Fuck that channel.
Not really a challenge, the "climate friendly" idea is pseudoscience and creative accounting.
Given the advised quantity is impossible to achive, I’d never have a chance so you can spare the vegan preaching
You can take choline supplements, so it's not impossible. Vegan preaching will continue. The assumption here that you're not sharing is that you want some magical "natural diet" while living a completely unnatural life. You have a medical condition, which was discovered thanks to modern medical science, modern biology and chemistry, and yet you imagine that you must obtain some "natural sources" as if that's an enchanted biological material instead of the very obvious: you're OK with sacrificing sentient beings for your fantasy of "natural independence from modernity".
Oh, and factory farming is responsible for most of the animal products. That's part of your fantasy issue. Let's put it this way. If there were no factory farms, not only are you statistically unlikely to get your hands on eggs and livers, but if you had hens, you could afford only a small number of hens and your economic situation would pressure you to sell the eggs, not to consume them.
Take the supplements.
If you want to go full "primitivist", then understand first that the humans as "primitives" can only survive as tiny populations, a fraction of how many humans we have today. You would've probably died as a natural abortion or in childhood, just like me.
It's bean a huge displeasure to talk to you, I hope that you remember me.
Yeah, it's bad to know your enemy. Victory comes from being an ignorant belligerent.
"modern pig production"
Chilean-born Marco Evaristti is courting controversy to make a point about the treatment of pigs in Denmark, where about 25,000 piglets die daily as a result of the conditions in which they are bred.
wait until Marco finds out that they are bred to be killed.
"Pastured" and "factory" are not opposites, they're the same thing with a different scale of intensity. There's no meaningful ethical difference, but there are points to make about the environment and the climate, such as the basic fact that "grass fed" means more enteric CH4 emissions, making "factory farming" better for the environment due to efficiency. No amount of "regenerative grazing" is going change that, the methane is tied to the amount of fiber in the rumen, and grasses & forbs are full of fiber.
For a more detailed explanation see: Grazed and Confused
Economically speaking is when you see how this is scam on meat eaters. Most of the animal flesh comes from CAFOs. That's not because grasslands are ugly and CAFOs are beautiful, it's because that's the most efficient way to exploit those animals, which means it's the most efficient way to keep production costs low, which means that it's the most efficient way to come to market with the lowest prices, which is how "the market" is expanded to a large part of the population (who expects cheap meat). The productive grasslands are already maxed out in most of the World and overgrazing is very common.
The US is plagued with ranchers going into natural parks and other places where they compete with wild herbivores (and call on state agencies to exterminate predators). Put simply, if CAFOs disappeared, then the average meat eater would find animal flesh to be very expensive - a food that is afforded a few times per month in "main dish" quantities, or even a few times per year (traditionally at Easter and Christmas holiday feasts). I would be glad to see that happen, but it wouldn't be enough, and it fails to teach the ethical lesson, to do the moral work. It only makes animal-based meat a more obvious luxury (it has always been one), creating black markets and creating economic demand to deforest land and to occupy cropland and turn it into pasture -- and that's something that wars have been fought for, for thousands of years.
The only sensible option is to go vegan globally (don't let animal farmers get away with exports). That frees up plenty of cropland to be reforested or used in more extensive ways.
NYT
Thanks for nothing, NYT.
Give peat a chance!
The OOP needs understand that there's a "too". To serve himself too.
view more: next ›
Not just land use. Arable land (not "marginal") can be considered as an input to production, a variable in the outcome. It is not the only variable. As we're talking about industrial agriculture, the other inputs are machinery, seeds, agrochemicals, and fuels (and labor if you want to count it here).
The animal farming sector competes on all these in one way or another, raising demand and pricing out poorer farmers around the world. This isn't necessarily a rule, but it's common and it matters; not all inputs are near scarcity. The most important one is probably fertilizers: Savings in fertilizer requirements from plant-based diets - ScienceDirect
Ex. from 2021 Global farmers facing fertiliser sticker shock may cut use, raising food security risks | Reuters
This is made worse by the fact that the rich "developed" countries dedicate a lot of resources to animal farming, including feed crops, and they bring in loads of ag. subsidies for that. Poorer countries can't afford meaningful subsidies, so they can't compete to buy the expensive inputs as easily. Effectively, subsidies for eating animals in rich countries translates, through the invisible hand of the global ag. inputs market, into food insecurity in poor countries. I'm not the first to point that out: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/0a8bd248-025d-49fd-99e2-d8ae972fa124/content
And marginal land competes with forests, wetlands, biodiversity. "Marginal land" is a poisoned concept: https://tabledebates.org/blog/marginal-lands-sustainable-food-systems-panacea-or-bunk-concept