• NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    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?

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      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.

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.