You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-21 points

Unless you count grass and non-human consumables and non-potable water…sure…until then that’s bullshit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points
*

How is that bullshit? I am not vegan, but that’s just a scientific consensus and a major reason why plant diet is way lower carbon than a meat diet. If you need to grow plant food for your animal food, eventually you have to grow way more plant food.
Most animals raised for meat consumption are fed with crops, notably soy, not wild grass.
Thinking animals raised for meat only consume resources (land (first cause of biodiversity loss), plants, water, energy) that would not be useful to humans anyway is undoubtedly wrong.

Researchers Poore and Nemecek are a great source of meta-analysis information about those subjects. Check this summary here for example: http://environmath.org/2018/06/17/paper-of-the-day-poore-nemecek-2018-reducing-foods-environmental-impacts/

Let me know if I misunderstood your point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

It’s less important that such arguments be factually accurate than that they are superficially convincing enough to distract the person giving the argument from thoughts and feelings they are unwilling to process.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-22 points

https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/50901500/px-based_v3.2/educ-matrls/pdfs/HO_what-cows-eat.pdf

We do not feed them food we can eat, it would be such a waste to do so. We literally feed them shit we cannot consume. Feeds are made from roots/stalks/inedible plants.

The vegan industry doesn’t like this, so they say well that land could be used for other things, when in reality it’s already being used for the food that we eat.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

They are also fed grains and soy in varying percentage depending on regions and countries.
There is also still the use of land, energy, fresh water and the methane emissions typical of cows.

This is another break down of the above-mentioned study: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

You can see that indeed, the USA does better than other countries on not dedicating crops to animal feed, but it is still about 14%, while the world average is around 40%. Isn’t that a lot that could be earned back?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Yes, but inefficiently.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points
*

What figures are you basing your ignorance off of? The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals. Animal ag is one of the largest consumers of fresh (ie “potable”) water. There are ten animals living in human possession for every human on Earth. Without intensive plant agriculture, we could not possibly feed them all. Grass and run-off is not what is producing your food.

And since we are specifically discussing the hypothetical suffering of plants, why wouldn’t you count grass? You’re triggered.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals

That’s a lie. 2/3 of the world’s crop calories go directly to people. One third of the world’s crop calories go to livestock, but that’s as the other user is mentioning, mostly crop seconds or parts of plants that we can’t eat.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals.

It’s not that clear, it depends on the country. See the part about share of cereals dedicated to animal feed in this link, it’s about 15% in the USA and the rest of the feed is byproducts of crops used for human reasons. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

permalink
report
parent
reply
-16 points
*

What figures are you basing your ignorance off of? The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals. Animal ag is one of the largest consumers of fresh (ie “potable”) water. There are ten animals living in human possession for every human on Earth. Without intensive plant agriculture, we could not possibly feed them all. Grass and run-off is not what is producing your food.

No they are not. They eat the shit we cannot eat, they graze the majority of their lives and we use non potable water to water them. The feed we feed them is not made with anything that a human could consume. It’s roots/stalks/inedible plants. This bullshit that keeps being promoted by vegans that everything a cow can eat is bullshit.

And since we are specifically discussing the hypothetical suffering of plants, why wouldn’t you count grass? You’re triggered.

Because your entire point was that vegans consume less plants than anyone else, which is basically saying “vegans are still better than meat eaters” it’s more hilarious dick wagging from you chods.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Lol butthurt misinformation troll

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points
*

Are you saying grass aren’t plants? Why would it matter if the plant is consumable by humans if vegans are trying to minimize suffering?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-16 points

Because they’re not about minimizing suffering, it’s about being morally superior to meat eaters and letting everyone know about it. The post I replied to, literally made that a point.

permalink
report
parent
reply

science

!science@lemmy.world

Create post

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<— rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

Community stats

  • 2.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 679

    Posts

  • 5.9K

    Comments