lifeworship: your link 404s. But regardless, the facts are clear enough. No doubt the radical vegans have overstated the facts, but no matter. The facts are clear. Flesh foods are MUCH more environmentally stressful than vegetable foods. There is no intellectually honest alternative to this point of view.
I should add: flesh foods as actually produced in the real world in which we live are much more environmentally stressful. It is possible to dream up a world in which all beef (say) is produced by pasturing on land utterly unfit for any other purpose, and thus is environmentally benign. But that world is a DREAM, as opposed to the real world in which we live. There is at this moment zero possibility of providing a high flesh-food diet to 7 billion people without environmental disaster. That is, shy of synthetic/lab meat production -- which I understand is coming right along, but is still far from prime time.
this should fix the 404 it will be difficult but not impossible. if we stay the course with our current plant farming methods it won't matter. we have 50 years worth of topsoil left, unless we go to herding large numbers of ruminants. calling them flesh foods to stir up emotion does not change the actual facts.
https://steemit.com/health/@projecthor/veganism-negative-impact-for-the-environment
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You say we have "50 years worth of topsoil left"; you don't discuss the significance of this or explain why it is relevant to our conversation. Are you saying that we only have 50 years left, so we're all doomed anyway, so nothing matters? It is unclear.
The phrase "flesh foods" is not intended to be emotionally evocative. It is just a description. It refers to all animal flesh, that's all.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit