5 ms·

No it's not. Monocropping is far worse for the environment and entails mowing entire states down, repeatedly tilling and saturating soil with herbicide and pest

No it's not. Monocropping is far worse for the environment and entails mowing entire states down, repeatedly tilling and saturating soil with herbicide and pesticide, destroying millions of acres of former prairie land, and genetically engineering crops for glyphosate. Ruminants like cattle, sheep, etc have existed naturally for over 50 million years. They are an essential component of prairie land ecosystems. And much of the land that they occupy is non-arable for crops. Red meat is the closest thing to a natural human diet there is. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-2-million-years-humans-ate-meat-and-little-else-study/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-2-million-years-humans-ate... For 2 million years, your ancestors basically ate the diet from this article. Our biology is highly evolved for it, with agriculture being < 500 generations old.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
> agriculture being < 500 generations old Evolution works in as few as two generations. This is established. > Stone Age humans were apex predators, only moved to more plant-based diet 85,000 years ago We’ve evolved since then. We are the same species but claim we are genetically the same as humans 85,000 years ago is crazy.
- codeflow2202 5y ago
  However your physiology doesn't change in two generations. We can easily adapt our microbiome to get access to new sources of calories. But our erect posture, tool crafting and use abilities, and our guts structure are all evolutions we gained from our hunting/scavenging times. We are what we are because of meat and fat, not green leafy vegetables.
colordrops 5y ago
Almost all cows are fed with monocultured crops, and the amount of crops used to feed the animals is an order of magnitude more calories than if you just ate the crops directly.
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  > Almost all cows are fed with monocultured crops Then there is grass fed cattle. > and the amount of crops used to feed the animals is an order of magnitude more calories than if you just ate the crops directly. Cows naturally eat grass, cows convert grass into protein and fat that humans can consume. Humans can’t consume grass directly.
  - KennyBlanken 5y ago
    No, but we can consume crops grown with the land, water and fertilizer used to grow grass. Just switching to chicken from red meat drops that resource usage by a factor of TEN. Growing cattle for food is incredibly wasteful.
  - neuralRiot 5y ago
    Grassfed livestock uses 15-20 times more land than CAFOs at an estimate of 91.9 million heads (us stock as of jan 2022 according to USDA census) you’ll quickly realize that meat consumption at current rates its impossible.
    - moltar 5y ago
      Not if you farm Joel Salatin style. He has a great sustainable system.
    - throwawaycities 5y ago
      Total land usage isn’t the only consideration, in fact it’s probably the most immaterial. Cattle grazing on open grass lands is generally healthy for the land, the cattle and the end consumer. It’s actually a great trade off to destroying land with monocrop agriculture used to fatten up cattle which makes them sick and contributes to chronic conditions/metabolic diseases of the end consumers.
      - neuralRiot 5y ago
        > Total land usage isn’t the only consideration, in fact it’s probably the most immaterial. I don’t want to sound insulting but I don’t think you thought very well what it means to grow 91 million heads of cattle on grass alone, remember grass takes time to grow and it doesn’t do it during winter.
bscphil 5y ago
> Monocropping is far worse for the environment The "monocrops" in the United States are largely corn and soy, which are used as food additives, instead of being eaten as food, and as food for (you-guessed-it) animals we use as meat. If you want to avoid monocropping, eat vegetables.
- moltar 5y ago
  But if the demand for meat drops, and demand for veggies goes up, do you think farms will all of a sudden abandon monocrop practice? Of course not, because that’s how farming-at-scale system is designed. They want to use fewer tools, ultra specialize in one crop, offload it in bulk at the end of the season. In the end you’ll get a huge selection of bland and tasteless vegetables, engineered to grow fast and large with a thick skin to prevent pests from eating it.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    Not following the logic here - because monocropping is bad, it's ok to adopt a practice (growing cattle) that uses 10 times the monocropping per unit of food? Isn't that the opposite of what you want to do?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - moltar 5y ago
      That’s not the logic at all. The logic is what I said. If you start growing more plants it will not fix monocropping issue. It will only make it worse. If you don’t want to eat beef that has been fed monocropped feed then vote with your wallet and buy sustainable meat that was pasture raised (on non-arable land).
      - bscphil 5y ago
        You can't just claim that switching from corn and soy to a wide range of other vegetables would make things worse with no argument. If nothing else this goes against basic common sense because (1) we eat more than two vegetables, and (2) people eating vegetables directly instead of feeding those vegetables to animals is a vastly more efficient way to feed a population. The absolute best case scenario for your argument is that monocropping turns out to be just as bad under a shift-to-vegetables model, but in that case we still end up reaping enormous environmental wins. Just because vegetables might not (?) solve the monocropping problem doesn't mean that we don't have good reasons to switch to them, as was originally argued. I'm not really sure how you avoid that, and frankly, the number of large scale climate change studies urging a shift to our diets seems to bode poorly for attempts to push this line.
unmole 5y ago
More than a third of the grains produced by monocropping is used for animal feed. Beef is probably the worst kind of meat in terms of environmental impact. Suggesting red meat is a more sustainable alternative is disingenous.
- moltar 5y ago
  Arguing against meat is like arguing against cars. Can society live without cars? Probably. We did before. Will it be an interesting and convenient future? Probably not. But we have alternatives (electric cars)! And we keep looking for more ways to propel. We don’t stop looking for solutions, just because gas is bad. Same for beef. We have sustainable alternatives. Just vote with your dollar. Don’t buy factory meat. And help subsidize further research. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water!
  - unmole 5y ago
    Giving up cars has a real cost in terms of time and productivity. If one lives in a place without usable alternatives, it might even be impossible. Giving up beef has no such cost and is something that any individual can do.
    - moltar 5y ago
      You believe beef has no cost. But you can’t be sure. I believe beef provides superior, and evolutionary-compatible nutrition for my body. And lack of that nutrition will have a negative effect on my health, and thus associated costs with it. Maybe not tomorrow, but in 10 or 20 years. I’ve been both a vegan for 2 years and pure carnivore for 8 weeks. I’m eating everything at the moment. But I have my own conclusions what works for me.
      - unmole 5y ago
        > I believe You can believe and eat whatever you like. But if you make disingenous faith based arguments in a public forum, expect to be called out.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago

> agriculture being < 500 generations old Evolution works in as few as two generations. This is established. > Stone Age humans were apex predators, only moved to more plant-based diet 85,000 years ago We’ve evolved since then. We are the same species but claim we are genetically the same as humans 85,000 years ago is crazy.

codeflow2202 5y ago
However your physiology doesn't change in two generations. We can easily adapt our microbiome to get access to new sources of calories. But our erect posture, tool crafting and use abilities, and our guts structure are all evolutions we gained from our hunting/scavenging times. We are what we are because of meat and fat, not green leafy vegetables.

colordrops 5y ago

Almost all cows are fed with monocultured crops, and the amount of crops used to feed the animals is an order of magnitude more calories than if you just ate the crops directly.

throwawaycities 5y ago
> Almost all cows are fed with monocultured crops Then there is grass fed cattle. > and the amount of crops used to feed the animals is an order of magnitude more calories than if you just ate the crops directly. Cows naturally eat grass, cows convert grass into protein and fat that humans can consume. Humans can’t consume grass directly.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  No, but we can consume crops grown with the land, water and fertilizer used to grow grass. Just switching to chicken from red meat drops that resource usage by a factor of TEN. Growing cattle for food is incredibly wasteful.
- neuralRiot 5y ago
  Grassfed livestock uses 15-20 times more land than CAFOs at an estimate of 91.9 million heads (us stock as of jan 2022 according to USDA census) you’ll quickly realize that meat consumption at current rates its impossible.
  - moltar 5y ago
    Not if you farm Joel Salatin style. He has a great sustainable system.
  - throwawaycities 5y ago
    Total land usage isn’t the only consideration, in fact it’s probably the most immaterial. Cattle grazing on open grass lands is generally healthy for the land, the cattle and the end consumer. It’s actually a great trade off to destroying land with monocrop agriculture used to fatten up cattle which makes them sick and contributes to chronic conditions/metabolic diseases of the end consumers.
    - neuralRiot 5y ago
      > Total land usage isn’t the only consideration, in fact it’s probably the most immaterial. I don’t want to sound insulting but I don’t think you thought very well what it means to grow 91 million heads of cattle on grass alone, remember grass takes time to grow and it doesn’t do it during winter.

