3 ms·

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 impac

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there are farmers that still plough the land with cattle, the remaining grain processing methods are super outdated.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/.
  - beat 12y ago
    I don't understand. Are you saying that using arable land causes that land to stop existing? There will always be a place to raise both plants and animals, unless all the continents disappear into the sea. As for "Impossible Foods", I don't understand the fixation on making fake meat and dairy products. To me, that's just encouraging the shift away from natural and minimally processed foods, toward a junk food diet of things manufactured in factories from raw resources of industrial agriculture - monocropped fields of soy and corn farmed with industrial poisons and lab engineering. Factory junk food is our diet problem, not meat. It's also our environmental destruction problem.

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/.
- beat 12y ago
  I don't understand. Are you saying that using arable land causes that land to stop existing? There will always be a place to raise both plants and animals, unless all the continents disappear into the sea. As for "Impossible Foods", I don't understand the fixation on making fake meat and dairy products. To me, that's just encouraging the shift away from natural and minimally processed foods, toward a junk food diet of things manufactured in factories from raw resources of industrial agriculture - monocropped fields of soy and corn farmed with industrial poisons and lab engineering. Factory junk food is our diet problem, not meat. It's also our environmental destruction problem.