All art is derivative.
I do support a great reduction in meat consumption indeed. But I think that in some cases there isn't an issue in eating meat, specially in rural environments.
For our current population everybody eating meat all the time is, obviously, unsustainable.
That statement is not supported by fact or logic, it's irrational. You are in a dogma. This is useless.
It's like arguing with a religious person "God exist" is their argument, and that's it. This is the same. So, sorry, I'm out.
You know that you can take fish out of rivers or the sea, don't you? Humanity have done so for thousands of years, without liberating CO2 in the process.
Who are you to tell some guy that take a fishing rod and go to the coast and take a couple of fish for dinner that he is polluting the atmosphere for not eating a plant instead?
At this point I'm just going to say that you are very wrong about how agriculture and farming works, specially on a traditional environment.
I have nothing against veganism, but I have a lot against misinformation. So I will end here my part of the conversation.
You didn't even read my statement.
If your answer is going to be again some variation of the dogma: "Still true no matter where you live because the carbon costs of raising animals is higher than plants." without considering that some plants used to feed animals are incredibly cheap to produce(and that humans cannot live on those planta), and that some animals live on human waste without even needing to plant food for them. Then don't even bother to reply.
Try living on lucerne. Then, come again.
Realistic, as in real life, my grandparents had chickens "for free", as the residues from other plants that cannot be eaten by humans were the food of the chickens. So realistically trying to substitute the nutrients of those free chickens with plant based solutions would be a lot more expensive in all ways.
I really need to do the calculations here.
Because growing plants for animals do not have, by far, the same cost that growing plants for humans.
My grandparents grew lucerne for livestock. And it really doesn't take much to grow. While crops for humans tend to take mucho more water and energy.
And for some animals, like chickens, you can just use residues from other crops.
I don't think it's that straightforward.
My grandparents used to live in an old village, with their farm, and that wasn't a very contaminating lifestyle. But if they would want to became began they would have needed to import goods from across the globe to have a healthy diet.
Because it's the typical exotic fruit.
If you really don't eat anything that it's not native to your land good for you, you are one in a million.
What I mean is that the environment argument for being against AI doesn't really hold. It's just an excuse to justify the dogma.
There's some argument to be made there.
It depend where you live. If you live where I live a fully plant diet is mor environmentally damaging that omnivore diet. Because I would need to consume lots of plants that come from tropical environments to have a full diet, which means one of two things, import from far away or intensive irrigation in a dry environment.
While here farm animals can and are feed with local plants that do no need intensive irrigation.
Someday I shall make full calculations on this. But I'm not sure which option would give best carbon footprint. But I'm not that sure about full plant diet here.
I'm going to fact check you, and you are not going to like it. But I hope you are able to learn instead of keeping yourself in a dogma.
Let's assume only one international flight per year. 12 hours. Times 2 as you have to come back . So 24 hours in a plane.
A plane emits 250 Kg of CO2 by passenger by hour. Total product is 250x24. Which equals 6 tons of CO2 emited by one international travel.
Now we go with diet. I only eat chicken and pork (beef is expensive). My country average is 100Kg of meat per person per year. Pork production takes 12 Kg of CO2 per Kg of meat. Chicken is 10, so I will average at 11 Kg. 11Kg of CO2 multiplies by 100Kg eaten makes 1.1 tons of CO2.
6 is greater than 1.1. about 6 times greater give it or take.
So my decision of not doing international travel saves 6 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere per travel. While if I would completely take the meat I eat from my diet I would only reduce 1.1 ton of CO2 per year.
Sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-environment/a-63595148 https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html