Of the total area that is used by humans (Agriculture, Urban and Built-up Land),

  • urban and built-up land is 1m km²,
  • agriculture is 48m km²,

so agriculture is 48 of 49 millions km² used, that's 98%. The remaining 2% are all streets and housing and other infrastructure together.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 114 points 10 months ago (116 children)

This chart also shows how terribly inefficient animal farming is.

  • source
  • hideshow 116 child comments
  • [–] 78 points 10 months ago (66 children)

    Most pasture land isn't suitable as farmland - there's examples of overlap of course, but you really can't draw that conclusion from the chart, it leaves out far too much information.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 66 child comments
  • [–] 74 points 10 months ago* (12 children)

    Okay, but can we stop using suitable farmland to grow corn cattle feed?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Yep for sure. The food grown to feed livestock (6M2 km) seems like it’s just feeding humans with extra steps. If you cut that out and feed humans directly. You’d still have livestock on grazing pad (32M2 km), just not the whole feedlot situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago

    Yeah, and those extra steps require more land and more water and more transportation and more harvesting and more processing etc etc. Every extra step makes the whole system less efficient. We're essentially sacrificing farmland.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago

    The US could feed its own population multiple times over if we used something like 30% of our current agricultural farmland subject to growing animal feed instead for growing things like corn, soybean, and wheat, as well as vegetables and fruit.

    We'd still need to import some stuff, but we could cover the vast majority of Americans' nutrition doing this WHILE at the same time re-wilding the country and helping restore biodiversity.

    Hope to see this shift in my lifetime

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    During peacetime, all the corn fields kept operational with subsidy that just create corn which is fed to livestock seem like a waste.

    But if China (or anybody else) pulls a fucky-wucky and makes it difficult to get food imported from outside the US, we slaughter the livestock and then have enough corn to feed the whole nation (and a lot of our allies). Without missing a beat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago*

    Y'all are threatening to kill your "allies" while trying to overthrow their democracies. You have no allies, and you sure as shit wouldn't try to help them in a food shortage.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Most of the corn cattle are eating is the stalk and husks. The stuff we're going to grow regardless and would otherwise throw away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago*

    Near slaughter when they get fattened up on feed lots (called finishing) it's mostly cracked corn grain, it's more towards the beggining of life that they're fed roughage with only a small amount of supporting grain.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago

    It's not only pastures. Growing animal feed is vastly less efficient than growing food for humans directly. We could stop farming animals, use some of that land for growing human food, rewild the excess, and rewild the pastures.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (51 children)

    This is true. But at the same time, the tradeoff I think more about isn't pasture versus crop land, but pasture and crop land versus wild land. Personally, I really enjoy eating meat, and have no problem with its production in general. But I also think that we should reserve far more land for nature.

    Imo, a good way to strike the balance is via pigouvian taxes. First, of course, a carbon tax. Animal agriculture creates a lot of carbon, so higher prices would drive consumers to lower-carbon alternatives. Then a land value tax - the trick would be deciding how much the intrinsic beauty of nature and access to it by the public is worth - but once we figure out a decent number, the scheme should work quite well. If you want to farm/ranch, you aren't allowed to use up everyone else's nature for free. Either generate enough money to pay the public back for using their nature, or bounce. And of course, better rules and oversight for animal welfare - I wanna eat meat, not meat produced with unnecessary suffering.

    This combination of approaches would reduce meat consumption and land use in a fair and ethical way, while still not being overbearing or playing favorites by doing things like banning x or y. Unfortunately, this is very much a pipe dream - at least in the US right now, as we have, umm... more pressing issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 51 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago* (6 children)

    Passive aggressive ad hominem.

    Either engage directly with the portion of the argument you take issue with, or ask for clarification regarding the comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (4 children)

    Isolate the nihilistic portions of text, quote them, explain why they are nihilistic to all the thread readers and the OP.

    Then inquire if the person you're confronting stands by that or has a different take in it.

