I don't think you can use "plants feel things too!" as an argument seeing as so many more plants need to be killed to feed animals (which are then eaten by us) than if we just ate plants. It's...
I don't think you can use "plants feel things too!" as an argument seeing as so many more plants need to be killed to feed animals (which are then eaten by us) than if we just ate plants.
It's
plants→animals→humans vs. plants→humans:
a lot more energy is lost in the former.
Yeah, there's a 90% energy loss per trophic level (basically how many steps up on the food chain). Realistically it's probably even more than that due to the inedible parts of farm animals.
a lot more energy is lost in the former.
Yeah, there's a 90% energy loss per trophic level (basically how many steps up on the food chain). Realistically it's probably even more than that due to the inedible parts of farm animals.
A lot of the arguments here are very weak and unconvincing. There are some seriously good arguments against going vegan for environment purposes. The biggest one for me is that processed foods and...
A lot of the arguments here are very weak and unconvincing. There are some seriously good arguments against going vegan for environment purposes. The biggest one for me is that processed foods and out of season vegetables can be as bad, so it's better to focus on low impact than specifically not eating meat.
But this idea of grass being carbon neutral rings hollow when no major agricultural institute actually does it. Likewise, trying to deflect ethical criticisms with arguments about trees potentially having signs of intelligence is absurd.
You might find these articles (and others like them) to be interesting in this regard: Smarty Plants: Research Shows they Think, Feel, and Learn New research on plant intelligence may forever...
arguments about trees potentially having signs of intelligence is absurd.
You might find these articles (and others like them) to be interesting in this regard:
It's interesting reading, but trees potentially being sentient does not mean that eating plants is as bad as eating meat. The argument simply doesn't make sense from a practical standpoint. I do...
It's interesting reading, but trees potentially being sentient does not mean that eating plants is as bad as eating meat. The argument simply doesn't make sense from a practical standpoint. I do appreciate the reading though.
How is that an argument for eating meat though? Eating meat requires you to kill more plants, not less. There aren't any livestock that are able to photosynthesize. They have to eat plants in...
How is that an argument for eating meat though? Eating meat requires you to kill more plants, not less. There aren't any livestock that are able to photosynthesize. They have to eat plants in order to get energy, and they eat far, far more plants than would be necessary if we all were vegetarian. Even if everyone were to accept the premise that all plants were absolutely conscious (which is so far out there of an outlandish hypothesis) the moral dietary choice would still be veganism/vegetarianism.
I'm not a vegan, but this article is terrible and ridiculous. Plants may demonstrate some sentience, but not all sentience is equivalent. Even supposing plants are equally sentient to animals,...
I'm not a vegan, but this article is terrible and ridiculous.
Plants may demonstrate some sentience, but not all sentience is equivalent. Even supposing plants are equally sentient to animals, eating plants directly is less cruel and wasteful than indirectly using plants to feed the food we do eat.
I don't see how "regenerative grazing" would be carbon-negative, but even supposing it is, approximately 0% of beef available to buy from most places is sourced from this "adaptive multi-paddock grazing".
The final paragraph just drives home how poorly the author understands things.
By all means go vegan if you want, but don’t do it for the planet. Remember, too, the vast clouds of methane from several billion new human bean-eaters. Ruminate on that.
Really? Growing X calories worth of meat generates orders of magnitude more methane than directly eating X calories worth of beans. The author is suggesting using a solar-powered flashlight to light a room rather than opening the blinds.
I don't think you can use "plants feel things too!" as an argument seeing as so many more plants need to be killed to feed animals (which are then eaten by us) than if we just ate plants.
It's
plants→animals→humans vs. plants→humans:
a lot more energy is lost in the former.
Yeah, there's a 90% energy loss per trophic level (basically how many steps up on the food chain). Realistically it's probably even more than that due to the inedible parts of farm animals.
A lot of the arguments here are very weak and unconvincing. There are some seriously good arguments against going vegan for environment purposes. The biggest one for me is that processed foods and out of season vegetables can be as bad, so it's better to focus on low impact than specifically not eating meat.
But this idea of grass being carbon neutral rings hollow when no major agricultural institute actually does it. Likewise, trying to deflect ethical criticisms with arguments about trees potentially having signs of intelligence is absurd.
You might find these articles (and others like them) to be interesting in this regard:
Smarty Plants: Research Shows they Think, Feel, and Learn
New research on plant intelligence may forever change how you think about plants
They might not be intelligent, as such, but early indications are that they might be sentient.
It's interesting reading, but trees potentially being sentient does not mean that eating plants is as bad as eating meat. The argument simply doesn't make sense from a practical standpoint. I do appreciate the reading though.
How is that an argument for eating meat though? Eating meat requires you to kill more plants, not less. There aren't any livestock that are able to photosynthesize. They have to eat plants in order to get energy, and they eat far, far more plants than would be necessary if we all were vegetarian. Even if everyone were to accept the premise that all plants were absolutely conscious (which is so far out there of an outlandish hypothesis) the moral dietary choice would still be veganism/vegetarianism.
I'm not a vegan, but this article is terrible and ridiculous.
Plants may demonstrate some sentience, but not all sentience is equivalent. Even supposing plants are equally sentient to animals, eating plants directly is less cruel and wasteful than indirectly using plants to feed the food we do eat.
I don't see how "regenerative grazing" would be carbon-negative, but even supposing it is, approximately 0% of beef available to buy from most places is sourced from this "adaptive multi-paddock grazing".
The final paragraph just drives home how poorly the author understands things.
Really? Growing X calories worth of meat generates orders of magnitude more methane than directly eating X calories worth of beans. The author is suggesting using a solar-powered flashlight to light a room rather than opening the blinds.
You could do like a weekly Meatless Mondays recipe post in ~food. I'd love to see something like that.
I mean, what an absolutely terrible title for an article. This journalist shouldn't have a job.