Math equation says, plant eating requires less land, which means fewer workers exploited. Also I'm pretty sure plant farmers don't have a 400% turnover rate. It's almost like even if the math were equal, which it isn't, killing animals all day is bad for your mental health.
Math equation says, plant eating requires less land, which means fewer workers exploited
that doesn't follow
edit: this user never constructed a cogent argument, but, in the end, devolved into a hypocritcal spluttering rant making unfounded accusations, then announced they were blocking me. just in case you thought they could deal with skepticism.
Let me be way way more specific for you than should be necessary. It takes more plants to feed animals than us to feed plants ourselves directly. E.g., a culture of animal product consumption requires more land to be cultivated and maintained to feed those animals before we can even feed the animals to us. This requires more workers to be exploited in the 'consumption' industry.
If you are arguing that 'well those workers will just be exploited in another business,' you could make that argument about any change in the workforce where labor requirements are reduced. It's not relevant if we are focusing strictly on the food system and the amount of workers required within it. If we continue this more broadly though, it's still not necessarily true if we don't assume a political/socioeconomic system that puts them in that position. So in a hypothetical far far future, if we for some reason still need human labor to work fields but have outsourced enough jobs to robotics elsewhere so as to have UBI for many citizens without work, it would still require less workers to focus on a plant based diet than a meat eating diet. Frankly, by reducing the amount of workers required in any instance, you inch ever closer to UBI. So if you want to inch closer to a society that doesn't exploit workers generally, even from that point of view, The Vegans are still approaching this closer than meat eaters.
a lot of what is fed to animals is the waste from crops that go to humans first. the same land growing food for animals is the same land growing food for people.
My dude you are either being misled or are attempting to mislead. Yes some inedible material from crops we eat is used and in some countries like the US they even feed garbage to pigs.
If you are taking the 'nothing gets wasted approach' it absolutely does, Americans waste 40% of all their food availability for example.
But to the point they absolutely are clearcutting rainforests and other lands specifically to increase feed production for animals. They absolutely feed a shitload of human edible material to animals grown specifically for animals. I'm too lazy to reiterate statistics to a single person who will see it so for the love of God please research this and do not send me any regenerative animal farming bullshit that does not scale.
every one of those links is just rehashed poore nemecek 2018. I'm dubious about their methodology.
my dude.
I honestly don't care if you believe in the particulars of their methodology.
Let me be even MORE straightforward. Feeding animals plant calories (yes, human edible plant calories) to feed yourself animal calories is literally a caloric deficient. You would have to break the laws of thermodynamics to get more calories out of feeding animals plants to eat them rather than feeding yourself those same plants. It is inherently less efficient. Are you about to move the goalpost further and debate the laws of thermodynamics?
ruminants can be raised entirely on grazing, and nothing is more efficient than letting an animal live until it's fat enough and slaughtering it.
Are they raised entirely on grazing though? Are you in hypothetical land where people eat 1% of the total meat they currently do eating only animals that exclusively graze?
No.
you have no idea what is in my local meat markets.
A) Congratulations, you account for almost no one on Earth and haven't accounted for the totality of it in determining how people should/can live in regards to the environment. Your worldview is extremely biased in determining appropriate models if you think people can/do eat animals that exclusively graze.
B) Are you not also still neglecting to consider the methane release of those grazing animals?
C) even if the environmental factor were not real, which it is, you'd still be facilitating intentional animal murder. An already disagreeable matter.
Reminder that you started with 'I dont see how less workers would be exploited.' And we've arrived here. Are you by chance anti-vegan or have any personal financial investment in animal agriculture? The degree to which you are interested in justifying environmental damage and animal murder on the grounds of your local meat market being isolated from reality and that almost no on has or can have access to seems entirely lacking a basis for this level of argumentation and I'm growing tired of arguing with someone who cannot grasp this.
you are interested in justifying environmental damage
I've never done that
Are you by chance anti-vegan or have any personal financial investment in animal agriculture?
I am not antivegan
Are you by chance anti-vegan or have any personal financial investment in animal agriculture?
my identity is irrelevant to whether I am right
you are interested in justifying ... animal murder
I have never done that
you're attitude is shitty. you can't accept that you made a hyperbolic claim and go off on rants that cross the line into hostility to someone who had the temerity to disbelieve your wild claim. get help.
Your worldview is extremely biased in determining appropriate models if you think people can/do eat animals that exclusively graze.
people absolutely do that.
you started with 'I dont see how less workers would be exploited.'
and you still haven't made a compelling case, but you have shown that it's not even a real concern for you, given that you are actually interested in pushing an ideology and are grasping at straws to support it.
I should have just went to your profile right away and saved the trouble lol
The ideology doesn't detract from the obvious. You're ignoring the laws of thermodynamics for non-grazing animals because in your head there is some fictional world where there is exclusive grazing animals that everyone exclusively eats where reality puts that at maybe 0.0001% of real human diets. Your intentions are dubious at best, and I grow tired of you. If you really wanted to have a productive conversation, you could have explained what about the methodology of the UN's FAO paper on land use you disagreed with, but I guess you can just reference some other paper and go 'well it's allegedly at least in my brain like this other one I read so therefore all goes in the trash.' I am not a data/environmental scientist so if you want to debate bro about the particulars of those papers or their methodology seek out people who may or may not be more educated than you, personally I think they'll have an even harder time taking you seriously.
You can probably even get a direct email out to those who wrote the papers you disagree with. They might laugh a little, but they may actually respond. Who knows. But I'm good dawg, I'll keep doing what is ethically sound for living conscious beings and is recommended by scientific consensus as good for the environment/climate, and you just keep on saying whatever the hell all these comments were to other people who probably also don't want the most nested back and forth dialogue possible that goes nowhere. Maybe you're not 'anti-vegan' but to engage with this content as frequently as you do, you clearly have a motive - and unlike you, Vegans will be upfront and honest about theirs. You should stop hiding your intent/background. But again, I'm good dawg. I'm interested in dialogue that can actually change people's minds to lead a more compassionate and sustainable life and it's clear you'll not change your ways and no one is reading this so it will not influence others either. You will continue paying other people to kill animals irrespective of any evidence I provide and hilariously claim it's not evidence. No interest in interacting in future, giving you the solid block. Have a nice day.
Math equation says, plant eating requires less land, which means fewer workers exploited. Also I'm pretty sure plant farmers don't have a 400% turnover rate. It's almost like even if the math were equal, which it isn't, killing animals all day is bad for your mental health.
that doesn't follow
edit: this user never constructed a cogent argument, but, in the end, devolved into a hypocritcal spluttering rant making unfounded accusations, then announced they were blocking me. just in case you thought they could deal with skepticism.
Let me be way way more specific for you than should be necessary. It takes more plants to feed animals than us to feed plants ourselves directly. E.g., a culture of animal product consumption requires more land to be cultivated and maintained to feed those animals before we can even feed the animals to us. This requires more workers to be exploited in the 'consumption' industry.
If you are arguing that 'well those workers will just be exploited in another business,' you could make that argument about any change in the workforce where labor requirements are reduced. It's not relevant if we are focusing strictly on the food system and the amount of workers required within it. If we continue this more broadly though, it's still not necessarily true if we don't assume a political/socioeconomic system that puts them in that position. So in a hypothetical far far future, if we for some reason still need human labor to work fields but have outsourced enough jobs to robotics elsewhere so as to have UBI for many citizens without work, it would still require less workers to focus on a plant based diet than a meat eating diet. Frankly, by reducing the amount of workers required in any instance, you inch ever closer to UBI. So if you want to inch closer to a society that doesn't exploit workers generally, even from that point of view, The Vegans are still approaching this closer than meat eaters.
a lot of what is fed to animals is the waste from crops that go to humans first. the same land growing food for animals is the same land growing food for people.
My dude you are either being misled or are attempting to mislead. Yes some inedible material from crops we eat is used and in some countries like the US they even feed garbage to pigs.
If you are taking the 'nothing gets wasted approach' it absolutely does, Americans waste 40% of all their food availability for example.
