poster is suggesting is similar to a soda tax or cigarette tax.
- Number157 6y agoIt's food and food should never be a luxury. Historically it has often been a luxury unfortunately.
- xirbeosbwo1234 6y agoHousing is a necessity. Everyone has a right to housing by virtue of being human. No one has a right to a penthouse. Red meat is not a necessity any more than caviar or Scotch whisky. People eat meat because they like it, not because they need it.
- Pfhreak 6y agoAre all food items necessities? I don't know, maybe? Are ice cream, trans fats, soda, candy, filet mignon, alcohol, etc. not luxuries? I empathize with the position that any tax on a food item will disproportionally impact the poor. And I agree, everyone should have a baseline level of housing and food accessible to them regardless of their circumstances. But if a food item has huge negative externalities, surely we should do something to limit its appeal and consumption, right?
- 0xB31B1B 6y agoI don’t think this will be an issue in 25 years. Artificial meats like impossible meat, and lab grown meats are going to become better tasting than the real thing within our lifetimes. People will change from eating animals to plants/lab grown meat because it tastes better.
- Cthulhu_ 6y agoI really dislike this focus on 'artificial' meats, instead of diversifying diets. For some reason there's still a trope that vegetarian meal options are depressing salads. Try something that isn't a hamburger. I can recommend curries, they have more flavor than any burger you've had. (also re: flavor, most flavor in meat comes from seasoning anyway, it's the textures and fat content that the meat replacements can't get quite right yet)
- 0xB31B1B 6y agoMy main point is, before the invention of the steam engine, land transit speeds were basically governed by laws of animal husbandry. After the steam engine, we went from slow rail roads to rocket ships in 100 years. Right now, the quality of the meats/proteins we consume is governed by the laws of animal husbandry. We have already developed the first lab grown meats for human consumption (first steam engine), and things are going to accelerate rather quickly from here until artificial meats are clearly superior in taste and quality as they are not governed by animal husbandry but rather human ingenuity and biochemistry.
- phkahler 6y agoWhen I was a kid there were between 3 and 3.5 billion humans on earth. Population control would also help these kinds of problems, but people really dont like to talk about that. For some reason it's ok to criticize someone's eating habits, but not their reproductive ones.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> Population control would also help these kinds of problems, but people really dont like to talk about that It's not a problem in the developed world. And it's not a problem in the best organized of the developing. So population control would amount to developed nations regulating poor nations' populations' reproduction, which is a difficult campaign to run on.
- Number157 6y ago> For some reason it's ok to criticize someone's eating habits, but not their reproductive ones. For some reason yes... like remember the guy with the funny looking mustache? The problem is everyone who makes some form of this argument tends to think it's the other people there should be fewer of.
- Cthulhu_ 6y agoFirst, there's a difference between population control and genocide, but I'm sure you're aware of that. Anyway your other point is great: the rich and socialist countries are naturally controlling the population by reduced birth rates, so when someone mentions a comment like that they specifically mean poor and / or brown people. To get 'natural' population reduction, we need a worldwide policy of wealth, health care, and sexual education. For the last point, it's important to note that it requires deprogramming. To be very blunt, the Catholic Church has brainwashed generations to reproduce as much as they can. That damage has to be undone.
- qiqing 6y agoExcerpt from the article: > This is an important insight from this research: cutting out beef and dairy (by substituting chicken, eggs, fish or plant-based food) has a much larger impact than eliminating chicken or fish. My intuition is that this harm reduction is surprisingly doable for most omnivores, because it doesn't require going full vegan. Or going on a harm reduction meal plan on, say, all weekdays would make 80% of the difference.
- mint2 6y agoActually this is a good path to becoming vegan/vegetarian for some people. Eliminating all the meats as options for core components of dishes all at once is a radical and major change. Eliminating just a couple of them, ie beef or red meat, getting used to it and probably learning a couple veggie main dishes to replace the variety makes the next step easier. Then cut back on a next meat or dairy item once the first step became normal. Repeat. This worked for me, and at the start I didn’t even think I’d go all the way. I just wanted to stop eating red meat since it seemed the least efficient.
