Comment on Top of the world, ma

sonofearth@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

• teuniac_@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  I can think of a few reasons like ecological decline, climate change, antibiotic resistance, pandemics and public health.

  Maybe control isn’t the right word though

  source

  • sonofearth@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    I don’t think veganism actually  solves major problems like ecological decline, climate change, antibiotic resistance, pandemics or any public health issues especially once you look at how these issues play out in reality rather than in an “influencer idealised” narrative.

    1. Climate Change & the “14%” number is very nuanced

    Livestock is definitely responsible for around 14-15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That number comes from lifecycle assessments by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)that include feed production, enteric fermentation, manure, land use change and processing, not just the emissions from the animals themselves. (FAO))

    That figure is usually misinterpreted or understood:

    • It isn’t directly comparable to the way energy or transport emissions are counted; those are measured differently. (FAOHome)

    • Roughly 1/3 of total global emissions come from food systems overall, and within that portion, the livestock share varies depending on methodology. (ipcc.ch)

    • Other studies show the livestock share can fall closer to 12% of total global emissions when measured differently. (OECD)

    So yes, livestock contributes significantly but it’s misleading to treat that figure as a simple causal claim that eliminating meat will solve climate change. Deep cuts in fossil fuel emissions from energy, transport and industry are still the dominant needs.

    2. Reducing livestocks doesn’t automatically eliminate animals

    Even if people eat less meat, that doesn’t guarantee livestock populations disappear. Animals don’t just vanish because Williams decided to not eat meat:

    • They may continue to exist for milk, labor, manure, cultural or economic reasons.

    • Reductions in consumption don’t automatically translate into reductions in livestock biomass or methane outputs unless there are explicit policies to manage breeding and animal numbers.

    This means the assumed climate benefit is not automatic and depends on how production systems are actually managed, not just what people choose to have on their plates.

    3. Reducing livestock doesn’t mean Less Food

    Cutting livestock doesn’t reduce the need to produce calories or balanced nutrition. You still need to produce protein and micro nutrients at scale. That typically means expanding crop production which has its own environmental costs (fertilizer use, land conversion, water use, transport, processing). The narrative that plant crops are automatically lower impact ignores the fact that:

    • Many plant based proteins are highly processed and energy intensive.

    • Removing animals from small & mixed farming systems will actually reduce soil fertility and increase reliance on synthetic fertilizers.

    4. Antibiotic Resistance

    The core issue isn’t simply that people eat animals but it is how antibiotics are regulated, prescribed and used in both human and animal systems. The FAO projects that without policy changes, global antibiotic use in livestock could rise by up to 30% by 2040. (DownToEarth.org)

    It correlates with a lack of proper regulations and overuse of antibiotics in both human healthcare and industrial farming.

    5. Many problems are Western Industrial Systems problems

    A lot of the environmental framing around livestock comes from industrialised, Western models of agriculture (feedlots, monocultures, long supply chains). In much of the Global East, livestock production is integrated into local food supply systems and serve roles beyond just meat supply that provides manure, traction, nutrient cycling and financial assets (I don’t like to see living beings that way but that’s the way it is). Treating Western industrial problems as universally applicable heavily ignores these differences.

    6. Nutrition & Public Health vary by context

    Claims that veganism improves public health assume widespread access to balanced plant based nutrition & supplementation. In many parts of the world like big vegetarian populations like India, protein and micronutrient deficiencies (iron, B12) are widespread public health issues. Meanwhile animal source foods actually provide dense sources of these nutrients that are difficult to replace without reliable supplementation and access.

    source

    • teuniac_@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Lol, alright ChatGPT

      source

      • sonofearth@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I literally answered your points of concern one by one with sources and you call it ChatGPT like some “gotcha” lol.

        Have a good day.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • CottonSeed@slrpnk.net ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    if being vegan actual changed the animal ag industry and stopped it from growing, you might be right. it doesn’t, though.

    source
• Gloomy@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Total coincidence, but Epstein always said the same about having sex.

  source

  • sonofearth@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    When the logic collapses so hard you have to summon a child sex offender.

    source

    • Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Please explain the issue with the metaphor for us dummies

      source