    Or, be rude and make it more reddit-like.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Tacking "no offense" and "genuine question" onto what is essentially "Hey is your moral view the most basic possible description of authoritarianism or are you smarter than that?" really doesn't help it not be offensive or make you sound genuine. If you're sincere in those statements, I really suggest you rephrase this because right now it reads as extremely patronizing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    No. I guess if I really had to peg my ethical system down, I would choose rule utilitarianism or something similar. But practically, I just try to be nice to people and to do what I feel is the right thing, which I know via what is revealed to me directly via a lifetime of emotional experiences after interacting with others and making various choices.

    But I'm confused - why do you ask?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (36 children)

    If we stopped hurting animals

    So you're saying "if everyone went vegan/vegetarian..." And I have a lot of doubt about the practical viability of this plan. People have been eating animals longer than we've had money or governments... or fire. So I'm betting it would be a bit of a tough habit to break. Development of affordable lab-grown meat could go a long way - but my bet is that there will be subtle (or not so subtle) differences between lab grown and real meat for quite a while, and there would be an indefinite market (maybe luxury, maybe just middle class) for real meat for the forseeable future.

    Hence, rather than relying on people to voluntarily reduce meat consumption (they won't) or applying heavy-handed and clumsy tactics (banning meat, deciding who or what is worthy of meat and when), we simply apply a price signal and reasonable regulations. The animals live relatively happy lives in reasonable and sanitary conditions. Then one day they wander down a hallway and are popped in the forehead with a bolt, and that's it. Then the levers of prices can be pulled to gradually push peoples choices in long-term pro-social directions - gradually reducing meat consumption over time in whatever way makes sense to them, while wild land increases and carbon emissions decrease.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (24 children)

    "Just because they're poor doesn't mean they shouldn't get the option to contribute to the suffering caused by the meat industry" is the weirdest take I have ever seen on this subject. I'm not sure I disagree, just, I think your priorities may need some examination.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (22 children)

    No I know what you meant - but this just seems like a "have cake / eat cake" issue. For example: you may have noticed that there are far more poor people than there are rich people. If the goal is to minimize animal suffering and reduce the impact on the climate, banning poor people from eating meat would be a great way to do it.

    I just don't think there's a feasible way to rapidly reduce meat consumption without creating an incidental luxury market, and being concerned about that is (to my mind) almost a parody of equality. Yes, the rich suck. But being forced to tailor a good solution to the incredibly pressing problem just to make sure the rich don't get to exercise the incredibly vast, nearly all-encompassing privilege they already luxuriate in is an unreasonably large burden to attach to an already almost insurmountable task.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (20 children)

    This is ignoring what they actually said, which is a great deal more nuanced than the perhaps overly reductive way you're presenting it here. They very explicitly address setting these rates to reduce meat consumption in low income brackets, not prevent it entirely, presumably with the intention of adjusting those rates to see a steady reduction of meat's share of the average diet without causing undue hardship as people transition to a plant based diet.

    Again I do understand what you're saying, I just think it's a bit of an absurd thing to earnestly argue. Every solution does not need to address every issue in society - inequality can be addressed independently and the more pressing concern is reducing the harm done to both animals and the climate. Theirs is a good solution - it is not perhaps ideal, but it is more feasible than any other proposal I've yet seen.

    (aside from all that, the argument that their plan might be the inciting incident that sparks a broad proletarian upheaval of society is a really poor argument if you're trying to convince me we shouldn't do this...)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (18 children)

    as they march vegans like me into gas chambers.

    Okay, I think this has gone beyond the point of where it needs to be treated with any degree of seriousness. I've never encountered a vegan that was more concerned with the social inequality of the poor not being allowed to eat meat than they were with people eating meat at all before, so congrats this has been a unique experience.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    I’m slightly exaggerating, but it would absolutely empower reactionary conspiracy theories and give them ammunition to draw disaffected poor whites into their echo chambers. There’s already a persistent conspiracy theory that the (((global elites))) are conspiring to stop white people from eating meat (to make them weaker and less masculine) and this would just empower them.

    I fail to see how your counterproposal to outright ban meat would not lead to this same scenario (probably faster).

    Also, you're ignoring the option to provide a divedend (monthly, if you like) to citizens from the tax revenue to offset increased meat prices. With the dividend, the poor would be largely unaffected, and mostly the result would be the middle class reducing their meat consumption from excessive to moderate.

