P1) Vegans adopt a restricted diet.
**V(x)**
P2) A restricted diet on a global scale limits resources.
**R(x)**
P3) if a vegan adopts a restricted diet, then a restricted vegan diet on a global scale limits resources.
**V(x) → R(x)**
P4) If a vegan diet on a global scale limits resources, then humans will lack sufficient resources for long-term survival.
**(V(x) → R(x)) → P**
5) If humans lack sufficient resources for long-term survival, then humans will die.
**P → D**
C) Adopting a restricted vegan diet will cause humans to die.
**V(x) → D**
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.
This is false. Your logic assumes that any limitation leads to a lack in resources required for long-term survival. If we all decide we don't eat truffle mushrooms, will that also be the case? Unlikely.
In practice most human diets already restrict food sources, like insects, and yet we are doing fine in terms of food quantity. You need to show that restricting all animal products will lead to a critical lack in resources. Logic alone isn't enough here.
Global Consumption: Around 2 billion people incorporate insects into their diet regularly.
Yes, that's why I said most and all.
If you include all the products like shellac on fruit and vegetables from lac beetles, natural coloring, and other products… most people (8.3 billion people) do consume insects… plus each person accidentally eats about 3 pounds of insects annually
If you include sources this can be a real discussion, but that was only an example. Even if I'm wrong on that it doesn't change my point.
7 Slow Travel in France: On the Snail Trail with Escargot and Bulots While exact global figures vary, France consumes a massive amount of escargot, with estimates ranging from 16,000 to 30,000 tons annually, making them a huge delicacy there, though Spain and Morocco also consume significant quantities, often sourcing most snails as imports for their millions of annual servings. Key Consumption Data: France: Estimates are around 16,000-20,000 tons, though some sources say 25,000-30,000 tons, with figures often representing the French market's need for imports (90-95% imported). Global Picture: Spain and Morocco are major consumers, sometimes exceeding France in total tonnage, with these three countries accounting for a large share of worldwide snail intake. Why So Many? French Delicacy: Snails (escargots) are a classic French dish, especially popular around Christmas. Preparation: They're often served hot with garlic-parsley butter (à la bourguignonne). In Summary: France eats tens of thousands of tons of snails yearly, but they are enjoyed across Southern Europe and North Africa too, making snails a significant, albeit often imported, part of these cuisines.
Snails are not insects.
Would you consider escargot a vegan option
How is this question relevant? Quote the argument you are trying to refute.
[removed]
When you quote the argument you are refuting and explain how it refutes it, we can continue.
[removed]
Where did I say that nobody eats insects? Quote me. And do you refute it by talking about snails, which are not insects?
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
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.
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.
[removed]
Why did you post the sourceless paragraph about snails? To show that people eat non-vegan food?
Yes
Why?
If you remove millions of pounds of snail meat from the global diet somehow you will need to replace it = food security
This requires proof. Currently humanity is making an excess amount of food. You also need to show why the trivial answer of "just use those resources to grow vegetables" isn't enough.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
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.
How many resources do we need? How much does veganism restrict them? Do you see a specific limiting factor we should be looking at, such as total calories, fat, protein, etc?
Pick a spcific concern, and we can look at, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staple_food , to see how much of a problem it would be.
Are you saying that we can survive at any stage of life on a staple diet… ?
