What is natural? There’s animals that dig into other animals brains and eat them slowly. There’s animals that paralyze their victims and eat them slowly. There’s parasites that infect their host and force them to get eaten by controlling them and removing their fear center. There’s animals that eat their own young. There animals that only eat the young of others.
This notion that nature isn’t cruel and unforgiving is just a fairytale.
The amazing thing about humans is that we can actually feel compassion for others, even other species and strive to reduce their suffering as much as possible. I’m really getting tired of people being so negative all the damn time.
Our food production needs to do better and be better but it will only do so because of us, not because we “listen to nature” or whether else people love to spew out trying to sound enlightened.
There are certain ecological balances that develop over time, as species fill individual niches and create symbiotic bonds. The capacity for the given biome to support life is predicated on a certain cyclical exchange. And when that cycle is broken, you typically see a die-off caused by the imbalances.
This notion that nature isn’t cruel and unforgiving is just a fairytale.
The question isn’t of cruelty but sustainability. The mouse eats the corn. The snake eats the mouse. The bird eats the snake. The parasite eats the bird. The corn eats the corpses.
But if you go through with a weed wacker and kill all the snakes, you get population spikes on one end of the food chain and collapses on others, in a way that ultimately reduces the amount of life the area can support.
We saw this across the American Great Plains with the extermination of buffaloes and passenger pigeons. What was once lush and bountiful became barren and inhospitable, as industrial scale destruction of natural resources rendered territory uninhabitable. Reckless industrial development produces waste faster than the natural ecological conditions can process it. And this same development siphons off the natural bounty faster than it can be replaced.
Our food production needs to do better and be better but it will only do so because of us, not because we “listen to nature”
If we do not understand why certain natural cycles exist or how certain minerals and molecules are naturally derived and regenerated or what energy sources are available and at what rates, we risk exhausting the existing biological landscape and destroying the capacity for a particular piece of territory to sustain new life in future generations.
This is as simple as looking at the Great Lakes or the Ogallala Aquifer or the Mississippi River and asking “Is there going to be enough water in these places in another 100 years to maintain our productive rate of agricultural development?” And at the current rate we’re exhausting these resources, the answer is no.
If we hadn’t brought in so many thirsty commercial scale animal and plant species or attempted to generate such large surpluses that we could export them overseas at enormous profits or raised the temperature of the Earth such that we evaporated off too much surface water, we would not be in this situation.
trying to sound enlightened
You don’t need to be a guru to look at the Earth and look at Mars, then say to yourself “Maybe we keep the Earth-style ecology going a little longer”.
I was directly responding to the previous commenter saying that it’s natural to hunt and eat. Our current system of industrial farming of animals is inhumane for both animals and farmers. Nature might be unforgiving and metal, but we have brought the unnecessary torture of sentient animals to unholy levels.
Plenty of animals kill just for fun and will torture their prey for hours. And just because something is inhumane, doesn’t make it unnatural. If anything, it’s humane practices that are unnatural.
Oh, right, how could I forget the factory farms that ants build where they pack thousands of aphyds in tiny cubicles where they can’t even move, feed them unhealthy diets to make them grow at unhealthy speeds to the point their bones break, and then finally kill the for meat. /s
Nothing else in nature compares to our animal torture industry.
in torture, the pain and discomfort is the point. prison is an excellent example of torture. by contrast, I think everyone agrees that we would prefer if no pain or discomfort were part of farming animals. this is probably especially true for the people actually doing the farming and slaughtering. in this case, the pain and discomfort are only incidental. it’s not torture.
Everyone agrees? Really? So is humanity just collectively ignoring the alternatives? How is it possible that “everyone agrees” that you prefer no torture and pain, but the vast majority of people chose to engage in that practice? How can you live like that?
This logic checks out, however I do wonder if that’s actually how it happens in practice. As in, what percentage of their feed is grown somewhere that we absolutely can’t grow human food.
