P1: Veganism is the subtraction of animal-derived foods from our current food system.
P2: If animal-derived foods were subtracted from our current food system, then the world would starve.
C: Therefore, if veganism was adopted on a global scale, then the world would starve.
Continuous low effort from OP
I've removed your post because it violates rule #4:
If you would like your post to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
If this isn't a ragebait post, you need to step back and re-examine this discussion.
You're making irrelevant claims ("this article suggests going flexitarian, not vegan") that don't support or comment on your unsupported claim that the world would starve on a vegan diet.
You have continually cited sources that say a vegan diet would reduce resource and land usage, and would be able to feed to world's population. Not only does this directly reject your P2, but it in fact is saying there would be IMPROVEMENT if the world switched to a vegan diet.
So if you are genuinely here for discussion, and not to bait, the discussion seems to have concluded. By your own sources you have found that your original thinking was flawed. Nothing wrong with that, that's how we learn. But you need to accept the the facts that YOU are sharing, and realize it simply isn't the case.
Flexitarian studies.. you keep posting plant based meat reduction studies
what does flexitarian mean to you
Reducing reliance on animal derived foods
yes, so in what contexts do you advocate eating animal derived foods? We all agree that we ought to reduce reliance on animal-derived foods; the thing we disagree on is eating animal-derived foods in any context.
Moderate amounts
and why do you think eating moderate amounts of meat is better / more eco-friendly / more moral / etc than just not eating meat? I just don't think what you're advocating is specific enough to be useful, unfortunately. sorry to be mean about it
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
you've already posted that link. I broadly agree with it although it is 'carnonormative'.
Can you quote the part in it that answers my question?
It’s also subtracting billions of animals we have to feed. The world won’t be going vegan over night, there will be a process where less and less farm animals are being bred into existence, and more food being grown that humans want to consume.
What crops can you grow in the ocean 🌊 it’s 71% of the surface area of Earth
We don’t need to grow crops in the ocean, half the worlds habitable land is used for animal agriculture, more than three quarters of agriculture land.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture
Did you read the whole article… this is saying reducing meat consumption …not vegan diet
Reducing meat consumption LEADS to veganism. If reduction of meat consumption is good, then veganism is good.
Your statement was that veganism would make the world starve. THAT is the point you need to support. If an article reccomends being flexitarian, that in no way supports your point
You have completely failed to support the single claim your post is based on, and you continually make irrelevant comments and incorrect conclusions
Reducing sodium intake results in death hyponatremia
yes...thank you for the irrelevant point about our need for sodium
You’re confusing reducing with eliminating entirely
You are the confused one here. Your claim here was NOT that we should reduce meat instead of eliminate it.
It was that a vegan diet would make the world starve.
Sharing flexitarian studies that say plant based diets are more sustainable and can feed everyone completely dismantles your point.
If you want to talk about flexitarian vs veganism, that is an entirely different, and unrelated topic
P1: Veganism is the subtraction of animal-derived foods from our current food system. P2: If animal-derived foods were subtracted from our current food system, then the world would starve. C: Therefore, if veganism was adopted on a global scale, then the world would starve.
I provided a source for my claims, and no the article states that moving to more plant based diets we’d save large amounts of of land. Moving to a fully plant based system would save the most land.
Flexitarian
Source?
https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1634679/#:~:text=Livestock%20are%20key%20to%20food,change%2C%20within%20our%20life%20times.
you are aware that the link you provided is making a call to action to reduce / eliminate beef & dairy, right?
Correct reduction of animal derived foods ( plant based) is the most effective method of feeding the world’s population… not a vegan diet / plant only diet
can you please help me understand what is the difference between a plant-based diet & a vegan diet,
so I can make sure to accurately address the concerns
Plant base is the diet. Veganism is a lifestyle that includes eating a plant based diet.
I agree,
nevertheless, it seems like OP is making the call to action to 'eat plant-based' but then states above that :
which feels like an inconsistency
Flexitarian/ pescatarian
understood,
if you're advocating for a "Flexitarian/ pescatarian" eating style, what makes you believe that removing meat from an already meat-reduction diet would result in the world starving?
as mentioned in your P2 claim
Livestock consume waste products and convert marginal land into farmland…
what do you mean by 'waste products', because I'm not sure I agree that the animals which we eat are consuming waste
Sugar bagasse
If you read scientific studies, many plant based diets are based around plants, but can include some animal products such as eggs, fish, meat and dairy.
and for Western people in industrial countries? What is the most eco-friendly diet?
Plant based diet is the most effective diet
so we ought to advocate for everyone in industrial countries to adopt a plant-based diet? you're just saying veganism might not be appropriate to someone in the Seychelles, who might also want to eat the odd fish?
I'm not especially interested in advocating that folk in rural Africa eat plant based, if they have to walk for fresh water. I'd rather they lived in a developed country, where it'd then be more efficient for them to be vegan. Everyone who has access to the internet could be vegan.
