Veganism is not ecological - Sorry vegans, you're not doing it to save the planet

[Billy Beer]

Gimme a shout when i can buy a leather belt made of Tofu, or a wool-knit jumper made from almonds.

Chicken, sheep, pigs and cows are not just food.

 

[Bonesjones]

There's a reason everyone the world over eats meat, tomatoes, onions, potatoes. Its the cheapest and easiest shit to grow no matter the climate. Society keeps trying to improve shit that has worked for centuries. We aren't smarter just occasionally more efficient.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

There is no use for that claim because any researchers who will promote it will be blacklisted by the academia, and their findings will be considered tainted due to being paid by the meat industry. Especially that the whole cult of global warming is based entirely on the belief that a 20 year old model that keeps overshooting is correct, and that we should extinct white people to save the world.

I hate veganism, too, but animals take up far more land and water to produce than plants do. Animals have to eat plants, which alone means their water and land usage is going to go up.

I am not advocating for veganism, but there's no denying it is generally far better for the environment.

 

[Just Another Apocalypse]

but there's no denying it is generally far better for the environment.

Yes there is. Squitty bum.

Why being vegan isn’t as environmentally friendly as you might think

Go vegan, they said. Save the world, they said. But is the plant-based diet as good for the environment as we’ve been told? Emma Henderson finds out how it could be more sustainable

www.independent.co.uk

How Vegan Food Is Worse For The Environment Than Traditional Eats

Turns out the typical vegan diet has a higher carbon footprint than a conventional one.

climatechangedispatch.com

How Vegetarianism is Bad for You and the Environment | Paleo Leap

Most vegetarians do it mainly for the environment or because they don't like the idea of mistreating animals. See why a Paleo diet is a better idea.

paleoleap.com

Going Vegan Isn't the Most Sustainable Option for Humanity

If you’ve decided to go vegan because you think it’s better for the planet, that might be true—but only to an extent.

www.pbs.org

 

[L50LasPak]

But with modern farming technology you can grow veggies literally underground or in giant silos that have a hundred layers of peas growing on top of another via NFT (hydroponics). You can even recycle the water so it takes very little resources and most importantly doesn't hurt the quality of the end product unlike how factory-farming meat does.

Personally while I don't neccesarily disagree with your larger argument, I want to shoot down hydroponics because that technology is overwhelmingly in its conceptual stages and has yet to be proven to be even remotely viable. Its effectively the fusion power of the agricultural world, always just around the corner, always promising tremendous benefits, but possibily being forever impractical. At least vat-grown meat has tangible proofs of concept even if the final product is still currently unpalatable.

 

[cummytummies]

Personally while I don't neccesarily disagree with your larger argument, I want to shoot down hydroponics because that technology is overwhelmingly in its conceptual stages and has yet to be proven to be even remotely viable. Its effectively the fusion power of the agricultural world, always just around the corner, always promising tremendous benefits, but possibily being forever impractical. At least vat-grown meat has tangible proofs of concept even if the final product is still currently unpalatable.

That's... just not true. You can buy ready-to-assemble NFT gear from any farming supply store. The issue with it is that it's not cheaper or easier than traditional farming while we still have plenty of farmable land.

People who grow cannabis and have an incentive to do so indoors away from watchful eyes have been using NFT for more than two decades. The technology works, it just doesn't provide any significant benefits to farmers at this point. Aside from people who grow crops that couldn't survive outside in harsh climates, like if you wanted to grow basil in the arctic for whatever reason (which some people do, but it's more expensive than just importing the stuff).

Simply googling "NFT hydrophonic farming" you can find thousands of pictures like this and sites that sell the equipment, it's not just "a concept".

 

[L50LasPak]

The technology works, it just doesn't provide any significant benefits to farmers at this point.

In my opinion, hydroponics is not a solution to the ecological cost of farming until it reaches the point where it is openly superior to traditional farming. The promise of hydroponics is not simply the ability to grow plants indoors or in rough environments, its the idea that this technology will revolutionize agriculture and replace traditional farming. Until that point, its simply an alternative, not a solution.

 

[cummytummies]

Gimme a shout when i can buy a leather belt made of Tofu, or a wool-knit jumper made from almonds.

Chicken, sheep, pigs and cows are not just food.

You realize that faux-leather has existed for 80 years now and that different sheep are used for wool production and meat production?
I'm wearing wool socks and a leather belt as I'm typing this, but if I just wanted to stay warm and keep my pants up those two could easily be accomplished without any meat farming.

In my opinion, hydroponics is not a solution to the ecological cost of farming until it reaches the point where it is openly superior to traditional farming. The promise of hydroponics is not simply the ability to grow plants indoors or in rough environments, its the idea that this technology will revolutionize agriculture and replace traditional farming. Until that point, its simply an alternative, not a solution.

Sure, but I'm not advocating replacing traditional farming. I replied to a message saying not all land is farmable, and in those places modern technology has come up with a solution.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Yes there is. Squitty bum.

Why being vegan isn’t as environmentally friendly as you might think

Go vegan, they said. Save the world, they said. But is the plant-based diet as good for the environment as we’ve been told? Emma Henderson finds out how it could be more sustainable

www.independent.co.uk

How Vegan Food Is Worse For The Environment Than Traditional Eats

Turns out the typical vegan diet has a higher carbon footprint than a conventional one.

climatechangedispatch.com

How Vegetarianism is Bad for You and the Environment | Paleo Leap

Most vegetarians do it mainly for the environment or because they don't like the idea of mistreating animals. See why a Paleo diet is a better idea.

paleoleap.com

Going Vegan Isn't the Most Sustainable Option for Humanity

If you’ve decided to go vegan because you think it’s better for the planet, that might be true—but only to an extent.

www.pbs.org

First link is behind a paywall. The next two are heavily biased (the first being a climate-change denying website).

If you eat vegan like a retard, then yeah, it's probably no better, but beef, for example, takes 1,847 gallons of water per pound. Lentils, for example, take 704 gallons for 1 lb of lentils (good luck eating 1 lb of lentils, though).

Honestly, the best diet for the environment is plants that don't take much additional water and are local, and locally-raised chicken since it's a much more environmental friendly meat (518 gallons of water per lb).

 

[Just Another Apocalypse]

Honestly, the best diet for the environment is plants that don't take much additional water and are local

Veganism would require the banning of organic fertiliser. And that means using petrochemicals.

Not very good for the enviroment. Just admit you posted your ignorant opinion,eh?

 

[cummytummies]

Yes there is. Squitty bum.

Why being vegan isn’t as environmentally friendly as you might think

Go vegan, they said. Save the world, they said. But is the plant-based diet as good for the environment as we’ve been told? Emma Henderson finds out how it could be more sustainable

www.independent.co.uk

How Vegan Food Is Worse For The Environment Than Traditional Eats

Turns out the typical vegan diet has a higher carbon footprint than a conventional one.

climatechangedispatch.com

How Vegetarianism is Bad for You and the Environment | Paleo Leap

Most vegetarians do it mainly for the environment or because they don't like the idea of mistreating animals. See why a Paleo diet is a better idea.

paleoleap.com

Going Vegan Isn't the Most Sustainable Option for Humanity

If you’ve decided to go vegan because you think it’s better for the planet, that might be true—but only to an extent.

www.pbs.org

The first two articles boil down to: "you can eat vegan and do it unecologically." That is undeniably true. Importing everything from across the world with crude oil is worse than eating locally produced foods. But that's an artificial comparison, there's no reason why a vegan couldn't eat locally produced foods. If the point is to put instagram influencers on blast then that is much warranted, but it doesn't prove veganism itself as bad for the environment.

The third article has a muddled argument, essentially saying that plant farming can cause deforestation and monocultures, too. But if cattle production requires way more feed than what edible food comes out of it, doesn't that only increase deforestation and monocultures? There's no way to make the logistics chain more efficient by introducing an element that consumes up to 50 times what it puts out.

The fourth one focuses on the fact that there are climates and land where crop growing isn't sustainable, which has already been solved as mentioned above.

 

[Just Another Apocalypse]

The first two articles boil down to: "you can eat vegan and do it unecologically." That is undeniably true. Importing everything from across the world with crude oil is worse than eating locally produced foods. But that's an artificial comparison, there's no reason why a vegan couldn't eat locally produced foods. If the point is to put instagram influencers on blast then that is much warranted, but it doesn't prove veganism itself as bad for the environment.

The third article has a muddled argument, essentially saying that plant farming can cause deforestation and monocultures, too. But if cattle production requires way more feed than what edible food comes out of it, doesn't that only increase deforestation and monocultures? There's no way to make the logistics chain more efficient by introducing an element that consumes up to 50 times what it puts out.

The fourth one focuses on the fact that there are climates and land where crop growing isn't sustainable, which has already been solved as mentioned above.

Veganism would require the banning of organic fertiliser. And that means using petrochemicals

The statement was "it's undeniable"

No. Its. Not.

 

[cummytummies]

Veganism would require the banning of organic fertiliser. And that means using petrochemicals.

Not very good for the enviroment. Just admit you posted your ignorant opinion,eh?

Why would that be? "Veganism" does not equal some girl you went to high school with that posts stupid shit on social media. Veganism just means eating plant-based food exclusively. If you're referring to the lack of manure there are plenty of organic fertilizers that don't use manure.

 

[L50LasPak]

Sure, but I'm not advocating replacing traditional farming. I replied to a message saying not all land is farmable, and in those places modern technology has come up with a solution.

Yes, you offered such fanciful examples as growing foodstuffs underground, something that without a doubt would require a considerable amount of energy to provide the UV light needed to grow plants. Considering few to no countries have fully transfered over to renewable energy sources and even fewer are relying on nuclear power that would considerably raise the carbon cost of food production.

And in your second reply you also used the example of cannabis growers as successful users of this technology. Even though a small-yield plant such as cannabis does not in any way compare to the sheer scale that would be required to grow foodstuffs in this scenario. Cannabis also commands a very high price on the market comparable to foodstuffs, meaning that for growers the benefit is often quite a bit greater than the setup and power cost, and even then those growers are often undercut by growers who are able to produce cannabis on arable land using traditional methods.

Just because its possible to do a thing does not make it beneficial or even desirable to do a thing. Hydroponics is still an expensive, basic concept level technology. It is inferior to traditional farming in every way, and critically it has significant problems when scaling up to match mechanized agriculture. The technology is simply not practical for food sources at this stage, especially when you factor in energy use. I don't think it even remotely belongs in this conversation at all.

 

[Just Another Apocalypse]

@cummytummies No, veganism is existing without using any animal products.

 

[Billy Beer]

You realize that faux-leather has existed for 80 years now and that different sheep are used for wool production and meat production?

The point was animals are used for more than meat.

 

[cummytummies]

@cummytummies No, veganism is existing without using any animal products.

But all right, let's go with your definition. Even if we refrained from all use of animal products there are still plenty of ways to produce fertilizer that don't utilize petrochemicals. You can do it through composting, seaweed, in a lab, or you could even process human sewage into fertilizer if that's what you wanted to do.

Not to mention that veganism isn't tied to organic farming, even if the same people tend to advocate for both. You can have one without the other.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Veganism would require the banning of organic fertiliser. And that means using petrochemicals.

Not very good for the enviroment. Just admit you posted your ignorant opinion,eh?

Nah, you could use human waste as organic fertilizer or even from horses and other animals that aren't consumed. Or seaweed.

As pointed out by @cummytummies your links were making some huge stretches in saying that veganism is worse for the environment. Yeah, if you import all your food from across the world, then yeah, but if you did the same with meat, it'd be far worse.

 

[Just Another Apocalypse]

Why would that be? "Veganism" does not equal some girl you went to high school with that posts stupid shit on social media. Veganism just means eating plant-based food exclusively. If you're referring to the lack of manure there are plenty of organic fertilizers that don't use manure.

Ver archivo adjunto 2487859

But all right, let's go with your definition. Even if we refrained from all use of animal products there are still plenty of ways to produce fertilizer that don't utilize petrochemicals. You can do it through composting, seaweed, in a lab, or you could even process human sewage into fertilizer if that's what you wanted to do.

Not to mention that veganism isn't tied to organic farming, even if the same people tend to advocate for both. You can have one without the other.

Definition of veganism

What is a vegan and vegan food? What does veganism mean?

www.vegansociety.com

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

Ummm. I think we grew up with different definitions.

 

[cummytummies]

Yes, you offered such fanciful examples as growing foodstuffs underground, something that without a doubt would require a considerable amount of energy to provide the UV light needed to grow plants. Considering few to no countries have fully transfered over to renewable energy sources and even fewer are relying on nuclear power that would considerably raise the carbon cost of food production.

Actually with LED lights it's not that much at all. And you could just use natural light in most scenarios. I only mentioned "undergroud bunkers" as an extreme scenario to demonstrate how far we're able to go these days with the aid of technology. I'd hope it's pretty apparent I'm not advocating for moving all farming underground just for the fuck of it, just saying that even the harhests of conditions possible could be utilized for farming if need be.

And in your second reply you also used the example of cannabis growers as successful users of this technology. Even though a small-yield plant such as cannabis does not in any way compare to the sheer scale that would be required to grow foodstuffs in this scenario. Cannabis also commands a very high price on the market comparable to foodstuffs, meaning that for growers the benefit is often quite a bit greater than the setup and power cost, and even then those growers are often undercut by growers who are able to produce cannabis on arable land using traditional methods.

I did not say farming beets is comparable to farming cannabis or that farms should switch over to NFT. You claimed NFT farming is comparable to fusion reactors, something that can't even sustain itself in prototype laboratories for more than a few seconds and even then at a loss. I mentioned one very real industry that has been using this technology for decades. It's clearly not just a theory or science-fiction, even if it can't yet compete with traditional methods of farming in places where traditional methods of farming are possible.

Just because its possible to do a thing does not make it beneficial or even desirable to do a thing. Hydroponics is still an expensive, basic concept level technology. It is inferior to traditional farming in every way, and critically it has significant problems when scaling up to match mechanized agriculture. The technology is simply not practical for food sources at this stage, especially when you factor in energy use. I don't think it even remotely belongs in this conversation at all.

But now you're comparing two methods of producing plant foods. I did not say NFT is the best way to produce plant foods, but that areas previously thought insufficient for farming could be now used for that.

Obviously they are not, because we still have plenty of arable land and it's cheaper and more efficient to do it that way. But that same argument could be used for a plant-based diet over a meat-based one. We have plenty of land to farm crops in without the need to farm meat just because some places can't sustain traditional plant farming.