Sci/Tech Salt-Water Fish Extinction Possible By 2048

[Yossarian]

Sure but the footprint to raise livestock is much more devastating than plant based food to feed the human population, fact. This cannot be argued.

Oh but it can be. You think all your favorite veggies grow in your state/country? We have established that food production can be devastating regionally, and then we need to ship (or fly) it all over the world. The impact of growing certain crops, that often are grown in developing countries for human (peoplekind) consumption such as avocados and all those other hispter foods can displace huge amounts of rain forests. The key is WHERE those crops are grown, not so much how much of it is grown. There's so many other aspects involved that we cannot really say one or the other. But what we do know is that our fish is disspaearing, so again, have a nice steak, and some buttered asperges. You ain't changing the world. In choosing to not eat fish that, you actually can.

 

[Yossarian]

And by the way, I do think less meat is better, but no meat would be a disaster.

 

[Rambo John J]

I need meat

shit hits fan.... meat is gold

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

And by the way, I do think less meat is better, but no meat would be a disaster.

You want to know why we're lead to believe "Less meat is better"? Here's last years agribusiness lobbyist spending:

Industry Total spending
Agricultural Services/Products $37,662,116
Food Processing & Sales $23,091,304
Tobacco $21,801,111
Crop Production & Basic Processing $20,994,563
Forestry & Forest Products $14,429,558
Dairy $6,009,870
Livestock $3,596,842
Misc Agriculture $1,880,877
Poultry & Eggs $1,720,000

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

I need meat

shit hits fan.... meat is gold

It also keep the test levels high. I know that matters to a man like yourself with a reputation to uphold.

 

[Yossarian]

You want to know why we're lead to believe "Less meat is better"? Here's last years agribusiness lobbyist spending:

Industry Total spending
Agricultural Services/Products $37,662,116
Food Processing & Sales $23,091,304
Tobacco $21,801,111
Crop Production & Basic Processing $20,994,563
Forestry & Forest Products $14,429,558
Dairy $6,009,870
Livestock $3,596,842
Misc Agriculture $1,880,877
Poultry & Eggs $1,720,000

That explains a lot. It just doesn't make sense if you consider calories per greenhouse gas emmisions. And then to consider that now the entire population is solely dependend on greens/vegetables. Emmisions would rise drastically. We stop eating all that calorie dense food, now what will we replace it with. 2000 calories worth of broccoli? Better start growing that shit.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

Better start growing that shit.

and you better make sure Monsanto gets their cut.

 

[Rambo John J]

That explains a lot. It just doesn't make sense if you consider calories per greenhouse gas emmisions. And then to consider that now the entire population is solely dependend on greens/vegetables. Emmisions would rise drastically. We stop eating all that calorie dense food, now what will we replace it with. 2000 calories worth of broccoli? Better start growing that shit.

broccoli very hard to grow well without pesticides....aphids eat that shit alive 60% of the time

I have grown it 15 or so seasons

 

[Banchan]

Oh but it can be. You think all your favorite veggies grow in your state/country? We have established that food production can be devastating regionally, and then we need to ship (or fly) it all over the world. The impact of growing certain crops, that often are grown in developing countries for human (peoplekind) consumption such as avocados and all those other hispter foods can displace huge amounts of rain forests. The key is WHERE those crops are grown, not so much how much of it is grown. There's so many other aspects involved that we cannot really say one or the other. But what we do know is that our fish is disspaearing, so again, have a nice steak, and some buttered asperges. You ain't changing the world. In choosing to not eat fish that, you actually can.

I feel like I'm arguing in circles. Those developing countries also allocate most of their agricultural land to farming food for animals. Nothing you have said changes anything except that you think for some misguided reason that eating beef somehow saves the planet.

 

[Banchan]

and you better make sure Monsanto gets their cut.

The majority of GMOs are used in the production of animal feed. There is alot of really ridiculous reasoning ITT. No one is villiafying meat eating but your defensiveness in just using information that doesn't support your logic is plain hilarious.

 

[Banchan]

You want to know why we're lead to believe "Less meat is better"? Here's last years agribusiness lobbyist spending:

Industry Total spending
Agricultural Services/Products $37,662,116
Food Processing & Sales $23,091,304
Tobacco $21,801,111
Crop Production & Basic Processing $20,994,563
Forestry & Forest Products $14,429,558
Dairy $6,009,870
Livestock $3,596,842
Misc Agriculture $1,880,877
Poultry & Eggs $1,720,000

You likely aren't interpreting this information correctly.

Agriculture products, food processing, crop production in US are mostly set aside to support livestock farming.

This is a map showing plant based crop for human consumption in green vs. Plant based crop for Animal consumption in purple. Most of the agriland in developed nations goes primarily into animal feed.

 

[Banchan]

That explains a lot. It just doesn't make sense if you consider calories per greenhouse gas emmisions. And then to consider that now the entire population is solely dependend on greens/vegetables. Emmisions would rise drastically. We stop eating all that calorie dense food, now what will we replace it with. 2000 calories worth of broccoli? Better start growing that shit.

