[vintermann]

If sustainability is more important, eating at least fish too is bound to be better. There's no way leaving 71% of the surface of the planet off-limits for nutrients isn't going to increase pressure on the other 29%.

And yes, much fishing and aquaculture is presently unsustainable, but that can be said about agriculture too. It's not nearly an adequate argument for abandoning it entirely.

The argument for full veganism has to be that animals are people. Sustainability arguments won't cut it. If animals aren't people, you never get to full veganism, and if animals are people the sustainability argument is redundant anyway.

[myshpa]

Please see SEASPIRACY if you have a chance.

Eating fish is not sustainable. Overfishing and by-catch is a real problem (already more than 90% of sharks are exterminated), and in near future the seas could be totally devoid of life (except for jellyfish).

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaspiracy ]

> The argument for full veganism has to be that animals are people

I don't agree.

(1) We shouldn’t be cruel to animals, i.e. we shouldn’t harm animals unnecessarily.

(2) The consumption of animal products harms animals and Earth.

(3) The consumption of animal products is unnecessary.

(4) Therefore, we shouldn’t consume animal products.

[lm28469]

> SEASPIRACY

Every time I see that title I ask myself why they didn't go for "conspirasea"

[spacemanmatt]

...The Seamen of Qanon? That has a bit of a ring to it.

[vintermann]

I even addressed that argument in advance, you made it anyway...

Again: No matter how bad harvesting of sea resources is, it can't be enough to abandon the oceans entirely, any more than the vast land-use impact of agriculture can be used as argument for abandoning agriculture.

[myshpa]

> No matter how bad harvesting of sea resources is, it can't be enough to abandon the oceans entirely

I probably don't understand your point (sorry english is not my first or second language).

At this moment we're seriously overfishing our oceans and killing it's population, that's what i have beef with (pun intended).

So your argument is - let's continue fishing?

> any more than the vast land-use impact of agriculture can be used as argument for abandoning agriculture

I'm arguing for changing agriculture (or better land management practices), not its abandonment.

[vintermann]

I know you are! But if better land management practices is good enough on land, why can't better fisheries management be good enough at sea?

[myshpa]

There are many issues, wikipedia seems ok, no time to summarize it, sorry.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_farming#Issues]

[vintermann]

I didn't ask about what was wrong with fish farming.

I said: you don't want to cut out ALL agriculture, even though a big part of present agriculture may be unsustainable.

So why do you want to cut out ALL fishing and fish farming? I know the answer is that you're a vegan, but that doesn't cut it if you want to convince those who care about sustainability.

[binibus]

How do you fit pesticides in that framework of thought?

- They are unnecessary. Humanity lived thousands of years without them.

- They harm billions of animals.

- But not using them would condemn us to a subsistence economy.

Edit: though for thought lmao

[myshpa]

> They are unnecessary. Humanity lived thousands of years without them.

Totally agree.

Cca 75% of pesticides/herbicides are used for meat & dairy production (we need 75% of agriculture land for it).

> They harm billions of animals.

And they harm people, too. Pesticide bioaccumulation in milk has been linked to Parkinson's disease, for example.

> But not using them would condemn us to a subsistence economy.

I'm not sure that's true.

There is a lot of regenerative agriculture styles not needing pesticides/herbicides. Current agriculture practices are oriented on mass scale and low prices - when you modify that need, you can have much greater yields, but have to change your way of thinking about it.

One example (sorry, have to return to work process). We've all seen the large fields of wheat, so large, you can see the earth curvature. And not a single tree in sight.

If you remove all the nature, tile it, seed large swaths of land with a monoculture, you remove a place for wildlife to live in.

Without predators (foxes, owls) your crop gets all eaten by mice, which overpopulate easily. So you have to use pesticides (which we then eat in our food & drink in our water).

If you have a monoculture, then bugs easily propagate and there is nothing to stop them and you'll have a large loses. But if you stop planting monoculture (maybe alternating rows of crops with rows of trees, and some bushes & flowers between them), bugs will have harder time to infect whole harvest and there is enough natural predators from the bug world to take care of them.

Biodiversity is the key.

