4 ms·

what destroys the planet is not meat or non-meat. Its mass production of [insert food here]. I have fun listening the vegan arguments until they are shown how t

what destroys the planet is not meat or non-meat. Its mass production of [insert food here]. I have fun listening the vegan arguments until they are shown how their over-consumption of avocados or soy-based foods has devastating or exploiting effects on ecosystems and people.

matsemann 3y ago
But people (including you it seems) don't really understand the scale at which meat production harm the environment compared to vegetables. Yes, every mass production have problems, but with meat you need multiple times the amount of everything, because you first need to produce the food the cow or whatever eats, and then the meat production. For instance, it's multiple times less co2 impact for me eating an avocado here in Norway that's been shipped half the globe around from south america, compared to eating meat from the local farm. The scales are just so incredibly different in production (vs transportation) that it's not to "gotcha" many believe to claim that something imported is automatically bad.
- jiggywiggy 3y ago
  You can't honestly claim buying avacado's is better for the planet, it's wreaked social & ecological havoc in multiple south American countries with dried up rivers, gangs and lack of diversification of the income of a country. Next to that it's not always Plants vs meats. In many places only cattle can graze but not much of value can grow. The CO2 issue is really a terrible comparison. Everything cows put out has been put in from the air. The airplanes are excreting new/old CO2 taken from fossil fuels. Some claim cows are still worse because of methane, but they forget to mention methane only had 12 years lifespan in the atmosphere.
  - myaccountonhn 3y ago
    > it's wreaked social & ecological havoc in multiple south American countries with dried up rivers, gangs and lack of diversification of the income of a country. The produce to feed the cattle is often detrimental to the environment too. They're not cutting down rain forests in Brazil to produce soy for meat substitutes but rather for produce to feed animals. But it's absolutely important to eat local and if you're gonna eat meat ensure that the animal was fed local produce too.
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    You’d really rather have them making drugs than avocados?
  - deepsun 3y ago
    The question is about scales (or proportions) -- yes, most mass produced foods, (e.g. avocados) wreaked havoc, but the scope meat production does that might be way larger.
jna_sh 3y ago
> or soy-based foods The vast majority of soy production, particularly the environmentally destructive production that’s converting rainforests in South America into farmland, is for animal feed, not human consumption: https://ourworldindata.org/soy https://ourworldindata.org/soy
hammyhavoc 3y ago
Bold of you to assume I'm not growing my own food.

matsemann 3y ago

But people (including you it seems) don't really understand the scale at which meat production harm the environment compared to vegetables. Yes, every mass production have problems, but with meat you need multiple times the amount of everything, because you first need to produce the food the cow or whatever eats, and then the meat production. For instance, it's multiple times less co2 impact for me eating an avocado here in Norway that's been shipped half the globe around from south america, compared to eating meat from the local farm. The scales are just so incredibly different in production (vs transportation) that it's not to "gotcha" many believe to claim that something imported is automatically bad.

jiggywiggy 3y ago
You can't honestly claim buying avacado's is better for the planet, it's wreaked social & ecological havoc in multiple south American countries with dried up rivers, gangs and lack of diversification of the income of a country. Next to that it's not always Plants vs meats. In many places only cattle can graze but not much of value can grow. The CO2 issue is really a terrible comparison. Everything cows put out has been put in from the air. The airplanes are excreting new/old CO2 taken from fossil fuels. Some claim cows are still worse because of methane, but they forget to mention methane only had 12 years lifespan in the atmosphere.
- myaccountonhn 3y ago
  > it's wreaked social & ecological havoc in multiple south American countries with dried up rivers, gangs and lack of diversification of the income of a country. The produce to feed the cattle is often detrimental to the environment too. They're not cutting down rain forests in Brazil to produce soy for meat substitutes but rather for produce to feed animals. But it's absolutely important to eat local and if you're gonna eat meat ensure that the animal was fed local produce too.
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  You’d really rather have them making drugs than avocados?
- deepsun 3y ago
  The question is about scales (or proportions) -- yes, most mass produced foods, (e.g. avocados) wreaked havoc, but the scope meat production does that might be way larger.

jna_sh 3y ago

> or soy-based foods The vast majority of soy production, particularly the environmentally destructive production that’s converting rainforests in South America into farmland, is for animal feed, not human consumption: https://ourworldindata.org/soy https://ourworldindata.org/soy

hammyhavoc 3y ago

Bold of you to assume I'm not growing my own food.