All farming is bad for nature. There is no such thing as environmentally friendly farming. The “less damaging” methods of farming are “it only destroying 95% of the habitat, not 98%.”
We could grow everything we need with 1/2 of the land if we banned dry land farming and moved to all irrigated. What’s better? less damaging farming or millions of acres re-wilded.
Over 70% of farmland worldwide is used to make animal feed for the ranching industry, so if you’re not eating meat you’re already doing your bit to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture.
By “animal feed”, do you mean hay, grass or silage? That kind of animal feed is vital habitat for many species besides livestock, let’s get specific, instead of making sweeping, emotional appeals. Surely, there are stronger arguments against eating meat than that.
All of the above, as well as other feeds such as corn. That percentage includes pastures and growing crops for feed. Here’s a pretty good breakdown.
Interestingly enough, if someone doesn’t care at all about veganism but wants to reduce agricultural land use, removing beef, lamb and dairy from their diet would be enough to get there (while continuing to eat chicken, fish, etc).
sweeping, emotional appeals
I don’t think my comment was very emotionally charged.
Surely, there are stronger arguments against eating meat than that
The power of an argument is determined by the reader. There’s compelling reasons in terms of zoonotic diseases and rampant antibiotic use, there’s other reasons from a moral point of view, there’s others in terms of environment (like this argument), there’s others in terms of human health, etc. Which one is convincing to which person depends entirely on what that person cares about.
All farming is bad for nature. There is no such thing as environmentally friendly farming. The “less damaging” methods of farming are “it only destroying 95% of the habitat, not 98%.”
We could grow everything we need with 1/2 of the land if we banned dry land farming and moved to all irrigated. What’s better? less damaging farming or millions of acres re-wilded.
Over 70% of farmland worldwide is used to make animal feed for the ranching industry, so if you’re not eating meat you’re already doing your bit to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture.
By “animal feed”, do you mean hay, grass or silage? That kind of animal feed is vital habitat for many species besides livestock, let’s get specific, instead of making sweeping, emotional appeals. Surely, there are stronger arguments against eating meat than that.
All of the above, as well as other feeds such as corn. That percentage includes pastures and growing crops for feed. Here’s a pretty good breakdown.
Interestingly enough, if someone doesn’t care at all about veganism but wants to reduce agricultural land use, removing beef, lamb and dairy from their diet would be enough to get there (while continuing to eat chicken, fish, etc).
I don’t think my comment was very emotionally charged.
The power of an argument is determined by the reader. There’s compelling reasons in terms of zoonotic diseases and rampant antibiotic use, there’s other reasons from a moral point of view, there’s others in terms of environment (like this argument), there’s others in terms of human health, etc. Which one is convincing to which person depends entirely on what that person cares about.