4 ms·

The limited compassion of human beings.. Most people don't care that much unless they're directly affected. This limits the willingness of society to do what's

The limited compassion of human beings.. Most people don't care that much unless they're directly affected. This limits the willingness of society to do what's arguably in our best interests, like preventing severe environmental problems by limiting unnecessary consumption, or contributing to a culture where we help provide everyone with basic necessities like food - we may be the ones needing help in the future. I think not caring that much for others also contributes to meaninglessness, unhappiness, and mental health problems. I don't know the solution, but am trying to "work on it" through e.g. donations & vegan advocacy - I think reducing the abuse of animals in factory farms is a "low-hanging fruit" for reducing suffering & ecological problems - it's usually much more efficient to eat plants directly instead of feeding them to animals.

Zababa 4y ago
> it's usually much more efficient to eat plants directly instead of feeding them to animals. This is true for plants that can be eaten by humans. Animals eating grass on non-arable land on the other hand doesn't suffer from that inefficiency.
- YellOh 4y ago
  We tend to grow a lot of crops for animals, up to 3/4 of U.S. cropland in 2011 [0]. According to The Independent[1], in the UK it's 2/5 of arable land for growing animal feed. The FAO claims that 40% of all crops are used to feed animals[2]. It's not like livestock are only raised on non-arable land; we spend plenty of effort growing human-edible plant food for animals to eat and inefficiently convert to animal protein. Talking about animals surviving on only non-arable land seems like a motte and bailey that ignores what we're actually doing. [0] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1720760115#body-ref-r2 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1720760115#body-ref-r2 - original data is actually from a Nature article found at https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10452 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10452 [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/wwf-norfolk-yorkshire-b2113317.html https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/wwf-norfol... [2] https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf
- metta2uall 4y ago
  You're right, although farmed animals eating grass has its own complexities such as deforestation, low yield per hectare, methane emissions & "non-arable land" actually being a vague/relative category where hardy food crops like alfalfa can often be grown. But overall if the world moved to exclusively grass-fed meat it would be a massive improvement.

Zababa 4y ago

> it's usually much more efficient to eat plants directly instead of feeding them to animals. This is true for plants that can be eaten by humans. Animals eating grass on non-arable land on the other hand doesn't suffer from that inefficiency.

YellOh 4y ago
We tend to grow a lot of crops for animals, up to 3/4 of U.S. cropland in 2011 [0]. According to The Independent[1], in the UK it's 2/5 of arable land for growing animal feed. The FAO claims that 40% of all crops are used to feed animals[2]. It's not like livestock are only raised on non-arable land; we spend plenty of effort growing human-edible plant food for animals to eat and inefficiently convert to animal protein. Talking about animals surviving on only non-arable land seems like a motte and bailey that ignores what we're actually doing. [0] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1720760115#body-ref-r2 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1720760115#body-ref-r2 - original data is actually from a Nature article found at https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10452 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10452 [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/wwf-norfolk-yorkshire-b2113317.html https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/wwf-norfol... [2] https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf
metta2uall 4y ago
You're right, although farmed animals eating grass has its own complexities such as deforestation, low yield per hectare, methane emissions & "non-arable land" actually being a vague/relative category where hardy food crops like alfalfa can often be grown. But overall if the world moved to exclusively grass-fed meat it would be a massive improvement.