__secter_
__secter_ t1_j4wjaxq wrote
Reply to comment by astroturfskirt in 4-year-old whale of one of the world's rarest species is "likely to die" after becoming heavily entangled, NOAA says - CBS News by Simple_Opossum
Blows my mind that - no matter how upset a whole thread is over an animal's death - the suggestion to simply stop killing animals for food will still get downvoted into the negatives.
You are right and they are wrong.
__secter_ t1_j4wizvj wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in 4-year-old whale of one of the world's rarest species is "likely to die" after becoming heavily entangled, NOAA says - CBS News by Simple_Opossum
That is jaw-droppingly untrue. Water usage in meat production is orders of magnitude higher than plant-based food.
__secter_ t1_j4wrqxf wrote
Reply to comment by lamby284 in 4-year-old whale of one of the world's rarest species is "likely to die" after becoming heavily entangled, NOAA says - CBS News by Simple_Opossum
The thing you're describing is the exact reason *[the user you meant to reply to] wrong
If you fed all those crops directly to people instead of livestock, there'd be no loss of energy/nutrition/calories to the middle steps(the livestock digesting the crops and turning it into meat, the livestock needing to drink gallons of water of its own, the massive industrial water requirements of the slaughter industry in general).
Imagine you have the option of giving someone a thousand bucks cash, or using it to buy them gift cards(with many fees and surcharges along the way) and jewelry to hawk.
In this analogy, the plants are the cash. The meat is the inefficient luxury goods it would be absurd and unsustainable to base an economy around.