Too simple. Can you eat grass? Because that is what all beef cows eat to make most of their bodies. And that grassland that grows that grass is called “grassland” because it won’t support crop farming. So that is mostly “free” meat, if you will, because it doesn’t use any land that might otherwise grow crops.
Can you eat corn stalks? Because a lot of what beef and milk cows and pigs eat is the chaff from human foods. They do also eat grain. But make no mistake about it - right now there is zero food shortage in America and, indeed, most of the world (although there IS a food distribution problem). Those evil cows are not snatching Wheatina from the mouths of hungry babes.
The fact is that there is a hideous amount of exaggeration about the contributions of livestock to our environmental problems. No doubt the Koch brothers are very pleased to see so many people distracted from the real issue: the burning of fossil fuels. You want some perspective? Look at this chart of U.S.GHG-eq emissions:
I think that’s true for some people, but for others it’s a health issue, and for yet still others, it is about climate change.
I don’t think it has to be either/or though. I suspect that many people probably have multiple motivations or even clashing ones for going vegan. Your experience isn’t everyone’s of course.
Since always? Shouldn’t a sustainable food system also be one that’s affordable for all? Should the poor be punished and starved (or at least underfed) for being poor?
I don’t think any single measure is going to “save our asses”. What seems worth thinking about to my mind, is both the kind of systemic changes that a survival-oriented society would make. And what kind of damage is going to happen when this society declines to make those changes.
I like to imagine some humans surviving, on the other side of this crisis, and then think about what they will have done right to allow them to survive. It’s a long list.
No, veganism will not save us from climate change. It would also take cutting fossil fuel consumption down to almost zero levels tomorrow. I don’t understand why anyone wants to have children in this world. Thank Goddess mine are up and grown. Unfortunately, both of my sons have already had children. Humanity just can’t stop to save itself. I am old and getting older and hope I don’t see the devastation on wildlife and habitat before I die. Gotta find me some DMT and hopefully envision better things in life.
Sooooo you want to loose wait and choose a ketogenic diet that initially sheds the pounds off?
The secret to weight loss in short is: Eat less and move more.
But please - don’t tell anyone, dieting is so much fun.
Now to veganism:
The only thing that still amazes me about this discussion, is in which ways the “humane” or “sustainable” meat eaters still rationalise their meat eating, just to avoid this one and simply question:
Is it OK to kill a sentinent being just because you got accustomed to the taste of its flesh since childhood?
As others already mentioned, there’s not enough land (and furthermore water, they drink and shit, those animals…) on this planet to raise animals in the way Tree and others suggests. And even if there was, data (and reasoning) suggest, eating plants right away and skipping the middle man-imal, will always be more eco-friendly than eating whatever meat.
And even then the original question is another.
Now take that knife, grab that pig hard, ram the blade into that pig’s throat, hear it scream in agony, suppress its struggle against the unwanted pain and its fear of death, wait for its brain to stop functioning because of blood loss and for its muscles to stop twitching because that brain stopped and no chemical reactions are triggered anymore and then look into a mirror and tell yourself you are a rational being, this was just an animal not worth your empathy and this action was unavoidable and the only way to sustain your own body’s energy and functioning.
Wow you’re extreme! Don’t force your opinion on me! But it tastes good! We always ate meat! The human body needs meat! Your anti-humanist! Veganism is like a religion! But it tastes good! But we have fangs! Hmmm steak!
That’s their purpose! But you want to kill all those jobs? What would you do if you stranded on a deserted island with a cow? To-fu tastes like shi-at! I know a vegan and he’s sick all the time! I tried it but it was to difficult! Veganism is soooo expensive! Plants have feelings too! But what about B12? But it tastes good! Me and my family only eat a little meat!
I only buy organic! I come from a small town, it’s normal there!
Mod parent up.
Eating lower on the food chain is more economically and environmentally viable. This article has some interesting points buried in there somewhere, but that lead will only serve to justify the consumption of more meat and further destruction.
A balanced locally sourced diet, with low or no meat and eating with the seasons is the healthiest, least impactful and tastiest way to go. Period.
According to nature, pretty much so. Are you going to do away with all carnivores in your ideal world?
You are vegan? Good for you, I admire you. But please don’t try to make solving global problems less attractive to the general population than what it already is. It doesn’t help our cause. We can solve global warming without needing to first all become vegans.
