Sometimes, it is enough to be awake and look around – the symptoms are in plain sight. The world is burning and we take out the popcorn to enjoy the scene. Just that it’s not popcorn, but beef jerky and chicken nuggets.
You're right to focus on the damaging effects of *industrially* raised animal products.
But it need not be that way.
First off, "animal products" is often attacked as if it were a single thing. There's at least two dimensions to consider: the lifetime of the animal, and whether industrial farming techniques are used.
Dairy and eggs are often produced using industrial techniques, and in this way, will have a similar ecological footprint with industrial meat.
But dairy, eggs, and even meat *can be* produced in a sustainable manner, in a way that does not use much grain or land that could be used to directly fed people.
For example, my dairy goats were grazed in a forested area, unsuitable for growing annual food crops. Not only that, but they produced eight cubic metres of high-quality fertilizer every year, which we then put on our garden and greenhouse beds.
Vegan agriculture is often held forth as an Earth-superior way of producing human food. But in an industrial agriculture setting, the land will wear out, unless either chemical fertilizer or animal manures are applied — which is not really vegan any more, is it?
The vegan alternative of fallowing requires that a cover crop be ploughed in, without harvesting anything, one out of four years, thus reducing the land's productivity by 25%.
So in general, I find the notion faulty that not eating meat, per se, is more "Earth friendly" than producing animal products — especially ones that don't kill the animal, like dairy or eggs.
Using Permaculture techniques, livestock are integrated into the ecosystem in ways that do not reduce sustainability, indeed, in ways that enhance sustainability.
I agree with you that animal products can be produced in a sustainable manner. After all, a couple of cows in a village will probably not ruin the ecosystem. But there is also the moral consideration. From the way you write, you seem to be a kind, humane farmer, yet it is rare to find big human societies with a culture of actually caring for animals - even in villages, many people treat animals in abysmal ways (I know from first-hand experience and because I was employed as a content moderator in the past - the things people do...).
Veganism is not only less risky than humane farming from a moral pov, but can also feed the increasing human population. You are certainly right about declining soil quality when it comes to big ag - but this is more than a vegan issue. Certainly, it is not made better by the fact that 80% of agricultural land is actually used to feed factory-farmed animals (whose waste I wouldn't be so fast to use as fertilizer). (https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets)
So, it is best for veganism and humane farming to coexist in the future (because they are both better moral alternatives to the current situation). But humane farming would have to be a rather limited practice, unless we'll live in a world with a much much lower human population.
"unless we'll live in a world with a much much lower human population."
That's inevitable!
Vegan food is utterly dependent on industrial farming, which itself is dependent on fossil sunlight, for both fertilizer, and for mechanized agriculture. Small four-legged farming can produce more nutrients without fossil sunlight than vegan techniques can.
All evidence points to fossil sunlight beginning its terminal decline in this decade, possibly in the next year or two. The single biggest source, the Permian Basin, may have already peaked. (https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-depletion-paradox)
I have seen the future, and it is powered by current photosynthesis.
I'm just not sure I see any people in that future.
You're right to focus on the damaging effects of *industrially* raised animal products.
But it need not be that way.
First off, "animal products" is often attacked as if it were a single thing. There's at least two dimensions to consider: the lifetime of the animal, and whether industrial farming techniques are used.
Dairy and eggs are often produced using industrial techniques, and in this way, will have a similar ecological footprint with industrial meat.
But dairy, eggs, and even meat *can be* produced in a sustainable manner, in a way that does not use much grain or land that could be used to directly fed people.
For example, my dairy goats were grazed in a forested area, unsuitable for growing annual food crops. Not only that, but they produced eight cubic metres of high-quality fertilizer every year, which we then put on our garden and greenhouse beds.
Vegan agriculture is often held forth as an Earth-superior way of producing human food. But in an industrial agriculture setting, the land will wear out, unless either chemical fertilizer or animal manures are applied — which is not really vegan any more, is it?
The vegan alternative of fallowing requires that a cover crop be ploughed in, without harvesting anything, one out of four years, thus reducing the land's productivity by 25%.
So in general, I find the notion faulty that not eating meat, per se, is more "Earth friendly" than producing animal products — especially ones that don't kill the animal, like dairy or eggs.
Using Permaculture techniques, livestock are integrated into the ecosystem in ways that do not reduce sustainability, indeed, in ways that enhance sustainability.
I agree with you that animal products can be produced in a sustainable manner. After all, a couple of cows in a village will probably not ruin the ecosystem. But there is also the moral consideration. From the way you write, you seem to be a kind, humane farmer, yet it is rare to find big human societies with a culture of actually caring for animals - even in villages, many people treat animals in abysmal ways (I know from first-hand experience and because I was employed as a content moderator in the past - the things people do...).
Veganism is not only less risky than humane farming from a moral pov, but can also feed the increasing human population. You are certainly right about declining soil quality when it comes to big ag - but this is more than a vegan issue. Certainly, it is not made better by the fact that 80% of agricultural land is actually used to feed factory-farmed animals (whose waste I wouldn't be so fast to use as fertilizer). (https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets)
So, it is best for veganism and humane farming to coexist in the future (because they are both better moral alternatives to the current situation). But humane farming would have to be a rather limited practice, unless we'll live in a world with a much much lower human population.
"unless we'll live in a world with a much much lower human population."
That's inevitable!
Vegan food is utterly dependent on industrial farming, which itself is dependent on fossil sunlight, for both fertilizer, and for mechanized agriculture. Small four-legged farming can produce more nutrients without fossil sunlight than vegan techniques can.
All evidence points to fossil sunlight beginning its terminal decline in this decade, possibly in the next year or two. The single biggest source, the Permian Basin, may have already peaked. (https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-depletion-paradox)
I have seen the future, and it is powered by current photosynthesis.
I'm just not sure I see any people in that future.