|
|
|
|
|
|
by gambiting
1192 days ago
|
|
|
>>Sustainable animal husbandry represents less than 5% of the total. That sounds very different to "There is no such thing as sustainable animal agriculture - it is a lie used to greenwash products" >>Removing all subsidies for dairy, meat & fishing would help a lot. I agree. >>If you don't see the logic in it, then you just haven't found the power to really acknowledge all the problems associated with it. I absolutely do see the logic in it, but someone saying that the only way to solve this is by going vegan is no different than someone saying that the only way to solve global warming is to stop driving cars. Would that solve the problem? Of course it would. Are the chances of that happening greater than 0? No, they aren't. This isn't personal criticism of course - if you feel that going vegan is consistent with your logical and moral stance, please go ahead. But I don't think we should even pretend that veganism is the solution to this problem on a global scale, because I don't believe you would get anywhere near the required number of people on board with it. The steps that I think are far more realistic are - more sustainable animal husbandry, sharp rise in cost of meat to reflect its true cost(which will naturally reduce the amount of meat consumed), and yes, like you said - removal of artificial subsidies to those industries. |
|
|
No it would not. We have to do many things to solve it, not just one thing or another.
And nobody argues that we should stop eating ... that would equal stopping driving. But as we can drive electric instead, we can also eat something else than animals.
We already get majority of calories out of plants ... animals supply only 18% of calories and 37% proteins (https://ourworldindata.org/land-use).
>> Sustainable animal husbandry represents less than 5% of the total.
Mea culpa. That max 5% is non-industrial farming. How big part of it is sustainable i do not know.