• BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I honestly don’t care if you believe in the particulars of their methodology.

    Let me be even MORE straightforward. Feeding animals plant calories (yes, human edible plant calories) to feed yourself animal calories is literally a caloric defficient. You would have to break the laws of thermodynamics to get more calories out of feeding animals plants to eat them rather than feeding yourself those same plants. It is inherently less efficient. Are you about to move the goalpost further and debate the laws of thermodynamics?

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      ruminants can be raised entirely on grazing, and nothing is more efficient than letting an animal live until it’s fat enough and slaughtering it.

      • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Are they raised entirely on grazing though? Are you in hypothetical land where people eat 1% of the total meat they currently do eating only animals that exclusively graze?

        No.

          • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            A) Congratulations, you account for almost no one on Earth and haven’t accounted for the totality of it in determining how people should/can live in regards to the environment. Your worldview is extremely biased in determining appropriate models if you think people can/do eat animals that exclusively graze.

            B) Are you not also still neglecting to consider the methane release of those grazing animals?

            C) even if the environmental factor were not real, which it is, you’d still be facilitating intentional animal murder. An already disagreeable matter.

            Reminder that you started with ‘I dont see how less workers would be exploited.’ And we’ve arrived here. Are you by chance anti-vegan or have any personal financial investment in animal agriculture? The degree to which you are interested in justifying environmental damage and animal murder on the grounds of your local meat market being isolated from reality and that almost no on has or can have access to seems entirely lacking a basis for this level of argumentation and I’m growing tired of arguing with someone who cannot grasp this.