this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
550 points (76.1% liked)
Memes
45681 readers
1093 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If it's about eating ethically, I highly suggest trying to eat locally instead. It's much better for the environment, and you can usually get a better nutritional balance.
I mean, if eating "meh" makes you feel good, go for it. Just please make sure to study all the supplements you need and keep researching because there are regularly discoveries that might change the supplement intake you require.
Transport is a teensy tiny part of the climate/environmental impact for food. In 99.9% of cases, a plant-based food will beat out any meat from next door.
That being said, local in the sense things that actually grow locally and are in season is still a good idea, though more from a community building perspective.
Food Transport is estimated to be as high as 3 gigatons tons of CO2 emissions per year, a full 20% of all food-related CO2 emissions. From my point of view (not considering all animal-related CO2 emissions as a single line-item), that makes transport the single largest cause of CO2 related impact in the entirety of agriculture/horticulture.
For context, ALL manure CO2 emissions is only 2.6 gigatons (full disclosure. I lost and re-found this link, and see another source estimates manure closer to 7B. I'm sure you know my thoughts on that. Food Transport is still of dominant significance and fertilizer impact cannot be that effectively reduced). And in many cases, that manure is less harmful to the environment, yes EVEN CO2 impact, than the other fertilizer options that replace it when used in crop farms.
There's a strong argument for "less meat" being good for the environment, but I am convinced (in part from hands-on experience) that the only arguments for "no meat" being any good are entirely fabricated.
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions
I don't agree with Hannah, in this case. Specifically, I challenge anyone who leaves cow methane on a chart or in an argument without covering the CO2 production by non-manure fertilizer or the fact that only depopulation will stop cows from pooping. And unfortunately, a plethora of studies are showing that synethetic fertilizer production creates massive amounts of methane gas as well. I'm fairly convinced she is (perhaps inadvertantly) including that under "cow farm" when it should be under "plant farm".
She also just handwaves saying transport costs are low despite studies she opted not to cite or rebut that place them at 20%. But here's the funny part. That was the first link. The second agrees with the 20% figure for logistics (though she uses the term "Supply Chain" and separates physical transport from processing, packaging, and retail storage (all of which are cut out or down from local). Digging into supply chain figures in the left article's graph, she just disagrees with herself (and, to be honest, other experts).
In fact, the numbers on her second article suggest bias to me in her first article. She blames land use for 1/3 of beef GHG production. But in the second article, only 2/3 of Land Use GHG goes to animal, with the other 1/3 going to "land use for human food". I'm sure you can see the next line. If Land Use is such a large part of meat GHG production and crops are so good at everything else, then Land Use should be dominant and in-your-face on the crop chart in the first article. Instead, apparently she's undecided about that?
Look. I can see why you might decide that eating less meat might be the wrong choice for you. But when there are studies that say eating local is important and studies saying eating less meat is important, one article is not going to get me to change my entire life, and risk the environment, just to feel good about myself.
Yes. We kill 80 billions mammals and trillion fish each year and billions are lost to diseases, fire and low profitability. If the whole word would decide to not abuse animals farmers would gas or burn the animals. Once, and not the perpetual killing all meat eaters have no problem with, but the fantasy scenario where we stop killing is a problem?
So you're an anti-natalist? I try to avoid arguing with anti-natalist vegans because as morally disgusted as I am of their position, there is no way to convince them to change it.
No, I am not. But people who care about animals claiming veganism would kill animals are concern trolls. Support the perpetual killing and raping - or - care about animals.
Um... That's bullshit. People who care about animals claiming veganism will kill animals is yet another valid reason to not be a vegan.
Obviously, not only from the the Haber-Bosch process which is the most energy intensive single process worldwide, it is used for Ammoniak, nitrogen.
The mining of phosphor leaves huge wastelands and will be rare in about 100 hundred years if we continue.
