12 ms·

And vegan alternatives are not? Meat was a luxury product not eaten every day for most of history and still is in most parts of the world. Given the environmen

by j-pb 4y ago

And vegan alternatives are not? Meat was a luxury product not eaten every day for most of history and still is in most parts of the world. Given the environmental impact of Meat and Diary in terms of CO2, Methane, Water usage, and Deforestation we should heavily reconsider our nonchalant view of them as a cheap commodity.

watwut 4y ago
Same goes for vegetables. That being said, animal milk drinking is not something new at all. And in "traditional" setup, milk availability is massive improvement nutritionally/health wise over no milk.
- j-pb 4y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. These days we put so many nutrients artificially into the feed of livestock, e.g. B12, that we might as well skip the whole livestock step and just take a vitamin pill every morning. Most people have a vitamin-D deficiency, most vegans that I know of at least take care of making sure that they get enough supplements.
- KaiserPro 4y ago
  > And in "traditional" setup, milk availability is massive improvement nutritionally/health wise over no milk. only if you can process lactose. A large amount of people can't. Plus, "traditional" farming is highly dependent on location.
fallingknife 4y ago
Invention of agriculture through industrial revolution is not most of history. Meat would have been very much an ordinary thing to a hunter gatherer.
ben_w 4y ago
Dairy is much less of an environmental concern than beef (not sure about chicken). If the concern is animal welfare, then yes it's still a horror story in many ways, but not everyone who is pushing away from meat has the same reasons.
xdennis 4y ago
> Meat was a luxury product not eaten every day for most of history And nobody want's to return to those dark ages. This devil's alliance between veganism and environmentalism is what put me off environmentalism. Climate change can be softened by banning airplanes, air conditioning, and other things we don't need, not by banning food.
- j-pb 4y ago
  If you care about environmentalism then you should resonate with the fact that 68% of the Amazon is Burnt for pastures for Cattle Farming. 28% is Burnt for Agriculture, of which 60% is for soybeans, of which 77% are shipped overseas for livestock feed. That means at least 80% is burned for livestock or livestock feed. Since part of the palm oil and other plant produced is also used for livestock feed that number probably closer to 85%. See: https://www.fern.org/fileadmin/uploads/fern/Documents/Fern%20CAP%20FULL%20REPORT%20FINAL.pdf https://www.fern.org/fileadmin/uploads/fern/Documents/Fern%2... Your proposed solutions simply don't add up. Air Travel makes up 2.5-3.5% of all GHG emissions, Air Conditioning makes up 3.94%. Livestock makes up a whopping 18%. So even banning all air travel and air conditioning, would only give you the same reduction on GHG emissions as eating 40% less dairy and meat. So cutting meat and dairy from your diet is one of the easiest ways to cut your CO2 footprint massively. And it's actually just a minor inconvenience once you get used to plant based cooking, calling vegan cooking "dark ages" is ridiculously overdramatic, considering that e.g. indian food is often vegan and delicious. See: https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf https://academic.oup.com/af/article/1/1/19/4638592 https://academic.oup.com/af/article/1/1/19/4638592 https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation https://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2022/nrel-shows-impact-of-controlling-humidity-on-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html#:~:text=The%20researchers%20calculated%20air%20conditioning,of%20global%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions https://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2022/nrel-shows-impact-of-co....
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    If we can't eat all the meat we want without destroying the planet, that tells me we need to manage down the population, not the standard of living. I'm not willing to give up one single shred of my standard of living to this braindead cram as many people as possible on the planet challenge.

by j-pb 4y ago

watwut 4y ago

Same goes for vegetables. That being said, animal milk drinking is not something new at all. And in "traditional" setup, milk availability is massive improvement nutritionally/health wise over no milk.

j-pb 4y ago
That's a false dichotomy. These days we put so many nutrients artificially into the feed of livestock, e.g. B12, that we might as well skip the whole livestock step and just take a vitamin pill every morning. Most people have a vitamin-D deficiency, most vegans that I know of at least take care of making sure that they get enough supplements.
KaiserPro 4y ago
> And in "traditional" setup, milk availability is massive improvement nutritionally/health wise over no milk. only if you can process lactose. A large amount of people can't. Plus, "traditional" farming is highly dependent on location.

fallingknife 4y ago

Invention of agriculture through industrial revolution is not most of history. Meat would have been very much an ordinary thing to a hunter gatherer.

ben_w 4y ago

Dairy is much less of an environmental concern than beef (not sure about chicken). If the concern is animal welfare, then yes it's still a horror story in many ways, but not everyone who is pushing away from meat has the same reasons.

xdennis 4y ago

> Meat was a luxury product not eaten every day for most of history And nobody want's to return to those dark ages. This devil's alliance between veganism and environmentalism is what put me off environmentalism. Climate change can be softened by banning airplanes, air conditioning, and other things we don't need, not by banning food.

j-pb 4y ago
If you care about environmentalism then you should resonate with the fact that 68% of the Amazon is Burnt for pastures for Cattle Farming. 28% is Burnt for Agriculture, of which 60% is for soybeans, of which 77% are shipped overseas for livestock feed. That means at least 80% is burned for livestock or livestock feed. Since part of the palm oil and other plant produced is also used for livestock feed that number probably closer to 85%. See: https://www.fern.org/fileadmin/uploads/fern/Documents/Fern%20CAP%20FULL%20REPORT%20FINAL.pdf https://www.fern.org/fileadmin/uploads/fern/Documents/Fern%2... Your proposed solutions simply don't add up. Air Travel makes up 2.5-3.5% of all GHG emissions, Air Conditioning makes up 3.94%. Livestock makes up a whopping 18%. So even banning all air travel and air conditioning, would only give you the same reduction on GHG emissions as eating 40% less dairy and meat. So cutting meat and dairy from your diet is one of the easiest ways to cut your CO2 footprint massively. And it's actually just a minor inconvenience once you get used to plant based cooking, calling vegan cooking "dark ages" is ridiculously overdramatic, considering that e.g. indian food is often vegan and delicious. See: https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf https://academic.oup.com/af/article/1/1/19/4638592 https://academic.oup.com/af/article/1/1/19/4638592 https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation https://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2022/nrel-shows-impact-of-controlling-humidity-on-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html#:~:text=The%20researchers%20calculated%20air%20conditioning,of%20global%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions https://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2022/nrel-shows-impact-of-co....
- fallingknife 4y ago
  If we can't eat all the meat we want without destroying the planet, that tells me we need to manage down the population, not the standard of living. I'm not willing to give up one single shred of my standard of living to this braindead cram as many people as possible on the planet challenge.