4 ms·

Eating pigs & poultry requires less than 5% of land than beef. Eating something more sustainable is not equal to reducing the human experience. That's just your

by myshpa 4y ago

Eating pigs & poultry requires less than 5% of land than beef. Eating something more sustainable is not equal to reducing the human experience. That's just your taste buds talking. You could say, that the only way to have the entire human experience, is to eat carnivores (lions, anyone?). With carnivore diet how many people you think the planet would support? Would there be a place for yourself, now? What about your children and children of your children? For wildlife? For nature? Come on, grow up, people.

throwaway22032 4y ago
And there will be some way of eating that requires 5% of the land of whatever you suggest, ad infinitum, until we have tens of billions of humans and we end up back at square one. A line in the sand will be drawn somewhere, here's mine. I don't believe in infinite growth, it will result in us all drinking Soylent in cages. The objective for me is to have a high quality of life for a reasonable number of people, not a low quality of life for the maximum amount possible.
- myshpa 4y ago
  > until we have tens of billions of humans We don't even have enough room to supplement the current population on western version of meat-eating diet. We already use more land for beef production, than we have forests. > until we have tens of billions of humans Agree, we have to abandon our current notions of growth, if we want to preserve life for future generations. On our current path we're going to hell (too many things to enumerate here). > a high quality of life for a reasonable number of people Plant-based diet means a higher quality of life for everyone - people, animals, wildlife. I for one would rather have more forests, than beef burger packaged in plastic. If you think that we handle animals humanly, please see Dominion (2018) movie [https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch]. If you can watch it till the end and still have the same opinion about putting meat above your taste buds, please, let me know. You'd be the first.
  - annyeonghada 4y ago
    >Plant-based diet means a higher quality of life for everyone - people Where is the evidence that vegan/vegetarian diet is beneficial? I've never been more depressed and tired then when I've tried to go all vegan.
  - jka 4y ago
    Just chiming in to add my support for your arguments. I enjoy fast food and drinking beer, and all the moreso when I know that the former is plant-based and that the latter is brewed in an environmentally-friendly manner. I believe that both of those are possible in ways that make better use of existing agricultural land and that are therefore more scalable in terms of provision-of-nutrition -- although transition can be tricky and involves battling vested interests and long-held opinions and preferences. I believe your debating partner is presenting false dichotomies regarding resource consumption and distribution.
    - spacemanmatt 4y ago
      > false dichotomies That's why they create throwaways. They know they're wrong.
      - throwaway22032 4y ago
        The idea that you think there is a "right" and "wrong" here is bizarre. You have a different value system to me, that's all. Collectivism results in a world I and many people I know don't want to live in, so we reject it. And yeah, we have to resist it quite harshly, because there are a lot of you guys who'll try and impose it on us via force. Good luck.
        spacemanmatt 4y ago
        I don't have to be right for you to be wrong. That is your core logical error, here.
  - no_time 4y ago
- yakak 4y ago
  That's really arguing against your own strawman. How will living well bellow your means cause extreme population growth? Living above your means while depleting resources is not constraining future resource problems.
  - throwaway22032 4y ago
    The basic argument that I am living above my means by eating meat relies on the idea that I should consume 1 / 8 billion of the Earth's resources. I reject that. I've spent my life outcompeting others in order to ensure that this is not the case - if you want to eat bugs, crack on. Meat could cost 10x what it does and I'd still smash it on the daily.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

by myshpa 4y ago

throwaway22032 4y ago

And there will be some way of eating that requires 5% of the land of whatever you suggest, ad infinitum, until we have tens of billions of humans and we end up back at square one. A line in the sand will be drawn somewhere, here's mine. I don't believe in infinite growth, it will result in us all drinking Soylent in cages. The objective for me is to have a high quality of life for a reasonable number of people, not a low quality of life for the maximum amount possible.

myshpa 4y ago
> until we have tens of billions of humans We don't even have enough room to supplement the current population on western version of meat-eating diet. We already use more land for beef production, than we have forests. > until we have tens of billions of humans Agree, we have to abandon our current notions of growth, if we want to preserve life for future generations. On our current path we're going to hell (too many things to enumerate here). > a high quality of life for a reasonable number of people Plant-based diet means a higher quality of life for everyone - people, animals, wildlife. I for one would rather have more forests, than beef burger packaged in plastic. If you think that we handle animals humanly, please see Dominion (2018) movie [https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch]. If you can watch it till the end and still have the same opinion about putting meat above your taste buds, please, let me know. You'd be the first.
- annyeonghada 4y ago
  >Plant-based diet means a higher quality of life for everyone - people Where is the evidence that vegan/vegetarian diet is beneficial? I've never been more depressed and tired then when I've tried to go all vegan.
- jka 4y ago
  Just chiming in to add my support for your arguments. I enjoy fast food and drinking beer, and all the moreso when I know that the former is plant-based and that the latter is brewed in an environmentally-friendly manner. I believe that both of those are possible in ways that make better use of existing agricultural land and that are therefore more scalable in terms of provision-of-nutrition -- although transition can be tricky and involves battling vested interests and long-held opinions and preferences. I believe your debating partner is presenting false dichotomies regarding resource consumption and distribution.
  - spacemanmatt 4y ago
    > false dichotomies That's why they create throwaways. They know they're wrong.
    - throwaway22032 4y ago
      The idea that you think there is a "right" and "wrong" here is bizarre. You have a different value system to me, that's all. Collectivism results in a world I and many people I know don't want to live in, so we reject it. And yeah, we have to resist it quite harshly, because there are a lot of you guys who'll try and impose it on us via force. Good luck.
      - spacemanmatt 4y ago
        I don't have to be right for you to be wrong. That is your core logical error, here.
- no_time 4y ago
yakak 4y ago
That's really arguing against your own strawman. How will living well bellow your means cause extreme population growth? Living above your means while depleting resources is not constraining future resource problems.
- throwaway22032 4y ago
  The basic argument that I am living above my means by eating meat relies on the idea that I should consume 1 / 8 billion of the Earth's resources. I reject that. I've spent my life outcompeting others in order to ensure that this is not the case - if you want to eat bugs, crack on. Meat could cost 10x what it does and I'd still smash it on the daily.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]