4 ms·

One of the leading reasons why we're in such deep mess are our systems of food production, esp. animal agriculture (75% of agriculture lands, uses more land tha

by myshpa 3y ago

One of the leading reasons why we're in such deep mess are our systems of food production, esp. animal agriculture (75% of agriculture lands, uses more land than forests) & fishing. - The majority of deforestation (particularly in the Amazon), is driven by livestock farming. By reducing demand for animal products, we could slow or even reverse the trend of habitat destruction, thus preserving biodiversity. - Growing plants to feed animals and then consuming those animals is an inefficient way of obtaining calories and nutrients. Shifting to a plant-based diet would allow us to feed more people with less land, reducing the pressure on wild habitats. - Animal agriculture is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. - Overfishing is a major threat to marine biodiversity. By reducing our consumption of fish, we can help protect marine ecosystems. - Animal agriculture is also a significant source of pollution, including runoff from farms that can create dead zones in oceans and rivers, harming aquatic species. - Intensive animal farming can create conditions ripe for the emergence of new diseases (zoonotic diseases), some of which could potentially leap to humans and cause pandemics, as well as decimate animal populations.

renewiltord 3y ago
The real difference will be made by abolishing Europe's cities and returning that entire continent to Nature. All the forests and animals should be restored and the cities razed. Extant emissions from the people there dwarf the Amazon's deforestation so it's a much better fix.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  Europe has been and still is re-foresting, it's much more forested than 100 or 300 years ago, and in the last 30 years there has been a 9% increase in forested areas (https://resoilfoundation.org/en/environment/eu-forests-growth/ https://resoilfoundation.org/en/environment/eu-forests-growt...)
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    In Roman times, Germany had 70% forest cover. Conveniently chosen timelines of the last 100 years after half of all forest cover was razed are all very nice but ultimately, the Earth pays the price. What the Germans did then, the Brazilians do a fraction of now. 40% forest cover lost. And now, Germany has almost no primary forest. And Germans burn oil and coal and gas like no other. The net effect of Germany on the Climate is the effect of an Environmental WMD.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  Whatever biodiversity (and therefore whatever resilience) was lost by the destruction of Europe's forests is gone forever. There are important species in the Amazon that can still be saved.
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    That's fair. Europe should therefore pay Earth Reparations to those who have the opportunity to preserve the Earth. While Europe cannot afford to make good, she can try to hit the market clearing price to keep the Amazon unperturbed. This will likely be a debt never successfully paid, but sufficient hundreds of billions every year will likely work. What we need is a Green Treaty of Versailles.
    - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
      Materially, helping is helping whatever the reason. But rhetoric matters. You're going to get a lot more participation if you're trying to make the world a liveable place for the children being born right now, and a lot less participation if you're trying to get people to pay off a debt taken out by their ancestors. Thinking in terms of money and debt is what got us into this situation. I'm doubtful that it will get us out of it. In fact, turning our backs on the logic of the market is probably part of the fix. We need a jubilee so that the people made powerful by causing these problems aren't powerful anymore.
      - renewiltord 3y ago
        A jubilee would only help those who caused these problems since they've reaped the rewards. I, too, would like all my debts forgiven while I retain the profits. Typical of discourse today is to let off the societies that industrialized first with no complaint while simultaneously moralizing against those who are industrializing now. Europe hoards nuclear technology and won't share it with the developing world. Europe burns oil and gas and coal in vast quantities to live. All while Europe says that all past carbon emissions must be considered forgiven debt and all present carbon emissions must be considered sin. The developing world will do as Europe did to get to Europe's standard of living. The developing world will not listen to the moralizing of Europeans who won't do their part. And Europeans can clutch their pearls about the Amazon, but the people who live there will raze it for industry just as the Europeans did. And it will be right.
Aromasin 3y ago
To add some additional point to yours on animal waste, "barnyard run-off" into our water supplies has led to rapid degradation of our lakes, rivers, oceans, and ground water. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and pathogens are the most common water pollutants from manure. Nitrates that leave Minnesota through the Mississippi River add to the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. Added nitrates cause an excess of ocean plants and algae to grow. When the plants and algae die, they are decomposed by bacteria that use up dissolved oxygen. This causes areas of low oxygen to form where ocean plants and animals cannot live. Phosphorus is a major concern because it causes excessive plant and algae growth in lakes and rivers. This causes an oxygen-depleting reaction similar to what happens in the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. E. coli, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia are just a few pathogens that can cause serious health problems in people and animals that come in contact with contaminated water.
0xBombadilo 3y ago
