this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
174 points (93.1% liked)

Green - An environmentalist community

5237 readers
1 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!


RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith


Related communities:


Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If we only raised enough animals to eat our waste, you’d have a great point.

I have a good point, anyway. besides our waste, there is also a great deal of ag land that is unsuitable for crop cultivation. my point is still the same: using the metric of land use is not a great way to understand efficiencies in the agriculture sector. I don't believe any single metric is the key, probably.

off the top of my head, multigenerational ecosystem stability without artificial inputs might be the metric id aim to achieve, but it's hard to say what kinds of impacts that might have (efficiency would surely be impacted). given the vastness and interdependency of the modern agricultural system I don't believe any radical change is prudent. if the issues we are facing from carbon emissions are what we are looking to address, I would say we need to focus on other sources of carbon emissions primarily, rather than upset the agricultural system.

[–] capital 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I don’t know of any other way to put this…

We have land that we dedicate solely to growing food for animals. Not the waste, not land that is otherwise unusable.

That is not environmentally friendly when we could feed far more people by NOT doing that or using less farmland to feed our current population.

Did that make more sense?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

we could feed far more people by NOT doing that

I don't think so.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We have land that we dedicate solely to growing food for animals. Not the waste, not land that is otherwise unusable.

I haven't disputed this

[–] capital 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

You seem to be by repeatedly bringing up the fact that animals can eat parts of the plants we can’t when it makes up a minuscule part of the equation so I though it prudent to really drive home.

And now I know what part of the problem is give your other comment. I’ve already linked you a study showing how and why we could feed more people on less farmland and I even quoted the important part of it in my comment so you didn’t even have to click.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I’ve already linked you a study showing how and why we could feed more people on less farmland

and I don't find your study convincing

[–] capital 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How convenient.

Anyway, if anyone else comes by this thread I feel pretty good about my portion. You made it really easy. Thanks!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

if anyone else comes by this thread I feel pretty good about my portion

the feeling is mutual.

have a nice day!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

it makes up a minuscule part of the equation

citation needed