5 ms·

We have more than enough food for everyone. Actually, we waste most of agricultural land to grow crops to feed animals that we eat later on, which is extremely

We have more than enough food for everyone. Actually, we waste most of agricultural land to grow crops to feed animals that we eat later on, which is extremely inefficient, like a 10 to 1 calorie conversion rate. It's also cruel, bad for the environment, etc.

rockemsockem 2y ago
No one agrees with this because we all like eating meat. But yes, distribution is the real problem
- vaylian 2y ago
  > because we all like eating meat. I don't. I understand that some people like the taste of meat and they don't want to miss out on that, but the animal and ecosystem exploitation have unfortunately serious consequences that we can't ignore. If we can create alternative products that taste just like meat (or maybe even better), then this would be beneficial to everyone.
dvh 2y ago
But humans cannot eat grass, there are animals that only eat grass (sheep, geese, cows, goats) that are perfectly edible for humans.
- kadkads 2y ago
  That would only be true if they eat a pure grass diet. They do not. They are fed soy, which is perfectly edible for humans. https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation >More than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. Most of the rest is used for biofuels, industry or vegetable oils. Just 7% of soy is used directly for human food products such as tofu, soy milk, edamame beans, and tempeh. The idea that foods often promoted as substitutes for meat and dairy – such as tofu and soy milk – are driving deforestation is a common misconception. If we stop that, we free up a lot of calories for human consumption. I'd say the total amount of pure grass fed animals would be way lower, which would be better for the environment of course, and meat would be much more expensive. Actually, I like that. Good idea!

rockemsockem 2y ago

No one agrees with this because we all like eating meat. But yes, distribution is the real problem

vaylian 2y ago
> because we all like eating meat. I don't. I understand that some people like the taste of meat and they don't want to miss out on that, but the animal and ecosystem exploitation have unfortunately serious consequences that we can't ignore. If we can create alternative products that taste just like meat (or maybe even better), then this would be beneficial to everyone.

dvh 2y ago

But humans cannot eat grass, there are animals that only eat grass (sheep, geese, cows, goats) that are perfectly edible for humans.

kadkads 2y ago
That would only be true if they eat a pure grass diet. They do not. They are fed soy, which is perfectly edible for humans. https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation >More than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. Most of the rest is used for biofuels, industry or vegetable oils. Just 7% of soy is used directly for human food products such as tofu, soy milk, edamame beans, and tempeh. The idea that foods often promoted as substitutes for meat and dairy – such as tofu and soy milk – are driving deforestation is a common misconception. If we stop that, we free up a lot of calories for human consumption. I'd say the total amount of pure grass fed animals would be way lower, which would be better for the environment of course, and meat would be much more expensive. Actually, I like that. Good idea!