[vjerancrnjak]

David Attenborough saw more clearly than most what was being lost. But even he stopped short of fully applying that logic to animals themselves.

Rewilding at scale, deep emissions cuts, and a serious move away from animal agriculture are the same project.

[itissid]

He did mention in one of the planet earth 2/3 series how so much of the land is used for farmed animals. And, for the sake of completeness of argument, for restoring what was lost, the challenge is how to raise the standard of living fast enough for people so they give a damn about anything apart from ourselves was THE challenge to combat climate change and global ecological disaster. He specifically mentioned e.g. educating girls and making older-aged societies more propsperous. Prosperous people can make better choices about farmed animals as food.

[mrsvanwinkle]

Extremely insightful re: capacity to care for others.. though the trend of "NIMBY" and "petite-bougie" ideology (a more modern term being "temporarily embarrassed billionaires") and pretty much the guiltless profit maximization of the oligarchy point to that hypothesis being another form of trickle down economics (only the "prosperous" part. the educating women part should be a given, but if you read the comments in a recent frontpage post about humanitarian aide, the findings of those with decades in direct involvement pointing to "gender empowerment" and road infrastructure as most impactful long-term were met with the same "pronoun" schtick.

[belorn]

Modern agriculture, both animal and non-animal versions, are bad for the environment. Artificial fertilizers, replacing forests with farm land, and drainage of wet lands are all heavily contributing to emissions and water pollution, destroying local ecosystems as well as warming the planet. Artificial fertilizers is particular bad since its production uses fossil fuels, has large amount of accidental green house emissions, and causes eutrofiering to the point of areas like the baltic sea becoming basically dead from loss of oxygen. Runoff from farms are also now the primary cause of ecosystem collapse in fresh water lakes.

[boston_clone]

The most impactful elements of modern agriculture are entirely animal-based. Full-stop.

You in fact rightfully but incompletely recognize : artificial fertilizers (for giant mono-crop fields of soybeans to feed to cows and pigs [0]), replacing forests (to clear room for soybean fields and pasture for cows and pigs [1][2]), and runoff of these fertilizers and manure into waterways. The parent comment is right - if we want to fix these problems, we must stop killing and eating animals at such an industrial and horrendous scale.

0. https://www.ucs.org/about/news/extent-emissions-created-mass...

1. https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation

2. https://gfw.global/39qbPdC

3. https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture

[belorn]

If it was a competition in who did more harm the distinction may be relevant but in terms of saving the environment and turning back the ecosystem back to a sustainable one, the distinction between animal based or non-animal based is mostly irrelevant. Modern agriculture are not sustainable for the environment. The fossil fuels that are pulled from the earth and put on fields are not sustainable, and the amount of run off that goes into the water are destroying ecosystems with no time table if they ever can recover. When different species goes extinct they stay extinct, and the distinction that "well, its not as harmful as animal-based agriculture" will not bring them back. The Baltic Sea an loud warning signal of what happens if we continue to go down this path of modern agriculture.

One of the few areas of sustainable farming is aquaculture like shellfish and seaweed, which could actually be used to reduce the negative effects caused by modern farming. If there were a competition in least amount of harm, those would likely be the winners.

Fields of corn or soybeans will still exist without animal-based agriculture, especially with current demand for biofuels. As long as the land can be farmed to generate revenue, people will farm it. Artificial fertilizers is the primary enabler of this.

[eastof]

No one is saying fields of corn and soybean wouldn't exist, but we would have far less of them without animal agriculture. You are creating a false dichotomy of "sustainable"/"not sustainable" the reality is human societies would be much more sustainable without animal agriculture. More sustainable does in fact result in less extinctions/ecosystem impact and reduced climate change.

Maybe I'm wrong but reading your comment it feels like you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and you use your conclusion that we will never be sustainable as your excuse to continue to eat animals.

[belorn]

> No one is saying fields of corn and soybean wouldn't exist, but we would have far less of them without animal agriculture

There is no evidence that there would be far less farm fields without that. Farm fields exists if there is profit to be had. Right now the demand for biofuels are directly competing with the demand for animal feed. Farmers will primary grow and sell crops based on what pay the most, and can easily switch if one pays more than the other.

https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/360637/?v=pdf The Impact of Market Prices on Farmers' Crop Choices in Ghana https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373480516_Farmers'_... Farmers’ risk rating and crop portfolio choice in Kewot Woreda, North Ethiopia https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X2... Understanding factors influencing farmers’ crop choice and agricultural transformation in the Upper Vietnamese Mekong Delta

Notice that none of those says that farmers would not use the fields if the current most price worthy crop would go away. Farmers choose what to farm based, among other things, the market. If you remove animal agriculture, you don't get far less fields. You get fields with a different crop in them.

The only thing that will stop farming is either if the external cost of farming is applied, such as pollution, or if climate change makes farming the land unprofitable. Currently that pollution is not applied as a cost. A carbon and water pollution tax could be a strategy that addressed this, and would impact all farming regardless of crop. If that is "perfection" and "enemy of the good", then the definition of perfection is not shared.

[boston_clone]

Bit of a fallacious argument here - why do you presume to know how farm land will be used in the future?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective_determinism

> If you remove animal agriculture, you don't get far less fields. You get fields with a different crop in them.

we just simply cannot know this. but, we do know the impact of our current practices, not to mention the (supposedly) debatable ethical element of killing hundreds of billions of animals each year.

[boston_clone]

> in terms of saving the environment and turning back the ecosystem back to a sustainable one, the distinction between animal based or non-animal based is mostly irrelevant

this is simply false - did you follow any of the citations? you’re welcome to find something to support your position but as they say: if it can be asserted without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence.

[lostlogin]

> The most impactful elements of modern agriculture are entirely animal-based.

If we step back a bit, the most impactful bit is true human wish for growth.

If we were satisfied with a comfortable stasis, that would be helpful.

[boston_clone]

strongly disagree; we can quantify the differences. our current population levels are sustainable if we stopped overfishing our oceans and raising billions of animals each year for slaughter. check my other comment for a bunch of citations!