DeleteSystem33 t1_iw11fvq wrote on November 12, 2022 at 2:46 AM

Reply to comment by FreshwaterArtist in I'm looking to become more involved in climate justice in W. PA... by Extreme_Qwerty

Are you saying you want to do away with eating meat?

Edit: Can someone help me understand why me clarifying someone's comment is controversial in any way?

FreshwaterArtist t1_iw11lk2 wrote on November 12, 2022 at 2:47 AM

100%. 15% of our annual anthropogenic GHG emissions, the single largest cause of deforestation, a huge sink of land, water and resources, and you know, all the animal cruelty and what not, that is not necessary for human existence. I don't value temporary human pleasure over stopping any of that.

chad4359 t1_iw153h1 wrote on November 12, 2022 at 3:19 AM

It's funny what people say when they think they are morally right. Getting rid of coal, natural gas, and livestock are all their great goals. The lack of power, heat and protein are not their concern though.

Gill03 t1_iw1lmg5 wrote on November 12, 2022 at 6:08 AM

Utopian thinkers don't think ABC the only see the ends and feel they can figure out the means on the way, it's a psychological trait. It's how communism always turns into killing people. The adverse is dystopian, where they focus on each individual cause and effect to avoid doom. It's why right-wing people are bad conceptual thinkers and left-wing people are bad practical thinkers.

FreshwaterArtist t1_iw16xfw wrote on November 12, 2022 at 3:36 AM

I can attest at least to "lack of protein" or in this case, a complete lack of that being a real issue rather than a hand waiving attempt by people who seek to make no improvements to either their environmental impact or to live a more humane life. Plant protein is readily abundant, easy to prepare, easy to store and constantly available in new forms as the years go on.

It's also less of thinking I'm morally right than knowing it. In what universe is directly contributing to animal abuse not morally reprehensible? It's weird how quickly we condemn other acts of violence towards animals for not necessary purpose, like dog fighting, but apply the same logic to our reprehensible treatment of livestock and you want to pretend it's actually not an issue?

Gill03 t1_iw1msr4 wrote on November 12, 2022 at 6:23 AM

You are conflating multiple issues, why you are doing it is to manipulate the conversation to make yourself look right.

I can safely say aside from the animal abuse stuff, you have no idea what you are talking about and are not a fan of reading things you don't agree with. Science kind of took a big dump on your world the last 10 years you should read up. Start here>

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065211309030016

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561420306567

https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/sustainable-agricultureFun quote

"Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in many countries. Pesticides, fertilizers and other toxic farm chemicals can poison fresh water, marine ecosystems, air and soil. They also can remain in the environment for generations. Many pesticides are suspected of disrupting the hormonal systems of people and wildlife. Fertilizer run-off impacts waterways and coral reef.

The agricultural sector consumes about 69 percent of the planet's fresh water. Without creative conservation measures in place, agricultural production consumes excessive water and degrades water quality. This adversely impacts freshwater systems throughout the world."

It is not as simple as you are making it, you have no real plan for any of the massive amount of problems you would create by doing what you think should be done. Period. So stop lecturing people like you have it figured out, you don't.

Or go find arguments to those that aren't case studies. Good luck.

Oh and go look up what droughts and famines are. Figure out how to feed the planet without killing half of it, while being environmentally friendly and there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you. Yelling and lecturing is easier though right?

FreshwaterArtist t1_iw3ahfz wrote on November 12, 2022 at 5:05 PM

>I can safely say aside from the animal abuse stuff

Which should be enough for anyone to not support something so barbaric that is not necessary to live, but love glossing over that lmao

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561420306567

Do you have the actual data and conclusion drawn by the article? Because this is an abstract with no value statement or results accessible through the link lmao. Can you at least pretend to read the sources you cite?

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561420306567

Given that somewhere between 99.6% and 94% of the US's population is non vegan, and 94% are deficient in one or more vitamins, even if we place every single vegan within that camp, that leaves at minimum 88% of carnists and vegetarians being vitamin deficient. This is not an inherent shortcoming of the concept of the diet in either case, and the study you cited and definitely, totally read notes that low micro and macro nutrient intake is not inherently linked to health problems. Plant protein is still incredibly abundant, and benefits from being one of the few healthy protein sources typically found even in food deserts due to the prevalence of tinned beans.

>"Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in many countries. Pesticides, fertilizers and other toxic farm chemicals can poison fresh water, marine ecosystems, air and soil. They also can remain in the environment for generations. Many pesticides are suspected of disrupting the hormonal systems of people and wildlife. Fertilizer run-off impacts waterways and coral reef.
>
>The agricultural sector consumes about 69 percent of the planet's fresh water. Without creative conservation measures in place, agricultural production consumes excessive water and degrades water quality. This adversely impacts freshwater systems throughout the world."

...Is this supposed to be a gotcha? Not sure if you know this chief, but livestock don't photosynthesize. Livestock feed accounts for the majority of space taken up in our arable land. If you want to reduce the effect of agriculture on the planet, the firs thing to do is stop pumping most of our food into a stupendously less efficient source of food just because it tastes better. Literally all negative traits of our agricultural practices from pesticide use to runoff are simply magnified by the existence of livestock.

>It is not as simple as you are making it, you have no real plan for any of the massive amount of problems you would create by doing what you think should be done. Period. So stop lecturing people like you have it figured out, you don't.

It's actually more simple. Plant based calories (yes, on a per calorie basis) take up less land and less water

>Or go find arguments to those that aren't case studies. Good luck.

What do you think case study means, exactly? And we're excluding them, because...?

>Oh and go look up what droughts and famines are. Figure out how to feed the planet without killing half of it, while being environmentally friendly and there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you. Yelling and lecturing is easier though right?

Ok, stop feeding plants we could be eating to livestock and feed those to people instead. Again, all complaints about the nature of our agricultural practices are magnified by livestock, not replaced by. Stop dedicating the majority of our arable land to livestock. Now that we've done that, what's the next step, kiddo?