9 Food Fortification: Tackling Malnutrition at Scale Malnutrition on a staple diet, known as "hidden hunger," occurs when relying heavily on foods like rice, maize, or wheat provides enough calories but lacks essential vitamins and minerals (micronutrients), leading to deficiencies (iron, iodine, vitamin A) that impair development, immunity, and overall health. This is worsened by nutrient-depleted soils, over-processing, and diet monocultures, causing issues from cognitive deficits in children to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in adults, highlighting the need for dietary diversity or fortification. Why Staple Diets Cause Malnutrition Lack of Micronutrients: Staples are calorie-dense but low in vital vitamins (A, C, D, B-complex) and minerals (iron, zinc, iodine) needed for bodily functions. Nutrient-Depleted Soil: Modern farming, high yields, and synthetic fertilizers can reduce nutrient content in crops, notes the Wiley Online Library and NIH. Processing Losses: Refining grains removes nutrients, leaving less nutritional value in the final product. Dietary Monoculture: Over-reliance on a few crops reduces biodiversity, making diets less resilient and nutritious, as discussed by HarvestPlus. Consequences of Staple-Based Malnutrition "Hidden Hunger": Sufficient calories, but deficient in micronutrients, affecting over 2 billion people, according to the Wiley Online Library. Impaired Development: Critical in the first 1000 days (pregnancy to age 2), leading to stunted growth, poor brain development, and future health issues, notes the World Food Programme. Weakened Immunity: Deficiencies compromise the immune system, increasing illness. Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs): Increased consumption of sugars and fats alongside staples can lead to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, as seen in studies on Nigerian diets by ssa.foodsecurityportal.org.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11788495/#:~:text=Hidden%20hunger%2C%20characterized%20by%20micronutrient,%E2%80%90related%20non%E2%80%90communicable%20diseases.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/07/14/422592127/egg-wars-india-s-vegetarian-elite-are-accused-of-keeping-kids-hungry
No, that's not what I am saying. Please read what I wrote and try again.
I was asking you a specific series of questions that you ignored.
This?
This, what?
Surviving on a staple diet.. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/07/14/422592127/egg-wars-india-s-vegetarian-elite-are-accused-of-keeping-kids-hungry
don't repeat yourself. You still haven't quoted where I said that. (Because I didn't say that).
Maybe I said it…
Whoever said what… a vegan diet would not support the global population
Define restricted.
Why are you so sloppy?
re·strict·ed /rəˈstriktəd/ adjective limited in extent, number, scope, or action. "Western scientists had only restricted access to the site" Similar: cramped confined constricted small narrow compact tight poky minimal sparse inadequate strait incommodious limited controlled regulated reduced curbed moderate modest deficient Opposite: roomy unlimited unrestricted BRITISH ENGLISH (of a document or information) for limited circulation and not to be revealed to the public for reasons of national security. BIOLOGY (of a virus) unable to reproduce at its normal rate in certain hosts. "the mechanism of restricted virus replication"
All diets are restricted. You don't eat rocks, or cyanide, or trees.
So your whole argument can be thrown out. Try again.
I eat rock candy , cherries with the pits, and jumbo file ( sassafras tree)
The overwhelming majority of food crops is grown to feed animals. If we stop feeding the animals we have an abundance so large we can reduce production of crops and still feed everyone.
QED
86% of global livestock feed is not suitable for human consumption https://academic.oup.com/af/article/3/1/6/4638645#:~:text=Livestock%20contribute%20to%20food%20supply,fed%20to%20pigs%20and%20poultry.
Nowhere in that link is there "86%" or "86 %"
There is however in the abstract: "Currently, livestock supply 13% of energy to the world's diet but consume one-half the world's production of grains to do so."
Livestock contribute to food supply by converting low-value materials, inedible or unpalatable for people, into milk, meat, and eggs; livestock also decrease food supply by competing with people for food, especially grains fed to pigs and poultry. Currently, livestock supply 13% of energy to the world's diet but consume one-half the world's production of grains to do so. However, livestock directly contribute to nutrition security. Milk, meat, and eggs, the “animal-source foods,” though expensive sources of energy, are one of the best sources of high quality protein and micronutrients that are essential for normal development and good health. But poor people tend to sell rather than consume the animal-source foods that they produce. The contribution of livestock to food, distinguished from nutrition security among the poor, is mostly indirect: sales of animals or produce, demand for which is rapidly growing, can provide cash for the purchase of staple foods, and provision of manure, draft power, and income for purchase of farm inputs can boost sustainable crop production in mixed crop-livestock systems. Livestock have the potential to be transformative: by enhancing food and nutrition security, and providing income to pay for education and other needs, livestock can enable poor children to develop into healthy, well-educated, productive adults. The challenge is how to manage complex trade-offs to enable livestock's positive impacts to be realized while minimizing and mitigating negative ones, including threats to the health of people and the environment.
Which neither proves your point nor has anything other than value judgements. So we good?
Value = food security
Again, not what that text says nor is it true. You don't even need to read that much to find the disagreement.
Can you use your own words to argue instead of copypasting stuff you have not read or.. Whatever this is?
self evident basic subtraction… animal derived food + plant derived food = current food security system
Veganism = current food system subtract animal derived foods ( even farm raised honey bees which pollinate and increase food production 75%) = plant derived foods only = starvation from less available sources of food
But that is now what your source says.
