that can be true, but we also grow a substantial amount of feed for agriculture usage, even if it’s not local to us. A lot of alf alfa being grown is exported.
It’s all dependent on whatevers cheapest at the end of the day. And regardless of this fact, a lot of energy is still lost in this process, cows are a significant contributor to climate change, ironically.
all of agriculture is only about 20% of our GHG emissions. cows are a fraction of that… there are definitely bigger issues.
as for the alfalfa, it’s also a small fraction of global crops. 2/3 of all crop calories go to humans with only 1/3 going to livestock… this includes about 70% of the weight of the global soy crop (after we have pressed it for oil), as well as fodder like corn stalks. we basically fed livestock trash and get food. it’s a pretty good deal.
I think it’s probably fine. it will work itself out when the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.
i think it’s a lot more likely to work out better in a highly decentralized system, i’m not much of a commie myself personally, as i prefer to live outside the bounds of normalcy, and unless i get a lot of say in the commie meetings i’m not sure i can justify existing in that society lol.
We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).
Total aviation is responsible for about 2.5% of worldwide carbon emissions. That’s all air travel, private jets included. While it’s obviously very popular to focus on the luxuries of the rich, it just won’t be effective to focus on those when fighting climate change, let alone being a solution as you claimed.
What’s an easier solution, in your opinion? Getting the ultra wealthy to give up their yachts and jets (by getting rid of the ultra wealthy entirely, which also addresses the evils of capitalism), or convincing hundreds of millions of people to change just about everything about the diet they’ve been eating for tens of thousands of years?
That’s actually a good question. Considering the political power the ultra-rich wield, I’m not sure. But I think we should focus what brings the most bang for the buck.
TBF land clearance for grazing land is a catastrophic issue for the environment and going on in places like the Amazon rainforest.
Some ecosystems are naturally evolved to supporting grazing species like the grasslands of North America which was once home to millions of Buffallo but that’s not true of most land currently used for grazing.
It’s at a point where I’m all for a UN resolution to end land clearance in locations like the Amazon Rainforest, to be enforced by lethal means if necessary.
Billions of lives may depend on securing such important ecosystems.
The UN doesn’t even have any influence with the UN. Even if I supported lethal enforcement of environmental protections (which I do in many cases), the UN’s idea of enforcement is a kindly-worded letter. If the USA doesn’t back something the UN has no power. And the USA is one of literally only two countries in the entire world that don’t recognize access to healthy food as a human right.
It is, but many vegans also do really unhelpful things that are closer to trying to berate or shame people into not eating meat and it is obviously not effective.
Well, I guess I’m just not sure why you’re trying to give us advice about something you have zero experience with.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say that you don’t actually care what kind of approach is more convincing, and you’re just trying to tell us to shut up, or say things in a way that makes us easy to ignore.
You have no idea what you’re talking about at best, and realistically, you don’t even want us to be successful. So, thank you for your unsolicited advice on which tacts are unhelpful, but, just so you know, I will be promptly tossing it into the trash.
i doubt it, but i would assume you have some sort of anecdotal references somewhere, considering most living people can recall things and discussions with other people, especially more involved ones.
which is why i granted you the flexibility of answering outside of a quantitative fashion, as i don’t expect people to do unreasonable things.
You then accused me of moving the goalposts (which are my goalposts btw?) in order to make it more answerable, and then refused to answer presumably out of bad faith. I’m literally just curious about how you would conceptualize that.
I can’t tell you a quantity in a non-quantitative fashion. You want to know how many and the answer remains that I have no idea because I don’t keep count. I’m sorry you don’t like that answer, but it’s still the answer.
If you want to know how many and don’t accept that I have no idea, feel free to pick a number between zero and infinity and apply it as a rough estimate.
I can’t tell you a quantity in a non-quantitative fashion.
damn, what a philosopher you are. Fucking plato over here.
You want to know how many and the answer remains that I have no idea because I don’t keep count. I’m sorry you don’t like that answer, but it’s still the answer.
that’s fair, i would assume you have some ability to provide some level of estimation, but maybe that’s just my autism. Or maybe you just shitpost way too much to be able to care about anything you say on the internet lol.
if the original statement is useless (it’s not a question, so i’m not repeating it) then my question should be more useful in the context of that useless statement, considering i have a specific word removed that changes the entire meaning of the question.
The animal industry feeds the plants as much as the plants feed the animals. I’m not sure how vegans feel about synthetic fertilizer like miracle grow, but that’s what will have to be used in place of manure if the meat industry goes away.
Many of the organic crops grown use animal manure to fertilize the plants. I know you can use seaweed and other plants for compost(weeds are already composted back in via tilling, seaweed requires harvesting from the ocean or long distance shipping from farms), as well as cycling crops to prevent nutrient deficiency…
BUT manure doesn’t just add nutrients. It adds beneficial bacteria that helps keep the soil healthy and make the nutrients bioavailable to plants. It conditions the soil for water retention, and helps break up clay soil and add organic matter to sandy soil.
Will vegans keep animals just for manure? Or will organic lables on food be less important? Are we going to start scraping the forests for leaves to chop up an add to farm soil? That can’t be good for forests though. I guess I’m just confused about how to maintain large farms without access to large amounts of manure.
The ideal answer is compost, regenerative agriculture, and (better treated) human-sources waste.
Organic crop yields will almost certainly reduce a bit without animal waste fertilizer, but that is fine since crop consumption will fall by a greater amount due to not needing to feed a bunch of extra animals.
an interesting idea, but anything that decays and “composts” can be used as a fertilizer so.
