Rajqawee wrote:...
It's only a problem if we continue to eat so much meat, this story of surfaces. About 4/5 of agricultural land is used directly or indirectly for animals (world). Of course, not all of them can be converted for other uses (pastures in particular), but the fact remains that by reducing the share of meat in our food, we could quite less intensively cultivate without cutting down on wild spaces. .
I know you are perfectly against it.
Not only as you say not all surfaces for animals can be converted for other uses, but a good part of the animal "production" is used for crops, it is organic fertilizers:
https://www.la-viande.fr/environnement- ... s-animales
Are you going to replace them with chemicals?
Agriculture works in symbiosis, it is an ecosystem. If you demolish on one side what you think is harmful, plan what should be done elsewhere, before the disaster. This is why so many green measures are counterproductive, we only look at one aspect of a problem.
It seems that we are eating too much meat. Already we must be wary of what we are told. There are fashions. At one time, babies had to be made to sleep on their stomachs, today it is on their backs. But let's face it, we eat too much meat.
I eat it and I like it, but I don't think I eat "too much". The average per French does not say anything about each. If medicine tells us that we are eating too much, it's up to everyone to take the info into account and decide what to do if they think they're eating too much.
And "to eat too much", according to what criteria? Only health matters? Or the ecology relating to production? Or what else? Isn't the pleasure taken into account? Is man reduced to a biological micro-factory and should behave like a nutrition stakhanovist?
I must have eaten tofu recently in a vegetarian meal, yuck.
"Meat point effaire". And why not a press release from Socopa-Charal-Bigard, while we're at it?
