Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

[Pickman's model]

I dont think people in Ireland farmed horses...
And only the wealthy had horses anyway. General plebs were lucky to have a goat.

So 600,000 horses in Ireland in 1900


All of them owned by the rich


Hmm

 

[Aladdin]

So 600,000 horses in Ireland in 1900


All of them owned by the rich


Hmm

They were owned by landowners...and those who had their own transport...and those who ran and organised general transport of peopleand goods...and by those who could afford a horse.

The poorest who made up a large proportion of the population did not have horses. They didnt have the land to keep a horse. And in cities they didnt have the space for one.

 

[mojo pixy]

Or are we all going to be hydroponic gardeners?

In short, yes.

 

[Saul Goodman]

So 600,000 horses in Ireland in 1900


All of them owned by the rich


Hmm

My grandfather had a grey mare that he used for ploughing and mowing. He replaced it with a grey Ferguson tractor, as the tractor was a lot more economical, and removing the horse meant he could feed two two extra cattle. Those were likely the reasons for the decline in the horse population.

 

[Aladdin]

Sure you'd have been saying some similar thing about horses a hundred, hundred and twenty years ago

How many horses do you think were in Ireland in say 1900?

So 600,000 horses in Ireland in 1900


All of them owned by the rich


Hmm

I'm guessing you brought this up because you have access to some research into horses in Ireland in the 1900s.

I believe many Irish horses were bred for the British army and indeed many were sent to war in 1914.

There has been a strong tradition of breeding horses in Ireland. It does go back to land ownership though. And those who owned lots of land had much more access to horse breeding etc.

 

[Aladdin]

My grandfather had a grey mare that he used for ploughing and mowing. He replaced it with a grey Ferguson tractor, as the tractor was a lot more economical, and removing the horse meant he could feed two two extra cattle. Those were likely the reasons for the decline in the horse population.

Farmers certainly had a horse...or two. But a horse needs 1.5 acres and most small holdings were not able to leave 1.5 acres for a horse.

Irish tenant farmers had to divide their land repeatedly over generations.

But those who were not farmers didnt have the land for a horse. They were lucky to have 0.5 acre to grow crops.

 

[WouldBe]

I'm not persuaded you've entirely grasped what livestock eats now

They still need to eat and continue farting methane while they die out. If the climate crisis is now then we can't have cows hanging about for another 20/30 years while they enjoy their retirement.

 

[WouldBe]

It's utterly indefensible to assert that it's OK to keep on eating meat at the current levels.

What is the true cost of eating meat?

As concerns over the huge impact on the environment, human health and animal welfare grow, what future is there for the meat industry, asks Bibi van der Zee

www.theguardian.com

Yawn. You can keep repeating the same crap as often as you like, it doesn't make it any truer.

 

[Cid]

Not sure the 'but what will you do with all the animals now?' argument is particularly productive tbh. I mean it's a flaw, certainly, you'd have to cull most of them. But isn't that much of a problem if you're looking at long-term reduction in meat consumption.

 

[Cid]

I'm a little more concerned that people seem to think we can just jump from pastures and rangeland to er... 'we don't really know, but you can't kill animals'.

 

[platinumsage]

Not sure the 'but what will you do with all the animals now?' argument is particularly productive tbh. I mean it's a flaw, certainly, you'd have to cull most of them. But isn't that much of a problem if you're looking at long-term reduction in meat consumption.

The militant Veganists who anthropomorphise to such an extent they use terms such as "sexual assault" for artificial insemination would surely balk at such mass genocide and ethnic cleansing though, unless their positions are in fact full of inconsistencies.

 

[WouldBe]

Not sure the 'but what will you do with all the animals now?' argument is particularly productive tbh. I mean it's a flaw, certainly, you'd have to cull most of them. But isn't that much of a problem if you're looking at long-term reduction in meat consumption.

But culling animals for food is cruel.

 

[Athos]

If you're looking to reduce the number of animal deaths in the long terms, then the solution is to fuck the planet up to the point that it can;t sustain life, as quickly as possible.

 

[Funky_monks]

It's not about mass culling no, it's about not over breeding and rape and keeping cows constantly pregnant and ripping their screaming calves from them whilst having industrial suction machines stuck on them, do you think that's a nice happy life?

The only thing that's clear from that post is that you've never been anywhere near a calving cow. Ever.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

and the dumpster fire continues

 

[Cid]

But culling animals for food is cruel.

If you're looking to reduce the number of animal deaths in the long terms, then the solution is to fuck the planet up to the point that it can;t sustain life, as quickly as possible.

Nah, this is silliness. Pointlessly reductive. The end goal is a sustainable existence on earth, without exploitation of animals and with promotion of ecosystem restoration and environmental health. There's ample shit to criticise in that, or specifically the route to aspects of that, without having to fall back on reductio ad absurdum type stuff.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm a little more concerned that people seem to think we can just jump from pastures and rangeland to er... 'we don't really know, but you can't kill animals'.

