Yep. He's taking total bollocks.
You do realise that pasture grows continuously unlike grain that only produces one crop per year.
you dont listen.
I think this thread might reveal how some (hopefully not most) meat eaters respond to such attempts at education.
You do realise I was replying to the experts you quoted don't you?
Oh, wait:
Right so this 'evidence' contradicts your previous 'evidence'. Sounds like your 'experts' can't make their minds up.Oh, wait:
I've no idea what your point is, If you're going to quote someone, make it obvious, FFS.You do realise I was replying to the experts you quoted don't you?
So in other words you don't bother reading your own evidence.
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that meat-rich diets are having a hugely negative impact on the environment and are unsustainable.Right so this 'evidence' contradicts your previous 'evidence'. Sounds like your 'experts' can't make their minds up.
He doesn't always read discussions before quoting or commenting. I was talking about possible future avian or swine flu outbreaks earlier and he quoted me and started talking about Pangolins.
How much meat is rich?
Probably a good idea, because any 'solution' to your over population 'problem' strays into extremely dodgy ground. Funnily enough, almost all the studies don't put the blame at third world people having 'too many' children, and say that there's ample food around if people just changed their diets and, you know, ate less meat.
Feeding 9 Billion - National Geographic
When we think about threats to the environment, we tend to picture cars and smokestacks, not dinner. But the truth is, our need for food poses one of the biggest dangers to the planet.www.nationalgeographic.com
That doesn't deal with the ecological issues though does it? You could reduce waste and improve distribution to feed everyone and still have many of the environmental impacts including high though reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Is it possible to feed everyone and reduce environmental impacts without changing production far more than just reducing waste? Could a change of what people consume be a part of this? There are also issues around top soil and fertility. Capitalist agriculture has done massive damage. Dealing with that legacy will require major changes in production. A move away from that agriculture and its environmental impact while not reducing yields by more than that wasted surplus third could be a challenge.
It's because of the characters that are involved on here and the combative natures of the relationships that have developed specifically on these boards over the years. Take a look at the thread titles started by the OP on the subject and you'll find that the majority are highly provocative, like this one. Similarly there is no shortage of threads that deliberately bait vegans. Add to that the fact that the discourse is often vegans telling "carnists" that their dietery habits are destroying the planet/poor people's habitats/morality, and the "carnists" telling the vegans to fuck off; it's hardly a recipe for serious intellectual engagement.
But you're saying vegans. Most aren't vegans, they're people just trying to do their bit. I agree about the title, which describes people as meat eaters. Maybe we should stop ascribing pigeon holes for people on both sides.
But you were discussing the difference between meat-eating and other environmental threads. The vast majority of the meat /vegan threads on U75 have 3 main protagonists on the anti-meat side and all 3 are highly militant vegans who attract opprobrium from loads of omnivores and even occasionally vegetarians! The other environmental issue threads have far more evenly distibuted opinions so are less likely to result in immediate war. Even dietary discussion threads will often stay civilised until one or more of those three get involved and start banging on about fragile carnist murderers eating “rotting flesh” drinking "cow juice" and destroying the planet!
It's not quite the challenge some make it out to be, though. The challenge is to move away from capitalism and the destructive monocultures it promotes. High-yield, intensive, but sustainable farming practices, in which crops are grown in mixed fields, have been shown to work and produce higher yields than industrialised farming methods without destroying soils. These methods require care, attention, and a lot of labour, but then that just highlights one of the contradictions in many of the Malthusian arguments - on the one hand, there are a lot of people to feed, while on the other hand, the sustainable processes by which so many people are fed require a lot of people to do the work. There's a solution hiding in there somewhere.
And where will that leave consumers? Will it still support large numbers of livestock? Some animals are more polluting than others perhaps a change of diet will help or maybe there will be less available.What about all those who want to take up something along the lines of a western diet when it comes to meat? Can this be supported?
Well first we need to characterise the problem correctly. Firstly, very broadly, living standards are improving on every continent except Africa. Infant mortality reducing, malnutrition reducing, life expectancy increasing (and for the Malthusian-minded among us, reproduction falling, often sharply).
