Guru Meditation wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:37 am
I probably used the wrong tone, I didn't intend to criticize you.
I actually agree with you that we will have to accept that meat mostly has to go. It just consumes too many resources, compared to skipping the cow/pig step and living directly off the land. Each step in the food chain loses around 90% if I remember correctly.
So skipping the extra step of first feeding livestock, then eating them, would allow the current yields to go down by 50% or more, without causing famine. Thus removing the need for GMOs and reducing the need for pesticides. Giving us both better sustainability, genetic variance, and better produce. The banana would be a great example of a non-divergent major food source. If something manages to focus on them, they would pretty soon all be gone, so divergency is really important for long term sustainability
My point above was about changing the eating habits in the rest of the world won't avoid future Chinese wet-market-triggered pandemics. For that to happen the Chinese need to make the same change, and currently they don't tend to care too much about recommendations coming from abroad. If anything the current trend seems to be them more and more setting the global agenda, as the US did for 50 years after WWII. I hope it doesn't result in wet-markets becoming more and more of a global trend. That would be bad news.
I think, you are just wrong with your Vegan/Veggie approach. The human needs the variation in food and can not live on veggies only. IF it would be possible, history / human-kind would have developed in that way, though it didn't.
The use of "intensified" culturing for food is a better one, than letting things grow in nature, the production is far higher, controlled and the food-print much lower than all small scale growing (veggies as well meat) would provide.
The core problem is, we do have to many humans on earth. For food, for climate, for space, for everything. To many humans to let things be sustainable.