They say food system = x(plantfood) + (1-x(plantfood)-animalfood) where x takes [0,1]
I argue that x < 0.5. Your source says 0.5 so you have to agree that half of the produced plantfood at the very least goes to animals. Anything else is dishonest since you cited that number yourself.
You also cited 13% of calories from animal products. That means 50% by calories of the worlds human edible plants needs to replace 13% of calories. This is completely excluding all the other land uses by the way, just by going by your numbers. On a per calorie basis removing animalfood increases food safety by 37%. In reality it is a lot more. But since you accepted the simplicity of this format of calculation you have to concede that this is your point.
Sugar and vodka are high caloric foods
You might want to read your own source, because it does not claim that. On the other hand, it states "By consuming feedstuffs that people could consume directly, such as grains and legumes, animals reduce the total amount of food available. Today, about half the world's production of grain is fed to animals, especially monogastrics (IAASTD, 2009), and 77 million tonnes of plant protein are fed to livestock to produce 58 million tonnes of animal protein (Steinfeld et al., 2006), contributing 13% of the energy to the world's diet. Feed crops occupy an estimated one-half a billion hectares of land; including grazing land, livestock accounts for four-fifths of all agricultural land (Steinfeld et al. (2010)."
Correct, a plant based diet works with animal agriculture ( 100% not suitable for human consumption feed sources)
That is neither derived from the source, nor does it imply that a plant based diet does not work without animal agriculture.
What do you think a plant based diet is? https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-2021-4007-43766-61591
I am not going to read this and am done here. How about you actually take your time to form an argument and support them with sources instead of spamming links you oviously haven't read if you want a debate? Are you really think people are going to give you the time to read your links if you can't even be bothered to put your claims into a proper sentence? Disrespectful af, that is.
Thanks for the unsolicited advice
Even taking that into account, livestock still consume 3 kg of human edible food for every kg of meat produced
This barely makes sense. Are you imagining the entire world goes vegan overnight?
So you don’t have a future plan to feed the vegan population
In mean we'd just use existing farmland? The vegan diet is not exactly an unsolved problem
What if the majority of the land is not suitable for cultivation
Then we're talking about a fantasy world that isn't this one
You’re going to convert the Chihuahuan Desert, the western clay pan and the Canadian Mollisols into crop farming? All of Northern Africa, Mongolia … you absolutely have no clue what marginal land farming is
You think people only eat food locally produced?
The bots are deleting all my replies
[removed]
Oh you're not doing this seriously, okay then!
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
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.
AI summary of my Google search about the study
Link to the Science Daily article-
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130801125704.htm
(Link to the actual study at the bottom of the article)
[removed]
What do you mean by "flexitarian source?"
The source is flexible vegetarian
Science Daily is flexible vegetarian? The University of Minnesota is? The authors of the paper? I still don't understand.
All …
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
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.
Please explain what is meant by “restricted diet” and why you believe a plant-based diet is “restricted”.
Vegans don’t eat animal derived foods
And . . .?
That’s less available food
What is the evidentiary basis for this statement?
self evident basic subtraction… animal derived food + plant derived food = current food security system
Veganism = current food system subtract animal derived foods ( even farm raised honey bees which pollinate and increase food production 75%) = plant derived foods only = starvation from less available sources of food
You’re assuming that the scope of plant-derived foods will not expand to take place of the animal-derived foods. What is the evidentiary basis for this assumption?
Marginal land
Please elaborate on this. What do you mean by “marginal land”? Why do you believe that the current level of arable land is insufficient to grow and expand the scope of plant foods to feed the global population at current levels? What is the evidentiary basis for this belief?
1 Farrow land also known as resting land after an intense cropping cycle would restrict cultivation sporadically. 3 crop failures which normally result in livestock feed would result in waste 4 disease epidemics in crops would normally be cycled through the farrow system which involves livestock 5 organic farming fertilizers which contain fish and animal manure are not available 6 stable diets are not suitable for people under 18 years of age, pregnant women or lactation
Just going to repost the argument I made that you never responded to showing how this is both malformed and unsound.
Obviously, P1 is not contested. Veganism is a diet, and diets restrict some sort of food item. P2 requires evidence and/or supplementary argumentation, since it is what the conclusion hinges on (for being sound). As a result, P3 and P4 rely on P2.
P5 is also not contested as a true premise, either. It is somewhat funny to see people try their hand at an argument thinking you can just string together propositions and call it a day. You require supplementary arguments, reasons, and/or data points to address objections to premises. Otherwise, we can just make a logically valid deduction and that's that.
An example: P1) Either pigs can fly or (exclusive or) Socrates is a man.
P2) Pigs cannot fly.
C) Therefore, Socrates is a man.
Now, although we might agree with this conclusion since Socrates is, indeed, a man, I will show you the absurdity of relying on logical validity instead of soundness by just changing some things around.
P1) Either pigs can fly or (exclusive or) Socrates is a man.
P2) Socrates is not a man.
C) Therefore, pigs can fly.
Both deductions are valid disjunctive syllogisms, and I could have put anything in place of p or q, all that matters is that the inference is valid and the logical form is preserved.
Going back to the argument, the reason we can object to the deduction is because we can imagine (and observe in our own world) a restrictive diet having a neutral or even alleviating affect on global resources. For example, if x foods take up a lot of resources compared to non-x foods, then a diet that restricts meals to non-x foods would free up those resources that are typically used on x foods.
Finally, the form of the whole argument is improper. You have some formatting to do. I would clean it up in this way.
P1) Vegans adopt a restricted diet.
P2) If a vegan adopts a restricted diet, then a restricted vegan diet on a global scale limits resources.
C1) Therefore, a restricted diet on a global scale limits resources.
P3) If a vegan diet on a global scale limits resources, then humans will lack sufficient resources for long-term survival.
C2) Humans will lack sufficient resources for long-term survival on a vegan diet (from C1, P3)
P4) If humans lack sufficient resources for long-term survival, then humans will die.
C3) Adopting a restricted vegan diet will cause humans to die (from C2, P4)
You, or the AI you are asking to make a deduction for you, seems to not understand that you have multiple conclusions that you are using as premises in the deduction.
Your deductive logic is flawed because it individualizes the whole concept to a single point of reference ( 1 vegan) … anyone can google search “am I going to die from a vegan diet”… the scope/ magnitude of the impact on the global food supply is beyond a single person converting to veganism…
Well, I reused your own premises. Not sure if you noticed that. I also used the term vegans, so it is not "one vegan", it preserves the same plural term you used. Think you misread the points.
Did you have a rebuttal, arguments, or proposition
You didn't respond to it. Again, I can't make you respond. You just didn't read what was stated to you, you just misrepresented your own premise. I preserved the terms of the premises you used and reformatted them. Nothing is different besides the formatting, the terms are all the same. You didn't respond to it, so I don't really have anything else to say. I also laid out my problems with P2, which you still haven't responded to. If you want to just ignore what is clearly in front of your face, then that's just par for the course with non-vegans so not much else to do.
Your argument is that food is infinitely abundant and any amount of people ( humans) can eat “something” else…
"Your argument is that food is infinitely abundant"
Where'd I say that? Be specific. Find the point where that was claimed.
"any amount of people ( humans) can eat “something” else…"
That depends on what the something is. Most people already consume a diet that consists primarily of plant-based food sources, so. Not that radical of a change.
Im plant based
Ok, so am I. But the claim you made about what I said.... are we ignoring that still?
Can you repeat the question
Or i should say i follow a plant based diet
If you’re not implying that food is an infinite source than my argument is valid because veganism reduces/ restricts the amount of food resources
The validity has not been in question, that's not the objection you are tasked with responding to. Also, you are now conceding that I never said that food sources are infinite in quantity.
I also outlined how restrictive diets do not necessarily restrict food resources, that is not a conclusion backed up with evidence. I gave examples of how that might be the case, which you have not responded to or even bothered reading from the looks of it.
The validity has not been in question**** i agree you have never actually addressed the validity of my claim or conclusions ***
that's not the objection you are tasked with responding to *** I have reduced my assertion of your implications that food is an infinite resource ***
Also, you are now conceding that I never said that food sources are infinite in quantity *** because the wording has built in plausible deniability ***
I also outlined how restrictive diets do not necessarily restrict food resources*** lukewarm /non impassioned***
that is not a conclusion backed up with evidence ** i have given appeals to accredited authorities ***
I gave examples of how that might be the case, which you have not responded to or even bothered reading from the looks of it. *** my efforts do not effect the outcomes of evidence based on current assessments ***
A comprehensive plan? No. People can eat vegan food it’s not anymore complicated than that.