One good example is New Zealand. They only have about 2% of arable land and their population was always very small. Even when Europeans started to settle on the islands, overall population didn’t grow much. But once Europeans brought grazing animals, NZ population has exploded! Now the islands can support a lot more humans, plus they have enough excess they export to buy plant food they don’t grow.
Another example is Scotland. They have 10% of arable land and their population is less than 10% of total UK population. Yet they supply 55% of all beef in the UK and 63% of all lamb. And they still export some meat to EU even after Brexit, even though these exports have fallen drammatically. If you compare the satellite view of Scotland and England, you will see that Scotland is a lot more forests and wild areas, while England is just one large wheat and rape field with a bunch of large cities here and there.
Then there are Alps, which are known for high quality dairy products. Fuck all grows in the mountains so high (in terms of human edible food), yet there are many cows freely grazing and co-existing peacefully with the nature. Just like their wild ancestors did.
P.S. Fun fact - many public parks in UK cities have cattle proof entrances like the one you can see here in Cambridge. Because cows have no issues eating grass which grows in the parks, so you can use this land not only to enjoy your weekend or lunch break, but also to grow food. Here’s one in London. And not just in any random part of London, but it’s in Richmond, where old rich twats live.
And here’s a photo of my brother looking at cows in Richmond. Why pay to mow the grass and for cow feed when you can simply let them graze in a park? Win-win-win!
Please don’t present this as the norm for animal agriculture, as it’s disingenuous at best. The rare instances where this occurs are far outweighed by the habitable land use that animal agriculture accounts for globally. And even in the countries you call out, such as New Zealand, factory farming is on the rise, and pigs are almost exclusively factory farmed.
cattle eat somewhere north of 90% grazed material or so-called “crop seconds” which are parts of plants that people can’t or won’t eat. so, for cattle at least, it is true.
“Crop residues” or “crop seconds” only account for about a quarter of global animal feed, and the grain fed to cattle in the US alone could feed a billion people.
Calorie supply is irrelevant. The main source of calories today is sugar. People in developed countries like the US get 14% of their daily calorie intake from sugar, some countries like Brazil get over 20% from sugar. That’s way above the recommended 5%.
Another issue with your logic is that land used for grazing can and is simultaneously used for other needs, and it also supports natural bio diversity. Crop land is pretty much a dead land.
The chart also considers protein supply for this reason.
It’s extremely rare that grazing land is used for anything else. In fact, over half of tropical deforestation is done to create pasture land for cattle.
Thanks, but I believed you that he said it, I was asking for any sort of source to back it up. The argument he makes in that interview is terrible and should in no way inform your opinion unless you have actual evidence to back it up.
You talk about the forests of scotland, the vast majority of these are monoculture plantations with absolutely terrible biodiversity. By far the largest producers of meat in scotland are factory farms where animals are fed using things like soy, only a minority of livestock entering the food market are reared anything like sustainably.
There is nowhere near enough land to grass feed the amount of ruminants that we consume, so feed crops need to be grown or imported.
Cart before horse - before industrial scale animal farming relatively little soy oil was produced for human consumption. If we weren’t growing soy to use it mostly for animal feed we would grow things like palm oil, which grows in the same climate and yields something like 14x as many calories per acre on the same land.
Edit: Or instead of growing soy with the objective of making animal feed (with the added bonus of getting some oil from it) we could grow crops which have far higher calorific yields like maize, potatoes etc.
I’m open to any answer in this; but I think he misses the point here that every animal in itself would need a field of grass in food volume to survive.
No matter how you put it, it seems to me that adding an extra animal to the equation requires more food/water/space, not less.
When you’re adding a cow to an existing wild field, the field and its inhabitants don’t disappear. When you start planting crops in that field, you destroy the whole associated ecosystem.
Meat production is much, much more agressive on the biodiversity of land than veggies with comparable nutritional value. Lots of research shows that. Not only is the area needed to farm animals immense, but then you also need to grow feed crops like soy and corn to feed the animals. Both are major sources of deforestation. You are absolutely wrong.
oh? so the owidx chart that shows 70% of all soy by weight being fed to animals as “soy cake” or “soy meal” is outdated? I would happily believe that if you present some evidence.
My point is that at the scale we’re doing it, this is not a waste product. It’s just a product like the oil is a product. We like calling things a waste product to make us feel better about our exploitative behaviours. Like how we call leather a waste product of the dairy industry. It’s not waste, it’s just another product.
I wonder if he was vegan
Eating meat is very much a part of nature, if you’re implying he would be a hypocrite for eating meat
There’s nothing natural about our food production, specially meat production.
What is natural? There’s animals that dig into other animals brains and eat them slowly. There’s animals that paralyze their victims and eat them slowly. There’s parasites that infect their host and force them to get eaten by controlling them and removing their fear center. There’s animals that eat their own young. There animals that only eat the young of others.
This notion that nature isn’t cruel and unforgiving is just a fairytale.
The amazing thing about humans is that we can actually feel compassion for others, even other species and strive to reduce their suffering as much as possible. I’m really getting tired of people being so negative all the damn time.
Our food production needs to do better and be better but it will only do so because of us, not because we “listen to nature” or whether else people love to spew out trying to sound enlightened.
There are certain ecological balances that develop over time, as species fill individual niches and create symbiotic bonds. The capacity for the given biome to support life is predicated on a certain cyclical exchange. And when that cycle is broken, you typically see a die-off caused by the imbalances.
The question isn’t of cruelty but sustainability. The mouse eats the corn. The snake eats the mouse. The bird eats the snake. The parasite eats the bird. The corn eats the corpses.
But if you go through with a weed wacker and kill all the snakes, you get population spikes on one end of the food chain and collapses on others, in a way that ultimately reduces the amount of life the area can support.
We saw this across the American Great Plains with the extermination of buffaloes and passenger pigeons. What was once lush and bountiful became barren and inhospitable, as industrial scale destruction of natural resources rendered territory uninhabitable. Reckless industrial development produces waste faster than the natural ecological conditions can process it. And this same development siphons off the natural bounty faster than it can be replaced.
If we do not understand why certain natural cycles exist or how certain minerals and molecules are naturally derived and regenerated or what energy sources are available and at what rates, we risk exhausting the existing biological landscape and destroying the capacity for a particular piece of territory to sustain new life in future generations.
This is as simple as looking at the Great Lakes or the Ogallala Aquifer or the Mississippi River and asking “Is there going to be enough water in these places in another 100 years to maintain our productive rate of agricultural development?” And at the current rate we’re exhausting these resources, the answer is no.
If we hadn’t brought in so many thirsty commercial scale animal and plant species or attempted to generate such large surpluses that we could export them overseas at enormous profits or raised the temperature of the Earth such that we evaporated off too much surface water, we would not be in this situation.
You don’t need to be a guru to look at the Earth and look at Mars, then say to yourself “Maybe we keep the Earth-style ecology going a little longer”.
Well put.
I was directly responding to the previous commenter saying that it’s natural to hunt and eat. Our current system of industrial farming of animals is inhumane for both animals and farmers. Nature might be unforgiving and metal, but we have brought the unnecessary torture of sentient animals to unholy levels.
That’s what I meant with my comment.
Plenty of animals kill just for fun and will torture their prey for hours. And just because something is inhumane, doesn’t make it unnatural. If anything, it’s humane practices that are unnatural.
No other species has built killing factories that torture and kill billions of animals per day. It’s not even comparable.
I use the word “humane” in the sense of “you would mot subject humans to it”.
My brother in Christ I take it you haven’t met ants and chimpanzees have you?