>Growing plants to feed animals and then consuming those animals is an inefficient way of obtaining calories and nutrients. Shifting to a plant-based diet would allow us to feed more people with less land, reducing the pressure on wild habitats. Not true. Ruminant grazing animals (like cows) use land that generally is not fit for farming plants that humans would consume. They make land productive that otherwise would not be. Also, farming for the staples of plant-based diets annihilates animal life. In order to farm soy beans or whatever plant you eat, you have to tear up the soil and in doing so you will kill every ground squirrel, ground nesting bird, snake, vole, groundhog and rabbit that lives in that plot. Then you have to spray chemical pesticides that will annihilate anything you haven't already mechanically killed with the combine. Not to mention ruminant grazers enhance the soil through their compaction, manure and urine while plant farming has to constantly add external fertilizer to maintain yields.
- Timon3 3y ago
  >> Growing plants to feed animals and then consuming those animals is an inefficient way of obtaining calories and nutrients. Shifting to a plant-based diet would allow us to feed more people with less land, reducing the pressure on wild habitats. > Not true. Ruminant grazing animals (like cows) use land that generally is not fit for farming plants that humans would consume. You are arguing a different point from GP. They were talking about growing and farming animal food, feeding that to the animals, and then eating the animals. You're talking about feeding animals directly from the land.
  - 0xBombadilo 3y ago
    GP doesn't understand how cattle ranching works.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      How much cattle do you think lives free-range compared to how much doesn't?
- myshpa 3y ago
MadSudaca 3y ago
> Growing plants to feed animals and then consuming those animals is an inefficient way of obtaining calories and nutrients. Shifting to a plant-based diet would allow us to feed more people with less land, reducing the pressure on wild habitats. Regarding this point, it's important to remember that animals have the ability to transform materials we can't get any sustenance from, because they're not edible, into food. To get the idea, think how pigs have been historically such a popular food in many countries. They would basically eat anything, the owners get the pig fat, then they eat the pig. Another thing to remember is that proteins coming from vegetables are low quality compared to their animal counterparts. For the great majority of the world population a vegan diet is inaccessible. You simply don't get all the nutrients you need from vegetables alone. Friends who maintain a vegan diet for ideological reasons have to supplement it with a heavy dose of pills and other compounds lest they have have problem maintaining their energy levels, even if they have calorie rich diets.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > Regarding this point ... they eat the pig. I'm aware. Not necessary in 21st century (in most of the world). > proteins coming from vegetables are low quality Protein "quality" relates to the presence of essential amino acids. Animal proteins contain all nine essential amino acids and are thus considered "complete." Plant proteins often lack one or more essential amino acids. However, they aren't "low quality" - you just need to consume a variety of plant proteins (like legumes, nuts, seeds, whole grains) to get all the essential amino acids. This process is called protein combining. As long as you're eating a varied diet throughout the day, your body can assemble the necessary amino acids. Plus, plant proteins provide other nutritional benefits like fiber and antioxidants (as opposed to inflamation-inducing effects of meat and dairy). > Friends who maintain a vegan diet for ideological reasons have to supplement it with a heavy dose of pills ... Also not true - only B12 is necessary. It's often a part of animal feed anyway, so why not skip the intermediary.
  - MadSudaca 3y ago
    They are low quality precisely because they are less rich in types of amino acids. Given the option of having animal or vegetable-based proteins you would always pick animal, all other things being equal. Having a “varied” diet is much easier said than done. Even people who are well off, living in rich and developed countries have difficulty maintaining this balance. This is a personal observation, but I suspect a lot of people underestimate how hard it is to maintain this lifestyle. Another aspect that I don’t see discussed anywhere is that you need to have diversity of vegetables just to maintain a functional diet, what will happen to people when for some reason there are problems in the supply chain of a specific crop, you have a bad year with low yields and the price goes to the roof? Another false assumption is that everyone can accommodate a purely plant-based diet.
AlexandrB 3y ago
I think you're absolutely right, but this message is greeted with open hostility in many parts of the internet. Availability of cheap meat is almost seen as a god-given right in developed countries.
- dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
  I have posted a poll under the main thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35923261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35923261 What would your response be to my question 1) and question 2)
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
> - Growing plants to feed animals and then consuming those animals is an inefficient way of obtaining calories and nutrients. Shifting to a plant-based diet would allow us to feed more people with less land, reducing the pressure on wild habitats. I think about this all the time. We need to get the US to stop subsidizing beef so that it can be priced according to its trophic level and not according to its favor with lobbyists.
- dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
  I have posted a poll here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35923261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35923261 What would your response be to my question 1) and question 2)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by myshpa 3y ago