8.3 billion people cannot survive without animal agriculture and the fish industry
Prove that claim. Because we would only need about a quarter of the arable land we use now.
“Research suggests” isn’t particularly conclusive.
Do you have any research
Nope, but I’m not claiming my research suggests anything.
You’re just hanging out
When your proof is, “research suggests”, that’s not very convincing.
I was convinced
I wasn’t.
Now what?
Summary
Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture, with most of this used to raise livestock for dairy and meat. Livestock are fed from two sources – lands on which the animals graze and land on which feeding crops, such as soy and cereals, are grown. How much would our agricultural land use decline if the world adopted a plant-based diet?
Research suggests that if everyone shifted to a plant-based diet, we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops. The research also shows that cutting out beef and dairy (by substituting chicken, eggs, fish, or plant-based food) has a much larger impact than eliminating chicken or fish.
Glad we were able to agree here.
Good 👍
Of course we could. Not only could we survive but it would take less land and resources.
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”)
If everyone were to adopt a plant-based diet, it has been shown to feed more people and use less land.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
So not only would the world be more compassionate place as we wouldn't breed, exploit, torture, and kill others for food, we would also feed more people.
I agree
Plants are used as feed to raise animals the same ones that you and I eat, they are just planted a lot closer and given less attention because animals don't have them as primary calorie souce, they can be repurposed by increasing quality and decreasing quantity and we'll have more than enough to feed mankind twice (and more).
[removed]
Do you eat wheat, beans, lentils etc? Because that was what I was talking about.
That’s only 13% of global livestock feed
Which is around 1.15 trillion kgs (dry weight) then we can grow other stuff on grass if we need to. But i'm not sure we would. We also grow non-human edible crops specifically to feed livestock like Alfalfa which aren't included in that 1.15 trillion kgs, we could grow different crops for ourselves on that land.
You are correct… international agricultural policy makers are working on a 100% non suitable for human consumption livestock feed using agricultural and industrial food processing byproducts and adding “catering” waste products from municipal waste management facilities
https://youtube.com/shorts/-fZ9pWrixFA?si=FzeC6TN2II16UeeR
Marginal land is not suitable for human crop cultivation… only native plants and grasses https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/cattle-and-land-use-differences-between-arable-land-and-marginal-land-and-how-cattle-use
Nah you can definitely grow berries/tree nuts on some of it. I know because i have.
Also not all pasture is very marginal some of it's pretty decent.
Ok
And 36% of the plant based calories which could be consumed by humans, while animals only return 18%
Gasoline and wood have a lot of calories
Why are you trying to be ignorant? 36% of farmed crop human consumable calories go to animals. Non human edible count is way higher than that. Then some are used for biofuel and remaining are used for 82% of calories consumed by humans. Animals only contribute 18% of global edible calories, despite us breeding over 10x as many of them as humans. This is all well known data, pretty easy to look up.
The solution is to feed livestock only sources of feed that are not suitable for human consumption
???
We're not looking for a solution. I was saying we will have more food to feed mankind (two times over) if we stop animal farming and that's the end of it. We have more than enough food to feed humans if we grow only plants ergo humans won't starve because of adoption of a plant based diet if anything food would become more accessible.
Plant based diet includes animal derived foods
https://academic.oup.com/af/article/3/1/6/4638645#:~:text=Livestock%20contribute%20to%20food%20supply,fed%20to%20pigs%20and%20poultry.
"Currently, livestock supply 13% of energy to the world's diet but consume one-half the world's production of grains to do so."
Literally the next sentence
That’s beef and dairy… excluding other foods
This is also directly quoted from your own source
Milk, meat, and eggs currently provide around 13% of the energy and 28% of the protein consumed globally; in developed countries, this rises to 20 and 48% for energy and protein, respectively (FAO, 2009).