This includes things like organic scraps, you don’t just have to use animal shit. Although it’s a pretty good one if you have access to it.
I think personally, we should move to a more decentralized food production system, to help alleviate some of the costs of industrial agriculture, which are pretty heavy.
Diseases spread via human feces which why we tend to not use it. We could sanitize it by processing it, but then it won’t carry the benefit of beneficial bacteria cultures so it’s not as good as animal supplied manures.
Hi friend, I propose you try an experiment: post a small handful of anonymous comments on the Internet, try to make them benign as possible but casually slip in an acknowledgement that you are vegan. Something along the lines of “God that recipe looks amazing, but I think I might swap out the beef broth for veggie broth as I am vegan” like I said the point of this experiment is to say something completely as benign and inoffensive as possible.
Once you post sit back and wait for the responses to roll in. You will likely find that while not every time, it is incredibly common for people to send you pictures of bacon, and an abundant of angry responses to the mere offhand mention of the word.
I sincerely wish it was a straw man fallacy, but it unfortunately is a exceedingly common response to the word.
hey non vegan vegan fun fact, you would be surprised at the sheer amount of consumption and productive the livestock sector of agriculture creates.
Likewise you could easily just respond to the last line with “you can’t take away my gas stove, i’m just going to burn gas lamps in my home now” and get a little bit eepy and sleepy due to all the buildup of combustion products inside your home.
I just woke up this morning to the news that six hostages had been found dead in a tunnel in Gaza, cause of death multiple gunshot wounds at close range.
I struggle to find sympathy for Palestine after reading a story like that.
Hamas deserve no sympathy - but most Palestinians are just people, like the Israelis, living under a regime that heavily peddles dehumanizing propaganda. If we had no sympathy for the Israelis because of the Palestinians intentionally killed by their hands, we’d be going down the same route that’s currently locking the two sides into a fucking pointless race towards genocide, that Israel seems likely to ‘win’.
Should foreigners lose sympathy for your people as a whole, if a group whose members hailed from it do something horrible? Its not like everyday people in Palestine have much choice about what goes on there.
Ironically enough, the group that seems to be doing the most to free Palestine from the rule of Hamas is the Israeli government.
And quite frankly, I’m sceptical of the claim Palestine is suffering under a dictatorship going against the will of the people, from what I’ve seen they have a lot of support from the population.
Not sure that setting up an enemy for the explicit purpose of using them to harm civilians, and then harming civilians in the process of taking them down, is really freeing anybody. As far as Israel’s actions more than a week or two past October 7 go, I’m disinclined to give them any sort of ‘credit’ for anything except the slaughter they’re overseeing.
Not just propping up, getting them into power in the first place. Israel manipulated the elections in Gaza to ensure that Hamas came to power so that they’d be able to frame their fight as being against extremists instead of the more reasonable who had been opposing Hamas (the name escapes me at the moment).
Fatah. Fatah agreed to a two-state solution and peaceful negotiation, and the Israeli prime minister got assassinated by far-right Zionist loons for his trouble. Ever since, every attempt by Fatah at good-faith negotiation has ended up as demands from Israel for a demonstration of fealty, followed by Israel not following through on its obligations anyway. For obvious reasons, this severely damaged Fatah’s credibility.
Also, Fatah is either hilariously or sickeningly corrupt, depending on whether you feel like laughing or crying on the given day. Hamas used that to worm their way in too, though now they’re no less corrupt.
It’s cool, I’m not your dad. I’m more speaking to the message than you, cause you’re just a name. I’m speaking to a bigoted, myopic message on a platform that I use. You can come or go.
I’m also over hearing people make excuses for mass murderers. Hamas are the government of Gaza, after all, this logic isn’t applied to other governments vs their own people.
No, I don’t think I will. I don’t think I’m the only one here who needs their views questioned. How can you possibly justify executing hostages in cold blood?
What does killing 40 thousand people, mostly innocent, do for your sympathies? Raping and torturing people in detention. For that matter, detention without charge? Turning off water to 2 million people? Preventing food and medical aid? No, sorry - the IDF claimed that a bad thing was done by Hamas… more genocide is clearly called for. You’re allowed to think whatever you like online, as you’ve asserted.
If I was one of those employees, my response would be to smile and wave, maybe give a thumbs up, and go back to ignoring them. They can interpret it how they like, and only I know for sure that it means “Lol, you’re getting nothing from me, you dumb buttmunch.”
I haven’t heard that since the Beavis and Butthead days. LOL, thanks for taking me back.
Edit: ROFL… I’m at a bar and right after I posted this comment I saw a sticker on the beer tap. The bar logo here is a woman in a Martini glass and someone made a sticker with that woman’s face as (what looks like) Butthead. Perfect timing.
I’m not saying Israelis are guilty or deserved the attack on civilians, but Israel is a settler-colonial state. So is the US, but I’m not going to call for every US citizen with colonial roots to be forced off the continent (especially since that would include myself, my ancestors - including recent ones - were awful people who did awful things).
You can acknowledge that the state of Israel is an illegal settlement without calling for genocide, just as you can acknowledge that the US is founded on stolen land without calling for death to all Americans.
My point was that they regard all Israelis as culpable in the same manner as those currently constructing illegal settlements in the West Bank and shooting Palestinians, and use such terminology as a means of justifying their view of collective guilt.
lemmy.world
Oldest