• queermunist she/her
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    At no point this was made a witch hunt on vegans.

    You say that, but then you turn around and present animals that graze on the left overs and fallow fields as somehow “better” than the artificial fertilizers used in greenhouses. The reality is that we could use much less artificial fertilizer and also use less animal fertilizer. It all needs to be reduced and it’s not healthy or good for the environment just because the pollutants come from animals.

    There’s nothing wrong with greenhouses using artificial fertilizer, as long as they’re using controlled amounts and aren’t adding to nitrate pollution. And you know what? Greenhouses are usually way better about that, because they have very controlled growing operations!

    • qyron@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Please tell that to Spain (I’ll risk more countries suffer of the same problem) that has several valleys converted into glass bowls, as giant greenhouses, often for “deluxe” or exotic crops, covered the land.

      And you’re trying to dog whistle. I could not care any less aboit the choices other people make towards their life, even more when it comes to dietary and philosophical options.

      What irks me is the often used resort to guilt/finger pointing by those who opt to choose for such different option.

      Now that that is out of the way, yes, we can aim at less animal production. The abuse of meat is not an healthy diet nor a sustainable one, which is my main concern. We can demand from agricultural producers - and impose - better practices, which make use of circular flow of resources, less use of agrochemicals and the use of best practices.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Please tell that to Spain (I’ll risk more countries suffer of the same problem) that has several valleys converted into glass bowls, as giant greenhouses, often for “deluxe” or exotic crops, covered the land.

        You’re just kinda presenting this like I’m supposed to think it’s bad.

        Shipping exotic crops from the equator is bad. I don’t know if growing them in greenhouses is better, but that’s basically the only alternative unless we stop people from eating this shit. Yes, all crops could be grown more efficiently (and locally!), but I have no idea why you think this means that meat has any place in the food system. You’re just gesturing at greenhouses and using that as a justification.

        the use of best practices.

        The use of best practices means no meat. Full stop. Vegetable protein uses less water, energy, fertilizer, and produces fewer GHGs.

        I’m not dog whistling (what the hell do you think I’m trying to secretly say? that meat is bad for the environment?), this is literally a thread about the lie of climate-friendly meat. That shit is impossible and we should just stop eating that shit. It’s easy, it’s cheap, it’s healthy, do it.

        • qyron@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yes, I think you should find the idea of having hundreds of square kilometers of land covered in glass and plastic at least disturbing.

          And having exotic products shipped from their origin country and have it be expensive is an efficient way to control demand. But we have no time for reasonable solutions, so let’s instead introduce species with the potencial to become invasive or taxing to the foreign environment beyond what local cultures are.

          The presence and use of animals in a farming setting, to the extent of my knowledge and understanding, is among the list of best practices available.

          And yes, you are dog whisling, from the moment you insinuated I was making my argument a witch hunt on vegans. You are trying to elicit a prescribed response from by actively introducing a completely unrelated topic into the conversation.

          We diverge on views and that is fine. I’m not waging a debate to move an audience nor you.

          I stated greenhouses consume more resources, on all levels, due to poor practices.

          You understand that, by default, raising animals, regardless of setting or purpose, is wrong.

          Understood.