Almost all infectious diseases physicians have had the dreaded call about patients with infections that were essentially untreatable because of antimicrobial resistance, says a Monash University professor.
oil is 17.2%. since a soybean is only about 20% oil to begin with, you need to crush 85% of all soybeans to get that much oil. do you see how the vast majority of what is fed to animals is called “soy meal” or “soy cake”? that’s the industrial waste from processing soybeans to oil.
Its statista, they limit traffic. Try a different browser.
Btw funny you link OWID, you should read their article. It doesn’t mention the feed as a side product of oil production, and I’m having trouble finding your quote.
Even if its 100% true and just not mentioned in any articles on the matter, then I guess large scale veganism still only removes loads of industrial processes/co2 production, unspeakable animal abuse and insane amounts - and i mean ludicrous amounts - of wasted drinking water.
You are making the false assumption that your consumption is causative to the production of animal products which is, unfortunately and non-intuituvely, untrue. The only difference between vegan and non-vegan diets is whether animal products end up on your plate vs. in “cheese mountain” type stockpiles, exports, landfills, etc.
That being said, ‘commie’ is a terrible communicator if that’s what they’re trying to say. Going vegan does help to highlight some of the contradictions of capitalism and you’re on the right track as it should be advocated for. However, the ‘invisible hand of the free market’ does not translate veganism to any reduction in farmed animals, land or water use.
That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying the act of “not buying it” (even if it was a complete and total boycott) has no impact on the production due to the system of subsidies, futures, derivatives, etc. that is set up explicitly to make sure production continues. And therefore has no impact on land/water usage, suffering etc.
With the point being that it’s a good first step, but if your expectation is it will change anything without first changing the underlying system you will be very disappointed.
it’s not a nirvana fallacy. they’re actually right, being vegan has no impact at all. a peace treaty actually creates peace. buying beans just means beans are sold, it doesn’t do anything to change any of the problems.
Surely the societal pressure to change the systems that support factory farming of animals will grow pretty much in proportion with the vegan/vegetarian population? I don’t like the defeatist attitude that our choises as consumers don’t matter, at all.
Are u saying if over night the entire customer base of meat as a whole stopped buying it would have zero effect? Certainly thats not whay youre saying right?
How does reducing land and water use through your food choice not help the planet?
it doesn’t actually reduce the use.
Please don’t tell me you’re gonna bring up the stupid soy fields in the rain forest argument :'D
being vegan doesn’t stop soy from being grown in rainforests
exactly, because almost 100% of that soy is for meat production
85% of global soy is pressed for oil. the vast majority of the soy that’s fed to animals is the industrial waste from that process.
Wheree do you get your numbers from?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254608/soy-production-end-uses-worldwide/
They seem off my guy.
Weird to not provide real numbers for someone calling me a liar
https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Global-soy-production-to-end-use.png
i can’t click your paywalled link
here’s what the UN’s FAO says
oil is 17.2%. since a soybean is only about 20% oil to begin with, you need to crush 85% of all soybeans to get that much oil. do you see how the vast majority of what is fed to animals is called “soy meal” or “soy cake”? that’s the industrial waste from processing soybeans to oil.
Its statista, they limit traffic. Try a different browser.
Btw funny you link OWID, you should read their article. It doesn’t mention the feed as a side product of oil production, and I’m having trouble finding your quote.
Even if its 100% true and just not mentioned in any articles on the matter, then I guess large scale veganism still only removes loads of industrial processes/co2 production, unspeakable animal abuse and insane amounts - and i mean ludicrous amounts - of wasted drinking water.
environmental destruction continues whether you are vegan or not.
also what part of my comment prompted you to post that random response?
yep due to the meat industry keeping going regardless of a fairly small demographic quitting their products
so maybe you should stop lying to people about being vegan helping the planet.
It does, if enough people did it.
You’re so angry lol
what makes you think you can tell anything about my emotional state?
Cuz youre lying about a very emotionally charged topic and calling me a liar. If you were not emotionally engaged, youd simply point out the data.
do you have a plan to make that happen? how many people is enough?
Are u moving goal posts to feel like you’re winning something or genuinely expect the comment section in an online forum to solve societal issues?
Less meat produced = better.
How much more better things could be a different wat is irrelevant; using that as an excuse to never do anything is actually damaging.
You are making the false assumption that your consumption is causative to the production of animal products which is, unfortunately and non-intuituvely, untrue. The only difference between vegan and non-vegan diets is whether animal products end up on your plate vs. in “cheese mountain” type stockpiles, exports, landfills, etc.
That being said, ‘commie’ is a terrible communicator if that’s what they’re trying to say. Going vegan does help to highlight some of the contradictions of capitalism and you’re on the right track as it should be advocated for. However, the ‘invisible hand of the free market’ does not translate veganism to any reduction in farmed animals, land or water use.
“If you don’t buy it a company will throw it away instead” is not a very good argument to buy something if you even believe it to be true at all.
That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying the act of “not buying it” (even if it was a complete and total boycott) has no impact on the production due to the system of subsidies, futures, derivatives, etc. that is set up explicitly to make sure production continues. And therefore has no impact on land/water usage, suffering etc.
With the point being that it’s a good first step, but if your expectation is it will change anything without first changing the underlying system you will be very disappointed.
Your argument is called the nirvana fallacy;
“World peace would be ideal; this peace treaty fails to completely achieve world peace; therefore this peace treaty is not worth doing.”
And I do not accept that.
it’s not a nirvana fallacy. they’re actually right, being vegan has no impact at all. a peace treaty actually creates peace. buying beans just means beans are sold, it doesn’t do anything to change any of the problems.
Surely the societal pressure to change the systems that support factory farming of animals will grow pretty much in proportion with the vegan/vegetarian population? I don’t like the defeatist attitude that our choises as consumers don’t matter, at all.
It’s not defeatist, it’s pushing back against the wishful thinking that “voting with your dollar” is effective and your responsibility ends there.
I mean if they make substantially less money with product x they scale back production. Just like with any other product.
Really not that complicated. Obviously they’re not tracking my personal consumption, nobody believes that.
Are u saying if over night the entire customer base of meat as a whole stopped buying it would have zero effect? Certainly thats not whay youre saying right?
Proof?