And this information will remain a secret because a douche bag wrong that article title and chased away all the clicks.
they’re correct that meat is only 25% as effective at best per hectare of land, but cropland and land used for livestock don’t 100% overlap, and not all cropland is used for food; so the reduction is closer to 65%, or ~57% if you don’t include pastures that are otherwise unviable for growing crops, but i guess the argument is to just let that land sit unused and return to nature.
We use 98% of human occupied land for agriculture.
Switching to an all plant diet would free up 75% of that land.
So genuine question as someone who didn’t eat meat for 10 years: If we’re talking a purely efficient approach to this, then while 100% plant based is better than the current model wouldn’t there be more efficient models than that? For example insect farms fed by plant waste, continuing to fish sustainably under the plant farming model, and having free range chickens as pets and eating their eggs. I’m curious how vegans would even view this. Like is a bacterial vat that produces calories vegan? Are insects permissible? And then the chicken eggs. If you keep your own chickens and treat them good, and let them run free range, and just take the extra eggs, is that permissible to vegans? If not then why not? Genuinely curious.
I’m also curious if these models take the Haber-Bosch process into account. Because most of our plant based agriculture currently is supported by it. I’m of the strong belief that industrial agriculture is entirely untenable without it, and we’d have to switch to a food forest model, which would actually be MORE land efficient for the same calories. And since that process is reliant on the fossil fuel industry it is always going to be unstable. So it really needs to be phased out of wide use in the food supply chain. It’s a famine waiting to happen.
I mean, I hope you understand that vegans will not be experts in non-vegan solutions. I’m certainly not an expert.
But generally speaking: The only thing that produces calories on this planet are plants. Everything else is always just reusing those calories and therefore using up some of those calories to sustain its own life.
Yes, in principle there can be situations where introducing a middleman can make more calories available to us. Animals grazing on land where farming isn’t viable is the classic example.
Having insects eat plant waste could be viable, although turning plant waste into compost as an alternative to fertilizer is also already quite useful.But then you run into the other problem, which is that the scalability of plants is hard to beat. For the most part, you throw seeds onto barren land and the magic happens. You don’t need VATs, you don’t need personnel most of the time, you don’t need electricity.
I could see certain processes being useful for certain niche situations, but so long as we can just sidestep that situation by growing plants in the next town over and transporting the food to where it’s needed, I don’t think, it’s worth the investment.
For the most part, you throw seeds onto barren land and the magic happens.
Uh… no. As someone who has actually grown plants myself for food this is not accurate. Agriculture is hard. Soil nutritional content, acidity levels, too much or too little water depending on the plant, temperature and planting times matter, amount of sun varies by plant, some plants can be grown together and some cant, pests are a huge problem and need to be managed properly, etc. I really do encourage you to get some experience growing your own food from seed if you have the land to try it out available. It’s 100% viable to do, but it’s not nearly as simple as you made it sound there. Tonight part of my dinner will be a butternut squash I grew myself. It’s quite fufilling.
A great example of how complex and fragile our agriculture currently is: That Haber-Bosch Process I mentioned? 40% of Global calories are made possible by it is the typical estimate. It’s part of the Natural Gas -> Fertilizer supply chain.
50% of the nitrogen found in human tissues originated from the Haber-Bosch process.
Yeah it’s kinda crazy when you think about it. Imagine what would happen if natural gas ran out. But luckily that’s an infinite resource that… uh… oh, right. lol
If you aren’t familiar with it, I suggest checking out Bill Reese’s talks on overshoot. Nice to see an actual intelligent person talk about how fucked we are as a species lol.
I’ll have to give it a look. It’s pretty bad yeah lol. I even saw something on here recently talking about how we’re farming so much that the nutrition in our food is plummeting from low soil nutrient levels. Makes me wonder about that whole “Great Filter” question. Things are extremely bleak.
Yes, I am aware that there is more to agriculture, that’s why I prefaced it and followed it up with my actual point, which is that this complexity pales in comparison to the complexity of any more ‘engineered’ processes.
And yes, agriculture may be fragile, but we’re not gonna replace it anytime soon, because we need something that scales.
Reducing the amount of plants we need to grow by going for a plant-based diet is already a step in the right direction. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but we might even be able to cut out Haber-Bosch.In particular maybe also interesting for you is that legumes can help to reduce the need for fertilizer, because they fixate nitrogen into the ground. And well, plant-based diets involve a lot of legumes.
That’s why they were often part of crop rotation and also the Three Sisters.
For the most part, you throw seeds onto barren land and the magic happens. You don’t need VATs, you don’t need personnel most of the time, you don’t need electricity.
Holy shit. Are you serious?
I was simplifying under the assumption that you guys aren’t dumb and get the general point without me spelling out the exact differences.
I mean, if by simplifying you mean being wrong, sure.
Sure, @Nonconfrontational.
😘
