| HN Mirror

https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets

This is an ecofascist adjacent argument, and is not based on reality. Not much land is needed to feed people, most of it is being used to produce meat and dairy, which is a waste.

Well, you'd have to resort to fascism to force all people to become vegan.

MichaelZuo 1510 days ago

This is one of the strangest thing I come across on HN. Often you see a poster in some other thread railing against all forms of ‘oppression’ but then casually suggests a future with an effective world dictatorship to regulate meat consumption…

Who suggested forcing all people to become vegan?

Also, by the same logic seatbelt laws would be "resorting to fascism" because it's forcing all people to use seatbelts. It's not fascism to have laws.

"Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy"

Nothing is truly fascist with a dictatorship, but you were the one to start throwing around that term. That said, regimentation of one's diet and control over the agricultural industry, likely with the supression of opposition in the name of what's good for society, would reasonably fit the rest of that definition.

The linked article talks about global adoption of dietary habits, mainly refraining from meat consumption or switching to other meat types. The only reasonable assumption for that happening is that some level of force would end up being applied.

On top of all this, the article linked (and your comments) fail to address the question in my comment about sustainably supporting an increasing population. The article you linked promotes intensive alternative such as farmed poultry, fish, and shrimp. To do those sustainably, we would have to look at massive changes in the crowding, low nutrient feed, and pharmaceutical use rampant in those. It also doesn't address the potential demand for land for other uses such as industrial or residential, nor for the anticipated increase in industrial use of crops for things like plant based plastics, nor does it seem to account for land classification and suitability, such as what could be grown on specific pieces of land and the economic labor models of the crops.

It's easy to say theoretically how we can just adopt another nation's food practices (not preferences). It's another to determine the geopolitical feasibility of it. I point out preferences here because we see that many nation's have a high demand for animal products as they develop.

You are reading way too much into my comments. All I was saying that it's a common ecofascist talking point to say that the problem is the number of people, and used the link as a source to how wasteful our food production is.

Now you are trying to bend this into the most uncharitable interpretation you can think of. In addition you're also just completely making up what I think. Sorry but I'm not gonna start defending your strawmans.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sustainability/...

It seems a little uncharitable to say that I'm bending things to be uncharitable when you look at what was said (or not said).

If you wanted to talk about how wasteful our food production is, then why not say that and actually talk about that. Talking about land use that produces animal products and then calling it wasteful is a stretch when many people use those products, including n-order products like organic fertilizers or white sugar. It's not wasteful to fulfill the wants of the people. It could be inefficient or excessive, but those aren't the same as actual waste.

If not applying the ecofacsist comment to my comment, then what? It seems completely irrelevant if you weren't using against my comment.

If anything, it seems you were strawmaning since you never did address the preferences nor sustainably portions that were key to my statement.

Slippery slope: removing subsidies for factory farmed meat inevitably leads to vegan fascism.

Nice.

That's not at all what I'm saying. It's jumping to conclusions to think that we can just solve problems by using that 80% of production for people food crops vs animal feed. The paradigms are entirely different - from the types of crops the land can produce, to the labor involved in its production, etc. I also believe that the switch to plant based plastics over the coming decades will eat up whatever minor reduction in animal feed occurs. Even with higher prices for animal products you will still have a large market. Which is why you couldn't just remove subsidies and think that 80% number would shrink much.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

Agree wrt paradigms.

I have zero clue about plant-based plastics. Guessing you mean stuff like starch packing peanuts.

I don't know if removing subsidies would reduce meat consumption. Am eager to try. I'm tired of paying for corporate welfare.

CuriouslyC 1510 days ago

The vegan fascists don't want sustainable animal cultivation, they want everyone to choke on soy products produced on land that was once full of diversity but is now a monoculture wasteland.

CuriouslyC 1510 days ago

You're right. Also, not much space is needed to house people. Everyone can just start living in coffins with breathing tubes. It's so efficient, that when you die they can just wheel you into a hole in the ground and be done with it.

Seriously? You're comparing eating a diet that consists of less dairy & meat and throwing less food away as waste, to living in a coffin? This is not productive at all.

Totally. I much prefer my oversized mobile coffin, sporting conditioned air and a banging infotainment system, ferrying me to and fro, to the stationary coffin conveniently located in a central location.

PretzelPirate 1510 days ago

> I think a lot of this pressure is from there being too many people.

Would this still be a problem if we didn’t use most of our agricultural land to grow crops to feed to the animals we eat? It’s very inefficient to feed plants to cows and then eat the cow.

shagie 1510 days ago

In most cases, the pastureland for cattle for meat isn't suitable for growing anything more than grasses or may be inaccessible for growing other human consumable vegetables.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.715929,-106.2792854,3a,75y,1... falls in the agricultural land category.

In the "what should we be growing" it is important to separate Iowa from Wyoming.

For much of Wyoming, the best land -> calorie conversion is through cattle.

