5 ms·

This is only true when there is plenty of grass available. In fact, you're wholly incorrect because of the extent to which we've used up this planet as an input

This is only true when there is plenty of grass available. In fact, you're wholly incorrect because of the extent to which we've used up this planet as an input for meat production. We've essentially turned all of the available arable land into farmland, and all of the available grassland into pasture. There is nothing left but forest, and we are quickly replacing that to our great detriment. We are tapped out. If the rest of the planet starts eating meat at the rate that the first world does (~150 kg of beef per person per year), we'll need another planet to feed them. There is literally not enough land to do it on. I recommend this XKCD for an idea of the scale to which we've appropriated Earth for raising our livestock: https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/ And this UN FAO report, "Livestock's long shadow", on how much of Earth we've actually used for raising livestock, and the devastating environmental consequences: http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm edit: adding this figure from the report about land usage just so you understand the situation clearly: http://i.imgur.com/rvbCwA0.png http://i.imgur.com/rvbCwA0.png

beat 12y ago
Historically, my argument is correct. There is a strong argument that Green Revolution agricultural techniques have changed the equation substantially, and our current meat consumption is without historical precedent. But that doesn't make my argument incorrect - just opens up the fact that we need to think differently now. Green Revolution agriculture would be destructive even if it were 100% vegetarian.
- astazangasta 12y ago
  No, it really wouldn't, not to the same extent. 90%, literally, of agriculture is used to feed animals for meat production. If we were all vegetarian, our impact on the planet would literally be 10 fold lower in these terms. Historically, your argument is correct, but you're inferring that meat is efficient in the present, when it plainly is not. The planet is resource-strapped, and meat consumption is the main reason. And this is without a majority of earth eating a meat-heavy diet.
  - beat 12y ago
    You're assuming a pound-for-pound, calorie-for-calorie equivalence - that humans could eat 100% of the biomass consumed by animals (and would, with other options available). This is obviously not true. Much of what we feed to animals - corncobs and wheat hulls, for example - is inedible to humans. Most of the rest requires extensive processing to be edible. Corn and soybeans are fed to humans mostly in the form of factory-processed junk food, not as fresh vegetables. The human population has more than doubled since the 1960s. This is due to a massive increase in food supply. Increased meat consumption is a side effect of this luxury. The root problems, to address your concerns, are not meat - they're pump-driven irrigation, diesel-powered tractors, nitrogen fertilizers, chemical pesticides and herbicides, and all the other things that have both increased the arable land supply and increased the productivity of that arable land.
  - kamaal 12y ago
    >> 90%, literally, of agriculture is used to feed animals for meat production. How did you get that number? >>but you're inferring that meat is efficient in the present Apart from the first world countries, agriculture productivity in most poor and developing countries is still at where it was middle ages. In my own country(India) there are farmers that still plough the land with cattle, the remaining grain processing methods are super outdated. These sort of stone age farming practices, combined with stagnant government policies making it difficult for importing agriculture equipment, add to this no coherent thought or depth in making long term investments in irrigation infrastructure is what makes this whole process inefficient. Not Meat. >>The planet is resource-strapped The planet has plenty of resources we just need to know how to tap into them efficiently.
    - astazangasta 12y ago
      >The planet has plenty of resources we just need to know how to tap into them efficiently. This is an empty phrase. Where is the arable land? Where is the pasture land? How are you going to raise meat in the future when there is nowhere left to raise it? Part of this "efficiency" is to stop taking grain/roughage and running it through an animal's metabolism in order to produce protein for human consumption. There are better ways, like http://impossiblefoods.com/ http://impossiblefoods.com/.
HeyLaughingBoy 12y ago
150 kg of beef per person per year Where the hell did you get this number from? I buy all my beef from a farmer who's a friend of a friend. A year's supply is purchased all at once, so I have a pretty good idea of how much of it we eat. My family of four goes through less than 250 lbs (about 110kg) of beef in a year, yet your statistic is that we should be eating roughly half a ton of it per year? If you're going to make shit up, at least make it sound reasonable.
- wtbob 12y ago
  I imagine he's counting carcass weight rather than dressed weight.

beat 12y ago

Historically, my argument is correct. There is a strong argument that Green Revolution agricultural techniques have changed the equation substantially, and our current meat consumption is without historical precedent. But that doesn't make my argument incorrect - just opens up the fact that we need to think differently now. Green Revolution agriculture would be destructive even if it were 100% vegetarian.

astazangasta 12y ago
No, it really wouldn't, not to the same extent. 90%, literally, of agriculture is used to feed animals for meat production. If we were all vegetarian, our impact on the planet would literally be 10 fold lower in these terms. Historically, your argument is correct, but you're inferring that meat is efficient in the present, when it plainly is not. The planet is resource-strapped, and meat consumption is the main reason. And this is without a majority of earth eating a meat-heavy diet.
- beat 12y ago
  You're assuming a pound-for-pound, calorie-for-calorie equivalence - that humans could eat 100% of the biomass consumed by animals (and would, with other options available). This is obviously not true. Much of what we feed to animals - corncobs and wheat hulls, for example - is inedible to humans. Most of the rest requires extensive processing to be edible. Corn and soybeans are fed to humans mostly in the form of factory-processed junk food, not as fresh vegetables. The human population has more than doubled since the 1960s. This is due to a massive increase in food supply. Increased meat consumption is a side effect of this luxury. The root problems, to address your concerns, are not meat - they're pump-driven irrigation, diesel-powered tractors, nitrogen fertilizers, chemical pesticides and herbicides, and all the other things that have both increased the arable land supply and increased the productivity of that arable land.
- kamaal 12y ago
  >> 90%, literally, of agriculture is used to feed animals for meat production. How did you get that number? >>but you're inferring that meat is efficient in the present Apart from the first world countries, agriculture productivity in most poor and developing countries is still at where it was middle ages. In my own country(India) there are farmers that still plough the land with cattle, the remaining grain processing methods are super outdated. These sort of stone age farming practices, combined with stagnant government policies making it difficult for importing agriculture equipment, add to this no coherent thought or depth in making long term investments in irrigation infrastructure is what makes this whole process inefficient. Not Meat. >>The planet is resource-strapped The planet has plenty of resources we just need to know how to tap into them efficiently.
  - astazangasta 12y ago
    >The planet has plenty of resources we just need to know how to tap into them efficiently. This is an empty phrase. Where is the arable land? Where is the pasture land? How are you going to raise meat in the future when there is nowhere left to raise it? Part of this "efficiency" is to stop taking grain/roughage and running it through an animal's metabolism in order to produce protein for human consumption. There are better ways, like http://impossiblefoods.com/ http://impossiblefoods.com/.

HeyLaughingBoy 12y ago

150 kg of beef per person per year Where the hell did you get this number from? I buy all my beef from a farmer who's a friend of a friend. A year's supply is purchased all at once, so I have a pretty good idea of how much of it we eat. My family of four goes through less than 250 lbs (about 110kg) of beef in a year, yet your statistic is that we should be eating roughly half a ton of it per year? If you're going to make shit up, at least make it sound reasonable.

wtbob 12y ago
I imagine he's counting carcass weight rather than dressed weight.