But manure is not created from thin air. You need to feed animals a lot feed until you get something to eat back. It wastes 20 times more crop compared to plant based diet. Manure will not save us, it destroys nature, water and air.
The IPCC 2022 states even giving up every form of fossile fuel animal industry would push us over 3° increase.
I do not eat any animal products, but the main reason for it that I do not want to kill others if I can avoid it. I don't want you to import any fancy exotic food for a plant based diet. I don't, I get my potatoes from my neighbor and mostly buy local foods anyway. Don't act like you can't eat local plants and are therefore forced to eat others.
What exactly do you think we should plan to do with all the grass and waste product currently being used in feeding animals? There's a complex web of dependency between plant and animal farming that I have seen firsthand, and all I ever hear is that cutting half that web off entirely will magically "Just word" and be better than what we have no. Most importantly, I'm convinced I eat carbon neutral even with eat, or at least as close to that as reasonably possible. And I've never seen a plan to scale to a world where meat eating is ended, and the massive inefficiencies that would introduce.
This is not preciately how I took it. Instead, I took it as more "we need to do everything we can, and the whole world going vegan is more likely than the other major sources". Ultimately, we would already be in a good place if 7 businesses became carbon neutral. IPCC 2022 cited a LOWER number than most do for methane, only 14% of world methane, only 1/3 of human caused methane. The one or two "experts" I found who specifically pushed for sudden international veganism have also failed to account for the above issues I mentioned. I argue it's easier to find technologies that can mitigate and reverse emissions than it is to find technologies to let the world cut out meat entirely.
Which is absolutely your right. I have become convinced that my mixed diet leads to ultimately less death than a plant-based diet would (trolley problem), but it is not the foundation of my mixed-diet choice. I'm not an anti-natalist, and I'm perfectly fine with the quality of life a typical farm cow lives when compared to a cow in the wild when the alternative is to not be born at all. I know plenty of people who suffer in their lives more than a farm animal will, and yet never once think those people should never have been born.
Huh? I DO eat local plants. I have a farm down the road and buy almost all the produce we don't grow there. When we do have to buy from retail establishments, we buy 99% of our produce locally. Yes, about once a year I buy a dragonfruit because it's a guilty pleasure. So sue me.
But I also get eggs from my neighbor, and occasionally chicken. We have a deer overpopulation problem in my area. When I can, I pick up locally hunted deer from the butcher. My wife has PTSD and it triggers her regarding hunting, so I don't hunt my own despite the fact she and I are morally on the same page as that. I support that because I consider it ethically better than being vegan because I believe pulling the lever on the trolley is always the right choice, and because I am convinced "what we have is ethical because it is better than the real world alternatives". There is no trolley track without any bodies on it, in this world.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kids-found-working-graveyard-shifts-on-meat-plant-kill-floors-for-packers-sanitation-services-feds-say
https://www.wdam.com/2023/07/17/16-year-old-dies-accident-mar-jac-poultry-plant/
https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-50986683
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28506017/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/08/11/489468205/working-the-chain-slaughterhouse-workers-face-lifelong-injuries
You don't have to see non human animals as living beeings, even it you think they are just things, you could care about the humans involved.
My neighbor had pigs until the gases fucked up his lungs now he has to roll with O2
You seem to be taking a hard-right on topic. I'm not sure this next gishgallop is meaningful to me because I'm not sure what you are trying to get out of this.
If you're trying to convince me or anyone else to become a vegan, you really need to find reasons that are topical to why they reject veganism. As someone who is aware of people being injured in plant farm accidents and who buys local so doesn't contribute to any of the above, this really feels like a desperation move on your part. Just keep throwing things till something sticks? If you're really convinced you're right, maybe you should stick to your guns and a single topic?
I do see the animals as living beings. I also care about the humans involved. I have put time and money into fighting for animal rights and safety in industry in general. But if I'm not going to convince you to stop eating vegetables based on unsafe and unfair labor/purchasing from farms in third world countries, you're not going to convince me to stop eating local meat because of a single kid dying in a massive factory-farm plant for a company that doesn't even serve my area.
