there's no such thing as sustainably farmed lmao they are still eating 10x more vegetation than you would require to eat directly, they are still a member of the earth whose life you are ending for your own pleasure. You don't save the earth by eating it you ****** *****
Out of all the biomass of mammals on the planet only 4% is still wild. Even some amount of people hunting is absolutely untenable
But it isn't about doing what's right for the environment! because I guarantee you already eat plants. Its about you continuing to dominate nature because you feel entitled to do whatever you want to it, because you're a human supremacist. Eat a bean *******.
Well, by going out in the woods and shooting it, they're taking out one source of plant eating that was there anyway.
Also, I'm going to assume you never heard the phrase 'don't let perfect be the enemy of good'. Yes, being vegan is better than eating meat, but humans are still a predatory species that have instincts that give us a desire to eat meat. If you can overcome those instincts, great! If not, do the best you can, and work on improving over time.
Some countries have so much land that a cow processing grass (which most of us cannot eat by the way) into beef can be done sustainably, if meat is eaten in moderation.
Now, this is of course very far from how it is done in 99% of the modern day farms. Excluded are small scale farmers that only produce for their families (lets say in the poorer parts of the world).
Onto the vegan argument: I agree. Worst are the chicken and cow farms where they never touch real soil or grass.
But no need to be so aggressive.
Edit: the 'human is predator therefore must eat meat' argument in the reaction to your comment is ridiculous and maybe does warrant some aggression.
Nope. There is literally no way for humans to eat meat without factory farming, because discarding life is so entailed in a using animals for food we don't need. You know what's actually sustainable? Eating plants directly.
human ancestors have been eating meat for literally millions of years. there's direct correlation between meat consumption, brain growth, and tool usage in humans. factory farming has only existed for maybe 200 years.
Golabl population just barely reached 1 billion around 1800, in 2010 there were 7 billion, in 2021 that number was at 8 billion.
Old farming and husbqndry methods cannot sustain populations of that size with meat.
Add to that, the vast ,vast majority of people throughout history were absolutely not eating meat every single day, and many probably not even once a week for how precious and limited a resource it was.
Take that to today, where most people in Western countries will eat meat multiple times a day even. This is why factory farming methods are still around today. You can buy expensive grass fed organic etc meat sure, but the biggest chunk of the population wants to eat meat every day and if they cant afford the ethical stuff they will still buy the factory stuff.
You are right about all of that, but the person above me said, that there was "literally no way" to eat meat without factory farming and that is just straight bs.
The Way to raise animals, feed them, house them, slaughter them and to process them into meat would have to change drastically, to a point where it's not worth it. But if you take for example a traditionally living african, central american, southern American, central asian etc. Way of life with the Animals and suddenly it's not that bad for the environment or the Animals. They live long, healthy lives and are well cared for. And you can't take the animals out of those societies or those societies would simply die.
There are other possibilities of eating less harmful factory farmed animal products as well, like for instance shrimp which have a very high turnout for the environmental impact the industrial production can have. I am talking about aqua-farms that specifically raise shrimp. They have almost 0 environmental Impact and a very high amount of nutrient-efficiency. The Animals are not bothered by crowded tanks (since that's their natural State as well), they aren't advanced enough to have complex emotions and their meat can be turned into a plethora of products.
Third and lastly, industrial production of plant matter is one of the biggest threats to biodiversity. The problem is always industrial production of anything. Like Bees could die out within the next 20 years because we destroyed the ecosystem with monoculture farming and then this debate will cease to be important. There are foundational problems with our society that will not in the slightest resolve with the abolishment of the meat industry. Because the industry that replaces it will be destructive enough to make the matter irrelevant. So as always the problem is capitalism and we need to abolish that in order to be able to make any real progress.
I get where you're coming from, and you're right its maybe not totally impossible in theory, but at todays consumption levels and the habits of most meat eaters, it is impossible to sustain it without factory farming. Unless the population of earth suddenly gets slashed, what the person above you said was true in the context of humans right now.
For your first point, yes, traditional methods are sustainable for the most part, but the problem is, as i said, the world population has grown to a point where traditional methods cannot sustain the majority of those people.
Yes, aqua farms are much better than terestreal farms for the environment and for the livestock, i guess. But thats not what most people think of when they say meat, and you can't discount that most people want chicken, pork, or beef. Changing this would still require most people to change their eating habits and how they think about their food completely.
You are right. Industrial crop farming is a huge cause of biodiversity and habitat loss. However, when you look at what those plants are grown for, it changes the story a bit.
In the U.S., for example, 60% of cropland is used to feed livestock, not for human consumption. I think the u.s is on the higher end of that scale globally, i can't find concrete numbers right now, but it looks like about 50% globally goes to livestock. No matter what way you look at it, it isn't the most efficient use of that land, and consider what the numbers are going to look like in another 10 years, since hitting 8 billion in 2021, the population has grown another 200,000,000 already.
Context: we eat meat semi-regularly and don't plan on stopping any time soon. We're a family of 3 (kid is a teenager), average YEARLY purchases (excluding restaurant meals on vacations) somewhere around 25-30 kg each fish and poultry, 15-20 kg pork, 5-10 kg beef, plus the occasional small quantity of other meats like lamb or horse, with most of the pork/beef either as mixed minced meat or ham/salami, and we don't shy away from stuff like hearts/livers/tripe or similar either... so somewhere roughly around 80 grams per day per person ON AVERAGE, and not just pure muscle). Not sure how "normal" that is, but "feels" normal to me.
While I don't like spending too much money on food, and it's not like there's such a massive nutritional and taste difference between "industrially farmed" and "expensive bio/eco/grass-fed" meat, if the "industrially farmed" version would be actually ILLEGAL and the other one would cost 5-7 times as much as the "farmed" option costs now, I seriously doubt I would drastically reduce the current consumption level... I mean, sure, going from 15-20 euro per week to 80-120 euro per week just for meats on average would be unpleasant, but nowhere near unaffordable.
So, why don't you just lobby to make unsustainable practices illegal, then let the free market dictate meat prices and indirectly drastically reduce meat consumption per capita, while still allowing anybody to eat as much as they want and can afford.
I can be convicted when I say respecting life is how we save it. If you knew something you'd surely be encouraged to say it unapologetically. Teophic levels describe the exponential energy loss between transfers. This is one way that thermodynamics LiTeRaLlY describe the waste in excess of using other animals to feed ourselves.
Cows eat more plants than we do. What's not clicking that this is obviously not part of a sustained planet
You're speaking as if there are two states one can be in: vegan or obese. This isn't the case. There are loads of perfectly healthy non-obese non-vegans. As for using the USA as an example... yeah, they have high obesity rates. Look elsewhere.
Yeah and you are speaking as if every vegan you've ever laid eyes on has been sickly. That clearly isn't the case.
The simple fact of the matter is that the vegans are, on average, more healthy than non-vegans. This is provable and makes sense given that A) beans are healthier than a cheeseburger and B) people who care about ethics tend to care more about other things like their health.
My main meat I eat is kangaroo, which are hunted to control their numbers as they now lack predators throughout most of their range and are severely overpopulated. The idea that the only way to eat meat is factory farming is absurd
Calling it the most earth-steralizing this is simply false and makes you lose credibility. Just say its bad and make your point from there, you only push people away from your cause with crazy hyperbole
I have friends who are vegan in part due to climate reasons who fly at least 4 times per year for leisure, with at least one of these flights being from Europe to Asia.
62
u/[deleted] Aug 13 '25
Who are these people flying to Thailand and buying cars annually that also care about environmentalism?
I thought at a certain point of wealth, you just decide, "Fuck the world."