The world's 17 billion livestock (Herrero et al., 2009, 2013) occur in three main types of production systems: confined intensive, mixed crop–livestock, and open grazing systems. Estimates, based on data for 2001 to 2003, suggest that grazing systems supply 9% of the world's meat and 12% of milk; mixed crop–livestock systems contribute 46% of meat, 88% of milk, and 50% of cereals; while intensive systems provide 45% of meat (Steinfeld et al., 2006; Thornton and Herrero 2009).
By consuming feedstuffs that people could consume directly, such as grains and legumes, animals reduce the total amount of food available. Today, about half the world's production of grain is fed to animals, especially monogastrics (IAASTD, 2009), and 77 million tonnes of plant protein are fed to livestock to produce 58 million tonnes of animal protein (Steinfeld et al., 2006), contributing 13% of the energy to the world's diet. Feed crops occupy an estimated one-half a billion hectares of land; including grazing land, livestock accounts for four-fifths of all agricultural land (Steinfeld et al. (2010).
In 2011, almost 70% of the 900 million metric tons of global compounded feed went to monogastrics (Alltech, 2012); it is projected that the world will require a billion extra tonnes of grain to satisfy future food, feed, and fuel demands (IAASTD, 2009), which may be possible, but there are questions about the cropland that would be required, and thus there are real potentials to exploit synergies in mixed crop–livestock systems.
Hey red farmer, how old is the earth?
It’s saying feed livestock 100% not suitable for human consumption feed
You’re making two claims here. The first is “vegans don’t have a plan to feed a vegan world” and the second is, “it’s not possible to feed a vegan world”.
For your second claim, I think you need to be a little more specific. The entire world going vegan overnight vs over the next 100 years would look drastically different.
Isn’t that your argument… as I already have made clear my position
You’ve implied a vague claim (“it’s possible to feed a vegan world”) and then presented your arguments against that claim.
The problem with that is the assumptions required to make your argument. For example, your argument assumes that we make zero changes to the food system during this transition and implies this change happens over night. This is not the popular vegan position. The vast majority of vegans acknowledge an overnight transitions with zero changes to the food system would be catastrophic. Essentially, you’re arguing against a straw man.
You’ve implied a vague claim (“it’s possible to feed a vegan world”) and then presented your arguments against that claim.
*** it’s impossible to feed the global population without animal agriculture and fish industry **
The problem with that is the assumptions required to make your argument. For example, your argument assumes that we make zero changes to the food system during this transition and implies this change happens over night. This is not the popular vegan position. The vast majority of vegans acknowledge an overnight transitions with zero changes to the food system would be catastrophic. Essentially, you’re arguing against a straw man.
*** what is the plan… tell me.. let’s discuss **
Transition over decades. Dismantle corrupt campaign finance and the revolving door of politics and animal agriculture (see Tom Vilsack and Sonny Perdue). Shift incentive structures and subsidies away from animal agriculture and towards crops for human consumption and fortified foods/supplements (b12, d3, etc). Incentivize and subsidize farmers to switch crops. Provide education on nutrition. Just to name a few. I don’t have a comprehensive plan but those things seem fairly obvious.
I agree with this for the most part.. this proposal is under consideration at this moment.. the issue is that replacing all animal agriculture and fishing industry is not possible/ food insecure
It's not "restricted." That's a biased and relative term. Every single animal-- in the wild or in human civilization-- eats a few particular things all the time, eats other things more rarely, and never eats the vast majority of other edible things.
Throughout the history of life, animals have adapted to their surroundings and consumed whatever was near. One ate whatever they could acquire that didn't sicken/kill them.
Pandas eat mainly bamboo. But bamboo is low in nutritional value. So they may spend twelve hours a day consuming it.
I see no evidence to suggest that the human animal will run out of food sources or consume more environmental resources if it removes animal-based foods from its diet. If anything, the opposite will happen. There's an abundance of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, legumes, beans, nuts, and complex processed combinations of these foods (e.g. soy -> tofu, oats -> oat milk, cashews -> cheese) to satisify us. And they're all renewable.
But the cruel, factory farming, animal exploitation industry, on the other hand, forces "livestock" animals to be created at unnatural rates in order to generate mass production. And this necessitates a profligate and destructive consumption of resources. It uses up land, water, and foods that humans could consume directly. It also causes a great deal of pollution.
