This is also covered by the study and the article I shared above. It would require using more lands for crops that feed people, but thatās ridiculously small compared to the land that would be regained from stopping animal agriculture, which is 75%. Just removing cows would do the vast majority of that.
Crops for feed can be regained and if most pasture land is inappropriate for crops, some are, so we would gain from freeing those too. Furthermore, this land can be given back to biodiversity, which will also benefit us in the long term, if just protecting biodiversity for the sake of it is not a good argument for you.
Again, I am not vegan, I mostly advocate for reducing, not forbidding, consumption proportionally to ecological impact. If some people for medical reason require meat, Iām completely fine with it, this would likely be a small percentage of the current consumption.
Omnivore, not obligate carnivore except for a few exceptions maybe, so we could use a low meat diet or a fully plant based diet fine.
This is also covered by the study and the article I shared above. It would require using more lands for crops that feed people, but thatās ridiculously small compared to the land that would be regained from stopping animal agriculture, which is 75%. Just removing cows would do the vast majority of that.
Again the majority of the land used for cattle is not suitable for crops. So unless you plan on putting houses on that land itās not going to be used for anything anyways.
Crops for feed can be regained and if most pasture land is inappropriate for crops, some are, so we would gain from freeing those too. Furthermore, this land can be given back to biodiversity, which will also benefit us in the long term, if just protecting biodiversity for the sake of it is not a good argument for you.
O it would be great to have more biodiversity, we need all the insects we can get, but cows arenāt killing off our insect populations, growing crops and spraying pesticides are. Which donāt even get me started on organicā¦they use organic pesticides which are way more devastating to the environment.
Again, I am not vegan, I mostly advocate for reducing, not forbidding, consumption proportionally to ecological impact. If some people for medical reason require meat, Iām completely fine with it, this would likely be a small percentage of the current consumption.
In honesty, we need vertical farms and lab grown meat. If that could be pulled off then weād be golden. Iām not against eating plants, but Iām not someone who likes that militant vegans come in and spew bullshit just because they want to feel morally superior to people who eat meat.
Omnivore, not obligate carnivore except for a few exceptions maybe, so we could use a low meat diet or a fully plant based diet fine.
The issue isnāt that we canāt, itās that the majority of people already eat like crap, which meat helps fill in the blanks. If we went to all plant based, people would still eat like crap and be missing vitamin D and protein.
Also a good chunk of us are already eating a low meat diet because that shit is expensive.
Are you not aware that the more meat you eat, the younger you die and the more major diseases you experience? Meat is toxic, people are not better off for having any amount of it in their diet. Plants are made of protein. Calorie for calorie, plants are a superior protein source. There is not one major health consequence in the world today caused by too much not enough protein. The leading cause of death of all humans on earth COMPLETELY GOES AWAY without meat consumption, and so do several others. The idea that a lack of vitamin D and protein is a major health issue for humans who eat mostly plants is ridiculous, and any consequences can be easily mitigated. There is nothing you can take that will prevent meat from killing you.
Guessing you didnāt read anything from the john hopkins linkā¦like usual. Meat is not toxic, I donāt know where you got that from, calorie for calorie they are not superior in protein, and the leading cause of death of all humans doesnāt vanish because of stopping meat consumption (hint meat doesnāt turn you into a 800lb whale)ā¦the fuck are you babbling about.
poore-nemecek is based on misreading LCA studies. LCA as a measurement is not transferable between studies. poore-nemececk just went through and did averages. itās not good science. itās not even science.
Do you have a source more reputable than the Science journal and the Oxford university?
this land can be given back to biodiversity,
there is no reason to think this is going to happen. theyāll build a mall or a skyscraper.
