If we eliminate animal ag we will have more than enough space for lower density production, here Seppoland as an (albeit extreme) example:
And since we won’t be eliminating animal ag under capitalism the profit motive is gonna be moot point anyway.
Comment on If fossil fuels aren't vegan that would mean almost nobody is actually vegan.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 day agoYou definitely could bring the wild pollinators back. I do that with my own garden in my backyard. But that means you’d have to remove parts of the orchard to provide a habitat for the pollinators, lowering the density of the trees. Lower density => lower production => smaller crop => more expensive almonds (or peaches etc).
If we want everyone to be vegan that’s gonna mean mostly giving up the luxury products that many vegans currently enjoy and switching to staples (beans, squash, corn, root veggies).
mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
Lower density only means lower production of the usable land remains the same. Which would not be the case if the world became vegan: ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
that relies on poore-nemecek 2018, which is problematic. you might be right but your link isn’t good evidence.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Do you have a link to a discussion of some of the problems?
I’ve often been suspicious of bold claims about land use that lump all the numbers together into one huge hectare or km^2 number, ignoring all of the nuance of climate, water access, soil chemistry, or other broad geographical issues that severely limit what kind of crops can be grown on the land.
One thing people ought to recognize is that large farmers can be just as greedy as any big business. If they could buy up a bunch of cheap pasture land and start growing pistachios or almonds they would. The amount of money to be made by doing that is astronomical, which should be a clue that the land is simply not available.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
my issue is with the methodology. if you read the references in the poore-nemecek paper for the LCA data, they explicitly state LCA data should not be combined, since it is gathered using disparate methodologies. those studies themselves do combine LCA studies, but poore-nemecek goes on to combine multiple meta studies, and never even acknowledge the problems with this methodology.