Links:
https://www.aspca.org/protecting-farm-animals/factory-farming-environment
https://www.newrootsinstitute.org/articles/factory-farming-and-the-environment-11-facts-and-statistics
https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/vegan-diet-environment
https://www.alumni.ox.ac.uk/article/less-meat-better-for-environment
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/vegan-diet-climate-meat-vegetarian-pescatarian
Pandas eat bamboo… so the world’s population should be vegan
That remark was to highlight what a "restrictive" diet might look like. If pandas refused to eat anything other than bamboo and we couldn't keep up bamboo production, they would certainly go extinct. But humans can eat an abundance of things. And...
Pandas kill all but 1 of their offspring because they are an omnivore eating a vegan diet
P2/P3) Animals need feed, just grow crops for human consumption directly rather than the highly inefficient process of feeding them to animals then eating the animals. The majority of animals consumed are fed from crop land that could be used for human consumption directly. Even with grazing animals the majority of this land could be used to grow crops. So how exactly does a restricted diet limit resources? A fully vegan world is highly more efficient than the current one, be-haps a 95% vegan world with wool farms on hills unusual for crops is slightly more efficient but we are no where near there.
That would totally work if the farmland was suitable for cultivation.. most the farmland devoted to livestock is desert 🏜️
8 Animal agriculture takes up one-third of the habitable land on ... Animal agriculture in deserts primarily uses vast tracts for extensive livestock grazing, especially cattle, sheep, and goats, as these animals (particularly hardy breeds) can utilize sparse desert forage where crops struggle due to water scarcity, but this often leads to degradation, desertification, and biodiversity loss unless managed with techniques like rotational grazing that mimic natural processes to improve soil and vegetation, making it a dominant but ecologically challenging land use in arid regions.
behaps my 95% estimate was abit far but the amount of calories got off these cases is still low, my point that a far more but not completely vegan world is the most efficient.
We live in a world that consumes animals at a extremely inefficient way and capacity.
edit: meant inefficient not efficient
Ill also add that I would agrue for a moral reason to completely end animal consumption on a moral basis but am trying to agrue based off a souly efficiency passed argument that you have presented here.
I agree.. im plant based
great!
I also take issue with P4 its abit of a leep in logic.
If we take veganism limits resources (witch i disbute but we shall take as given)
a limiting of resources doesn’t necessarily harm long term survival, if we already have a surplus of resources then limiting ethier doesn’t or could even have a positive effect on long term survival.
Ill also point out youve presumed long term survival of humanity is a goal we want, witch I agree with but feel needs justification, behaps a different debate there tho
Im sure someone else would entertain a population growth/ antinatalist view… P4 is on a global scale not a centralized area like the USA or Canada… an exchange of commodities is part of the pragmatic approach
Im uk based and I normally agrue for a veganism at home first approach, once we have made the path to sustainable veganism here we can help other nations to. This translates well to USA and Canada as-well
Uk is pushing to ban battery cages and farrowing creates … I’ve chatted with some vegan activists from YouTube who live in the UK .. I would never dox my farm with them
sorry im not clear what you mean? What does dox your farm mean?
I would say the call to ban battery and farrowing cages is a good one
P2 is nonsense. A restrictive diet does not entail a waste of resources. Quite the opposite actually. A restrictive diet can save resources.
Save resources while billions of people die from starvation
Yes, and if we wasted even more agricultural output on feeding billions of animals even more people would starve. What's your point?
Correct, a plant based diet works with animal agriculture ( 100% not suitable for human consumption feed sources)
So let me just summarize of what you have done with this thread:
You threw around some weird equations.
Together with claims for which you provided no source.
You refuse to engage in the comments, replying only with "Okay" or nonsensical jabber.
I am not sure if you are trolling, really stubborn or just stupid, to be honest.
@Moderators: why is this allowed?
Did you have any rebuttal, arguments , or propositions
Does it matter? You ignore them.
[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.
Restricing choices doesn‘t necessarily mean more resources are needed. Partucularly when you restrict a diet to the more resource friendly options only.
On a global scale restricting access to food from animal derived foods ( including honeybees for pollination) would be extremely detrimental
"P2) A restricted diet on a global scale limits resources."
As written, this is a universal claim not even about veganism specifically and almost certainly false. It asserts*, any* restriction, at any scale, necessarily limits resources.
Restriction doesn't always mean inefficiency.
