3 ms·

>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

>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
Wow. > grazing animals use land that generally is not fit for farming plants ... make land productive that otherwise would not be Not every land has to be "productive". This thinking got us where we are. > 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 ... Crop fields do indeed disrupt the habitats of wild animals, and wild animals are also killed when harvesting plants. However, this point makes the case for a plant-based diet and not against it, since many more plants are required to produce a measure of animal flesh for food (often as high as 12:1) than are required to produce an equal measure of plants for food (which is obviously 1:1). Because of this, a plant-based diet causes less suffering and death than one that includes animals. https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-kill-animals-too https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-kill-animals-too > Then you have to spray chemical pesticides that will annihilate anything Dtto. > Not to mention ruminant grazers enhance the soil through their compaction, manure and urine Use compost / compost tea / companion / nitrogen fixing plants.
- 0xBombadilo 3y ago
  This is your brain on veganism. You have no concept of how cattle are actually raised. They are grazed on grassland. No farmer is cultivating food plots of soy beans and bringing them to the cattle. You are thinking of feedlots which cattle go to before slaughter where they are fed corn or soy for a short period of time in order to fatten them up. The existence of a feedlot does not change the fact that for the vast majority of the animal's life it is on a grassland eating grass that would otherwise just grow and die in the winter. The vast majority of the energy that goes into growing cattle would otherwise go completely unused without them. That is why ruminants are special. They turn grass into protein, which is necessary for life, especially brain function. You just want to eat your disgusting soyburger and treat it as some kind of penance so you can then parade around as if you are morally better than people who eat meat. Sorry, we will never stop eating meat and you will never acknowledge the reality that ruminant grazing is good for the environment. You will never consider why there were tens of millions of ruminant bison covering North America for thousands of years. They were a tool of the balance of nature that helped the ecosystem. Keep killing small animals and pretending you're better than everyone else. It will work out really great for you.
AlexandrB 3y ago
Ruminant grazing on natural grasslands is not sufficient to meet the demand for meat. This is why chunks of the Amazon are burned down to create more land for raising livestock. And raising crops for people is much more efficient (in terms of calories per acre) than raising those same crops for animals. Any arguments highlighting the destructive effects of industrial crop farming apply ~10x for meat since much of the meat we eat is raised on soy and other feed crops.
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
> They make land productive that otherwise would not be. Productive according to our fictions re: "value", destructive according to the ecology of systems that we rely on for survival.
- 0xBombadilo 3y ago
  >ecololgy Why were there tens of millions of bison in North America before human development? >value This entire discussion is about the proper use of land. That discussion is impossible without some notion of value, or highest and best use. Any other consideration just ends in "all humans should die". If that's your position then its a waste of time even discussing the situation with you.
  - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
    I'm not saying that grazing animals are a problem, I'm saying that markets and regulators are doing a bad job of managing their location and population size, and that wolves would do it better. Those markets and regulators have a certain values system: they want certain numbers to go up, certain people to be re-elected, etc. Most humans also want their grandchildren to grow up in an environment that isn't teetering on collapse--which is not something that the dominant values system is considering. So my issue with "value" is not that it's useless, but that we're using it in a way that fails to acknowledge that different people value different outcomes. We're instead encouraged to seek value of an unspecified type and leave it to other people to decide which outcomes actually result from that seeking. It's a sort of blindness and it's leading us off a cliff.

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

Wow. > grazing animals use land that generally is not fit for farming plants ... make land productive that otherwise would not be Not every land has to be "productive". This thinking got us where we are. > 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 ... Crop fields do indeed disrupt the habitats of wild animals, and wild animals are also killed when harvesting plants. However, this point makes the case for a plant-based diet and not against it, since many more plants are required to produce a measure of animal flesh for food (often as high as 12:1) than are required to produce an equal measure of plants for food (which is obviously 1:1). Because of this, a plant-based diet causes less suffering and death than one that includes animals. https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-kill-animals-too https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-kill-animals-too > Then you have to spray chemical pesticides that will annihilate anything Dtto. > Not to mention ruminant grazers enhance the soil through their compaction, manure and urine Use compost / compost tea / companion / nitrogen fixing plants.

0xBombadilo 3y ago
This is your brain on veganism. You have no concept of how cattle are actually raised. They are grazed on grassland. No farmer is cultivating food plots of soy beans and bringing them to the cattle. You are thinking of feedlots which cattle go to before slaughter where they are fed corn or soy for a short period of time in order to fatten them up. The existence of a feedlot does not change the fact that for the vast majority of the animal's life it is on a grassland eating grass that would otherwise just grow and die in the winter. The vast majority of the energy that goes into growing cattle would otherwise go completely unused without them. That is why ruminants are special. They turn grass into protein, which is necessary for life, especially brain function. You just want to eat your disgusting soyburger and treat it as some kind of penance so you can then parade around as if you are morally better than people who eat meat. Sorry, we will never stop eating meat and you will never acknowledge the reality that ruminant grazing is good for the environment. You will never consider why there were tens of millions of ruminant bison covering North America for thousands of years. They were a tool of the balance of nature that helped the ecosystem. Keep killing small animals and pretending you're better than everyone else. It will work out really great for you.

AlexandrB 3y ago

Ruminant grazing on natural grasslands is not sufficient to meet the demand for meat. This is why chunks of the Amazon are burned down to create more land for raising livestock. And raising crops for people is much more efficient (in terms of calories per acre) than raising those same crops for animals. Any arguments highlighting the destructive effects of industrial crop farming apply ~10x for meat since much of the meat we eat is raised on soy and other feed crops.

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago

> They make land productive that otherwise would not be. Productive according to our fictions re: "value", destructive according to the ecology of systems that we rely on for survival.

0xBombadilo 3y ago
>ecololgy Why were there tens of millions of bison in North America before human development? >value This entire discussion is about the proper use of land. That discussion is impossible without some notion of value, or highest and best use. Any other consideration just ends in "all humans should die". If that's your position then its a waste of time even discussing the situation with you.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  I'm not saying that grazing animals are a problem, I'm saying that markets and regulators are doing a bad job of managing their location and population size, and that wolves would do it better. Those markets and regulators have a certain values system: they want certain numbers to go up, certain people to be re-elected, etc. Most humans also want their grandchildren to grow up in an environment that isn't teetering on collapse--which is not something that the dominant values system is considering. So my issue with "value" is not that it's useless, but that we're using it in a way that fails to acknowledge that different people value different outcomes. We're instead encouraged to seek value of an unspecified type and leave it to other people to decide which outcomes actually result from that seeking. It's a sort of blindness and it's leading us off a cliff.