Flexitarian is plant based
so veganism with some very rare examples? or is one flexitarian because they fancy a steak at this restaurant? does a flexitarian consider ethics and eco-friendliness etc when they purchase meat, or is it just a case of 'I do what I want when I want?'
Like if you're dumpster diving and eating meat that way, then yeah you might be able to defend the ethics and eco-friendliness of it. Less so if you're buying a KFC because you're a bit hungry when you walk past one. Flexitarian sounds like it could just mean 'typical omnivore' frankly.
You'd need more specifics than this if you're gonna advocate for it internationally. But I am interested in your outlook. It feels like advocating flexitarianism could be the same as advocating nothing, without some real specifics.
I dumpster” dive for livestock feed ( mostly brewers grains) i grow/ buy organic foods or natural when available.. im plant based
That says nothing about that the world will starve without farm animals. We’re heavily relying on farm animals now but we don’t have to. Dried legumes and other plants survive climate shocks better, they just need to be stocked properly.
It states that marginal land (2/3 of global farming land) is not suitable for cultivation
So what? Even if we didn’t use any grazing land for crops we’d be fine. Farmed meat, dairy and fish accounts for 17% of global calories and use half of all our crop lands.
Its 18% actually and that’s red meat and dairy… you should correct yourself, unless you’re using a vegan version that alters the data to suit the narrative instead of the actual data
I’m using the same source you yourself said did not argue for veganism (data from FAO).
https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture
All of the following numbers come from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). They can be found on its FAOSTAT database.
40% of the world’s protein comes from animal products, and 60% from plant-based foods. However, seafood is also included in animal products here. Around 57% of this comes from aquaculture — which requires some land to grow fish feed — while the other 43% is from wild catch, which does not use land.
Excluding seafood, animal products account for 36% of the world’s protein supply. Based on FAO data, the average supply of protein from non-seafood animal products is 28 grams per person. From plant-based products, it’s 51 grams. That gives a breakdown of 36% from animal products and 64% from plants.
However, as mentioned before, we need to include seafood from aquaculture as aquaculture requires land. The average protein supply from seafood is 5.6 grams per person per day. If we assume 57% comes from aquaculture, that’s 3.2 grams of protein from seafood from aquaculture. Adding aquaculture protein to the protein supply from meat and dairy sums up to 31 grams of protein per person. The breakdown is 38% protein from animal products and 62% from plants.
When we calculate these numbers for calories in the same way, we get 18% from animal products when all seafood is included. However, when we exclude wild catch, this drops to 17%. The remaining 83% comes from plant-based foods.
This is very similar to the results presented by Poore and Nemecek (2018), which estimate that 18% of calories are from plants and 37% of protein is from animal products.
Did you read the part I quoted you? What’s your point?
My point is humanity will starve to death on global veganism
Even with your statistic their point still stands
A reminder to all parties that to be a productive argument you have to site sources for data you share, especially if using it to make a point
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
Thanks for sharing the link....you see how this completely debunks your incorrect claim right?
This shows how plant-based diets are a solution and lead to less resource and land usage
Like this link quite literally says the exact opposite of what you're saying
" The research suggests that it’s possible to feed everyone in the world a nutritious diet on existing croplands, but only if we see a widespread shift towards plant-based diets. "
Flexitarian
Please, quote whatever text from this link that you think best supports your claim.
There's no need to be shy.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-livestock-feed-dry-matter-intake-FAO-2017-adapted-from-Mottet-et-al-2017_fig1_355407699
Whenever you're ready, OP.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-livestock-feed-dry-matter-intake-FAO-2017-adapted-from-Mottet-et-al-2017_fig1_355407699
Thanks for the conversation, OP. I'll admit, I am unconvinced of your argument.
Im on discord if you want to debate
You might be surprised to hear this but what you linked doesn't support what you said at all
https://www.usda.gov/farming-and-ranching/animal-science/animal-production
I don't think there's any evidence to back this up, but am open to whatever sources you have
You’re aware that people currently consume animal derived foods
yes, but where is your evidence that if people replaced their animal derived foods, that the world would starve?
It’s a fact that people who don’t have enough food are starving
are you aware that if the majority of the world adopted a vegan diet, we'd have a lot more land once used for inefficient gazing (or creating food to feed farm animals)
sources:
https://livvie.co/reduce-land-use-with-a-vegan-diet-to-protect-the-planet/ - 80% of agg land is currently for animal agg land
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets - showing a 75% decrease in land usage by switching to a plant-based diet
--------
could this land not be repurposed for more crops to then feed other humans who are starving?
Thanks for sharing flexitarian sources
yes,
because flexitarianism is a transitionary step towards an only plant-food world
Vegans aren't going to tell someone who is flexitarian to just go back to eating the standard American diet
but if you think that the research which backs a flexitarian diet isn't also further in favor of an only plant-food diet, then I think you're mistaken in your research
What are you planning on growing in the ocean 🌊?
nothing, because we need to let our oceans heal, since we are actively causing dead-zones by over fishing
https://www.oceans-research.com/ocean-dead-zones-causes-solutions/
Dead zones are caused by petrochemical fertilizers NKP … from mono cropping
Helpful read for my fellow debaters: Motte-and-Bailey
that was a great read, cheers & thanks for sharing!
Was unaware that this was the fallacy being used
Im proudly providing the same plant based studies as everyone else.. appeal to authority perhaps?
The entire human populace and then some can be fed on the crops we grow for animal agriculture alone.
Animal agriculture is unsustainably inefficient.
you are quoting from Joseph Poore oxford article from 2018 … the Guardian has an article that clarifies what you’re saying.. it’s not the land that livestock utilize to produce food.. its the 13% edible grains that livestock consume that’s the problem… pasture/ hay / silage/ grass land ( 46% of livestock feed is grass FAO ) is grown on land that is indemnified as marginal land and would not produce viable crops.. do you know what the definition of “marginal lands” means? I don’t think you are able to understand why native grass and plants are grown on marginal lands instead of food crops ( heres a hint “the Great Dust Bowl”)
Grass is 46% of global livestock feed
Ok, cool - So let's take that other 54%, and combine that with the crops we're already growing for our own consumption, leaving that other 46% for animal agriculture.
How much of the world's populace can we feed then?
Then, let's say we reduce the billions of dollars of subsidies awarded to the meat and dairy industries accordingly, and divest those funds to R&D of advanced agricultural practices like vertical farming.
How much more of the world's populace could we feed 10 years from now?
It seems like you're thinking strictly in the here and now, when we have the tools and resources available to drastically and immediately reduce our reliance on animals both now and further into the future.
We should do what we can, and work to figure out the rest as we move forward.
Vertical farming = salad and costs 1200$ per sq meter… cattle = beef and is 21$ per square meter
You don't believe it's feasible for humans, with all their brainpower and resources, to develop more economic agricultural practices over the course of a dedicated decade?
Do you have any reason why we shouldn't at least repurpose the 54% of viable crop land for human consumption and start there?
It’s viable for cultivation, it’s considered marginal land not suitable for mono cropping/ tilling/ seed drilling.. or possibly it’s farrow land that is in a resting/ regeneration cycle
If you make false premises without backing them up, anything can be true
Why would the world starve?
Lack of food resources
Bot, only one month in and your obly post is this.
I’m discord if anyone wants to debate me in VC
P1 is false. While a vegan society would entail it would subtract animal derived food, that is not what it is. A vegan society wouldn't simply remove animal products and leave a void, it would necessarily expand plant-based food production to meet nutritional needs.
P2 is false. This claim lacks support and runs counter to available evidence. Currently, the majority of agricultural land is used to grow feed for livestock, not food for humans. Animal agriculture is also heavily subsidized. A transition to plant-based systems would free up both land and public funds that could be redirected toward expanding plant food production. The inefficiency of converting plant calories into animal calories suggests the opposite of P2: a plant-based system could feed more people, not fewer.
“Plant based” diet are meat reducing diets… pescatarian/ flexitarian
Nature abhors a vacuum. If an animal the size of a cow were to suddenly disappear, the air surrounding the newly created cow-sized vacuum would rush inward at supersonic speeds, creating a thunderclap and a shockwave equivalent to an explosion of about 25 grams of TNT.
For a feedlot of 2,000 cows, it would create an explosion equivalent to around 50 kilograms of TNT, powerful enough to kill someone about 10 meters away, shatter windows up to a third of a kilometer away, and kick up a huge cloud of dust and manure.
If you scale this up to all of the roughly 30 billion cows, pigs, chickens, and other livestock animals all over the world, their sudden disappearance would result in surface-level explosions all over the globe. Barns would collapse, transport trucks would be destroyed, and colossal clouds of dust, manure and other debris would choke the air in farming regions everywhere.
It gets even worse when you take farmed seafood into account. Water is roughly 800 times denser than air, and the resulting cavitation underwater would transmit far more kinetic energy. Global aquaculture is estimated at 100 million metric tons, with around 70 percent concentrated in China, India, and Vietnam. The sudden disappearance of all of this underwater biomass would produce millions of violent cavitation events in these regions, destroying infrastructure in rivers and coastal regions and potentially producing localized tsunamis.
Therefore, veganism isn't just inefficient. It's violently destructive. It causes massive explosions all over the Earth's surface and underwater and this argument is extremely serious and insightful and not in the slightest bit inane.
Veganism is a Great Leap Forward
My point exactly.
Oh …
Why is such BS not deleted right away?
nah, I agree on the mod-team leaving this up
assuming that this is in good faith, many folks do have misconceptions which they use to perpetuate a system of harm. If OP truly thinks that the world would starve on a plant-based diet, it could be a great learning opportunity
Free speech?
[removed]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
If you believe a submission or comment was made in bad faith, report it rather than accusing the user of trolling.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
[deleted]
Grass ? Food processor wastes?
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-livestock-feed-dry-matter-intake-FAO-2017-adapted-from-Mottet-et-al-2017_fig1_355407699
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[removed]
I've removed your post because it violates rule #4:
If you would like your post to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.