- Cthulhu_ 6y agonote: "habitable land" (as described in the summary) is not the same as "arable land" that can readily be used for agriculture. A lot of land currently used for rearing animals is pretty poor soil. It seems to imply that right now we CAN'T grow enough vegetables because the animals take up all the space. This is not true. It's a matter of supply and demand; there is enough supply for vegetables on the market at the moment, so instead land is used for soy and animals / animal feed, because that's what the market wants. Similarly, if demand for meat lowers, less soil will be used for that kind of thing. Anyway thank you for coming to my TED talk, usual disclaimers apply such as: Armchair wisdom, not a farmer, not a global economist, not an ecologist, etc.
- Pfhreak 6y agoA lot of farmland is dedicated to growing feed for livestock, however. If you can grow corn on a section of land, you can probably grow other crops.
- Cthulhu_ 6y agoTrue, I did mention soy, which (iirc) is the reason why big parts of the Amazon are being flattened and burnt (it was soy or palm oil, probably both?). I live in NL, where traditionally we held cows (for milk and meat) because the ground would occasionally be flooded with salty seawater; grasses would be the only thing that grew. We had regular farms, built within a sea wall. It was only in the past few hundred years that we built said sea wall around the whole country, making things more viable for 'regular' farming.
- yboris 6y agoI think the implication is that we have a tremendous amount of deforestation (to get more land to grow more stuff to feed the animals!) and a runaway problem with pollution (air, land, water) that can be significantly ameliorated with a reduction of meat consumption.
- knuthsat 6y agoIt would be nice if the market is the only force creating demand for production. The amount of subsidies is massive for soy/corn <-> cows/poultry production. Removing the subsidies would make burgers and meat in general much more expensive.
- aaron695 6y agoThere is only one way that will happen and that's lab grown meat. We also should be looking at growing fruit in labs as well. Lab grown food probably would allow growing and harvesting from the oceans in unused areas. The path forward is very simple. There is no convincing/shaming people. Food is at a base level importance for most people and you can't beat meat. Plus the other 4 billion people will start eating more meat. Every environmental group, every ethical group should be putting it all into lab meat. The reason they don't is quite telling.
- bluefirebrand 6y agoPersonally, I always find this stuff upsetting. I'm not sure I'm even capable of a plant based diet if I wanted to. I've always been an very picky eater. Many vegetables have never agreed with me, I gag and vomit when I try to force them down. I've tried many times in my life and I do have a sort of core list of veggies I don't mind, but most are absolutely revolting in my mouth. I'm envious of people who can just eat whatever they want. They will never understand the anxiety a simple dinner invitation gives me.
- mint2 6y agohave you tried okra, mushroom stems, and Brussels sprouts? Okay that was a joke, but how about diced vegetables mixed in something else and then slowly increasing from there? Optimal world being slowly as in over years.
- bluefirebrand 6y agoBiting into something I don't like that is "hidden" in something else that I do like triggers the same reflex in me that most people get when biting into gristle. It's not a great sensation.
- andor 6y ago"They will never understand the anxiety a simple dinner invitation gives me." That's kind of normal, isn't it? A lot of people don't cook well. Every ingredient can be turned into a bland, revolting mush. That doesn't mean it's a bad ingredient.
- bluefirebrand 6y agoThank you for illustrating exactly what I mean when I say you will never understand. You're not in the ballpark here, you're not even in the same universe. It has nothing to do with the skill of the chef It has everything to do with the ingredient. But you don't understand and you never will. You will think I am exaggerating or being dramatic because you've never experienced it.
- 6y ago
- tffiske 6y agoGreat article!
- melling 6y agoJust removing the first 2, Beef and lamb, would almost solve the problem of land use. Has anyone seen this movie? No idea how scientifically accurate it is, but I enjoyed it https://gamechangersmovie.com/ https://gamechangersmovie.com/
- pmlnr 6y agoLamb is not only food, it's also clothing, soap components (lanolin), etc. This is my main problem with the opening argument: most animals are multi-use, unlike most plants.
- cvburgess 6y agoMost plants have an incredible array of uses, look at palms, corn, soy, and wheat as examples among a wide array of others. You can use them as food, but corn is used as a plastic and fuel alternative, soy is commonly used as an emulsifier, and different varieties of palms are being used in soaps and detergents. We are capable of really incredible things with modern science.
- drzaiusapelord 6y agoIts not the 17th century anymore, we can make those things from non-animal components.
- spaetzleesser 6y agoI am a vegetarian but I have started to strongly dislike this kind of "documentary". They are essentially stylish propaganda pieces whose purpose is to enforce a viewpoint but don't really help with a balanced discussion. Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe the world would be much better off if we at least reduced meat consumption but I just don't like these movies. Lately anti-vaccine "documentaries" like "Plandemic" are following the same outline. Nice production, a few random "experts" and a foregone conclusion from the start.
