Do carnists understand conservation of energy? (hexbear.net)

submitted 1 day ago by dat_math@hexbear.net to c/vegan@hexbear.net

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Conservation of mass?

Do they understand that producing energy and fertilizer using the bodies of animals is less efficient than producing the same number of calories or mass of nitrates from plants+less-energy-than-is-required-to-raise-the-animal-in-question?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Luna@hexbear.net 26 points 23 hours ago

I don't know if it's all of them, but I know someone who said that veganism is actually more harmful for the planet because plants need pesticides and fertilizer, which kill bugs. It took no effort to challenge them on that at all.

[-] theturtlemoves@hexbear.net 9 points 15 hours ago

There's an element of truth here, in that parts of the world have a system where farm animals eat stuff humans can't, such as wild grass, kitchen waste and straw. But modern 'factory farms' do use insane amounts of growth su0lements and medicines, which are just as bad.

[-] dat_math@hexbear.net 3 points 10 hours ago

There's an element of truth here, in that parts of the world have a system where farm animals eat stuff humans can't, such as wild grass, kitchen waste and straw

The carbon, nitrogen, etc. contained in that grass, waste, and straw should be buried in/returned to the soil to grow plants instead of being farted into our atmosphere. Assuming the land in question is arable in the first place (which I think is valid if it's producing enough plant matter for grazing to be viable), if managed at all would produce more calories of human-compatible nutrition per calorie invested than harvesting of grazing animals on said land would.

[-] theturtlemoves@hexbear.net 1 points 6 hours ago

Assuming the land in question is arable in the first place …

There's land that isn't good enough to grow crops, but is good enough for wild plants to grow. You can, as you said, 'manage' it - give enough fertiliser and water to make it suitable for agriculture. But that is often unaffordable for the people living in such places, so using animals to gather and concentrate the available nutrients is the best option available to them.

[-] dat_math@hexbear.net 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

That's an orthogonal injustice though, no? Collectively, our species massively overproduce food, so I would think the fact that there is a prior reason to be trying to cultivate land like this, which ought to be managed for native flora/fauna is a separate and solvable large scale land allocation problem, the solution to which frees whatever livestock use the argument excuses.

load more comments (7 replies)

this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024

41 points (88.7% liked)

vegan

6780 readers

151 users here now

:vegan-liberation:

Welcome to /c/vegan and congratulations on your first steps toward overcoming liberalism and ascending to true leftist moral superiority.

Rules

No plant-based diet bullshit or promotion of plant-based capitalism. Veganism isn't about you, it's about historical materialist anti-speciesism, anti-racist animalization, and animal liberation. Ethical vegans only.
No omni apologists or carnists. Babystepping is for libs, and we're not here to pat you on the back. Good faith questions and debate about how to fight for animal liberation are allowed.
No advocating violence to any species for any reason. If you think this is negotiable GTFO. This includes but is not limited to animal testing, slaughter, and mass euthanasia. Anything that promotes speciesism or the commodification of animals will be removed.
Use Content Warnings and NSFW tags for triggering content. Especially if a comrade requests it.
Questions about diet belong in c/food. It's also a great place to share recipes.
In all sections of the site, you must follow the Hexbear.net Code of Conduct.