The "sources" in the link either reference to mistaken FAO stats, or give some numbers out of context and with no argument (e.g. "One kilogram of steak needs up to 25 kilos of grain and 15,000 liters of water" -- ok, but what's that compared to other consumers of such resources? Or "Meat just makes up 18% of our calories humans eat", ok so?)
The argument is that in order to produce 1000 calories worth of meat, more resources (e.g. land, water, greenhouse emissions) are needed than to produce 1000 calories worth of plant-based food.
> "Meat just makes up 18% of our calories humans eat"
Same argument: even though meat makes up only 18% of calories in our diets, it produces 58% of agriculture-produced greenhouse gases and takes up a whopping 83% of currently farmed land, compared to overall agriculture [1][2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...
Sure, but either quantity might not be the real issue on the grand scheme of things, if it's just eg. 5% of resource use or pollution.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-repor...
Note that the year of publication is 2010.
Here's a list of problems with 105 sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...
At this point, denial is willful ignorance of evidence... falling in the same vein as antivaxxers and climate change denialists.
I'm not sure in what sense you mean this. It sure seems 'inherently bad' in just about every sense you could mean, to me. I think often it doesn't seem 'bad' to humans, mainly because we're humans and animals aren't. As if only human life has any value whatever. The very word meat sounds grotesque to me - imagine if some other species had a nondescript word for human meat.
I mean it in the most fundamental sense: there are sustainable levels of meat consumption that do not negatively impact the diversity and longevity of our biome.
> I think often it doesn't seem 'bad' to humans, mainly because we're humans and animals aren't. As if only human life has any value whatever.
Don't fool yourself mate, we're all just organisms - existing to feed and breed. What's wrong with bears eating fish? What's wrong with men eating fish? Why is commercial chicken "worse" than commercialized corn? What form of value does any life take?
"Fooling myself" meaning not agreeing with your opinions? That's not a nice or useful way to talk to people. "We're all just organisms" - I hear that and I think "ah, next comes the faulty argument that was a premise of".
What's wrong with men eating fish. Ah, good question. I don't think you're really asking it, it's rhetorical. But there's a serious vegan/vegetarian literature (I mean, in ethics, written by philosophers) if you really want to learn about the subject. I don't think me talking about that here will be any use to anyone, human or fish.
Ethics is completely subjective. Slaughter isn't for me, but there are other ethical axioms that lead to rational support of the practice. It is not inherently bad.
You cannot sway people's opinions by starting with complete disregard for their opinions, or without a thorough understanding of your own rationale.
I don't agree at all that Ethics is completely subjective. You say that like it's an uncontroversial fact. Just restating It is not inherently bad doesn't add anything, unless you're trying to say Nothing is inherently bad. Whatever inherently means in that sense. I think your last sentence is saying I have complete disregard for your opinions? I don't think anyone has a 'thorough understanding' of their 'rationale', whatever that means exactly.
I get a very strong passive/aggressive vibe from you, like you have no idea how hostile you sound. I really don't like engaging with it, so I'll stop now. Good luck.