- sigmaprimus 6y agoSure, growing crops specifically to feed cattle that could be fed to humans instead makes farming cattle seem wasteful but only if You take a very narrow view of the situation instead of looking at the entire system. Cattle provide more than just food products, From 1 cow hide you can get 12 basketballs OR 144 baseballs OR 20 footballs OR 18 volleyballs OR 18 soccer balls OR 12 baseball gloves. Yes all of those could be made of synthetic materials but I appreciate the natural biodegradable quality of leather products. Belts, shoes, jackets, furniture, steering wheels and on and on...it would add up to lots more plastics in our environment. Most cattle are currently being fed annual cereal crops to fatten them up quickly, which I agree is a terrible way to go but unfortunately also profitable, but farming cattle on perennial grassland if managed properly actually regenerates the land, increases biodiversity, builds soil,stops desertification and is profitable too. I think there is truth in the article but it also lacks perspective in some ways.
- drzaiusapelord 6y agoSportsball toys can be made from alternative substances the same way we don't have whale oil lamps in our homes.
- sigmaprimus 6y agoYep and they are, just visit one of our landfills and You can find lots of products made from "alternative substances". I doubt there is much Whale oil to be found unlike the tons of led and cfl bulbs we will see in 150 years from now.
- yabudemada 6y agoSo for every thing we "gain" here, what do we lose? Seems like we could forego frivolous products to save the planet, no?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y agoAn argument that cattle could be farmed differently for less impact doesn't really contradict what the article is saying since, rather obviously, cattle aren't farmed that way.
- marcodiego 6y agoBut that needs changes that are much harder to achieve: cultural and behavioral change.
- ma2rten 6y agoI think how hard those things are depends on the timespan. Our current massive meat consumption is a relatively recent phenomenon, which is only made possible by factory farming.
- yabudemada 6y agoNot very hard actually—those who eat lots of meat and dairy have plenty of health issues. A change brought to you in part by natural selection. EDIT: For the downvoters: https://nutritionstudies.org/the-china-study/ https://nutritionstudies.org/the-china-study/ Just one example...
- hirundo 6y agoI find these critiques effective: https://deniseminger.com/the-china-study/ https://deniseminger.com/the-china-study/ Natural selection seems to have selected us from ancestors that mostly followed herds of ruminants around and ate them in place of vegetation that we can't digest.
- yabudemada 6y agoAbsolutely—but they didn't factory farm and the herds of animals were healthy and in their natural habitat. The grand scope of agricultural waste is pretty disgusting. Just look at North Carolina: https://www.ehn.org/hurricane-florence-floods-north-carolina-hog-farms-2606610607.html https://www.ehn.org/hurricane-florence-floods-north-carolina... Now imagine there was no hog farms and it was all regular plant crops and/or vegetation.
- ericra 6y agoBefore your edit, I assumed you were not being serious. Regardless of the claim that meat and dairy cause health issues... Bad diets generally do not make people die during the period where they are able to have children. Natural selection has very little effect. Even if it did, the time period it would take for these effects to matter is significantly longer than most people care about when confronting the climate crisis that requires immediate action.
- u678u 6y agoCoincidentally I saw an interesting tweet thread yesterday "Currently reading about the military logistics of Genghis Khan and the Mongol empire. It’s fascinating that back then they understood that meat&dairy diets is what made them stronger than their foes who were on primarily grain based diets. " https://twitter.com/DanTalks1/status/1367004587203256321 https://twitter.com/DanTalks1/status/1367004587203256321
- drzaiusapelord 6y agoIn horseback riding combat, the horse needs to be strong, not the rider. The idea that diet played a role in this and not geo-politics and military tactics is a bit out there. Red meat being tied to masculinity is big right now (Rogan, Alex Jones, alt-right, etc) and its sad that shoddy arguments are being made like this to keep people from mindfully considering what exactly it means to raise and slaughter all these animals, some of whom are empathic and social mammals just like us. Worse, meat consumption is tied directly to cancer and heart disease. You're not going to be "strong" on chemo and its not "strong" to be dead a decade or two or three before you should because of your poor diet. Not to mention the link to obesity, that often starts in childhood, so a lifetime of being obese also isn't "strong."
