Can A Vegan Diet Save The World?

[kat]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

You really feel that it's necessary to poke at me, with your ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ biology comments, trying to get some type of response out of me? It's people like you, that got James banned. Poking the bear, and blaming them when they bite. Your entire post is full of condescension

The only response that you deserve, is that you still haven't shown anything, to prove your point. So we might as well pretend that everyone is wrong, and get over ourselves.

Step back for a moment and calm down.

Now, if you don't like the tone of the previous post, here's a piece of relevant information from it that I'd recommend looking at: his link to Ecological pyramid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll quote from it:

Originally Posted by ecology pyramid

An ecological pyramid of productivity is often more useful, showing the production or turnover of biomass at each trophic level. Instead of showing a single snapshot in time, productivity pyramids show the flow of energy through the food chain. Typical units would be grams per meter2 per year or calories per meter2 per year. As with the others, this graph begins with producers at the bottom and places higher trophic levels on top.

When an ecosystem is healthy, this graph produces a standard ecological pyramid. This is because in order for the ecosystem to sustain itself, there must be more energy at lower trophic levels than there is at higher trophic levels. This allows for organisms on the lower levels to not only maintain a stable population, but to also transfer energy up the pyramid. The exception to this generalization is when portions of a food web are supported by inputs of resources from outside of the local community. In small, forested streams, for example gone up greater than could be supported by the local primary production.

When energy is transferred to the next trophic level, typically only 10% of it is used to build new biomass, becoming stored energy (the rest going to metabolic processes). As such, in a pyramid of productivity each step will be 10% the size of the previous step (100, 10, 1, 0.1, 0.01).

It takes more plant matter to feed animals to feed humans than to feed humans directly; short of changing the laws of thermodynamics, this won't ever change (and we'd get perpetual motion machines out of that change, so it'd be convenient, but rather impossible...)

[kat]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

These are powerful methods for creating widespread starvation.

You're entirely right. Getting rid of the mass production of crops would be a horrible idea (as is any idea which leads to starving the majority of the world's population, and having the rest spend their time as subsistence farmers or hunter-gatherers; no thanks).

Moving away gradually from large monocultures of inefficient subsidized crops while maintaining sufficient surpluses strikes me as useful, but I don't see a way to do it quickly.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

These are powerful methods for creating widespread starvation.

Originally Posted by kat

You're entirely right. Getting rid of the mass production of crops would be a horrible idea (as is any idea which leads to starving the majority of the world's population, and having the rest spend their time as subsistence farmers or hunter-gatherers; no thanks).

Moving away gradually from large monocultures of inefficient subsidized crops while maintaining sufficient surpluses strikes me as useful, but I don't see a way to do it quickly.

Current crop production from huge crop fields isn't sustainable. Chemicals, reduction in soil quality and arable land, etc.

Animals in factory farms lead terrible lives, and it has been at the point for a while now where some of these animals can't even naturally reproduce and have to be artificially reproduced.

-Getting rid of factory farms or mass produce doesn't mean only family farms and hunter-gatherers remain. I'm not talking about not buying food from professional farmers. I mean stick to local farms whenever possible. Specifically small and medium sized ones in your own state or province that treat the land and the animals right. Know where your food comes from. Growing some of your own can be a good supplement.

-Be intentional about it. A vegan eating daily bananas or oranges shipped from thousands of miles away isn't saving the world. That doesn't mean things can never be shipped, but it means eating local where possible, and shipping stuff in when it's necessary, or where it's very nutritionally important, or where it's a much-loved treat. Most of the produce that's shipped around mostly consists of water. It makes sense to try to stick to local produce and local meats for much of the year. Other things, like olive oils, coconut oils, chocolate, and various dense foods make more sense to ship because they're almost completely devoid of water; all the weight is substance, and a little bit goes a long way.

[MariconesUnited]

Lab grown meat might save the world. It would solve the issues I have personally with eating meat anyway. Sign me up!

[russianrocket]

https://theconversation.edu.au/order...our-hands-4659

[kat]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

https://theconversation.edu.au/order...our-hands-4659

It feels a bit like talking to a black hole when ones' conversation partner switches topic entirely, again and again, whenever their views are challenged.

Nonetheless, did you read the comments on that article? Most are rather critical of it, sometimes for good reason.

All the article shows is that if you distort enough, you can make a case for almost everything. It correctly critiques some of the problems of large-scale grain farming, and of an inhumane system where mice are poisoned.