While it doesn’t invalidate the point you’re making, it is relevant to note that a kilogram of methane (CH4) produces a much stronger greenhouse effect than a kilo of carbon dioxide – you usually hear about a factor of between 20 and 30, though it’s not quite an apples-to-apples thing.
I believe those charts are both using scaled figures, i.e. they’re representing each ton of CH4 as 20 tons of CO2. The second chart does say that with respect to the total figure in the corner (that’s what they mean by “megatons of CO2equivalent”) but neither chart makes it clear, and neither gives the “exchange rates” they’re using to compare different greenhouse gases.
The two reasons this matters are that (1) if you’re comparing detailed numbers, you need to know what conversion factor is being used to compare methane and carbon dioxide, and (2) where methane (from poop and landfills) is otherwise going to be released into the atmosphere, it is better to burn it even if that energy isn’t used for anything, because a ton of unburnt methane is as bad as 20+ tons of carbon dioxide, and burning it only produces about 3 tons of actual carbon dioxide.
One of the biggest problems is the way we see the global warming issues. “…will not save us from climate change.”
It’s not us that needs saving. It should be the planet that needs saving from us. There’s ~7.6 billion of us and the number is increasing. Some day the number will going down for while when major famine breaks out but before this happens, fairly large ecosystems will be completely wiped out.
Well, with all the doom and gloom elsewhere in this thread, at least it appears some people can appreciate the fact that our modern times makes a long, healthy life of veganism/vegetarianism possible and have the luxury to make that choice.
I think it is still mostly medium-sized family owned ranches that are adapting to the newer best practices. I really don’t know what percentage it is, but I am seeing it happening more than I used to. I will ask an expert next time I speak to one about the numbers.
But it is all interconnected. The hay we harvest tends to go to wherever there is not enough locally sourced hay available. So the rancher in Montana who picks up a few truckloads of our hay is indirectly participating in the process, and funding the conversion of more traditional farmland to more robust tallgrass prairie.
But there is also an advantage to super efficient large scale farming. It is very important for many people that food is generally inexpensive and readily available. That being said, there are issues. Lots of people are gaming the subsidy system, and large agribusiness tends to put a lot of pressure on the farmers contracted to work within their systems.
I propose that it is no worse ethically to eat meat than it is to eat veggies grown in a place that used to be natural habitat. Nobody gets to escape the fact that they are part of the whole process. From a rural perspective, it seems pretty unhealthy to try to convince yourself that that you are not participating in the “circle of life” just because you don’t see your impact on the environment. Burllamb brought up some very important points, especially on the matter of what ruminants eat vs a human diet. I am personally unable to digest Buchloe dactyloides or Bouteloua curtipendula without introducing a ruminant into the process.
I think it is fine for anyone to eat under whatever dietary restrictions they want to place on themselves. But the judgemental tone I get from some of these comments seems unnecessary.
It does talk about ways that both livestock and arable farming could be improved, but the overall thrust is to deny the ecological case for becoming vegan. Since it makes that argument by comparing existing arable farming with a hypothetical livestock industry where pigs with names frolic in Arcadian groves wearing little waistcoats, it’s a bit disingenuous.
If we’re talking about individual choices, right now, vegans probably do have a smaller ecological footprint. And if we’re talking about redesigning the whole world’s food economy, I guess the best-case vegan world still comes out ahead of the best-case meat-eating world.
This is such a Guardian-reader conversation, though; IRL, almost no one wants to be vegan or eat $25 Beatrix Potter pork chops. Where I think there is a lot of mileage is in dialling back what I think of as “non-meat”. Like, if KFC did tofu nuggets or tempura vegetables, it would be literally zero sacrifice to get that instead of chicken, because that wasn’t scratching any real desire for meat anyway. For Western people who’ve never seen meat per se as an aspirational thing, this shouldn’t be too much of a hard sell.
But I don’t think she’s denying veganism altogether, just pointing out that large scale factory farming, as it’s currently practice, makes vegan food, too.
I think that depends on a whole host of other factors, though, not just the food they eat.
“Is it OK to kill a sentinent being just because you got accustomed to the taste of its flesh since childhood? (Overly dramatic description of pig slaughter, plus various strawman rantings)”
Boy, you sure make your side seem rational and approachable.
Seems to be like she’s basically saying “The very best form of livestock farming can, in optimal conditions, be not all that much worse than the very best worst of agricultural farming possible.” In other words, insane nitpicking of the highest order.