For this to work you would need to rewrite it something like: “A globally adopted vegan diet would require more x (whatever resource) than current systems." - and then prove it empirically.
That's the problem with the argument. At least one of them.
"P2) A restricted diet on a global scale limits resources."
As written, this is a universal claim not even about veganism specifically and almost certainly false. It asserts, any restriction, at any scale, necessarily limits resources.
*** true, the magnitude is the topic, not so much as the semantics ***
Restriction doesn't always mean inefficiency. For this to work you would need to rewrite it something like: “A globally adopted vegan diet would require more x-Ressource than current systems." - and then prove it empirically.
*** thanks for the unsolicited advice… but it’s indicative of a finite resource “food” to not have alternatives in abundance **
If P2 isn’t meant literally, it needs to be reformulated. As stated, it doesn’t carry the weight the conclusion requires and if magnitude is doing the work, that needs to be stated explicitly and quantified in the premise.
Until that’s clarified, the argument doesn’t get off the ground.
P2 is meant literally
If P2 is meant literally, it’s a universal empirical claim and needs evidence. Without that, I don’t accept the premise.
You can also try making the classic vegan claim that food is infinitely available “ just buy something else at the grocery store” … with The Leap Forward attitude
I declare P2 to withholding my statement that food is a finite commodity and therefore source restriction causes artificial deficiencies/ food shortages/ insecurity
Then P2 rests entirely on the claim that finitude implies shortage under restriction. That doesn’t follow by itself and still requires empirical support. It certainly isn’t universally true.
There are various food bans and restrictions in place today. As a counter example, Industrial trans fats and certain additives have been banned in many countries; producers substituted inputs, and total food availability was unaffected.
Oleic GMO soybeans have been altered to produce non trans fatty acids… the oilseed soybeans are still being produced… you are confusing/ misleading your argument from changing something to mean eliminating a source of food entirely… are you on discord ?
/u/redfarmer2000 -
In many places in this discussion you reply to yourself.
That is bad etiquette. Don't do that.
This is supposed to be conversation between you and other people, not between you and yourself.
Do you have any arguments, rebuttals, or propositions
This question makes a lot of assumptions about what the impact of a global plant based diet will be. Like what is the evidence that it would cause world wide resources shortages?
Similarly we could ask what are non vegans plans for when climate change makes some agricultural land unusable, given the proven impact that animal ag has on climate change
Nothing.. a plant based global food system is perfect
Ok. I think I'm missing what you're actually trying to debate.
Not a problem for any vegan alive today because the chance of the world going 100%, or even 25%, vegan in the next 100 years is 0
Also, why did you have chatgpt write this out as a nonsensical formula?
It's just modus Ponus.
So made up nonsense equation to pretend you have proof when you've got nothing. Got it.
You don’t have any arguments or rebuttal
Guess I'll rebutt in similar fashion since the plain English response wasn't good enough.
Let
C(x) = “x is needlessly complicated”
V(x) = “x is a valid argument”
P(x) = “x proves something about itself”
Premise 1
If an argument is needlessly complicated and proves something about itself, then it fails to be valid.
Formally:
∀x [(C(x) ∧ P(x)) → ¬V(x)]
Premise 2
This argument is needlessly complicated.
Formally:
C(this argument)
(Proof omitted because it would require three appendices and a flowchart.)
Premise 3
This argument proves something about itself—namely, that needlessly complicated arguments are invalid.
Formally:
P(this argument)
Premise 4
If an argument proves that needlessly complicated arguments are invalid, then it proves something about itself iff it is needlessly complicated.
Formally (unnecessarily):
[C(x) → (P(x) ↔ (P(x) ∧ C(x)))]
From Premises 2 and 3
We get:
C(this argument) ∧ P(this argument)
From Premise 1 and the above (Modus Ponens!)
Therefore:
¬V(this argument)
Conclusion
Your argument is invalid.
K
Aw but I thought you loved your little equation things 😢. So when you do it you expect responses, when other people do it you ignore them for it. Thanks for proving my point.
The vegan censorship committee is deleting everything..
[removed]
Yeah I just posted it and you rudely ignored it for being in the same format as your post. You dismissed the plain English version, and ignored the overcomplicated version that used your own method. What do you want? A haiku? One that's formatted in a way that it makes a picture of a unicorn?
[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.
[removed]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #2:
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.