bscphil 5y ago

> Monocropping is far worse for the environment The "monocrops" in the United States are largely corn and soy, which are used as food additives, instead of being eaten as food, and as food for (you-guessed-it) animals we use as meat. If you want to avoid monocropping, eat vegetables.

moltar 5y ago
But if the demand for meat drops, and demand for veggies goes up, do you think farms will all of a sudden abandon monocrop practice? Of course not, because that’s how farming-at-scale system is designed. They want to use fewer tools, ultra specialize in one crop, offload it in bulk at the end of the season. In the end you’ll get a huge selection of bland and tasteless vegetables, engineered to grow fast and large with a thick skin to prevent pests from eating it.
- colordrops 5y ago
  Not following the logic here - because monocropping is bad, it's ok to adopt a practice (growing cattle) that uses 10 times the monocropping per unit of food? Isn't that the opposite of what you want to do?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - moltar 5y ago
    That’s not the logic at all. The logic is what I said. If you start growing more plants it will not fix monocropping issue. It will only make it worse. If you don’t want to eat beef that has been fed monocropped feed then vote with your wallet and buy sustainable meat that was pasture raised (on non-arable land).
    - bscphil 5y ago
      You can't just claim that switching from corn and soy to a wide range of other vegetables would make things worse with no argument. If nothing else this goes against basic common sense because (1) we eat more than two vegetables, and (2) people eating vegetables directly instead of feeding those vegetables to animals is a vastly more efficient way to feed a population. The absolute best case scenario for your argument is that monocropping turns out to be just as bad under a shift-to-vegetables model, but in that case we still end up reaping enormous environmental wins. Just because vegetables might not (?) solve the monocropping problem doesn't mean that we don't have good reasons to switch to them, as was originally argued. I'm not really sure how you avoid that, and frankly, the number of large scale climate change studies urging a shift to our diets seems to bode poorly for attempts to push this line.

unmole 5y ago

More than a third of the grains produced by monocropping is used for animal feed. Beef is probably the worst kind of meat in terms of environmental impact. Suggesting red meat is a more sustainable alternative is disingenous.

moltar 5y ago
Arguing against meat is like arguing against cars. Can society live without cars? Probably. We did before. Will it be an interesting and convenient future? Probably not. But we have alternatives (electric cars)! And we keep looking for more ways to propel. We don’t stop looking for solutions, just because gas is bad. Same for beef. We have sustainable alternatives. Just vote with your dollar. Don’t buy factory meat. And help subsidize further research. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water!
- unmole 5y ago
  Giving up cars has a real cost in terms of time and productivity. If one lives in a place without usable alternatives, it might even be impossible. Giving up beef has no such cost and is something that any individual can do.
  - moltar 5y ago
    You believe beef has no cost. But you can’t be sure. I believe beef provides superior, and evolutionary-compatible nutrition for my body. And lack of that nutrition will have a negative effect on my health, and thus associated costs with it. Maybe not tomorrow, but in 10 or 20 years. I’ve been both a vegan for 2 years and pure carnivore for 8 weeks. I’m eating everything at the moment. But I have my own conclusions what works for me.
    - unmole 5y ago
      > I believe You can believe and eat whatever you like. But if you make disingenous faith based arguments in a public forum, expect to be called out.