renewiltord 3y ago

The real difference will be made by abolishing Europe's cities and returning that entire continent to Nature. All the forests and animals should be restored and the cities razed. Extant emissions from the people there dwarf the Amazon's deforestation so it's a much better fix.

PeterisP 3y ago
Europe has been and still is re-foresting, it's much more forested than 100 or 300 years ago, and in the last 30 years there has been a 9% increase in forested areas (https://resoilfoundation.org/en/environment/eu-forests-growth/ https://resoilfoundation.org/en/environment/eu-forests-growt...)
- renewiltord 3y ago
  In Roman times, Germany had 70% forest cover. Conveniently chosen timelines of the last 100 years after half of all forest cover was razed are all very nice but ultimately, the Earth pays the price. What the Germans did then, the Brazilians do a fraction of now. 40% forest cover lost. And now, Germany has almost no primary forest. And Germans burn oil and coal and gas like no other. The net effect of Germany on the Climate is the effect of an Environmental WMD.
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
Whatever biodiversity (and therefore whatever resilience) was lost by the destruction of Europe's forests is gone forever. There are important species in the Amazon that can still be saved.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  That's fair. Europe should therefore pay Earth Reparations to those who have the opportunity to preserve the Earth. While Europe cannot afford to make good, she can try to hit the market clearing price to keep the Amazon unperturbed. This will likely be a debt never successfully paid, but sufficient hundreds of billions every year will likely work. What we need is a Green Treaty of Versailles.
  - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
    Materially, helping is helping whatever the reason. But rhetoric matters. You're going to get a lot more participation if you're trying to make the world a liveable place for the children being born right now, and a lot less participation if you're trying to get people to pay off a debt taken out by their ancestors. Thinking in terms of money and debt is what got us into this situation. I'm doubtful that it will get us out of it. In fact, turning our backs on the logic of the market is probably part of the fix. We need a jubilee so that the people made powerful by causing these problems aren't powerful anymore.
    - renewiltord 3y ago
      A jubilee would only help those who caused these problems since they've reaped the rewards. I, too, would like all my debts forgiven while I retain the profits. Typical of discourse today is to let off the societies that industrialized first with no complaint while simultaneously moralizing against those who are industrializing now. Europe hoards nuclear technology and won't share it with the developing world. Europe burns oil and gas and coal in vast quantities to live. All while Europe says that all past carbon emissions must be considered forgiven debt and all present carbon emissions must be considered sin. The developing world will do as Europe did to get to Europe's standard of living. The developing world will not listen to the moralizing of Europeans who won't do their part. And Europeans can clutch their pearls about the Amazon, but the people who live there will raze it for industry just as the Europeans did. And it will be right.

Aromasin 3y ago

To add some additional point to yours on animal waste, "barnyard run-off" into our water supplies has led to rapid degradation of our lakes, rivers, oceans, and ground water. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and pathogens are the most common water pollutants from manure. Nitrates that leave Minnesota through the Mississippi River add to the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. Added nitrates cause an excess of ocean plants and algae to grow. When the plants and algae die, they are decomposed by bacteria that use up dissolved oxygen. This causes areas of low oxygen to form where ocean plants and animals cannot live. Phosphorus is a major concern because it causes excessive plant and algae growth in lakes and rivers. This causes an oxygen-depleting reaction similar to what happens in the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. E. coli, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia are just a few pathogens that can cause serious health problems in people and animals that come in contact with contaminated water.

