[HN Gopher] 9 Charts that show US factory farming is even bigger...
___________________________________________________________________
9 Charts that show US factory farming is even bigger than you
realize
Author : thelastgallon
Score : 39 points
Date : 2024-02-26 16:48 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vox.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vox.com)
| callalex wrote:
| I wonder what it will take to convince people to separate their
| core identity from meat consumption. At this point pretty much
| everyone knows what's going on in these horrible farms, and knows
| the climate impact. At this point there are also lots of plant
| based proteins available in many forms and flavors. Yet people
| still seem to get viscerally offended if you suggest that eating
| meat is an inherently evil act, and I don't foresee throwing more
| charts at them ever changing their mind.
| earthwalker99 wrote:
| You can't justify your neoliberal capitalism on free consumer
| choice then just take that away as you please.
|
| I suggest reorganizing society because there simply isn't
| another option. If meat were too expensive to eat, people would
| eat less of it, but it's not too expensive because capitalists
| can just outsource the cost of their destruction. This is
| fundamental to capitalism, which people forget is literally
| defined as an economic system that prioritizes the right of
| individuals to exercise their existing capital to accumulate
| more of it, above everything else.
| guerby wrote:
| After looking into it I chose to still consume beef (grass-
| fed) but I buy it from a local organic farmer (farm is about
| 20km from my home).
|
| As for price depending of the part of the animal you buy it
| varies a lot.
|
| According to:
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
|
| Two thirds of agricultural land is pasture and unsuitable for
| growing human edible plant food.
|
| If a cow needs two hectares on average (specific number
| depends a lot on the state of pasture) that's about 1.5
| billions cows using 0% of arable land.
|
| There's about 1 billions cows in the world.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| > Two thirds of agricultural land is pasture and unsuitable
| for growing human edible plant food.
|
| Can you clarify which part of the link supports that
| statement?
| guerby wrote:
| "Croplands make up one-third of agricultural land, and
| grazing land makes up the remaining two-thirds."
| strken wrote:
| This doesn't make grazing land unsuitable for cropping.
| As an example, a lot of dairy farming is done on fertile
| volcanic soil that would also be suitable for root
| vegetables.
| Dig1t wrote:
| I think I might be one of the people you describe, but I don't
| think you understand the reason that people get offended.
|
| I am not offended by the facts about factory farming, or that
| meat production releases methane. I am offended by the
| implication that someone will forcefully take away my ability
| to consume foods that I want to eat, and will use morality to
| justify it. Removing the freedom to eat meat is still taking
| away freedom no matter how you justify it and people will
| resent it.
|
| If your goal is to improve the quality of life for livestock or
| reduce emissions from livestock, perhaps by changing the diet
| that animals are fed: nobody will have a problem.
|
| As soon as you imply that someone's way of life is immoral and
| their diet must be forcefully changed, you will encounter huge
| resistance.
| NotMichaelBay wrote:
| > As soon as you imply that someone's way of life is immoral
| and their diet must be forcefully changed, you will encounter
| huge resistance.
|
| I think this is just due to a lack of understanding or
| acceptance, because the nature of the problem makes it
| difficult/impossible to prove (X will lead to Y on date Z).
| I'm sure there are people who on principle hold personal
| freedoms above all else, but I think most people could change
| because they agree with the line of reasoning:
|
| 1. My consumption of meat contributes to demand for cows
|
| 2. Cows produce methane, which is a potent GHG
|
| 3. GHGs are causing global warming
|
| 4. Increased global warming is bad for future generations
|
| They just question or fundamentally disagree with one or more
| of the premises.
| maratc wrote:
| I think you missed the actual premise these people disagree
| with:
|
| 5. If I change my food preferences, this will have a
| tangible impact on both global warming and future
| generations.
| NotMichaelBay wrote:
| Heh, good call. I was trying to figure out how to include
| level of impact, the "every vote counts" argument.
| guerby wrote:
| The country with the most cow on earth is ... India.
|
| For most of the people there cows are sacred animals.
| NotMichaelBay wrote:
| Good point. Are you saying that one can agree with all
| the premises and conclude it will cause hardship to
| future generations but ultimately don't change behavior
| because it's part of their core identity?
| ellrob88 wrote:
| I'm always desperate to understand the mechanisms around
| this, so thank you for the insights.
|
| Regarding the opening line of your last paragraph, are you in
| disagreement with the idea that eating meat is immoral, or
| are you just saying it is offensive for someone to tell you
| what you're doing is immoral full stop (whatever the topic)?
|
| I ask because at the start you say you arent offended by the
| facts about factory farming and climate impacts - so it
| sounds like you realise the immoralness? But your key issue
| is with someone judging you for that immoral action, and for
| suggesting you should change? Or have I misinterpreted?
| Voultapher wrote:
| Morality is a tricky subject.
|
| Are you willing to entertain the idea that your way of life
| _might_ be immoral? How would someone go about proving so,
| how would you go about disproving it?
|
| For some people, an industrial farm has the same moral
| implications as a labor camp. Implying, that you as a
| beneficiary from said labor camp would be open to talk about
| improving the food options in the camp, might seem quite
| beside the point to them. They oppose the mere existence of
| the camp.
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| >At this point pretty much everyone knows what's going on in
| these horrible farms...
|
| >Yet people still seem to get viscerally offended if you
| suggest that eating meat is an inherently evil act...
|
| If you are eating meat that you raise yourself or where you are
| buying directly from small-scale producers, do you have this
| same view of meat? If so, why?
| jjjjj55555 wrote:
| > At this point pretty much everyone knows what's going on in
| these horrible farms, and knows the climate impact.
|
| At this point the effects of this "knowledge" are neutralized
| by lack of trust in the sources of information and in one's
| ability to have any impact on the global issues.
|
| It's not that people identify too much as meat-eaters, it's
| just that they don't trust the numbers or the solutions that
| are being sold to them, and so we become apathetic.
| strken wrote:
| Everyone knows what it will take: cheap vegetable alternatives
| to meat that can be made at a small factory level or at home,
| don't have an unfortunate association with xenoestrogens,
| provide the right macros/amino balance/B vitamin
| supplementation, and are easy to cook.
|
| I'm not convinced eating meat is an _inherently_ evil act.
| Possibly most factory farmed meat from the US might be evil
| (depending on how you feel about chicken barns), but the
| assertion that raising and slaughtering your own animals is
| evil relies on the unproven assertion that animal deaths are
| inherently wrong even after a good life. That 's not a
| universal belief and it's certainly not supported by these
| charts about industrial scale factory farming.
| Voultapher wrote:
| I think generally I agree with you. Though I'd argue proving
| anything about morality is practically impossible. Let's take
| an example of something that was for thousands of years
| across many cultures and to some degree is still seen as
| acceptable or morally justifiable behavior, slavery. While I
| personally believe it is reprehensible, I would be hard
| pressed to "prove" this in a way that doesn't rely on value
| judgements along the chain of reasoning.
|
| I can't prove or disprove that industrial scale exploitation
| of mammals is morally wrong. As a society we see this as
| morally acceptable, what if we are wrong?
| 9dev wrote:
| > but the assertion that raising and slaughtering your own
| animals is evil relies on the unproven assertion that animal
| deaths are inherently wrong even after a good life. Anyone
| who ever owned a pet, or witnessed young foals or calves
| actually growing up naturally, will have noticed these
| animals to dream, to be joyful, frustrated, gleeful, or
| moody. They play, they enjoy learning stuff and have
| personalities - in short, they are sentient beings with a
| subjective experience, even if that experience is very
| different from ours - there is no way to know.
|
| We do not let people kill elderly humans, even if they lived
| a good life. What is the fundamental difference between a
| human and an animal, if both experience their existence, both
| can suffer, and both really want to stay alive?
| youniverse wrote:
| I don't hold opinions on this but I just watched this and I'm
| wondering what your (and others) thoughts on this is. Only 7
| minutes, gives some interesting arguments.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqRJsIiPTmg
| leipert wrote:
| Interesting arguments like being an ad for Meat sticks?
|
| Come on. Of course some kind of Animal husbandry or hunting
| can be beneficial for the environment. But your parent
| comment talks about the effects of factory farming, not
| grass-fed bisons or game.
| youniverse wrote:
| I meant the nutrients arguments for real vs plant-based or
| maybe even the ethical arguments he gave. While it may be
| an ad it seems like an innovative beef stick!
| nonameiguess wrote:
| There's no clear connection between the two parts of your
| statement here. If the problem is factory farming and climate
| impact, then eating meat is _not_ inherently evil. If it 's
| inherently evil, then factory farming and climate impact don't
| matter. Ten dudes throwing spears at a mammoth 15,000 years ago
| were just as evil.
|
| That, I think, would be the source of the disconnect. Food is
| not just a core component of regional cultures and histories,
| it's a core identifier of all life. Species are known, in large
| part, by what they eat. Thankfully, for humans, because we
| populated the entire globe and have omnivore guts, that can be
| just about anything, but in many cases, particular animals,
| particular cuts, and particular methods of preparation,
| cooking, and flavoring are deeply intertwined with an entire
| group of people and their history. If you're telling people
| eating meat is inherently evil, you're well, one, telling them
| they're evil, so it shouldn't be a huge surprise they find that
| offensive. But you're also telling them their family is evil,
| their friends are evil, their ancestors and entire culture is
| evil.
|
| Does it really not make sense that the reception to this may
| not be great?
|
| For what it's worth, I don't even know that I disagree that
| eating meat in most circumstances, given the way it's being
| produced, is a morally worse option than other ways to feed
| yourself, and I've greatly reduced but not totally eliminated
| my own meat consumption, but there's also the element of "no
| ethical consumption under capitalism" going on here. Wheat
| harvests utterly obliterate small fauna. Your clothes and
| probably sewn together in sweat shops by child labor. The
| batteries in your electric car are strip mined in some poor
| victim of colonialism country where the land is owned by
| foreigners. Nonetheless, you have to consume something. People
| need food, clothes, transportation, housing, and it can be
| overwhelming to consider every step of every supply chain to
| think of all the ways in which evil may creep into the system.
| Historically speaking, we've mostly relied on governments to
| curb that kind of thing, not individual consumer choice. Rather
| than expecting every person downstream to know that their
| Nutella* has palm oil in it that decimates rainforests with
| soil-depleting monoculture, destroying the most diverse
| ecosystem in existence and also one of the world's great carbon
| sinks, and then opting to eat something else, we hope that
| national governments and international treaties prevent
| manufacturers from doing the worst things in the first place.
|
| * Yes, Nutella the company claims it is sustainably produced
| and doesn't destroy rainforests, but are you personally
| confirming that?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-26 23:01 UTC)