Submitted by vpuetf t3_10dy0q7 in Futurology
KorewaRise t1_j4ose9x wrote
Reply to comment by APEHASKILLEDAPE in Inside an insect farm: Are mealworms a sustainable meat alternative? by vpuetf
fun fact. its a massive misconception that "they want you to eat bug". their usually ground into a flour like substance. stuff like cricket flour already exists and its incredibly healthy.
when hear of "meat replacement" you probably think bug steaks but it'd really be like a bread or something that has an incredibly high protein content. and even if its bug steaks, we really need to take in just how BAD the meat industry is. shit is responsable for 14.5% of the worlds carbon emissions or 60% of all food related emissions, the meat industry is very unsustainable.
Pubelication t1_j4pl2sv wrote
57% of that 14% is livestock, plant-based is 29%.
Let's pretend that all livestock disappears. Where the fuck do you think the emissions from livestock, which are mostly caused by transportation and farming machinery are going to go? Those people will need to eat something. In Europe for example, the only place that vegetables grow from Oct to Mar are in the very south (Spain, Italy, Greece), and heated greenhouses with artificial lighting. Livestock is available year-round locally and virtually unaffected by weather.
KorewaRise t1_j4rp3cx wrote
oh wow its almost like we're trying to find alternatives that pollute less, require less overhead and logistics. but based off this comment section y'all don't give a shit, you just want meat no matter the consequences
Pubelication t1_j4rprmi wrote
Okay, but like I mentioned, fruits/vegetables require much more logistics as they don't grow year-round, whereas a pig dgaf about winter if it has a pen.
KorewaRise t1_j4rtskp wrote
it also needs to shit, fart, eat, drink water, breathe, etc. animals need a metric fuck ton more resources than plants.
live stock uses 36% of all crops we grow for animal feed.
80% of ALL agricultural land goes toward livestock or their food.
it also takes YEARS to actually eat it, a fucking sweet potatoe takes like 90 days to grow.
we could easily feed the world 4 times over if we didn't have such a meat addiction, but we rather destroy the planet than quit eating as much meat.
nameTotallyUnique t1_j4q6bq9 wrote
Well for the 29% plant based to make since a big percentage of that is feeding the livestock. Else i would like to see the source on livestock emmision being smaller then plantbased.
Pubelication t1_j4q7gr5 wrote
It's not smaller, it's 57% vs 29%.
But if all people eating meat stopped, the emissions from plant farming to replace those calories would skyrocket. The only way to lower plant-based food emissions is to not ship it, which would mean almost the entire northern hemisphere would have no fruits or vegetables half the year, or they'd have to be grown in heated and artificially lit greenhouses, which again creates emissions.
It makes more sense to not ship meat around as much and buy local. In Europe that's caused by some countries subsidizing certain meat types and exporting them.
nameTotallyUnique t1_j4qakc1 wrote
Thanks for the clearup.
Well alot of the food to raise livestock is shipped anyhow. Yes shipping anything that can produced locally doesnt make to much sense. But i would assume that the emmissions of transportation of it using containerships is small compared to the production.
If all peole stopped eating meat we would certainly save emmission even if transported. And ofc plant based emmissions would go up. Same as if everyone stopped eating advocates and eat apples instead the emission for apples would go up but the total emmision that was for applea and advocatoes would deastical go down.
But yes eating locally makes sense and it's another debate. Plant based can easily be produced locally aswell.
harooh t1_j4q0bjd wrote
but my chicken nuggets!
berrytas t1_j52omf5 wrote
you're so brainwashed, it's insane. meat is the most nutrient-dense food on the planet and is no more climate-harsh than vegetables will become if they replace those fields. humans have prized meat for 100,000s of years, but because its been trendy for 5 years, now you'll eat roaches. makes sense.
KorewaRise t1_j53b50v wrote
just because its been done for a long time doesn't mean its good.
​
>you're so brainwashed, it's insane.
ironic. you say this three days later as you know you're not arguing in good faith and if this thread was still active others would dog pile you too. piss off you fetid excuse
Floveet t1_j4pds8t wrote
If meat is 14% what makes for the majority ? Is it the biggest one or one of the issue only and there s something bigger ? If there is something bigger and more reponsible for carbon emissions, how about focusing on that then? How about big corp and factories ?
KorewaRise t1_j4pf369 wrote
btw almost all cars emit almost the same as the meat industry does. everyone all gong ho about going ev, by going all ev it would have the same impact as eating less meat. climate change is a multifaceted thing we cant just tackle 1 angle and call it a day. we need to hit them all and get net negative asap (but thats easier said than done when all politicians have this same mindset).
idk what it is with this mentally of only being able to focus on 1 thing at a time.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments