• Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Vegans consume fewer plants than anyone else. It takes a LOT of plants to raise a cow, pig, or chicken. From an economic point of view, meat is a way of refining mountains of cheap, plentiful, safe plant products into a scarce, harmful and addictive luxury product. This comes up a lot, you’d be amazed how many plants rights activists your average vegan runs into.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Unless you count grass and non-human consumables and non-potable water…sure…until then that’s bullshit.

      • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        What figures are you basing your ignorance off of? The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals. Animal ag is one of the largest consumers of fresh (ie “potable”) water. There are ten animals living in human possession for every human on Earth. Without intensive plant agriculture, we could not possibly feed them all. Grass and run-off is not what is producing your food.

        And since we are specifically discussing the hypothetical suffering of plants, why wouldn’t you count grass? You’re triggered.

      • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        How is that bullshit? I am not vegan, but that’s just a scientific consensus and a major reason why plant diet is way lower carbon than a meat diet. If you need to grow plant food for your animal food, eventually you have to grow way more plant food.
        Most animals raised for meat consumption are fed with crops, notably soy, not wild grass.
        Thinking animals raised for meat only consume resources (land (first cause of biodiversity loss), plants, water, energy) that would not be useful to humans anyway is undoubtedly wrong.

        Researchers Poore and Nemecek are a great source of meta-analysis information about those subjects. Check this summary here for example: http://environmath.org/2018/06/17/paper-of-the-day-poore-nemecek-2018-reducing-foods-environmental-impacts/

        Let me know if I misunderstood your point.

        • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s less important that such arguments be factually accurate than that they are superficially convincing enough to distract the person giving the argument from thoughts and feelings they are unwilling to process.

    • fsxylo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Vegans: we’ll have only a little vegetable cruelty, as a treat.

      Whatever keeps the high horse fed.

      • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        You’re going to have to unpack this a bit more for me.

        Edit: Ohhhh, you’re another one of those plant rights activists. Buddy, I eat plants for breakfast. You know what? Now I’m going to eat twice as many plants, just because it upsets you.