From context I gather that you think that would be bad, but for the life of me I cannot see what you think the problem is. An acre of fertile farm is an acre of fertile farm (largely).
If we simply stopped feeding that food to livestock, we would be so overwhelmed with food at current production levels, it would be less than worthless. We would have to cut production several fold. We would have massive crop surpluses for industry and consumer products.
Very different. The extent of the infrastructure changes that would be required to switch a large system from producing and distributing feedstock for animals to produce for humans would be massive.
I’m not saying that that is insurmountable, just that it’s not simple.
It’s a fucking thought experiment. It clearly demonstrates that we do not lack the capacity to feed every human on earth. The proposal is not to literally feed humans like livestock.
It’s almost as if he’s trying to evoke the horrendous animal abuses inherent to factory farming in order to pretend that feeding the hungry would somehow be worse than letting them starve.
It’s a fucking sick and deranged position to take, frankly — what we should actually conclude from that comparison isn’t that we shouldn’t feed the poor, but that we should feed people and also improve conditions for livestock.
but that we should feed people and also improve conditions for livestock.
Actually, this basically was my point - to acknowledge that most people would object to being fed the way the animals they eat are fed (and also housed, and otherwise cared for) but it’s also important to recognize that the problem is not as simple as simply changing what crops are grown for what purpose. Land used to grow feedstock is not necessarily suitable for growing food that humans eat, and beyond that there’s a massive infrastructure issue (storage and transportation of bulk crops like alfalfa is a lot simpler than, say, tomatoes or bell peppers or apples).
Why did you assume my previous comment was malicious? is that your default reaction?
Land used to grow feedstock is not necessarily suitable for growing food that humans eat
It overwhelmingly is. You’re looking for an excuse.
99% of the animals humans consume are factory farmed. You cannot raise animals that intensively and still have grazing make up a major part of their diet. The animals we consume are fed a diet almost entirely composed of high intensity agricultural products. There are so many animals that the natural capacity of the Earth cannot support them. The Amazon is being burned down to grow soy for your beef.
most people would object to being fed the way the animals they eat are fed
okay? but that is a straw man. using the crop producing capacity presently consumed by livestock to instead produce food for humans is not the same as putting poor people in stalls and making them eat fucking corn cobs. Pull your head out.
You’re the one who approached the suggestion this way instead of extrapolating that if we didn’t use that land to feed livestock we could grow other stuff on it.
Ah, so we just need to feed all the humans like livestock, problem solved!
From context I gather that you think that would be bad, but for the life of me I cannot see what you think the problem is. An acre of fertile farm is an acre of fertile farm (largely).
If we simply stopped feeding that food to livestock, we would be so overwhelmed with food at current production levels, it would be less than worthless. We would have to cut production several fold. We would have massive crop surpluses for industry and consumer products.
Though the farms world need to start growing different crops…
Very different. The extent of the infrastructure changes that would be required to switch a large system from producing and distributing feedstock for animals to produce for humans would be massive.
I’m not saying that that is insurmountable, just that it’s not simple.
It’s a fucking thought experiment. It clearly demonstrates that we do not lack the capacity to feed every human on earth. The proposal is not to literally feed humans like livestock.
It’s almost as if he’s trying to evoke the horrendous animal abuses inherent to factory farming in order to pretend that feeding the hungry would somehow be worse than letting them starve.
It’s a fucking sick and deranged position to take, frankly — what we should actually conclude from that comparison isn’t that we shouldn’t feed the poor, but that we should feed people and also improve conditions for livestock.
Actually, this basically was my point - to acknowledge that most people would object to being fed the way the animals they eat are fed (and also housed, and otherwise cared for) but it’s also important to recognize that the problem is not as simple as simply changing what crops are grown for what purpose. Land used to grow feedstock is not necessarily suitable for growing food that humans eat, and beyond that there’s a massive infrastructure issue (storage and transportation of bulk crops like alfalfa is a lot simpler than, say, tomatoes or bell peppers or apples).
Why did you assume my previous comment was malicious? is that your default reaction?
It overwhelmingly is. You’re looking for an excuse.
99% of the animals humans consume are factory farmed. You cannot raise animals that intensively and still have grazing make up a major part of their diet. The animals we consume are fed a diet almost entirely composed of high intensity agricultural products. There are so many animals that the natural capacity of the Earth cannot support them. The Amazon is being burned down to grow soy for your beef.
okay? but that is a straw man. using the crop producing capacity presently consumed by livestock to instead produce food for humans is not the same as putting poor people in stalls and making them eat fucking corn cobs. Pull your head out.
Er, well, by “feed like livestock” I meant like this:
https://thecounter.org/alternative-feed-not-alternative-facts/
https://www.newsweek.com/cow-eat-skittles-dairy-farmer-reveal-reason-1698035
E.g. the cheapest, lowest quality bulk starches and proteins you can get, mixed into a monotonous uniform gruel.
If you had the choice between that and dying of hunger you would eat it.
O… k… why is the choice between that and dying of hunger? false dichotomy much?
You’re the one who approached the suggestion this way instead of extrapolating that if we didn’t use that land to feed livestock we could grow other stuff on it.
BECAUSE THIS THREAD IS ABOUT HUMAN STARVATION holy fuck I’m outtie