• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    It takes more plants to fatten up animals than if you just eat plants directly.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Industrial agriculture doesn’t rely on naturally occurring grass, corn and soybeans are also used, and feed is grown for animals using similar methods as would be used growing food for human consumption. Relying on more sustainable methods would still require a drastic reduction in meat consumption.

        Also, the point I was responding to was, “What about the poor tomato plants?” If we’re still pretending to do the “plants rights activist” thing, then I don’t see why grass would be more acceptable than tomato plants.

        Note that in the US, animals are also allowed to be fed feces as a cost-cutting measure, in spite the health risks

        • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          It’s not about pretending to be a plant’s rights activist, it’s about showing the hypocrisy of where the valuing life cutoff is (i.e. cute animals).

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            58 minutes ago

            This is the second time someone’s said this to me recently, which is weird because of how obviously wrong it is. How is it hypocrisy if I’m making a choice that also reduces suffering to plants? It’s just complete nonsense, the argument is either uninformed or bad faith, so it doesn’t demonstrate anything.