7 ms·

Farming is vastly more destructive for ecosystems than animal husbandry. (For maximum efficiency we now combine both, of course, but it's indstrial farming tha

Farming is vastly more destructive for ecosystems than animal husbandry. (For maximum efficiency we now combine both, of course, but it's indstrial farming that's the real killer, not cow farts.)

steve_adams_86 4y ago
Animal husbandry is farming, isn’t it? Or is the dictionary definition getting a little stale?
- rex_lupi 4y ago
  "Agriculture", they meant.
ranguna 4y ago
The major destructive agriculture is the one that is done to feed animals not the one for humans. If you get rid of animal farming you'll also get rid of a substancial amount of agriculture (not all of it if course, humans will still need to eat, but not as much as cows, pigs, chickens etc combined)
- otabdeveloper4 4y ago
  You don't need to feed grain to domestic animals. Humans have raised cattle on natural grass for thousands of years just fine.
  - ranguna 4y ago
    Except now you have a population of over 8 billion people. Things stop working when you scale to that level. So either we go back to the same total population we had thousands of year ago or we start thinking how we can be more efficient with our food.
  - steve_adams_86 4y ago
    I’m not sure where you live, but in North America almost everyone is eating meat from intensive livestock operations. By almost, that’s over 90% of all meat produced… I’m going to guess less than 1% of North Americans who eat meat manage to completely avoid these meats. The vast majority are primarily eating these meats. Humans raise animals on grass, but relatively few animals. If we only eat grazed cattle, then very few people will get to eat it — or — we would all need to eat far less of it. Further, evidence of grazing storing carbon effectively has been largely debunked, and it’s clear now that grazing land would likely be best left to the wilderness, allowed to be restored as forest or meadow or whatever it was. We stand to gain far more from allowing natural ecology develop and thrive than from eating more steak. No you cannot scale up grass fed meat, you should not, and the entire idea is so full of holes it can barely hold itself anymore.
    - otabdeveloper4 4y ago
      > No you cannot scale up grass fed meat I'll need a citation on that, because the world certainly doesn't lack grazeable grass. (Cattle is fed farmed grains today because it's more efficient logistically, not because there's a shortage of grass.)
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
what is the basis for this exrraordinary doublethink?
- otabdeveloper4 4y ago
  Hands-on knowledge of farming and its costs, probably.

Farming is vastly more destructive for ecosystems than animal husbandry. (For maximum efficiency we now combine both, of course, but it's indstrial farming that's the real killer, not cow farts.)

steve_adams_86 4y ago

Animal husbandry is farming, isn’t it? Or is the dictionary definition getting a little stale?

rex_lupi 4y ago
"Agriculture", they meant.

ranguna 4y ago

The major destructive agriculture is the one that is done to feed animals not the one for humans. If you get rid of animal farming you'll also get rid of a substancial amount of agriculture (not all of it if course, humans will still need to eat, but not as much as cows, pigs, chickens etc combined)

otabdeveloper4 4y ago
You don't need to feed grain to domestic animals. Humans have raised cattle on natural grass for thousands of years just fine.
- ranguna 4y ago
  Except now you have a population of over 8 billion people. Things stop working when you scale to that level. So either we go back to the same total population we had thousands of year ago or we start thinking how we can be more efficient with our food.
- steve_adams_86 4y ago
  I’m not sure where you live, but in North America almost everyone is eating meat from intensive livestock operations. By almost, that’s over 90% of all meat produced… I’m going to guess less than 1% of North Americans who eat meat manage to completely avoid these meats. The vast majority are primarily eating these meats. Humans raise animals on grass, but relatively few animals. If we only eat grazed cattle, then very few people will get to eat it — or — we would all need to eat far less of it. Further, evidence of grazing storing carbon effectively has been largely debunked, and it’s clear now that grazing land would likely be best left to the wilderness, allowed to be restored as forest or meadow or whatever it was. We stand to gain far more from allowing natural ecology develop and thrive than from eating more steak. No you cannot scale up grass fed meat, you should not, and the entire idea is so full of holes it can barely hold itself anymore.
  - otabdeveloper4 4y ago
    > No you cannot scale up grass fed meat I'll need a citation on that, because the world certainly doesn't lack grazeable grass. (Cattle is fed farmed grains today because it's more efficient logistically, not because there's a shortage of grass.)

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

what is the basis for this exrraordinary doublethink?

otabdeveloper4 4y ago
Hands-on knowledge of farming and its costs, probably.