[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8969332/ - The Biggest Little Farm, sustainable farm on 200 acres outside of Los Angeles talks in some lengths about this] [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/07/secret-w...] [https://www.agricology.co.uk/field/farmer-profiles/iain-tolh... - a single person from previous article]

[binibus]

I find your take on alternative forms of agriculture a little too optimistic. Even with rotation and biodiversity famines and plagues were common before the use of pesticides. Our technology and knowledge are better now but even with that, I doubt that we could sustain the current population. Not in a way as predictable as now for sure. And for the figure of 75% it is not that simple. A considerable part of the crops consumed by meat production are conformed by not edible material that would have to be produced anyway. Material that ruminants can magically transform into food.

But for the sake of the argument let's say you are right. I'm not as interested in the pesticides example as in knowing how much are you willing to sacrifice in order to follow that logic. Let me rephrase my question then.

- Having more than 2 kids per couple is unnecessary (even less than that for some time).

- Each extra human consumes resources necessarily damaging the animals and the earth.

Would you pass a law banning having children whenever the birth rate surpasses 2?

[myshpa]

> I find your take on alternative forms of agriculture a little too optimistic.

I've read a lot about alternative agriculture systems and methods. Maybe that's where my optimism comes from.

> the figure of 75% it is not that simple

I know that 75% is not so simple. But meat industry needs cca 75% of the agriculture land and meat is produced mostly by feeding the animals seeds and vegetable oils, so ... yes, it's a guess, but if we'll account for other stuff, like antibiotics ...

> conformed by not edible material that would have to be produced anyway

The ruminants supply a fraction of our nutritional needs, so I would argue, that we don't need them and that we can switch to more sustainable (less land expensive) sources of food. I would return that "non-edible" areas into forests for wildlife/biodiversity, which they were previously and which could even reverse our climate/extinction events currently happening.

Other non-consumable material could be composted and/or left in the fields as a mulch. Exposed soil kills microbes/fungi in the soil.

> Would you pass a law banning having children

No, I would not, because I now know that there is better way.

That population is still growing is a result of our exploitation of poor countries, poverty, a lack of education, and our religious and governmental practices. As we see in western countries, the developed and educated countries have a tendency to stabilize their population.

So the current growth will stop on its own, in time. But we have to make sure that we set the correct example for the new billions, or we'll together eat the Earth dry, till nothing than deserts will remain.

[binibus]

> No, I would not, because I now know that there is better way

So if there wasn't a better way you'll do it?

[c22]

Your last three points can be applied to any products.

[myshpa]

Yes - but you're supposed to start at point 1 :)

Meat eating is a complex matter - no time & space to cover it extensively here.

As I'm convinced, without forests the water cycle gets disrupted and the climate won't be able to support life as we know it [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKL40aBg-7E - The Biotic Pump: How Forests Create Rain].

With cows, there is not enough land to even have forests.

And if we can agree that we don't need cows and dairy (plants can replace it easily), why not also remove all the suffering that's connected to the meat industry?

Sorry for the detour.

[7steps2much]

Can you make any recommendations for replacement of dairy products? Personally i found that dairy stuff (cheese especially) is the one thing that seems to not have any acceptable plant based replacement (IMHO)

Most other vegan alternatives aren't good, but they are toleratable. The vegan cheeses i tried so far however were absolutely atrocious.

[myshpa]

I don't like vegan cheeses from supermarket much. And there are no artisanal vegan cheese producers in my area - maybe you'll be more lucky.

So I've been making my own. Better quality, better price, better taste compared to the supermarket stuff.

Cheese [https://thehiddenveggies.com/how-to-make-vegan-cheese-provol... - from coconut milk], yoghurt [https://www.spoonfulofkindness.com/how-to-make-vegan-yogurt/ - soya, cashew, almonds, coconut, oats, chickpea], and butter [https://veganheaven.org/recipe/vegan-butter/, https://lovingitvegan.com/homemade-vegan-butter/ - with olive oil, not canola].

[spacemanmatt]

I have eat vegan for years at a time. You're 100% right about cheese. There is nothing like dairy. But when I'm well nourished on a vegan diet I get over the desire pretty fast. I should probably go back to plants. It was so good for me.