But to the point they absolutely are clearcutting rainforests and other lands specifically to increase feed production for animals. They absolutely feed a shitload of human edible material to animals grown specifically for animals. I'm too lazy to reiterate statistics to a single person who will see it so for the love of God please research this and do not send me any regenerative animal farming bullshit that does not scale.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impact-milks
every one of those links is just rehashed poore nemecek 2018. I'm dubious about their methodology.
my dude.
I honestly don't care if you believe in the particulars of their methodology.
Let me be even MORE straightforward. Feeding animals plant calories (yes, human edible plant calories) to feed yourself animal calories is literally a caloric deficient. You would have to break the laws of thermodynamics to get more calories out of feeding animals plants to eat them rather than feeding yourself those same plants. It is inherently less efficient. Are you about to move the goalpost further and debate the laws of thermodynamics?
ruminants can be raised entirely on grazing, and nothing is more efficient than letting an animal live until it's fat enough and slaughtering it.
Are they raised entirely on grazing though? Are you in hypothetical land where people eat 1% of the total meat they currently do eating only animals that exclusively graze?
No.
you have no idea what is in my local meat markets.
A) Congratulations, you account for almost no one on Earth and haven't accounted for the totality of it in determining how people should/can live in regards to the environment. Your worldview is extremely biased in determining appropriate models if you think people can/do eat animals that exclusively graze.
B) Are you not also still neglecting to consider the methane release of those grazing animals?
C) even if the environmental factor were not real, which it is, you'd still be facilitating intentional animal murder. An already disagreeable matter.
Reminder that you started with 'I dont see how less workers would be exploited.' And we've arrived here. Are you by chance anti-vegan or have any personal financial investment in animal agriculture? The degree to which you are interested in justifying environmental damage and animal murder on the grounds of your local meat market being isolated from reality and that almost no on has or can have access to seems entirely lacking a basis for this level of argumentation and I'm growing tired of arguing with someone who cannot grasp this.
I've never done that
I am not antivegan
my identity is irrelevant to whether I am right
I have never done that
you're attitude is shitty. you can't accept that you made a hyperbolic claim and go off on rants that cross the line into hostility to someone who had the temerity to disbelieve your wild claim. get help.
people absolutely do that.
and you still haven't made a compelling case, but you have shown that it's not even a real concern for you, given that you are actually interested in pushing an ideology and are grasping at straws to support it.
I should have just went to your profile right away and saved the trouble lol
The ideology doesn't detract from the obvious. You're ignoring the laws of thermodynamics for non-grazing animals because in your head there is some fictional world where there is exclusive grazing animals that everyone exclusively eats where reality puts that at maybe 0.0001% of real human diets. Your intentions are dubious at best, and I grow tired of you. If you really wanted to have a productive conversation, you could have explained what about the methodology of the UN's FAO paper on land use you disagreed with, but I guess you can just reference some other paper and go 'well it's allegedly at least in my brain like this other one I read so therefore all goes in the trash.' I am not a data/environmental scientist so if you want to debate bro about the particulars of those papers or their methodology seek out people who may or may not be more educated than you, personally I think they'll have an even harder time taking you seriously.
You can probably even get a direct email out to those who wrote the papers you disagree with. They might laugh a little, but they may actually respond. Who knows. But I'm good dawg, I'll keep doing what is ethically sound for living conscious beings and is recommended by scientific consensus as good for the environment/climate, and you just keep on saying whatever the hell all these comments were to other people who probably also don't want the most nested back and forth dialogue possible that goes nowhere. Maybe you're not 'anti-vegan' but to engage with this content as frequently as you do, you clearly have a motive - and unlike you, Vegans will be upfront and honest about theirs. You should stop hiding your intent/background. But again, I'm good dawg. I'm interested in dialogue that can actually change people's minds to lead a more compassionate and sustainable life and it's clear you'll not change your ways and no one is reading this so it will not influence others either. You will continue paying other people to kill animals irrespective of any evidence I provide and hilariously claim it's not evidence. No interest in interacting in future, giving you the solid block. Have a nice day.
I haven't moved goalposts at all, and everything I've said has been true.