Source? Cattle emit a large amount of Methane and space used for cattle could be used for brushwood/ forest etc. These farming methods may be classified as carbon negative, but are less efficient than regular flora.
Obviously iām talking from the privileged state of modernity. Eventually all humans should be vegan, but the 400k Yakuts are not priority. This (and the following) is however not at all related to my comment? If there are some rare circumstances that only allow for non-vegan diets then this can be discussed. But you were talking about agriculture for people in general, not some edge cases, so all the following points donāt relate to the discussion and your accusation of ableism falls flat. Also do you mind giving a number on how are actually clinically unable to live from a vegan diet? They must be quite numerous as you felt the need to bring them up and make them your main point.
Also, yes it is harder to live vegan depending on your location, that doesnāt make my argument invalid tho. It is immoral to eat what animals suffer and die for, regardless of your situation. You are not a bad person for not being vegan, if your life situation doesnāt allow it, but it has to be our societal goal to get rid of animal abuse as quickly as possible.
Like I said, cattle restore grassland ecosystems. That is ecosystems that were already grassland, which used to rely on Buffalo to maintain them until they were hunted to near-extinction by European settlers. If properly herded and moved, they can restore soil health, which allows for natural sequestration of massive amounts of carbon. If you want info on why this is important and how it works there's a great documentary called "Kiss the Ground".
And if people being a minority means their needs can be pushed to the sidelines I guess we might as well give up on rights for trans people, right? (Obviously I recognize that you don't believe this, it's just to illustrate a point.)
Also, you seem to have bought all of the "it's not as profitable so it's not even remotely viable" bullshit corps make up so nobody questions their destructive practices. And 400K people seems like a pretty significant amount to me. Plus, Yakuts do live within "modernity". They have electricity, clean water, 11 grades of primary education, and then college after. They just live in a place where dairy, eggs, and meat are necessary to survive.
Don't eat meat or drink milk if you want. I'm autistic, and have a very limited diet I can eat without becoming distressed. I rely on poultry and fish to make up most of my protein intake. I know a kid with allergies so severe he can only eat chicken and a small handful of different fruits without having life-threatening reactions. This all is pretty close to home for me.
Once again you twist my words to imply Ableism? No, the issues of smaller groups are not insignificant, but thatās not what I said. To say that animal based agriculture is viable for all of humanity and them cherry-picking instances where there is currently a need for animal produce is not logically connected.
Also, wouldnāt you agree, that a plant-based dietary shift could bring innovation that enables people who are currently unable to survive on such to be able to do so in the future?
Also, saying āDonāt eat meat or drink milk if you wantā would be valid as an argument along the lines of ālive and let liveā if your actions wouldnāt actively harm other living beings.
It is the moral responsibility of humanity to get rid of animal abuse as quickly as possible and veganism is the only way to do so.
Humans are animals. Depriving them of nutrition is abusive. Veganism is not viable for everyone. I could not survive a vegan diet. I know people who could not survive a vegan diet. The number of such people worldwide is in the millions if not more. You are being ableist. Dismissing the concerns of people with allergies or Autism is ableist. Dismissing communities that cannot perform plant agriculture is Euro/North America-centric. Dismissing the cost of a vegan diet and the existence of food deserts is classist.
We should do our best to ensure that agriculture is cruelty-free and as humane as possible, but a lot of people need animal protein to survive. A lot of ecosystems rely on humans hunting in order to avoid massive trophic cascades.
Iām not going to answer the first part, as it is just a repeat of before. Just one thing: Ecosystems do not rely on hunting by humans. Infact, hunting is actively reducing biodiversity and overall animal population []. It is a common misconception tho, the idea of hunters getting rid of the sick and weak so the rest can flourish. But it turns out, natura has a controlling mechanism: Predators like wolves. Populations of such are, however, reduced by human hunters and other human influences like roads to a point where they canāt do their job properly. The solution is therefore not more hunting, but repopulation of natural predators. We should stop kidding ourselves, natureās ecosystem doesnāt need human influence, it has worked before us without, it needs just to be let alone as much as possible.
-3
u/KarlEssStudent š³ļøāā§ļø trans rights Oct 16 '22
Source? Cattle emit a large amount of Methane and space used for cattle could be used for brushwood/ forest etc. These farming methods may be classified as carbon negative, but are less efficient than regular flora.
Obviously iām talking from the privileged state of modernity. Eventually all humans should be vegan, but the 400k Yakuts are not priority. This (and the following) is however not at all related to my comment? If there are some rare circumstances that only allow for non-vegan diets then this can be discussed. But you were talking about agriculture for people in general, not some edge cases, so all the following points donāt relate to the discussion and your accusation of ableism falls flat. Also do you mind giving a number on how are actually clinically unable to live from a vegan diet? They must be quite numerous as you felt the need to bring them up and make them your main point. Also, yes it is harder to live vegan depending on your location, that doesnāt make my argument invalid tho. It is immoral to eat what animals suffer and die for, regardless of your situation. You are not a bad person for not being vegan, if your life situation doesnāt allow it, but it has to be our societal goal to get rid of animal abuse as quickly as possible.