5 ms·
"Writing meat off completely is taking the easy way out." Why not take the easy way out?
by dua2020 5y ago
"Writing meat off completely is taking the easy way out."
Why not take the easy way out?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- FuckButtons 5y agoRight? This isn’t 12th grade gym class, it’s an impending global catastrophe.
- pcthrowaway 5y agoI'm disgusted with that fact that governments are still subsidizing animal products. Move the subsidies to plant-based options and make it easier to take the easy way out. We're literally and figuratively paying as a society for the privilege to raise and slaughter animals when it's 99% unnecessary.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoNot sure why this is being downvoted - meat industry is generally subsidised and protected to allow consumers to enjoy cheap meat. However, most western people are eating way too much meat even from the health perspective - and paying for this is shorter lives and medical bills. There is no perspective on this where eating this much meat is a good thing.
- sofixa 5y agoIt's actually relatively easy - most countries don't have the land to produce enough plant-based calories, and have plenty of meat-based calorie production. Why would a government bankrupt an existing and well known and visible sector, to be replaced by imports? Lots of people would be pissed.
- Viliam1234 5y ago> most countries don't have the land to produce enough plant-based calories, and have plenty of meat-based calorie production. Citation needed. How can a country have enough land for plants to feed pigs and cows that humans will later eat, but not enough land for plants to feed the humans?
- sofixa 5y agoAs explained elsewhere, lots of the land cows and pigs and sheep and etc. inhabit and graze on is unsuitable for regular crops due to the terrain, fertility, or simply crop rotation.
- matthewmorgan 5y agoThere isn't enough arable land to support everyone on a vegetarian diet
- gpm 5y agoYou are trying to tell me that growing food for animals to eat, and then eating the animals, somehow takes less arable land than directly growing foods for humans to eat? That's just not plausible.
- etrabroline 5y agoAnd yet it's true. 2/3rds of pasture is not suitable for agriculture and would be worthless without ruminants. The corn-fed cattle industry in the US is a result of energy being cheap and labor being expensive. Less than 20% of beef is farmed that way.
- matthewmorgan 5y agoThey're also forgetting about fish and other wild-caught animal food sources
- throw0101a 5y ago> And yet it's true. 2/3rds of pasture is not suitable for agriculture and would be worthless without ruminants. So it's worthless with ruminants. So what? Why not just leave it alone/fallow? Also, how much water does it take to grow those ruminants and also the animals they feed?
- drooby 5y agoHuh? Vegetarian/Vegan diets use a fraction of the land compared to a omnivores diet. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
- etrabroline 5y agoThat land is called marginal land, or pasture. You can't grow crops there economically r do anything else really. Removing the grazing animals from the land changes nothing and does not improve the environment at all. That land would be worthless if not for grazing animals. I'm not sure there is enough arible land to support the human population without grazing animals. I suspect anything is possible with enough technology and money, but matthewmorgan is correct in being concerned.
- notriddle 5y ago“Sunday is meat day” is harder to screw up than the complex diets that healthy vegans need to plan out.