| Sorry, your first link is profoundly unpersuasive. I don’t see anything wrong with killing animals for a purpose, nor anything inherently evil in suffering. I appreciate that you have a different value system, but I don’t share it. I do have a problem with treating animals as commodities and as inputs to industrial processes. > Thanks to subsidies ... Incorrect. > "More than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. Most of the rest is used for biofuels, industry or vegetable oils. I think it’s clear I oppose growing soy for animal feed. At any rate it’s misleading to exclude vegetable oil as something people directly eat, when nearly every American consumes a huge proportion of their daily calories from soy and canola oils. > You need also predators ... and I don't mean weekend hunters. Without predators the ruminants tend to stay in one place Yes, I specifically mentioned the need for rotational grazing, which builds up topsoil and stops desertification. > We don't need to eat meat to live and prosper. We have composting and syntropic agriculture. We don't need animal inputs in agriculture. We can rewild areas used for animal farming (75% of 50% agriland of habitable land) and let the wildife rebound and manage the ecosystems. I disagree. I and many other people need meat to prosper. Ecosystems are not steady state without our inputs. And certainly nobody besides me is going to support the mass reintroduction of predators. What you’re describing is just a different kind of human managed ecology. Also, properly managed livestock can absolutely be a carbon sink. With your last video, you’re preaching to the choir. It’s still true we all die. |
We won't be able to find a common ground.
> Ecosystems are not steady state without our inputs
Everything's going very well, indeed.
> It’s still true we all die.
Yes ... so there was nothing wrong with concentration camps, because all those people would have died anyway?
Let's agree to disagree.