- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
These transformations are tied to the changing American diet. Since the early 1980s, America’s per-person cheese consumption has doubled, largely in the form of mozzarella-covered pizza pies. And last year, for the first time, the average American ate 100 pounds of chicken, twice the amount 40 years ago.
deleted by creator
We need to take a whole-cloth look at how agribusiness operates. Why is there so much outrage over resources we’re using to farm chicken, which as you pointed out are lower calorie-for-calorie than beef, but crickets for the resources we’re wasting on growing alfalfa in Arizona.
Also, start eating crickets! They’re a great source of protein!
In b4 the pushback from the Fox News crowd…
Oh. No, wait. It appears as though I’m too late.
No, that sounds disgusting!
I don’t know where this push for eating bugs came from, it’s not a valid solution
It is valid, it’s just not realistic. Bugs are incredible nutritious, but people also don’t like the idea of eating them. Not to mention vegetarians, who likely won’t eat bugs either.
The real messaging here should be on reducing meat consumption, which will also improve health generally.
And I’m sure in a hundred years there will be an article about some vital resource that is being wasted by mass farming crickets.
It’s almost like the ecosystem is not capable of sustaining 8 billion people over any serious time spans.
Our plant based foods are less nutritious than before because we’re leeching nutrients out of the soil we grow them in. Our meat products are also going to be less nutritious because the meat is grown on animals that eat plants we farm. And the meat requires vast amounts of fresh water.
The earth never had the resources to sustain our society. We just never stopped to think about it.
A lot of our problems lie with food distribution, not production, and poor use of water. We could support a larger population if we fix both.
That’s only somewhat true. We’ve basically prioritized quantity (and pest resistance) over quality, and foods are still quite nutritious. If you eat a varied diet, you should get plenty of nutrition even with the worst of it.
Maybe in ways that don’t really matter. Beef, for example, is produced from non-nutritious source foods, like grass, cows are just good at extracting what little nutrition they have. We don’t eat meat for the micronutrients, we eat it for proteins and fats, and fill in the rest with plant based foods. Chicken and pork will have a bigger impact since they actually eat foods we grow, but even then we don’t generally expect micronutrients from meats.
Meat requiring large amounts of water is the real problem here. If we significantly reduce the amount of meat we produce, we’ll have lots of water to allocate toward more nutritious plant based foods.
That’s some BS the eco people spread to scare people into being more eco friendly. The Earth absolutely has the resources to sustain our population and beyond, we just really suck at managing it. If we can switch energy and food production to be more efficient and convert business and residential areas to use less water and electricity, we’ll have plenty for even higher population numbers. But we need to make the step.
deleted by creator
Aren’t plants even worse?
I never get where this idea comes from. Also, what do you think all these animals eat?
No: chicken eats about 2 calories for each calorie of bird you get. With beef, the cow eats 10x. Cheese is similar.
Why would you possibly think that? When you eat the thing that eats the thing instead of just eating the first thing, obviously its less efficient. In this case, its around 90% less wasted energy to just eat plants than to eat the thing that ate the plants
No because you have to feed every calorie to an animal to get animal proteins. So maybe you’re grazing animals on land that can’t produce human edible plants, but most of the grain and soy grown in America is grown as feed. We could be using the corn fields of the Midwest to grow human food
almost all of the soy grown everywhere (including america) is pressed for oil. the byproduct of that process is called “soymeal” or “soycake” and that is the vast majority of the soy fed to animals. they are eating parts of the plant that people don’t want to.
deleted by creator
Produce less people. Reducing the per person carbon production is meaningless when we keep adding people. In 1950, there way 1/3rd less people and less than half the number of Americans.
We have eaten animal protein for millennia. It was instrumental to our evolution. It’s only a problem now that we have way too many people
We’re already reducing population. In order to stave off disaster without atrocity we will need to accept lifestyle changes. Groundwater issues are a problem now, not in a generation. And there have been vegans and vegetarians for millennia too.
Growth is slowing, but we are far from reducing. The numbers continue to climb: https://www.census.gov/popclock/world
If only there were other things to eat.
Actually cut beef consumption sharply. That frees up a huge amount of land and water
Stop eating animals. Its really not hard.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Most people aren’t going to stop eating meat, that’s an unrealistic expectation. If you’re telling people that eating chicken over beef isn’t good enough they will shrug their shoulders and go right back to beef.
Guys please don’t drink gasoline.
Most people will stop eating meat, once they realize that all of their needs are met by vegetarian-only cafeterias at their schools and its cheaper
Lol what planet are you from?
Oh cool I’m glad I know that.
I still prefer meat, it tastes way better. I will never eat a vegetarian diet
Don’t worry, future generations will be cursing you and eating vegetarian because it tastes better and is cheaper
They want you to eat bugs…