/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>9649190
Not that anon but:
>Raising animals for food is way less efficient than eating those foods directly.
Not if it's insects. Not every country has the same availability of arable land to make pure plant based diet viable. A balance between animal and plant based foods is needed before any transition to plants only can be considered.

> Even if it was those people could be employed doing other things. It's happened throughout history.
And throughout that history there is great unrest because of these people transitioning.

> I've heard of hunting for conservation and recreation but rarely because they are a threat to human property.
Lemme use Arizona as an example: They had a coyote problem with them harming farm animals, eating pets, and injuring people. So their population was culled to keep known populations far from human settlements. End result was an explosion of rabbit population that has become as much of a problem as the coyotes. Issue now is how to control that population without bringing back coyotes and ending back in square 1 again. Hunting for subsistence is carried out at such a small scale it's hardly worth mentioning in most cases.

>This just sounds defeatist. There are plenty of examples of societal change which I won't bother to enumerate.
Maybe you should otherwise you just sound like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.


>I don't get this point against veganism.
The process to make your clothes from plant material creates far more waste than the meat industry. Rendering the point of 'stop the #1 polluter of water' moot.

>I don't get this point either.
Going vegan will contribute as much to 'ending corporate rule' as switching to hemp: little at all.

>Agreed about deforestation. It does sound like a contradiction with #5 though
Planet doesn't 'damage' so much as it changes. Whether than change is hostile to human life or not is for us to see.