The problem with the footprint of meat is that cows, chickens, pigs, goats and even fish (farmed) is that those things consume a ton of plant based foods and water. Most of our farmland is dedicated to feeding them. We wouldn't need all that farmland if we didn't need to feed all these animals that we like to eat.

 

[Banchan]

Not true. A cow needs about an acre and a half of land, that's it. You're conflating raising cattle with large scale factory farming.

This is the most ridiculous thing I heard in my life.

If you had year round ideal conditions for pasture to replenish itself at maximum capacity maybe but where in the United States do they have that kind of land dedicated to livestock? Most land used for livestock isn't very good - mid west and the South. What in ideal pasture regeneration you could do on 1 - 2 acres could take thousands more in an overly dry or wet or cold climate. Lmao at your lack of considering variables.

 

[Papi Chingon]

So wicked tuna won't be on the air by 2048? Bummer.

 

[Hauler]

"It sounds like a liberal theory so I'm against it!!!!!!!

No I did not actually read the article!!!!!!!!"

- 90% of this forum

If you can spot a bullshit liberal article early on, you can save yourself a lot of wasted time.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[Hauler]

That's already happened.
You're eating farmed fish that are fed grain and result in a significantly shifted Omega profile compared to their wild caught cousins.

 

[Hauler]

Most vegetarians and vegans I know do not eat fish.

Most vegetarians and vegans I know are weird and they smell funny.

 

[Banchan]

Most vegetarians and vegans I know are weird and they smell funny.

Maybe so but there are some meat eater itt that refuse to accept cold facts.

 

[Yossarian]

The problem with the footprint of meat is that cows, chickens, pigs, goats and even fish (farmed) is that those things consume a ton of plant based foods and water. Most of our farmland is dedicated to feeding them. We wouldn't need all that farmland if we didn't need to feed all these animals that we like to eat.

You seem to have the facts wrong. 55% of crops are eaten by people, 36% percent is animal feed, and 9% are biofuels.So the majority of the crops are not grown for animal feed.

You have to understand that feeding the world population is not an easy task, and you need calorie dense protein sources to do so. We can't have the entire world turn vegan or vegetarian, it would be an environmental/economic disaster. Growing crops or raising meat are equally bad for the environment, each in their own way. The only real difference is, the suffering of animals. But to paint a picture of this vegeatrian Utopia and pretend it will be environmentally better is in my opinion, just a dream.

 

[Yossarian]

You likely aren't interpreting this information correctly.

Agriculture products, food processing, crop production in US are mostly set aside to support livestock farming.

This is a map showing plant based crop for human consumption in green vs. Plant based crop for Animal consumption in purple. Most of the agriland in developed nations goes primarily into animal feed.

Again, the map shows food production is 55% of all of the crops. So you lie when you say, most of the crops are used for animal feed.

 

[Zeph]

You likely aren't interpreting this information correctly.

Agriculture products, food processing, crop production in US are mostly set aside to support livestock farming.

This is a map showing plant based crop for human consumption in green vs. Plant based crop for Animal consumption in purple. Most of the agriland in developed nations goes primarily into animal feed.

It seems like beef and mutton is really the problem.

 

[Hauler]

Maybe so but there are some meat eater itt that refuse to accept cold facts.

I was kidding.

 

[Banchan]

Again, the map shows food production is 55% of all of the crops. So you lie when you say, most of the crops are used for animal feed.

That's for the whole world. Look at Canada, US, Europe, South America and China. Anywhere where meat is being exported to high demand populations allocates most of their land to feed animals. Anywhere most of population is poor and export almost no animal products farm plant based foods for people.


Now Look at the gram per protein. Quite simply you fail at interpreting the data. It takes much much more resources, land, chemicals, fuels and water to farm 1 gram of animal protein versus plant based proteins specifically grains and legumes. Fact. Fact. Fact.

 

[Banchan]

You seem to have the facts wrong. 55% of crops are eaten by people, 36% percent is animal feed, and 9% are biofuels.So the majority of the crops are not grown for animal feed.

You have to understand that feeding the world population is not an easy task, and you need calorie dense protein sources to do so. We can't have the entire world turn vegan or vegetarian, it would be an environmental/economic disaster. Growing crops or raising meat are equally bad for the environment, each in their own way. The only real difference is, the suffering of animals. But to paint a picture of this vegeatrian Utopia and pretend it will be environmentally better is in my opinion, just a dream.

Again, you're misinterpreting data. Look at where most of that 55 percent is versus where the 45 percent is. India, the continent of Africa and other very poor regions make up the majority of that 55 percent while almost the entirety of North America and Europe allocates nearly all of their farm land to feed for animals. It's no coincidence that these regions also import a shit ton of their vegetables from somewhere else.

Simple Fact, farming meat has way worse implications on the environment than grains, legumes or vegetables.

 

[Banchan]

It seems like beef and mutton is really the problem.

Very resource intensive. Even killing and butchering a cow uses a ton of electricity, fossil fuels and water.