4 ms·

Raising animals takes a huge amount of resources, so in order to sustain the number of people we have in the planet, we need to find other ways to make food tha

by orev 4y ago

Raising animals takes a huge amount of resources, so in order to sustain the number of people we have in the planet, we need to find other ways to make food that don’t require so many resources. People clearly like to eat meat, so if we can replace a lot of it with something plant based that also satisfies those needs, then why not do it? Most people will hardly notice the difference now if ground beef in meat sauces, taco meat, etc was replaced, or even only half of it, with plant based meat.

User23 4y ago
> Raising animals takes a huge amount of resources, so in order to sustain the number of people we have in the planet, we need to find other ways to make food that don’t require so many resources. Is that really true? Livestock farming can be entirely sustainable using renewable inputs. The per unit resource usage might be high by some simplistic arbitrary metrics, but when those resources are basically sunlight and its natural products, what’s the problem? In any event we’re nowhere near the planet’s renewable carrying capacity. I’m against foolish, cruel, and unsustainable “factory farming” practices, but the existence of a bad method of doing something doesn’t mean there aren’t good ones. > People clearly like to eat meat, so if we can replace a lot of it with something plant based that also satisfies those needs, then why not do it? People clearly like to drink sugar water too. So we replaced sugar with food science experiments like aspartame and sucralose that can’t be metabolized. But now we’re learning they’re endocrine disrupters with significant side effects.
- wyre 4y ago
  >Is that really true? Yes. Livestock farming needs more than “sunlight and it’s natural products.” There isn’t enough land to replace factory farming with better pasture-raised methods [1]. Beef production is the leading causes of deforestation in the world [2], responsible for 80% of deforestation in the Amazon [3]. How is this sustainable? [1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401 [2] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/beef-cattle https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/beef-cattle [3] https://www.fao.org/3/xii/0568-b1.htm#:~:text=Pastures%20cover%2080%20%25%20of%20deforested,expansion%20of%20the%20agricultural%20frontier https://www.fao.org/3/xii/0568-b1.htm#:~:text=Pastures%20cov....
  - User23 4y ago
    You’re misquoting your sources. For example your second source says “In the countries that account for most of the deforestation” and not “in the world.” That qualifier complete invalidates the point you’re trying to make. And “concerned scientists” are well and good, but perhaps you should look to experts that actually live and work agriculture? And it’s sustainable because pasture is reusable and so is the farmland that grows corn and other feed.
    - wyre 4y ago
      There isn’t enough land for your utopia full of pastured livestock and farmland for animal feed to exist among an ever growing human population that is eating more meat than ever before. Discrediting my valid sources doesn’t change that.
      - User23 4y ago
        There observably is enough now and for the foreseeable future. We know population won’t grow without bounds unless we become multiplanetary. Whether we eat fake meat or real meat is asymptotically irrelevant.
        wyre 4y ago
        If there was enough CAFOs wouldn’t exist to the extant they do now. If there was enough the world’s rainforests wouldn’t be getting razed to support more livestock. Stay delusional.
        User23 4y ago
        Do you have any background at all in agriculture besides reading alarmist websites? Fortunately for you, if you don’t want to remain ignorant and emotionally manipulated, virtually every major university in the USA has an ag extension program where you can learn how producing food actually works.
988747 4y ago
That's a myth. We can easily produce food for 20-30 billions of people using our current farming methods (and that includes meat production). The reason people are starving in Africa is because they do not have enough money to buy food (for various political reasons), not our inability to produce enough of it.

by orev 4y ago

User23 4y ago

> Raising animals takes a huge amount of resources, so in order to sustain the number of people we have in the planet, we need to find other ways to make food that don’t require so many resources. Is that really true? Livestock farming can be entirely sustainable using renewable inputs. The per unit resource usage might be high by some simplistic arbitrary metrics, but when those resources are basically sunlight and its natural products, what’s the problem? In any event we’re nowhere near the planet’s renewable carrying capacity. I’m against foolish, cruel, and unsustainable “factory farming” practices, but the existence of a bad method of doing something doesn’t mean there aren’t good ones. > People clearly like to eat meat, so if we can replace a lot of it with something plant based that also satisfies those needs, then why not do it? People clearly like to drink sugar water too. So we replaced sugar with food science experiments like aspartame and sucralose that can’t be metabolized. But now we’re learning they’re endocrine disrupters with significant side effects.

wyre 4y ago
>Is that really true? Yes. Livestock farming needs more than “sunlight and it’s natural products.” There isn’t enough land to replace factory farming with better pasture-raised methods [1]. Beef production is the leading causes of deforestation in the world [2], responsible for 80% of deforestation in the Amazon [3]. How is this sustainable? [1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401 [2] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/beef-cattle https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/beef-cattle [3] https://www.fao.org/3/xii/0568-b1.htm#:~:text=Pastures%20cover%2080%20%25%20of%20deforested,expansion%20of%20the%20agricultural%20frontier https://www.fao.org/3/xii/0568-b1.htm#:~:text=Pastures%20cov....
- User23 4y ago
  You’re misquoting your sources. For example your second source says “In the countries that account for most of the deforestation” and not “in the world.” That qualifier complete invalidates the point you’re trying to make. And “concerned scientists” are well and good, but perhaps you should look to experts that actually live and work agriculture? And it’s sustainable because pasture is reusable and so is the farmland that grows corn and other feed.
  - wyre 4y ago
    There isn’t enough land for your utopia full of pastured livestock and farmland for animal feed to exist among an ever growing human population that is eating more meat than ever before. Discrediting my valid sources doesn’t change that.
    - User23 4y ago
      There observably is enough now and for the foreseeable future. We know population won’t grow without bounds unless we become multiplanetary. Whether we eat fake meat or real meat is asymptotically irrelevant.
      - wyre 4y ago
        If there was enough CAFOs wouldn’t exist to the extant they do now. If there was enough the world’s rainforests wouldn’t be getting razed to support more livestock. Stay delusional.
        User23 4y ago
        Do you have any background at all in agriculture besides reading alarmist websites? Fortunately for you, if you don’t want to remain ignorant and emotionally manipulated, virtually every major university in the USA has an ag extension program where you can learn how producing food actually works.

988747 4y ago

That's a myth. We can easily produce food for 20-30 billions of people using our current farming methods (and that includes meat production). The reason people are starving in Africa is because they do not have enough money to buy food (for various political reasons), not our inability to produce enough of it.