What does it proceed to do? Argue for eating meat, while ignoring that the majority of the above grain crops go to feeding animals for humans to eat! That's a touch disingenuous.

If you stack the deck enough, you can come up with cases where eating animals is better in some metric than eating plants: for instance, a local chicken you raised in your own back yard versus wheat farmed in cleared rainforest halfway around the planet. That the deck has to be stacked so far, or extremely salient facts glazed over, is rather telling.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by kat

It feels a bit like talking to a black hole when ones' conversation partner switches topic entirely, again and again, whenever their views are challenged.

Nonetheless, did you read the comments on that article? Most are rather critical of it, sometimes for good reason.

All the article shows is that if you distort enough, you can make a case for almost everything. It correctly critiques some of the problems of large-scale grain farming, and of an inhumane system where mice are poisoned.

What does it proceed to do? Argue for eating meat, while ignoring that the majority of the above grain crops go to feeding animals for humans to eat! That's a touch disingenuous.

If you stack the deck enough, you can come up with cases where eating animals is better in some metric than eating plants: for instance, a local chicken you raised in your own back yard versus wheat farmed in cleared rainforest halfway around the planet. That the deck has to be stacked so far, or extremely salient facts glazed over, is rather telling.

Someone sent me the link, so I figured I'd take a few seconds out of my day, to bother to post it on here. While I didn't really want to waste any time on this forum this weekend.

But I get it. It's only pro meat arguments that you rail against. The OP, you just allow to go about making arguments, that have no bearing in reality. Me, I post up an article, that actually explains a few things, a lot better then the "study" the OP posted, and you call me a black hole. Forgiven me for not wanting to respond to someone telling me to calm down. It's usually one of those things that will end a conversation with anyone.

I read the comments. Most are critical, and the critical comments are met with equally critical responses.

But again, I get it. When are you going to turn on the OP as well? As I've constantly said, can't we all just agree that we are all wrong, because non of us has any real figures, and can't prove our case with out a shadow of a doubt?

[votoshka]

I actually saw an article somewhere that demonstrated how grazing animals on land that was pretty much desert was able to improve the land and it started growing more plants and grasses. I wish I knew a link to it!

I agree that factory farming animals is bad. The animals aren't healthy and the meat they produce isn't healthy either. I've never actually seen a factory farm to be honest, so I'm pretty sure it's possible to actually grow animals on regular pasture without having to shove them in feedlots!! Doing this also means you don't need to feed them grain (which isn't even good for animals that should be eating grass) or at least, you only need to give them the occasional supplementary grain. If animals can graze naturally they improve the land they're grazing on, rather than draining it of most of the important nutrients.

I really don't understand the economics or practicalities of farming, not being a farmer myself, but I'm pretty darn sure there are answers to most of the problems if one would only look for them.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by firenexx

Even if you're raising cows organically on a pasture, you still have a giant area of land that must grow grass, and another area to harvest hay to feed them in the winter (if you live in an area that has a cold winter). It is more efficient to grow the plants and eat them, than to grow the plants, feed them to another animal, and then eat the animal. They teach you that in highschool biology, only a small percent of the energy of a consumed food actually goes to the animal 2 tiers up in the food chain.

Your point about energy efficiency is flawed.

Cows or plants - the energy source is still the same. It's sunlight.

The amount of sunlight that shines on a field is not affected by your decision to grow plants or raise cattle on it. Or whether you eat less or more beef or vegetables.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Your point about energy efficiency is flawed.

Cows or plants - the energy source is still the same. It's sunlight.

The amount of sunlight that shines on a field is not affected by your decision to grow plants or raise cattle on it. Or whether you eat less or more beef or vegetables.

The same amount of energy falls on a given piece of land whether it has animals or plants. But, different amounts of energy actually make it all the way to humans.

An animal beats its heart every second, walks around, digests its food- this is all energy used up that doesn't reach humans. It's energy burned for the weeks, months, or years of an animal's life. All of the energy that is not directly stored as calories for humans is a "waste" from the human point of view of gathering energy from a given piece of land.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Your point about energy efficiency is flawed.

Cows or plants - the energy source is still the same. It's sunlight.

The amount of sunlight that shines on a field is not affected by your decision to grow plants or raise cattle on it. Or whether you eat less or more beef or vegetables.

