• CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    It seems like you’ve misunderstood what I’m trying to say. I’m saying that

    A) There are legitimate reasons for a country to want to have some degree of self-sufficiency.

    B) The environmental impact of producing meat is hugely different depending on how the livestock gets its food, and the environmental impact of transporting goods cannot be neglected.

    C) There are countries with terrain suitable for livestock that cannot be used for farming.

    Of course: Almost no countries are, or need to be, 100% self-sufficient, because we have trade, but there is a huge difference between 10% and 50% self-sufficiency. If we are to cut out meat entirely, many places would be incapable of maintaining any notable degree of self-sufficiency.

    With you third paragraph, it seems like you actually agree with me. I don’t know how you got from me saying “there are legitimate reasons to produce meat”, to me saying this is a black and white issue. I’m explicitly trying to say that it’s not black and white, both because of self-sufficiency arguments, and because of the environmental cost of transportation. Thus, we need a nuanced approach. This means that we should minimise (or eliminate) the use of farmland for livestock production, without condemning livestock production as a whole, because there are legitimate reasons to have livestock, as argued above.

    • Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think the only disagreement I have is that I think we do need to condemn it as a whole, and set the ultimate goal of abolishing the practice. We can still compromise on the way there. I think this is a problem we could solve if we could agree on the goal, although its most important we are heading in the right direction regardless of the end goal.