Do you have studies that ALL plant farms are always safer than all animal farms? Because as far as I'm aware, plant farmers have one of the world's most dangerous jobs in terms of deaths and on-site accidents (8th most deadly, but who is counting? :) ). Yeah, they like to combine the numbers, but the #1 cause of injury and death (by a large margin) are tractors, which are used for plants and not animals.
By your logic, why exactly should I not be eating meat exclusively?
EDIT: Interestingly to my complaints about logistics, delivery drivers have a higher death toll than farmers. For everyone injured or killed in your articles linked above, there are several people dying delivering frozen tofu cross country to people who have been convinced they shouldn't be eating the local chicken.
Ah shit r/antivegan is leaking.
I thought you follow logic but you are just concern trolling. If you would care about other countries, other people and animals and have some sense of biology you would look at the rain forests and see that they are burnt down for your food. Animal food industry is a wasteful business that is unsustainable. You profit from the systematic exploitation of workers and animals. I am really convinced that I am right because it like thermodynamics, you are the on dreaming of manure being a magic sludge that just produces nutrients from thin air.
With that ":)" You have disqualified yourself to be taken seriously while the meat industry has the highest suicide rate everywhere in the world. You don't even care about humans. Tractors which are used mainly for animal feed. I have proven your numbers wrong with a easy to read source.
frozen tofu my ass. All animal products need a cooled delivery chain, my tofu is from beans grown near me. You just try to make up bullshit to convince your sorry ass you are doing the right thing. All fake news and "they" lie all to you.
Beefcentral if you like that source more: https://www.beefcentral.com/news/ipcc-report-recommends-eating-more-plant-based-protein/
You are just a fact denier at that point, and a lire if you say you fight for animal rights.
At this point, you're just trolling. You literally pretending me using a smiley appropriately disqualifies me to be taken seriously. I have no choice but to categorize you with the guy on the subway who tells me I'm going to hell for not accepting his god.
Currently 75% of the product grown is for animal food. Grass fed is less than 10% even in the USA, and all give extra feed. Grass produces way more methane in ruminants compared to starch based feed like soy for which the rain forest is burned down.
You know you need massive amounts of feed to others before you can kill them for your pleasure? We could feed 10 billion people with the product we grow right now. Instead we feed it other animals.
Others know it is not possible and act according: https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/01/31/china-includes-cultivated-meat-in-its-plan-for-the-future-of-food
https://www.iatp.org/ipcc-report-reveals-urgency-methane-reduction-need-reduce-industrial-agriculture
Explain that. A plant based diet uses less resources in every way. You don't think there are no animals killed for animal feed which is just a bad conversion of food, do you?
We all have a impact on the environment and on others, but acting worse than we have to because of a nirvana fallacy is not acceptable. While our impact on the future is hard to measure it is today when we decide to support killing and abuse or not.
You're representing false data and I have already cited proof otherwise. Show me a study or reference that says more than 20% of cow food is edible, or please stop replying to me.
Grass-fed is the implication that cow ONLY eats grass. Per my cited data, 46% of all food eaten by livestock is grass and leaves. But animals that eat 46% grass and leaves are not considered "grass-fed". The term "grass-fed" requires the cow eat 100% forage after milk-weaning.. There is an ocean between being "Grass-fed" and "eating human-edible products". A cow that eats 0% edible products is still not "grass-fed" if they consume crop-residue.
Now that I have shown you actual facts, I'm going to find out if you're spreading propaganda or actually care about saying true things. AT this point, you HAVE TO KNOW that the idea 75% of crops is grown solely for animal food is fabricated. Only 36% of TOTAL crop calories (not even just edible calories) go to livestock, and a massive majority of that is inedibles.
So please, stop repeating lies that I have shown are wrong. If you can't defend veganism with the truth, stop defending to me.