    Also also, you keep talking about how this scheme bans poor people from eating meat. But I have to say, this reminds me of the criticism that gas taxes hurt poor people since now they have to pay more for gas - ignoring the fact that many poor people simply don't drive cars, because they are too poor to afford them. And so a gas tax spent on improving transit ends up helping the poorest, because what people need is transportation, not cheap gas.

    Also also also, if this sort of scheme were ever implemented, I highly doubt it would result in widespread food riots like you see in a developing nation when they are literally starving in the streets. Worst case, it would result in the people who implemented it being voted out of office and having the policy rolled back. And with a dividend program and a gradual pricing rollout, this would be even less likely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    there would be a break even point somewhere around lower middle class where the dividend recieved would be greater than the increased price of meat

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 26 points 10 months ago (44 children)

    No, it doesn't.

    The entire mid- and western US is largely unable to grow crops - "this land was made for the buffalo, and hates the plow".

    See Bowl, Dust.

    To make it grow crops, we've been pumping out a massive aquifer since the early 20th century. Subsidence caused by this is a major concern, in addition to the aquifer not refilling as fast as we use it.

    In the western portions of CO, basically all of Wyoming, NM, Arizona (arid places), crops simply can't grow at any significant level - but that land can grow crops for grazing animals, especially cows. Sheep and goats destroy such grazing land, which explains the conflict between cattlemen and sheepherders in the 19th century.

    Really the entire breadbasket is naturally suited to cows, not crops, as it supported millions of bison.

    You should probably read more before pontificating.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (33 children)

    A death from arrow wounds is absolutely agonizing, especially for a creature as large as a buffalo - it's awful that we still allow it. But black powder is much more humane (relatively), and many states have black powder seasons - including several for buffalo. Though if we're allowing black powder, we really should just let people use proper hunting rounds to minimize the suffering of the animal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (28 children)

    I lack a magic wand, I can't suddenly stop people from killing altogether. Meat consumption is down, though, and hopefully will continue to fall until it's a practice we stop as a culture. In the short term though, we should at least try to make sure those pointless deaths come with as little suffering as possible - people are souring to the cruelty of bowhunting, and that is at least a start.

    I don't really understand how my capacity for language is relevant to that concept, but okay.

    (Edit: the below user is a notorious troll (check their moderation history) and I refused to engage with their obvious sealioning after I provided a source that, yeah, absolutely does prove my claim - they got reaaaal butthurt about that, as evidenced by the whiny edit they tried to sneak into the next comment. Please do read, its quite funny.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (26 children)

    Numbers, mostly. Meat consumption rose slightly in the US, plateaued across asia and has fallen heavily in europe, which are the only regions I have reliable data for (South America looks unchanged though I don't have a great source for that - I have no source for African or Oceania meat consumption rates)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (24 children)

    I can, is there some reason you're being quite so rude?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 26 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Yes, but you omitted all the croplands we use for feeding non-human animals.

    Poore and Nemecek estimate that 50% of croplands are used for human food, 38% is for livestock feed and 12% is for non-food uses.

    https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture

    Also, if our goal is to find the truth in all of this, why be mean?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago*

    They didn't really omit that as an oversight, it's just not relevant to their thesis - agricultural land used for animal feed is not super relevant to the disparity in land utilization, as 80% of all agricultural land usage is pasture/grazing. Only 7% of agricultural land is used for growing animal feed.

    Agreed about being a little mean though, although I do sympathize with being frustrated about this as AG land use is a very often misunderstood statistic.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago*

    Pork and poultry might not use as much land as beef directly but they use a lot of land to grow animal feed. I don't think the chart focuses on beef, but beef might skew the land area chart for meat indeed.

    You might not like "the agenda", but the truth is still that eating meat is an inefficient way to produce calories on a global level. On a small scale, it makes sense - animal farming often feeds off of human waste, contributes fertiliser, provides some extra calories in the winter. But at a global scale, what happens is whole countries are dedicated to producing animal feed and pastures. And if you remember the trofic levels from science class, you lose an order of magnitude of energy when you go up a level in the food chain.

    Humans throw away food across the board. I don't understand how this is relevant to the point you're making.

    Oh, and don't forget how much meat is subsidised in most countries. Capitalism loves to hide the real costs of the product.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)