Nah, you’re just occupying another spot on it. And unless you’re an algae or something, literally living from light and elements floating about in the air and sea, you’re not at the bottom.
The ecology expands beyond your pet ethical considerations.
Side question: Would you begrudge your dog eating your corpse? If you love them so much, why don’t you feed them, when that is all you have left to give?
That just means you’re a much higher water burden, and part of a different problematic chain. Vegetarian and even worse, vegans have loads of problems that are just as bad and sometimes worse than a normal diet when it comes to mass food production. Including displacement and harm of animals due to farming requirements for the foodstuffs you consume.
Its impossiable to not harm something living to farm after all.
About the only real way to avoid all that is self growing algae eating basically only that and being entirely self-contained.
You can feel how you want, but the water burden thing is just factually incorrect. A pound of beef uses a LOT more water to raise than a pound of lentils. Or are you forgetting that you also have to use water to grow the stuff that the cow eats?
The first paragraph is absolute nonsense, there’s no need to make false statements to justify a position irrespective of whether you’re vegan or vegetarian or anything else.
In the sensitivity analysis, the environmental footprint of vegan diets is between 5% (CH4) and 38% (water use) of the footprint of high meat-eaters. For low meat-eaters, the impact is between 37% (land use) and 67% (water use) of high meat-eaters.
Dietary impacts of vegans were 25.1% (95% uncertainty interval, 15.1–37.0%) of high meat-eaters (≥100 g total meat consumed per day) for greenhouse gas emissions, 25.1% (7.1–44.5%) for land use, 46.4% (21.0–81.0%) for water use, 27.0% (19.4–40.4%) for eutrophication and 34.3% (12.0–65.3%) for biodiversity.
I removed myself from the food chain a decade and a half ago by forgoing meat entirely. Now I don’t have to have weird moral arguments with myself.
Nah, you’re just occupying another spot on it. And unless you’re an algae or something, literally living from light and elements floating about in the air and sea, you’re not at the bottom.
The ecology expands beyond your pet ethical considerations.
Side question: Would you begrudge your dog eating your corpse? If you love them so much, why don’t you feed them, when that is all you have left to give?
deleted by creator
Gesundheit.
That just means you’re a much higher water burden, and part of a different problematic chain. Vegetarian and even worse, vegans have loads of problems that are just as bad and sometimes worse than a normal diet when it comes to mass food production. Including displacement and harm of animals due to farming requirements for the foodstuffs you consume.
Its impossiable to not harm something living to farm after all.
About the only real way to avoid all that is self growing algae eating basically only that and being entirely self-contained.
You can feel how you want, but the water burden thing is just factually incorrect. A pound of beef uses a LOT more water to raise than a pound of lentils. Or are you forgetting that you also have to use water to grow the stuff that the cow eats?
The first paragraph is absolute nonsense, there’s no need to make false statements to justify a position irrespective of whether you’re vegan or vegetarian or anything else.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w#%3A~%3Atext=In+the+sensitivity+analysis%2C+the,)%20of%20high%20meat%2Deaters.