Create account

replied 2243d
That doesn't address anything I argued.
1 / 11
replied 2243d
While it is easy to say it is bad the convert rainforest for agriculture,which it is,there are a lot of people and very little farm land, and it is expensive to import food.
replied 2243d
Plants require less land than animals. Shipping is quite cheap. Not to mention that lots of meat is shipped from developing countries to the West.
replied 2243d
They require different land. Also it would be bad to add that much extra topsoil for produce considering we already use it faster than it is produced. It is efficient to have cattle.
replied 2243d
Plant-based meat replacements are already cheaper than meat.
replied 2243d
You seem like a very communist, or at least central authoritised for an AnCap. I eat beef because it is one of the greatest foods. It doesn't lack amino acids, and taste better.
replied 2243d
How on Earth could you possibly interpret anything I've said as being communist? Please give some examples of what you mean.
replied 2243d
You want to decide what people eat, and what to grow, instead of letting the market, and individuals decide.
replied 2243d
No, I have never expressed such desires. I'm making *arguments* as to why eating some things is bad and eating other things is good. I don't support government bans on meat.
replied 2243d
You cant eat the rainforest. Poor nations cant easily import all their food needs. Their population is booming. You are wrong to think k they only graze with cattle.
replied 2243d
So eat plants, save the rainforest.
replied 2243d
They burn the rainforest to grow plants already. They don't use it mostly for cattle. It is mostly used for sugar cane. Other crops as well, and obviously some grazing land.


About Privacy Terms Stats