this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
315 points (88.0% liked)

science

14791 readers
402 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] oce@jlai.lu 12 points 1 week ago (16 children)

This is also covered by the study and the article I shared above. It would require using more lands for crops that feed people, but that's ridiculously small compared to the land that would be regained from stopping animal agriculture, which is 75%. Just removing cows would do the vast majority of that.

Crops for feed can be regained and if most pasture land is inappropriate for crops, some are, so we would gain from freeing those too. Furthermore, this land can be given back to biodiversity, which will also benefit us in the long term, if just protecting biodiversity for the sake of it is not a good argument for you.

Again, I am not vegan, I mostly advocate for reducing, not forbidding, consumption proportionally to ecological impact. If some people for medical reason require meat, I'm completely fine with it, this would likely be a small percentage of the current consumption.

Omnivore, not obligate carnivore except for a few exceptions maybe, so we could use a low meat diet or a fully plant based diet fine.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

this land can be given back to biodiversity,

there is no reason to think this is going to happen. they'll build a mall or a skyscraper.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

"This is an area the size of North America plus Brazil"

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 6 days ago

It's going to be one hell of a mall then

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)