4 ms·
maybe, but only because a lot of people would starve... that's a demand change our food supply isn't currently structured to handle long term with a proper tra
by micromacrofoot 6mo ago
maybe, but only because a lot of people would starve... that's a demand change our food supply isn't currently structured to handle
long term with a proper transition, probably not 60% but likely some lower double-digit percentage (maybe closer to 20?)
- wongarsu 6mo agoWe grow a lot of human-edible food for the sole purpose to feed it to livestock, who then spend most of those calories on existing and put a small portion into body mass that we eventually eat. Sure, that stuff isn't of the same quality as food grown for human consumption, but putting livestock on a diet and diverting some of their food to human consumption would more than cover any shortfall from the missing meat
- scottyah 6mo agoYes, only the rich should be allowed to eat the basic food group of natural meat.
- triceratops 6mo agoThat's how it worked for most of human history in most agricultural societies. It's a traditional value.
- micromacrofoot 6mo agoamericans eat more meat than most other countries today, and most humans throughout history
- micromacrofoot 6mo agowe don't have the distribution systems for it, I promise you it could not be reconfigured overnight (which is the specific thought exercise we were given)