Rewilding would surely be a major part of the mix, as Poot pointed out earlier.

In this idealised future, farming would have switched to sustainable mixed methods, with crop rotation and intercropping as part of an integrated system to produce the plants needed for human needs.

Whatever is left over, if anything, can be rewilded, including, presumably, the (re)introduction of wild ruminant herds where most appropriate/necessary for heathlands, etc.

That second point is a crucial one, though. It is the move away from destructive monocultures that will make the real difference, sustainability-wise. Attempting anything else without also addressing that issue is pointless.

 

[xenon]

The 2 things I have learned from this thread.

1. I'm never gonna be a vegan, unless I go to restaurants more often, or someone else does the cooking as I don't want to rely on processed produce. I do eat some vegan stuff of that nature already.
2. Be more judicious about checking where the meat I buy is from and act accordingly.


OH and.
3. Farming, mass food production, processing, distrobution, retail is complicated.

Mitigating against climate change, resource depletion, has to see measures taken across the whole food production and waste chain. The tiny bit I can do by not buying Australian beef for example, in an attempt to influence retail, is worth doing but not worth all this hectoring compared with the bigger picture.

 

[editor]

I dont think people in Ireland farmed horses...
And only the wealthy had horses anyway. General plebs were lucky to have a goat.

Ireland plays a big part in this shameful exploitation and cruelty of horses.

Horse racing: Thousands of racehorses killed in slaughterhouses

Some horses once trained by some of racing’s top names are being slaughtered, BBC Panorama finds.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Aladdin]

Ireland plays a big part in this shameful exploitation and cruelty of horses.

Horse racing: Thousands of racehorses killed in slaughterhouses

Some horses once trained by some of racing’s top names are being slaughtered, BBC Panorama finds.

www.bbc.co.uk

Dreadful.

 

[Aladdin]

Not sure the 'but what will you do with all the animals now?' argument is particularly productive tbh. I mean it's a flaw, certainly, you'd have to cull most of them. But isn't that much of a problem if you're looking at long-term reduction in meat consumption.

I'd say if you were a cow you'd be pretty concerned about it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'd say if you were a cow you'd be pretty concerned about it.

I think the point would be that the current farm animals will go (and by 'go' I mean 'be killed'), but that the trade-off is that, in a meat-free future world in which all our food is produced in sustainable farms, there will be increased space for future generations of other animals to live in wild or semi-wild conditions. (The idea that all animal-killing would end is unrealistic - deer will still need to be culled, rabbit numbers controlled, etc.)

 

[Cid]

Rewilding would surely be a major part of the mix, as Poot pointed out earlier.

In this idealised future, farming would have switched to sustainable mixed methods, with crop rotation and intercropping as part of an integrated system to produce the plants needed for human needs.

Whatever is left over, if anything, can be rewilded, including, presumably, the (re)introduction of wild ruminant herds where most appropriate/necessary for heathlands, etc.

That second point is a crucial one, though. It is the move away from destructive monocultures that will make the real difference, sustainability-wise. Attempting anything else without also addressing that issue is pointless.

Yes, I know the basic principles… I’ve probably been unfair to poot because there’s no way I’m going through the whole of this thread.

Personally though I don’t really have any problems with some level of livestock farming within that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't have a problem with some level of livestock farming within that either. I still want my cheese.

How that would be done and how much of it could be done is an interesting question, imo. What kinds of numbers could we see with a wholesale return to mixed farming? Given that mixed farming is more productive than monocultures, it might still be possible to have a significant amount of livestock within a sustainable farming system, but I don't know the relevant numbers.

 

[Athos]

The end goal is a sustainable existence on earth, without exploitation of animals and with promotion of ecosystem restoration and environmental health.

What makes that a 'good' in and of itself?

 

[Cid]

I don't have a problem with some level of livestock farming within that either. I still want my cheese.

How that would be done and how much of it could be done is an interesting question, imo. What kinds of numbers could we see with a wholesale return to mixed farming? Given that mixed farming is more productive than monocultures, it might still be possible to have a significant amount of livestock within a sustainable farming system, but I don't know the relevant numbers.

Yes, we're well into the Dunning-Kruger zone at this point... I did find Funky_monks posts upthread quite interesting on that front. The UK is always a weird one because we're so short on land in general.

 

[Cid]

What makes that a 'good' in and of itself?

I honestly can't be arsed.

 

[Athos]

I honestly can't be arsed.

OK, though it was a genuine question. The longer life goes on, the more people and animals will suffer. So asking what is the aim of any particular course of action and why seems sensible.

 

[Funky_monks]

Yes, we're well into the Dunning-Kruger zone at this point... I did find Funky_monks posts upthread quite interesting on that front. The UK is always a weird one because we're so short on land in general.

This is why "sustainable intensification" is a buzzword at the moment. If we are going to take land out of production, we need to compensate in order to feed people.

 

[Aladdin]

The longer life goes on, the more people and animals will suffer.

This happens anyway ..the longer you live the more likely you will suffer.