Oh, right, how could I forget the factory farms that ants build where they pack thousands of aphyds in tiny cubicles where they can’t even move, feed them unhealthy diets to make them grow at unhealthy speeds to the point their bones break, and then finally kill the for meat. /s
Nothing else in nature compares to our animal torture industry.
I didn’t say about hunting either, as it isn’t relevant to context of Irwin’s quote
it’s not torture.
Making something sit in one spot in a cage for their entire life to the point where they couldn’t move even if they wanted to isn’t torture?
Do you also think solitary confinement in prison is natural?
in torture, the pain and discomfort is the point. prison is an excellent example of torture. by contrast, I think everyone agrees that we would prefer if no pain or discomfort were part of farming animals. this is probably especially true for the people actually doing the farming and slaughtering. in this case, the pain and discomfort are only incidental. it’s not torture.
In torture, the goal is typically something other than the pain in itself.
Everyone agrees? Really? So is humanity just collectively ignoring the alternatives? How is it possible that “everyone agrees” that you prefer no torture and pain, but the vast majority of people chose to engage in that practice? How can you live like that?
So if you chain someone up and don’t intentionally dislocate any joints, and make them sit there for 10 years like that, it’s not torture?
What is it, collateral damage?
I never made a comment about that?
except that it happens entirely within the natural world. it’s not supernatural.
Unnatural doesn’t mean supernatural. Words have meanings. Do you also go around saying synthetic materials are aktshually natural?
synthetics are natural. they’re not supernatural.
words do have meanings. what is the opposite of supernatural?
Trying to explain this to the guy getting chewed on by a tiger, but he’s too busy screaming and thrashing and bleeding everywhere.
What?
Tigers eat meat. Its part of nature.
But people don’t like being eaten. So they complain about tigers and try to get rid of them.
Man, I wish I was still able to do drugs like you do. Fun times.
Are you sure you’re replying to the right comment? I don’t see how this is relevant to Steve Irwin
No. His research showed that growing veggies reduces bio diversity of land. Eating a cow is better than eating rice.
…but those cows eat plants, and way more than we do, so wouldn’t that just amplify the problem?
They eat plants we cannot eat in the areas we cannot plant any human edible plants.
This logic checks out, however I do wonder if that’s actually how it happens in practice. As in, what percentage of their feed is grown somewhere that we absolutely can’t grow human food.
One good example is New Zealand. They only have about 2% of arable land and their population was always very small. Even when Europeans started to settle on the islands, overall population didn’t grow much. But once Europeans brought grazing animals, NZ population has exploded! Now the islands can support a lot more humans, plus they have enough excess they export to buy plant food they don’t grow.
Another example is Scotland. They have 10% of arable land and their population is less than 10% of total UK population. Yet they supply 55% of all beef in the UK and 63% of all lamb. And they still export some meat to EU even after Brexit, even though these exports have fallen drammatically. If you compare the satellite view of Scotland and England, you will see that Scotland is a lot more forests and wild areas, while England is just one large wheat and rape field with a bunch of large cities here and there.
Then there are Alps, which are known for high quality dairy products. Fuck all grows in the mountains so high (in terms of human edible food), yet there are many cows freely grazing and co-existing peacefully with the nature. Just like their wild ancestors did.
P.S. Fun fact - many public parks in UK cities have cattle proof entrances like the one you can see here in Cambridge. Because cows have no issues eating grass which grows in the parks, so you can use this land not only to enjoy your weekend or lunch break, but also to grow food. Here’s one in London. And not just in any random part of London, but it’s in Richmond, where old rich twats live.
And here’s a photo of my brother looking at cows in Richmond. Why pay to mow the grass and for cow feed when you can simply let them graze in a park? Win-win-win!
Please don’t present this as the norm for animal agriculture, as it’s disingenuous at best. The rare instances where this occurs are far outweighed by the habitable land use that animal agriculture accounts for globally. And even in the countries you call out, such as New Zealand, factory farming is on the rise, and pigs are almost exclusively factory farmed.
cattle eat somewhere north of 90% grazed material or so-called “crop seconds” which are parts of plants that people can’t or won’t eat. so, for cattle at least, it is true.