Cattle cast shadows no? What about supply and demand? I would think those factors would affect how much cattle is grown vs. how many vegetables, cereals, fruits and nuts are grown.

[Acting Like Godot]

What I am explaining to you is that the energy efficiency has no practical significance in this context.

To illustrate, let me contrast this to situations where energy efficiency does matter. For example, let's talk about the petrol consumption of your car, or the electricity consumption of your washing machine. In both these cases, energy efficiency matters, because the less energy your car or washing machine consumes, the less you'll need to pay for petrol/electricity, AND the less pollution you cause.

Whereas in the food context, the sun is going to shine as much as it's going to shine, regardless of what you do with it. It will not shine any less just because you decide to eat less or plant more vegetables or raise fewer cows.
And sunlight is free.

MU mentioned supply and demand. The economic law of supply and demand does not apply to sunlight.

Requiem talks about energies "wasted" by animals walking or running around. So? Even if the animal did not walk around, the amount of sunlight does not change.

Do you know what is very energy-efficient? Drinking pure glucose. However, that isn't to be recommended, from a nutrition point of view.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

What I am explaining to you is that the energy efficiency has no practical significance in this context.

To illustrate, let me contrast this to situations where energy efficiency does matter. For example, let's talk about the petrol consumption of your car, or the electricity consumption of your washing machine. In both these cases, energy efficiency matters, because the less energy your car or washing machine consumes, the less you'll need to pay for petrol/electricity, AND the less pollution you cause.

Whereas in the food context, the sun is going to shine as much as it's going to shine, regardless of what you do with it. It will not shine any less just because you decide to eat less or plant more vegetables or raise fewer cows.
And sunlight is free.

Sunlight is free, yes. Last I checked, gas costs about 1.25$CAD/litre. And we use petrol for most of our energy needs, not solar energy. Petrol for our tractors, for the electricity that powers and lights the factories, for the trucks, boats and planes that carry everything around the world, for the butcher's shop...You get the idea.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

MU mentioned supply and demand. The economic law of supply and demand does not apply to sunlight.

Actually I was addressing the bolded part in here:

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The amount of sunlight that shines on a field is not affected by your decision to grow plants or raise cattle on it. Or whether you eat less or more beef or vegetables.

Eating meat and animal related products takes up more arable land than any other form of food, which means more gas being used which means more pollution. The amount of sunlight that shines on a field is irrelevant to all these factors.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Do you know what is very energy-efficient? Drinking pure glucose. However, that isn't to be recommended, from a nutrition point of view.

I'm aware that the idea is to find a balance between personal health, others' suffering and environmental concerns. But it's always good to clarify anyway.

For anyone who wants to know more on the topic, I highly recommend this documentary. It's beautiful and inspiring as well. Takes about 93 minutes of your time. Well invested in my humble opinion.

[kat]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Someone sent me the link, so I figured I'd take a few seconds out of my day, to bother to post it on here. While I didn't really want to waste any time on this forum this weekend.

But I get it. It's only pro meat arguments that you rail against. The OP, you just allow to go about making arguments, that have no bearing in reality. Me, I post up an article, that actually explains a few things, a lot better then the "study" the OP posted, and you call me a black hole. Forgiven me for not wanting to respond to someone telling me to calm down. It's usually one of those things that will end a conversation with anyone.

I read the comments. Most are critical, and the critical comments are met with equally critical responses.

But again, I get it. When are you going to turn on the OP as well? As I've constantly said, can't we all just agree that we are all wrong, because non of us has any real figures, and can't prove our case with out a shadow of a doubt?

I've argued against bad anti-meat arguments frequently. We both posted against plenty in Cooked food gives more energy to the human

I'm not 'turning on' anyone. I'm pointing out bad arguments when I see them, whether or not I agree with the person making them. I disagreed with the premise of the thread in my very first post in it.

I'm not going to "agree" that I'm wrong about stuff that's taught in first courses in biology and physics for high school students. I'll happily agree that a vegan diet won't "save the world" (whatever that's supposed to mean), and did so in the first post. And I'll acknowledge arguments as good or bad no matter how much I like or dislike their content.

Edit: as for the original article - what can I say? It's a light article. The general premise that reducing meat consumption, in the world as it currently actually is, reduces carbon dioxide emissions is sound. The idea that this one change will somehow save the world? Not so much.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Eating meat and animal related products takes up more arable land than any other form of food, which means more gas being used which means more pollution. The amount of sunlight that shines on a field is irrelevant to all these factors.

Firenexx was not talking about land shortage. He was talking about energy efficiency. Also, he wasn't talking about energy efficiency in the use of farming equipment. He was talking about energy efficiency in food consumption.

That is, the amount of energy you get from eating a certain amount of vegetables which in turn made their food from the sun, compared to the amount of energy you get from eating a certain amount of beef, which in turn comes from the cow eating plants which made their food from the sun.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Firenexx was not talking about land shortage. He was talking about energy efficiency. Also, he wasn't talking about energy efficiency in the use of farming equipment. He was talking about energy efficiency in food consumption.

That is, the amount of energy you get from eating a certain amount of vegetables which in turn made their food from the sun, compared to the amount of energy you get from eating a certain amount of beef, which in turn comes from the cow eating plants which made their food from the sun.

Yes you're right! I got arguments mixed up, sorry.

Yet, I think the environmental concerns I'm raising bear a lot of consideration for all of us. I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on your specific discussion on energy consumption for humans, but I think it's important to consider the question. I'm open to learning more on it anyway. The amount of energy each individual receives from each food product will tell us a lot on the real environmental impacts and the real needs for us.

[kat]

Originally Posted by votoshka

I actually saw an article somewhere that demonstrated how grazing animals on land that was pretty much desert was able to improve the land and it started growing more plants and grasses. I wish I knew a link to it!

I agree that factory farming animals is bad. The animals aren't healthy and the meat they produce isn't healthy either. I've never actually seen a factory farm to be honest, so I'm pretty sure it's possible to actually grow animals on regular pasture without having to shove them in feedlots!! Doing this also means you don't need to feed them grain (which isn't even good for animals that should be eating grass) or at least, you only need to give them the occasional supplementary grain. If animals can graze naturally they improve the land they're grazing on, rather than draining it of most of the important nutrients.

I really don't understand the economics or practicalities of farming, not being a farmer myself, but I'm pretty darn sure there are answers to most of the problems if one would only look for them.

Done intelligently, grazing can be helpful for lands which aren't particularly productive. Geoff Lawton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has done some impressive permaculture work, which includes grazing animals; see Greening the Desert Permaculture Research Institute. Done poorly, it's a disaster: You Cant Cram a Square Peg in a Round Hole

You can raise animals on pasture, but it takes a lot more space than cramming them into an overcrowded building. If you put too many in an area, they'll overgraze the land, which can be disastrous. And at the sorts of densities that occur naturally, you can't feed very many people with them. Sticking exclusively to pastured animals would make a larger percentage of the population near-vegetarians without having much choice in the matter.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Your point about energy efficiency is flawed.

Cows or plants - the energy source is still the same. It's sunlight.

The amount of sunlight that shines on a field is not affected by your decision to grow plants or raise cattle on it. Or whether you eat less or more beef or vegetables.

Let's say you have a chunk of land. You have a few options.

a) Leave it alone. Maybe harvest something from it opportunistically, maybe ignore it entirely.

b) Use it as pasture. For some kinds of land, this is one of the more reasonable uses people can make of it; some land is ok for growing grasses, but not very suitable for agriculture.

c) Farm it intensively. If you've got land that can be used for this, you can feed far more people than with the same amount of land used for grazing. And if you use the plants from this as animal feed, the "ecological pyramid" above kicks in: you lose over 90% of the energy you could have gotten from the grain by feeding it to cattle first; digesting grain and turning it into meat is not an energy-efficient process. (If you want to lose 99% of the energy from the grain, feed the grain-fed cattle to tigers and then have people eat the tigers. This ~90% loss of efficiency happens at every step up the food chain).

The amount of sunlight on the field doesn't change. The amount of food usable to human beings that comes out of it does.

Given 1000 units of sunlight, and land suitable for growing food directly for human consumption:
you get 100 units of, say, grain, which can be used directly to feed humans
OR
you get 10 units of meat, from feeding the grain to cows.
OR
you get 1 unit of meat, from feeding the cows to a tiger.

The above is an idealization (the actual numbers are a bit worse, and vary due to several factors).

Animals need to eat. This is never free, in terms of energy. At best, it's effectively kind of negligible on land where the best use is pasture, since you wouldn't be producing more food suitable for people by other means - and in most countries, this is nowhere near enough to feed the population's demand for meat.