Trying to farm Wyoming for human consumable vegetables leads to other issues such as growing season, depleting aquifers, and salinization of the soil.

This isn't to say that cattle don't have problems - but its not a simple "switch to farming plants to feed humans" in many areas.

CuriouslyC 1510 days ago

Animals are part of ecosystems, and play a role in their health and sustainability. The great plains are fertile farmland in large part because of Bison.

The problem we have is that animal products are more profitable in general than vegetables, so people overproduce them. It's the same thing behind the housing crises we see everywhere - luxury apartments are more profitable than low income housing, so that's the vast majority of what gets produced even though it's not what is needed, and it just fuels speculative buying.

"Would this still be a problem if we didn’t use most of our agricultural land to grow crops to feed to the animals we eat?"

It depends on the lifestyle. If everyone agreed to go vegan and eat unprocessed food, and we stopped using crops for many industrial uses (ethanol, plant based plastics, etc), then just maybe. However, people want their plastics and there is pressure to move away from petroleum in the long term. My guess would be that plant based industrial products will readily take the place of any reduction in agricultural feed over the next 30 years. And of course this doesn't address convincing the majority of the population to go vegan, which would be the bigger challenge.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets [2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-kcal-poore [3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...

myshpa 1510 days ago

The pressure is here from us doing bad things. We're killing the soil, bugs, forests, wildlife, sea, mainly by purchasing the wrong things in the supermarket. [1]

We could use just 25% of our current agriculture land and still feed the population. There is nothing in the beef & dairy, which we could not get from other sources (preferably plant-based).

The problem are agriculture subsidies. We're heavily subsidizing production of beef, mutton & dairy, which needs 75% of our agricultural lands, instead of focusing on less resource-intensive sources of protein & fats [2].

If enough people switched (and there are some positive indicators that it's already happening), maybe we could save the earth before it's too late [3].

The destruction of Earth & wildlife is horrendous. [4] [5] We

[4] https://xkcd.com/1338/ (compulsory) [5] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-ra...

"Humans and Big Ag Livestock Now Account for 96 Percent of Mammal Biomass ... a study ... found that, while humans account for 0.01 percent of the planet’s biomass, our activity has reduced the biomass of wild marine and terrestrial mammals by six times and the biomass of plant matter by half." [6]

100 years ago humans&cattle was just 2% of the biomass. Now it's 98%.

If all people on earth eat as much meat as an average american, we would need 5+ earths. If as much as average european, then 4+ earths would be needed. There is not enough space to support this lifestyle any longer, people. [6]

http://personal.psu.edu/afr3/blogs/siowfa12/2012/10/if-every...

---

By learning to switch to plant-based diet we would be healthier, leaner, and we would be guardians of our blue not, not its destroyers.

> ...mainly by purchasing the wrong things in the supermarket.

I doubt that blaming the consumer is helpful. Stuff like fat shaming usually backfires. And leads to us-vs-them polarization.

Plus, are consumers really to blame when choices are constrained by others?

Plus, it absolves the actual villains. No different than the industry funded rhetoric around plastic recycling and carbon footprint. As though Big Ag is only responding to consumer demand, and is other wise powerless to effect change.

We need to find more effective strategies for constructive policymaking. Blame and shame isn't working.

Our current food pyramid is the result of industrial policy choices. Perhaps we can make other choices. Perhaps by demanding a seat at the table.

myshpa 1510 days ago

> I doubt that blaming the consumer is helpful. Stuff like fat shaming usually backfires. And leads to us-vs-them polarization.

I'm not blaming the customer. I'm simply pointing out that we can do a lot for the meaningful change by "voting with our wallet".

[https://www.grocerygazette.co.uk/2022/01/25/43-of-brits-plan... - 43% of Brits plan to reduce meat consumption in 2022] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58831636 - UK public now eating significantly less meat] [https://www.plantproteins.co/vegan-plant-based-diet-statisti... - As many as 6% of U.S. consumers say they are vegan — a 6x (500%) increase compared to just 1% in 2014.1]

> Plus, it absolves the actual villains. No different than the industry funded rhetoric around plastic recycling and carbon footprint. As though Big Ag is only responding to consumer demand, and is other wise powerless to effect change. > As though Big Ag is only responding to consumer demand, and is other wise powerless to effect change.

Plastic recycling is a ruse brought up by plastic manufacturers. It delayed meaningful action for decades.

The current situation with meat/dairy production is caused by BigAg lobying for subsidies, cementing its position with laws & institutions. They won't change on their own. They would like to seem like they do, but it's just a play we've already seen with cigatette manufactures, banks and oil/plastic producers. They are in it for the money. We need to remove that money.

I agree that we need to change the rules, but I've lost trust in our govermental systems long time ago.

> Our current food pyramid is the result of industrial policy choices. Perhaps we can make other choices. Perhaps by demanding a seat at the table.

Be the change you want to see in the world. If enough of us can change, the world will change.