“Crop residues” or “crop seconds” only account for about a quarter of global animal feed, and the grain fed to cattle in the US alone could feed a billion people.
https://awellfedworld.org/issues/hunger/feed-vs-food/
https://lemmy.zip/comment/11115828
according to the research on water use, hardly any grain goes to cattle first.
Can you share the source for this chart? It doesn’t list whether this is for a specific country, region or global.
Calorie supply is irrelevant. The main source of calories today is sugar. People in developed countries like the US get 14% of their daily calorie intake from sugar, some countries like Brazil get over 20% from sugar. That’s way above the recommended 5%.
Another issue with your logic is that land used for grazing can and is simultaneously used for other needs, and it also supports natural bio diversity. Crop land is pretty much a dead land.
The chart also considers protein supply for this reason.
It’s extremely rare that grazing land is used for anything else. In fact, over half of tropical deforestation is done to create pasture land for cattle.
https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/deforestation-causes
I see grazing land used for other things at the same time every day. Most countries don’t farm like US does.
What an absolute load of shit. How dare you try to use a great man’s name to spread misinformation.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/interview-with-crocodile-2001-04-18/
Source?
deleted by creator
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/interview-with-crocodile-2001-04-18/
Thanks, but I believed you that he said it, I was asking for any sort of source to back it up. The argument he makes in that interview is terrible and should in no way inform your opinion unless you have actual evidence to back it up.
I’ve described some real world examples in a different comment https://lemmy.world/comment/10805817
You talk about the forests of scotland, the vast majority of these are monoculture plantations with absolutely terrible biodiversity. By far the largest producers of meat in scotland are factory farms where animals are fed using things like soy, only a minority of livestock entering the food market are reared anything like sustainably.
There is nowhere near enough land to grass feed the amount of ruminants that we consume, so feed crops need to be grown or imported.
You’re just plain wrong.
About which part?
the vast majority of the soy fed to animals is the byproduct of pressing soybeans for oil.
Cart before horse - before industrial scale animal farming relatively little soy oil was produced for human consumption. If we weren’t growing soy to use it mostly for animal feed we would grow things like palm oil, which grows in the same climate and yields something like 14x as many calories per acre on the same land.
https://www.soyinfocenter.com/HSS/soybean_crushing1.php
Edit: Or instead of growing soy with the objective of making animal feed (with the added bonus of getting some oil from it) we could grow crops which have far higher calorific yields like maize, potatoes etc.
I’m open to any answer in this; but I think he misses the point here that every animal in itself would need a field of grass in food volume to survive.
No matter how you put it, it seems to me that adding an extra animal to the equation requires more food/water/space, not less.
When you’re adding a cow to an existing wild field, the field and its inhabitants don’t disappear. When you start planting crops in that field, you destroy the whole associated ecosystem.
Meat production is much, much more agressive on the biodiversity of land than veggies with comparable nutritional value. Lots of research shows that. Not only is the area needed to farm animals immense, but then you also need to grow feed crops like soy and corn to feed the animals. Both are major sources of deforestation. You are absolutely wrong.
oof.
the vast majority of the soy fed to animals is the industrial waste from soybean oil production. it’s a conservation of resources, not an expenditure
That’s not true. We’re way past that point.
oh? so the owidx chart that shows 70% of all soy by weight being fed to animals as “soy cake” or “soy meal” is outdated? I would happily believe that if you present some evidence.
My point is that at the scale we’re doing it, this is not a waste product. It’s just a product like the oil is a product. We like calling things a waste product to make us feel better about our exploitative behaviours. Like how we call leather a waste product of the dairy industry. It’s not waste, it’s just another product.
using a byproduct that would otherwise go to waste is good
No, it’s not. That’s a myth.