Submitted by phileconomicus t3_ycisnw in philosophy
After_Kick_4543 t1_itmttlw wrote
Reply to comment by PM_ME_SPICY_DECKS in Lab-grown meat could let humanity ignore a serious moral failing by phileconomicus
Ok you’re right, but there are still a number of nutrients that are easier to obtain by eating meat and more easily digestible in meat. In addition the whole concept of not eating meat ignores the fact that today approximately 50% of the worlds fertilizer come from farm animals. This allows you to eat plants without relying on synthetic fertilizers that have a larger carbon footprint then cows.
PM_ME_SPICY_DECKS t1_itmuh51 wrote
The animals still make manure if you don't kill them.
In fact you receive a constant supply of manure from live animals.
A lot of fertilizer use can also be avoided by no longer practicing monoculture, and cultivating many types of plants that have symbiotic relationships.
SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itppwqa wrote
If a cow was simply grazing a field a leaving dung piles then there would be a net loss of resources, no? They're just eating the grass, stealing half of it's nutrients and pooping half of it back. You need to kill the cow to get 100% again, right?
I'm just curious
After_Kick_4543 t1_itmuy4j wrote
But then I can preform a calculation based on the amount of manure they will produce plus the nutritional yields I will get from using it as fertilizer versus the nutrition received by just eating it as meat. Avoided also doesn’t mean gotten rid of, and as long as we need fertilizer it’ll be better for the environment to get it from cows and pigs then a factory, at which point the previous calculation I mentioned would come into effect in deciding when killing the animal for food would be efficient for us and the environment.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments