Extrapolating from the 60-90% figure, if the eaters of those animals ate the soy directly (bypassing the ~10% conversion efficiency issue), 19-46% of the soy would still need to be grown, thus 19-46% of the ecological destruction would remain.

This would be a wonderful improvement and would be of great benefit to Earth; the statement is lessened, yet remains: Consuming broadacre soy crops destroys ecosystems.

Which returns us to the topic at hand in the c/vegan thread which inspired this meme:

Humane... destroying of ecosystems to grow soybeans.

– commented as an extrapolation of a series of statements exploring the absurdity of calling various animal slaughter/husbandry practices "humane".

[–] PP44@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 years ago

How can you see this as a valid argument ? Human have to eat to survive. Any animal alive have an impact on its environment. Any other political proposition other than the eradication of the human race is anti-ecological at this point !

Bike instead of cars ? Making the bike cost energy, which production will always have an impact.

Walking ? No, you consume energy, will have to eat more.

Insulating existing houses to consume less energy ? No way, the building industry pollute way too much !

Plus, you say that is we keep consuming a few dozen percent of the soy we used to eat, it would still destroy the environment. But the main issue is that we keep expanding this agriculture, much more than it existing in the first place. Agriculture existed for thousand of years with a non-lifethreatening level of environmental impact.

Sorry if you were sincere in your critique, I'm quite aggressive here, but I have to admit I have a hard time believing you are sincere here and not just trolling.

[–] Pantherina@feddit.de 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah wow. Convincing people to stop killing and eating animals is hard enough, what would be the better option? Making people kill themselves? That sounds like a practical alternativw

[–] toneverends@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

For real? Pull your head out of your vegan high-horse! Just sit in the sea of ideas for a while and listen to your own mind to see if some new thought comes along.

For the situation of ecological destruction to grow crops, it needs more consideration if you're vacillating between denial and universal human genocide.

Alternatively, accept that the vegans and the carnists are sitting in the same clump on the "humane spectrum". One doesn't get to opt-out of moral culpability by being vegan.

[–] PP44@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago

"Same clump" ? So the average USAian sits in the same clump as the average Ethiopian because both eat so they both impact their environment. The fact that that lifestyle of the first emits dozen of times the CO2 of the other have no relevance whatsoever ?

[–] nachtigall@feddit.de 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I am still not sure what your point is?

We have to eat something and a vegan diet is one where we minimize land use by directly consuming the "raw" materials instead of a middle-men that introduce a significant amount of energy loss.

It is definitely necessary to improve the way modern agriculture works. Large monocultures do not provide a healthy ecosystem and we should work on creating a diverse and vibrant ecosystem. I really liked the movie The Biggest Little Farm that showed an alternative (despite them endorsing omnivore diets).

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Pantherina@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago

Wtf I dont think you actually refer to my comment here

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago

Well, I'm not aware of any vegans that claim going vegan will prevent the destruction of all ecosystems.