With factory farming grain-fed animals, you can literally only feed about 10% of the humans that you can feed if you use the grain to feed humans directly.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by kat

The amount of sunlight on the field doesn't change. The amount of food usable to human beings that comes out of it does.

Correct. But it's important to be clear on the context of the discussion. The considerations are different, depending on whether you're discussing environmental concerns, health concerns or survival concerns.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by kat

The amount of sunlight on the field doesn't change. The amount of food usable to human beings that comes out of it does.

Given 1000 units of sunlight, and land suitable for growing food directly for human consumption:
you get 100 units of, say, grain, which can be used directly to feed humans
OR
you get 10 units of meat, from feeding the grain to cows.
OR
you get 1 unit of meat, from feeding the cows to a tiger.

These considerations are most important when your key motivation is to prevent starvation. That is, your main concern is to have enough food for people to eat so that they have the energy to survive.

If you don't have a problem with shortage of land suitable for either raising crops or farm animals, then these considerations fall away.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by kat

With factory farming grain-fed animals, you can literally only feed about 10% of the humans that you can feed if you use the grain to feed humans directly.

Now if on the other hand your key motivation is human health, then it's worth noting that some people that in the first place, humans shouldn't be consuming wheat.

[kat]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Correct. But it's important to be clear on the context of the discussion. The considerations are different, depending on whether you're discussing environmental concerns, health concerns or survival concerns.

Absolutely - though at present, there is significant overlap.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

These considerations are most important when your key motivation is to prevent starvation. That is, your main concern is to have enough food for people to eat so that they have the energy to survive.

If you don't have a problem with shortage of land suitable for either raising crops or farm animals, then these considerations fall away.

Partially, yes.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Now if on the other hand your key motivation is human health, then it's worth noting that some people that in the first place, humans shouldn't be consuming wheat.

Indeed, and neither should cows. When I talk about agriculture on a worldwide scale, though, my first concern is preventing human starvation. I consider starving worse than eating wheat for health.

If we're talking about what you or I think ought to be grown, if resources aren't a constraint, wheat presumably wouldn't be at the top of either of our lists. I'd go for leafy greens, fruit, seeds, nuts, algae.... and some beans and grains (what can I say? I like buckwheat with veggies, bean dishes, and the occasional vegan cake).

And I have no reasonable arguments against people pasturing some animals, though I certainly prefer it to be done in ways that don't wreck ecological devastation.

[firenexx]

You really feel that it's necessary to poke at me, with your ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ biology comments, trying to get some type of response out of me? It's people like you, that got James banned. Poking the bear, and blaming them when they bite. Your entire post is full of condescension

The only response that you deserve, is that you still haven't shown anything, to prove your point. So we might as well pretend that everyone is wrong, and get over ourselves.

1) I am sorry that I like to have fun and enjoy forum discourse, I will try to be more serious in an attempt to make you satisfied with my tone.
2) As kat so kindly mentioned, I DID show something to prove my point, it was the entire concept of ecological efficiency. It is not some crazy experimental PETA hippy vegan fake turkey half-baked theory that killing animals is bad, it is simple maths and science.

Your point about energy efficiency is flawed.

Cows or plants - the energy source is still the same. It's sunlight.

I'm sure somebody already responded to this (skimming here, sorry) but I'll respond as clearly and simply as possible:

The sun does not create minerals
Are you algae? Do you photosynthesize? In efficiency calculations, we do not consider the sunlight entering your skin, except in terms of the Hormone "Vitamin" D that it creates. The rest of your energy comes from oxygen and food. The only trophic level where sunlight is the only consideration is trophic level 1. If you eat only algae, you are being pretty darn efficient, because you are getting 10% of the sun energy that went into that algae. If you eat a beefsteak, you are getting 10% of the 10% of the 10% of the energy that came from the sun. From a nutrition standpoint that doesn't matter too much, but from an efficiency standpoint it matters.

I should probably also throw in the law of energy conversion/conservation/whatever to further stir things up... anytime you convert energy from one form to another you lose some but both sides of the equation remain equal. Highschool physics. I'd rather make 2 conversions than 3, any day.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Correct. But it's important to be clear on the context of the discussion. The considerations are different, depending on whether you're discussing environmental concerns, health concerns or survival concerns.

Why ''or''? We consider all those factors outside the internet. I have no idea why we would not consider any of those concerns in the context of this discussion?