ok
I haven’t clicked through, but I bet they meant “producing meat.”
That is a lie.
Can’t we all just agree 8 billion people is silly? Think about how much of it is just completely redundant. The main focus really should be massive population reduction.
Edit: Also, no, I don’t mean killing off anyone, just reducing birth rates will do fine. We know even just a simple high school education reduces birth rates.
This is the core argument to eco-fascism.
Reducing birthrates is not genocide. As long as the population continues to increase, human life will be more and more devalued as we continue to choose quantity over quality of life because of a DNA delusion.
Who gets to have kids?
The poor? The blacks? The Jews?
Forcibly reducing birthrights is absolutely genocide. Unless you are talking solely of reducing birth rates within your own ethnic group…I wouldn’t call Chinas “one-child” policy genocide, per se, but it absolutely paved the way for systemic infanticide. And that’s not really significantly better.
Definitely not poor people. I think requiring a license to have children would not be a bad idea. I would not acknowledge reproduction as a human right, but instead as a form of rape.
I am also not bothered by infanticide as long as it is done humanely, and assuming both parents do not want the child.
What about soy derivates being used as estrogens by the body suppressing testosterone. Plus to keep soy fields you have to spray more pesticides than everything else.
In fact, almost 80% of the world’s soybean crop is fed to livestock, especially for beef, chicken, egg and dairy production (milk, cheeses, butter, yogurt, etc).
https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/soy/
No effects of soy/isoflavones on testosterone or estrogen levels in men were noted.(conclusion of 38 clinical studies)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623820302926 :(
Eating the rich is by far the most eco-friendly approach as it can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
OK, but what if instead of going vegan, I just don’t have kids. Because adding more people to the world also creates more greenhouse gasses.
This crucially important caveat they snuck in there:
“Prof Scarborough said: “Cherry-picking data on high-impact, plant-based food or low-impact meat can obscure the clear relationship between animal-based foods and the environment.”
…which is an interesting way of saying that lines get blurry depending on the type of meat diet people had and/or the quantity vs the type of plant-based diet people had.
Takeaway from the article shouldn’t be meat=bad and vegan=good - the takeaway should be that meat can be an environmentally responsible part of a reasonable diet if done right and that it’s also possible for vegan diets to be more environmentally irresponsible.
That’s both absolutely true and a massive distraction from the point. An environmentally friendly diet that includes meat is going to involve sustainable hunting not factory farming. In comparison an environmentally friendly vegan diet is staples of meat replacements and not trying to get fancy with it. It’s shit like beans instead of meat, tofu and tempeh when you feel fancy. It means rejecting substitutes that are too environmentally costly such as agave nectar as a sweetener (you should probably use beet or cane based sweetener instead).
So in short eat vegan like a poor vegan not like a rich person who thinks veganism is trendy
