3 ms·

There's six hundred million vegetarians in India alone, that's not a few. Still, even if we ignore that, why should anyone not be allowed to lobby against the e

There's six hundred million vegetarians in India alone, that's not a few. Still, even if we ignore that, why should anyone not be allowed to lobby against the eating of fish? Speech is free, is it not? To close down such speech would surely be totalitarian. I also wonder, since you used the word genocide, what word would you use to describe the amount of death wrought on fish? Or the farming of them? Would being brought up solely to be eaten and never to roam free come under your use of totalitarian? > 'Let them eat candy instead' is not a realistic solution. Have you thought about letting people eat all kinds of non-meat foods? I enjoyed tempeh on savoury rice tonight. This morning was pumpkin soup with a mixed bean salad. Lunch was very light, just toast with almond butter. All very tasty, healthy, and high in fibre, protein and macro-nutrients. Regardless, in most instances, vegetable farming produces much higher yields - and thus calories - per unit of farmland than farming animals ever could. It's a more realistic solution than expanding animal farming.

pvaldes 5y ago
> why should anyone not be allowed to lobby against the eating of fish? Because the "solution" that they propose would kill millions of people, and the majority of non-vegans have rights also. Therefore is a non-solution for a non existent problem And don't try to convince me that there are lots of acceptable replacements in your mind, because this is incorrect at this moment. Where you want to culture all those pumpkins?, in national parks? there is not enough fertile soil available unless we eat all the remaining nature. > just toast with almond butter Yep, what California needs now is to plant more almonds that suck all the water. This line explains perfectly the problem with this ideology
- brigandish 5y ago
  > Because the "solution" that they propose would kill millions of people, and the majority of non-vegans have rights also. Again, speech is the subject, speech cannot kill anyone, so you would limit speech based on possible outcomes - that is totalitarian. I also don’t see why preventing all fishing (which is a straw man, but an easy one to defend) would kill millions of people. > Where you want to culture all those pumpkins?, in national parks? there is not enough fertile soil available unless we eat all the remaining nature. As I pointed out before, because the farming of animals is so inefficient, if vegetables are grown instead the yields are so high that less land would be used to produce the same number of calories. If we’re only stopping industrial fishing then that may not work, of course, but it’s unlikely without a diet change across society anyway, and I mainly want to correct your erroneous assumption that all types of farming are fungible. > > just toast with almond butter > Yep, what California needs now is to plant more almonds that suck all the water. This line explains perfectly the problem with this ideology Almonds are native to Iran, I’m not American nor am I in America, and I’m not proposing that almonds replace meat nor would I support or propose increasing almond production in California. I’d prefer that you try to avoid littering your responses with straw man arguments if you’re going to continue, at least, not ridiculously obvious ones that are coming out of assumptions that have been given nary a second thought.
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    > because the farming of animals is so inefficient, As non efficient as any other process that has been improved over the last 4000 years at least. In arid places there are less things more efficient than a camel or a goat. > if vegetables are grown instead, the yields are so high Brace yourself for a nasty surprise. To have high harvests you will need high amounts of fertilizers. Period. And to obtain that manure you need cattle. Bird guano is a limited resource, scarce, local and expensive produced in islands that will sink by climate change. Bat guano has the same problems plus it spreads rabies and disturb bat colonies that are essential to fruit pollination and pest control so forget about it at large scale. And you need to burn fossil energy to move it. But of course technology will save us. We can synthesize urea in labs and then move it around the planet. We just need to burn fossil energy and solve a few minor problems (ehem, biurea). This negates the claimed energy savings, or ecological benefits. And nitrogen is not the only bottleneck in agriculture. So those utopian vegan societies had only one reliable source of manure, and is human feces. But to have enough brown stuff you need to introduce human food first in the system. And as you spend energy in each turn to support grow and life, one year of food for somebody can't return one more year of food for the same people. Just less and less. This solution came with a different set of problems. Your lattice can spread parasite worm eggs and human diseases, so you need to sterilize it first, spending energy in the process. Human feces will also carry antibiotics or medication that are much harder to remove. And cattle supports much more biodiversity than soy fields. Everybody that felt for the utopian narrative of the full-vegan paradise smash hard their faces against this reality. This societies always are hungry of manure. Without an external source you can't feed your people, so they are unstable by default and are overpowered by the other societies. There is not one single successful example of a long lasting fully vegan country isolated from neighbors with cattle.
    - brigandish 5y ago
      I asked that you pay me and the other HNers reading this enough respect that you avoid littering your responses with straw man arguments, and yet you provide one that is bloated with them. What kind of useful discussion is possible when you're doing that? None, so I'll ignore them. > > because the farming of animals is so inefficient, > As non efficient as any other process that has been improved over the last 4000 years at least. This is wrong, for several reasons, the main one being the most pertinent - less calories are yielded per unit of farmland in animal farming than in non-animal farming. That is an objective difference in efficiency. You wrote “what California needs now is to plant more almonds that suck all the water”. From [1]: > Animal feed, which includes irrigated pasture, non-irrigated pasture, and other feed crops, has the greatest water requirements (15 MAF), followed by alfalfa, straw, and hay (5.5 MAF). Together, these crops provide the primary inputs to California’s meat and dairy industry. Over ten times the water use of almonds and the largest use of water in California farming by far. It takes 84 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of almond milk, and 880 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of cow's milk. That is an objective difference in efficiency. You wrote “In arid places there are less things more efficient than a camel or a goat.” Arguing from an exception isn't a winning strategy but it doesn't matter as I'm all for goats using mountain pasture. By all means, use camels in the desert instead of trying to grow wheat or whatever. Did I mention straw man arguments? Speaking of which, if you wish to amend the essay you've provided which reads as an argument to someone else, (as I'm not in favour of a vegan utopia - whatever that is) then I'll be able to respond to it. Otherwise, you'll only be wasting your own time from here on in. [1] https://pacinst.org/publication/assessment-of-californias-water-footprint/ https://pacinst.org/publication/assessment-of-californias-wa...

pvaldes 5y ago

> why should anyone not be allowed to lobby against the eating of fish? Because the "solution" that they propose would kill millions of people, and the majority of non-vegans have rights also. Therefore is a non-solution for a non existent problem And don't try to convince me that there are lots of acceptable replacements in your mind, because this is incorrect at this moment. Where you want to culture all those pumpkins?, in national parks? there is not enough fertile soil available unless we eat all the remaining nature. > just toast with almond butter Yep, what California needs now is to plant more almonds that suck all the water. This line explains perfectly the problem with this ideology

brigandish 5y ago
> Because the "solution" that they propose would kill millions of people, and the majority of non-vegans have rights also. Again, speech is the subject, speech cannot kill anyone, so you would limit speech based on possible outcomes - that is totalitarian. I also don’t see why preventing all fishing (which is a straw man, but an easy one to defend) would kill millions of people. > Where you want to culture all those pumpkins?, in national parks? there is not enough fertile soil available unless we eat all the remaining nature. As I pointed out before, because the farming of animals is so inefficient, if vegetables are grown instead the yields are so high that less land would be used to produce the same number of calories. If we’re only stopping industrial fishing then that may not work, of course, but it’s unlikely without a diet change across society anyway, and I mainly want to correct your erroneous assumption that all types of farming are fungible. > > just toast with almond butter > Yep, what California needs now is to plant more almonds that suck all the water. This line explains perfectly the problem with this ideology Almonds are native to Iran, I’m not American nor am I in America, and I’m not proposing that almonds replace meat nor would I support or propose increasing almond production in California. I’d prefer that you try to avoid littering your responses with straw man arguments if you’re going to continue, at least, not ridiculously obvious ones that are coming out of assumptions that have been given nary a second thought.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  > because the farming of animals is so inefficient, As non efficient as any other process that has been improved over the last 4000 years at least. In arid places there are less things more efficient than a camel or a goat. > if vegetables are grown instead, the yields are so high Brace yourself for a nasty surprise. To have high harvests you will need high amounts of fertilizers. Period. And to obtain that manure you need cattle. Bird guano is a limited resource, scarce, local and expensive produced in islands that will sink by climate change. Bat guano has the same problems plus it spreads rabies and disturb bat colonies that are essential to fruit pollination and pest control so forget about it at large scale. And you need to burn fossil energy to move it. But of course technology will save us. We can synthesize urea in labs and then move it around the planet. We just need to burn fossil energy and solve a few minor problems (ehem, biurea). This negates the claimed energy savings, or ecological benefits. And nitrogen is not the only bottleneck in agriculture. So those utopian vegan societies had only one reliable source of manure, and is human feces. But to have enough brown stuff you need to introduce human food first in the system. And as you spend energy in each turn to support grow and life, one year of food for somebody can't return one more year of food for the same people. Just less and less. This solution came with a different set of problems. Your lattice can spread parasite worm eggs and human diseases, so you need to sterilize it first, spending energy in the process. Human feces will also carry antibiotics or medication that are much harder to remove. And cattle supports much more biodiversity than soy fields. Everybody that felt for the utopian narrative of the full-vegan paradise smash hard their faces against this reality. This societies always are hungry of manure. Without an external source you can't feed your people, so they are unstable by default and are overpowered by the other societies. There is not one single successful example of a long lasting fully vegan country isolated from neighbors with cattle.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    I asked that you pay me and the other HNers reading this enough respect that you avoid littering your responses with straw man arguments, and yet you provide one that is bloated with them. What kind of useful discussion is possible when you're doing that? None, so I'll ignore them. > > because the farming of animals is so inefficient, > As non efficient as any other process that has been improved over the last 4000 years at least. This is wrong, for several reasons, the main one being the most pertinent - less calories are yielded per unit of farmland in animal farming than in non-animal farming. That is an objective difference in efficiency. You wrote “what California needs now is to plant more almonds that suck all the water”. From [1]: > Animal feed, which includes irrigated pasture, non-irrigated pasture, and other feed crops, has the greatest water requirements (15 MAF), followed by alfalfa, straw, and hay (5.5 MAF). Together, these crops provide the primary inputs to California’s meat and dairy industry. Over ten times the water use of almonds and the largest use of water in California farming by far. It takes 84 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of almond milk, and 880 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of cow's milk. That is an objective difference in efficiency. You wrote “In arid places there are less things more efficient than a camel or a goat.” Arguing from an exception isn't a winning strategy but it doesn't matter as I'm all for goats using mountain pasture. By all means, use camels in the desert instead of trying to grow wheat or whatever. Did I mention straw man arguments? Speaking of which, if you wish to amend the essay you've provided which reads as an argument to someone else, (as I'm not in favour of a vegan utopia - whatever that is) then I'll be able to respond to it. Otherwise, you'll only be wasting your own time from here on in. [1] https://pacinst.org/publication/assessment-of-californias-water-footprint/ https://pacinst.org/publication/assessment-of-californias-wa...