0xBombadilo 3y ago

>Growing plants to feed animals and then consuming those animals is an inefficient way of obtaining calories and nutrients. Shifting to a plant-based diet would allow us to feed more people with less land, reducing the pressure on wild habitats. Not true. Ruminant grazing animals (like cows) use land that generally is not fit for farming plants that humans would consume. They make land productive that otherwise would not be. Also, farming for the staples of plant-based diets annihilates animal life. In order to farm soy beans or whatever plant you eat, you have to tear up the soil and in doing so you will kill every ground squirrel, ground nesting bird, snake, vole, groundhog and rabbit that lives in that plot. Then you have to spray chemical pesticides that will annihilate anything you haven't already mechanically killed with the combine. Not to mention ruminant grazers enhance the soil through their compaction, manure and urine while plant farming has to constantly add external fertilizer to maintain yields.

Timon3 3y ago
>> Growing plants to feed animals and then consuming those animals is an inefficient way of obtaining calories and nutrients. Shifting to a plant-based diet would allow us to feed more people with less land, reducing the pressure on wild habitats. > Not true. Ruminant grazing animals (like cows) use land that generally is not fit for farming plants that humans would consume. You are arguing a different point from GP. They were talking about growing and farming animal food, feeding that to the animals, and then eating the animals. You're talking about feeding animals directly from the land.
- 0xBombadilo 3y ago
  GP doesn't understand how cattle ranching works.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    How much cattle do you think lives free-range compared to how much doesn't?
myshpa 3y ago

MadSudaca 3y ago

> Growing plants to feed animals and then consuming those animals is an inefficient way of obtaining calories and nutrients. Shifting to a plant-based diet would allow us to feed more people with less land, reducing the pressure on wild habitats. Regarding this point, it's important to remember that animals have the ability to transform materials we can't get any sustenance from, because they're not edible, into food. To get the idea, think how pigs have been historically such a popular food in many countries. They would basically eat anything, the owners get the pig fat, then they eat the pig. Another thing to remember is that proteins coming from vegetables are low quality compared to their animal counterparts. For the great majority of the world population a vegan diet is inaccessible. You simply don't get all the nutrients you need from vegetables alone. Friends who maintain a vegan diet for ideological reasons have to supplement it with a heavy dose of pills and other compounds lest they have have problem maintaining their energy levels, even if they have calorie rich diets.

myshpa 3y ago
> Regarding this point ... they eat the pig. I'm aware. Not necessary in 21st century (in most of the world). > proteins coming from vegetables are low quality Protein "quality" relates to the presence of essential amino acids. Animal proteins contain all nine essential amino acids and are thus considered "complete." Plant proteins often lack one or more essential amino acids. However, they aren't "low quality" - you just need to consume a variety of plant proteins (like legumes, nuts, seeds, whole grains) to get all the essential amino acids. This process is called protein combining. As long as you're eating a varied diet throughout the day, your body can assemble the necessary amino acids. Plus, plant proteins provide other nutritional benefits like fiber and antioxidants (as opposed to inflamation-inducing effects of meat and dairy). > Friends who maintain a vegan diet for ideological reasons have to supplement it with a heavy dose of pills ... Also not true - only B12 is necessary. It's often a part of animal feed anyway, so why not skip the intermediary.
- MadSudaca 3y ago
  They are low quality precisely because they are less rich in types of amino acids. Given the option of having animal or vegetable-based proteins you would always pick animal, all other things being equal. Having a “varied” diet is much easier said than done. Even people who are well off, living in rich and developed countries have difficulty maintaining this balance. This is a personal observation, but I suspect a lot of people underestimate how hard it is to maintain this lifestyle. Another aspect that I don’t see discussed anywhere is that you need to have diversity of vegetables just to maintain a functional diet, what will happen to people when for some reason there are problems in the supply chain of a specific crop, you have a bad year with low yields and the price goes to the roof? Another false assumption is that everyone can accommodate a purely plant-based diet.

AlexandrB 3y ago

I think you're absolutely right, but this message is greeted with open hostility in many parts of the internet. Availability of cheap meat is almost seen as a god-given right in developed countries.

dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
I have posted a poll under the main thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35923261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35923261 What would your response be to my question 1) and question 2)

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago

> - Growing plants to feed animals and then consuming those animals is an inefficient way of obtaining calories and nutrients. Shifting to a plant-based diet would allow us to feed more people with less land, reducing the pressure on wild habitats. I think about this all the time. We need to get the US to stop subsidizing beef so that it can be priced according to its trophic level and not according to its favor with lobbyists.

dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
I have posted a poll here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35923261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35923261 What would your response be to my question 1) and question 2)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]