- fallingknife 6y agoIf we are at the point where we don't have enough land to support raising livestock for meat, this means our population is too high, not that we're eating the wrong thing.
- jacknews 6y agoWhat did people eat 50_000 years ago? Probably not steak and eggs in cheese sauce washed down with a glass of milk.
- Number157 6y agoThey had all sorts of deficiencies and ate anything they came across. Literally anything. As in, practically every culture has had cannibalism, for instance.
- delecti 6y agoOur population is too high for our resource consumption, which leaves two dials to adjust. It sure seems a whole hell of a lot less genocidal to just raise fewer cows than to eliminate people, and yet you rule out that option up front?
- k__ 6y agoIt's really sad to see such misanthropic opinions here.
- mikkergp 6y agoSo I’ve seen this negativity towards reducing global population but I don’t entirely understand it. Based on the fact that richer countries tend to have lower rates of reproduction than poorer countries. So why not reduce global inequality and then let people have as many kids as they want (which tends not to be enough to increase the global population). It seems like a win win.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- slothtrop 6y agoI can think of something else that would reduce agricultural land-use, as well as mining, lumber, waste, etc. Lower demand by virtue of a lower population, or even just stagnant growth. Gaining efficiencies in one respect is nice. Can't disparage that. But you can't do so across the board if demand for goods and therefore resources will keep climbing. Think of consumer choices as a mere multiplier for their carbon footprint, because we all have one. Even almonds are suspect now because of the obscene level of water they require in California. Gains in efficiency like this slow down land encroachment, but they don't stop it. I'm not going to participate in a race to the bottom of being the most efficient cog possible with minimalist consumption (I mean, I consider myself relatively minimalist) when it's plain that my contribution is not ultimately what matters.
- pmlnr 6y agoLamb also produces wool, used as clothing, insulation, etc. -; lanolin, used in a lot of skincare products; and so on. Beef & pig skin is used as leather products. If you add these needs into the plant-based idea, how does it look? EDIT: the beef energy need is ridiculous though, and that should definitely be reduced. My main issue is lamb, because wool is an incredible and useful material, which should get a lot more attention. EDIT: re "replacement" materials - if you mean plastics, we know how well that is going.
- ruined 6y agothose are from a minuscule portion of the animals. plant and polymer substitutes are readily available for most use cases, and where the real thing matters, a few animals may of course still be raised for that dedicated purpose. this is about reducing meat consumption.
- pmlnr 6y ago> polymer substitutes Which eventually adds to the mountains of non-bio-degradable plastic waste.
- harimau777 6y agoThere are definitely issues where plant and polymers can be good substitutes but they often aren't as good. Plant based fabrics tend to have much worse performance than the animal derived alternatives. Granted, that doesn't apply to clothing being worn purely for fashion. Polymer based fabrics often do not wear well and may have issues with micro-plastics and outgassing.
- lmilcin 6y agoThe trouble with plant based diet is that you kinda need to get involved into actual planning of your diet and large part of population is simply not equipped to do this (currently). Meat is kinda safe choice because it contains almost everything that human needs. As long as you mix in meat into at least one meal a day you are mostly covered and you don't need to think a lot about what kind of plants you are consuming. On the other hand if you go vegetarian, there is no plant that would give you everything you need for your healthy diet. You need to mix and match various plants and you need to keep the balance yourself either through some knowledge or through tradition. I think really only in India there is healthy large scale tradition of having large part of your diet to be plant based (but supplemented with diary). So what this means is that if you wanted to convert say Poland to vegetarian diet, most people are just not knowledgeable or intelligent enough to plan their diet and believe me, there is absolutely no tradition of anything close to vegetarian diet here. Just to make sure, I don't want to say meat is better for you. What I mean is that it is better for you if you have no idea how to choose and prepare stuff to put on your plate. Deficiencies are real problem and sometimes things like depression or various other hard to "debug" illnesses are caused by lack of a particular nutrient in your diet. For example, depression can be caused by lack of 5 HTP / tryptophan which has complex additional requirements to be successfully converted to serotonin. If you go cold turkey on meat, it is very easy to overlook this and run into problems without even knowing all this is due to lack of understanding of how to compose your diet correctly.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y agoOur society used to suffer because of folic acid and iodine deficiencies. Regulations required supplementation of those compounds into commonly eaten foods like grains and salt, and those deficiencies are now a tiny fraction of what they once were. What would keep us from doing the same with vitamin B12?