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
[+] 1 point 10 months ago* (29 children)
  • [–] 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
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (27 children)

    Meat consumption is down

    what makes you think that?

    edit: this user does not, in the course of this discussion, actually prove this claim. they do resort to trolling, and eventually they ignore a request to disengage. read it if you like, but nothing happens except they get more and more abusive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 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
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (25 children)
  • [–] 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
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (23 children)

    thanks for the reply

    I didn't mean to be rude, but I thought short replies were the norm here.

    I'm just skeptical.

    I'm very much looking forward to your citations.

    thank you!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (22 children)

    This thread is averaging paragraph length responses, what could have given you the idea that short-form demands for citations on claims you could verify with a trivial web search was the norm here? That seems like total BS to cover for being called out over your habit of rather arrogant sealioning.

    There's a great deal more data available which also supports my conclusions, I encourage you to engage with the subject matter directly in light of that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    your numbers are in per capita rates, but Asia is exploding in population, and still increasing in consumption per capita.

    I don't think there is any reason to believe meat consumption is decreasing. it's probably increasing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    There's a great deal more data available which also supports my conclusions, I encourage you to engage with the subject matter directly in light of that.

    our exchanges, until now, have been solely on the subject matter. this aside belies an interest, on your part, in making the matter personal instead.

    please, engage with the subject matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    Would you mind consolidating your replies? This is going to get confusing. Also, no, I had already criticized your behavior prior to that comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (11 children)

    instead of criticizing my style, try to stick with the subject matter

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (10 children)

    It's like engaging with a bad-faith hydra - one of these is literally just a single word reply. If you can't even make your nonsense feasible to engage with why should I extend you the courtesy of treating you as anything other than the poor troll you're behaving like?

    You've misunderstood my initial claims and/or the data, which are both abundantly clear - and on top of that you've spent this whole time acting like a jerk. I'm not going to reward this behavior.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (9 children)

    this is just posturing and accusations. your evidence doesn't sufficiently support the claim you e made, and now you're making excuses not to present sufficient evidence. I strongly suspect you don't have it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (8 children)

    Lmfao I already provided evidence that 1:1 matches exactly what I said (because I based my initial claims off it), quit yer bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (7 children)

    saying it doesn't make it true

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (6 children)

    It doesn't make it false, either. That's the nice thing about truth, it doesn't care what you think about it, it's just self-evident. Good grief you're really not very good at this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (5 children)

    anyone can read what you claimed, evaluate the supposed evidence you provided, and see it does not support your claim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    Well no, they can read the evidence and then draw their own conclusions. I'm not so arrogant as to try and speak for them, a moral burden you appear delightfully unencumbered by.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    anyone who believes what you've presented supports your claim does not understand the claim or the evidence or both.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    So now you're not only trying to speak for them, you're implying they're stupid? Bold move there buddy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    your habit of rather arrogant sealioning.

    asking for sources for dubious claims isn't sealioning, but your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    That's not how bad faith engagement works, and my claims are not dubious, they're directly supported by the data.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments