Not just land use. Arable land (not “marginal”) can be considered as an input to production, a variable in the outcome. It is not the only variable. As we’re talking about industrial agriculture, the other inputs are machinery, seeds, agrochemicals, and fuels (and labor if you want to count it here).

The animal farming sector competes on all these in one way or another, raising demand and pricing out poorer farmers around the world. This isn’t necessarily a rule, but it’s common and it matters; not all inputs are near scarcity. The most important one is probably fertilizers: Savings in fertilizer requirements from plant-based diets - ScienceDirect

Ex. from 2021 Global farmers facing fertiliser sticker shock may cut use, raising food security risks | Reuters

This is made worse by the fact that the rich “developed” countries dedicate a lot of resources to animal farming, including feed crops, and they bring in loads of ag. subsidies for that. Poorer countries can’t afford meaningful subsidies, so they can’t compete to buy the expensive inputs as easily. Effectively, subsidies for eating animals in rich countries translates, through the invisible hand of the global ag. inputs market, into food insecurity in poor countries. I’m not the first to point that out: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/0a8bd248-025d-49fd-99e2-d8ae972fa124/content

And marginal land competes with forests, wetlands, biodiversity. “Marginal land” is a poisoned concept: https://tabledebates.org/blog/marginal-lands-sustainable-food-systems-panacea-or-bunk-concept

Fuck that channel.

Not really a challenge, the “climate friendly” idea is pseudoscience and creative accounting.

I like the False Knees version more.

https://store.falseknees.com/products/dtf

“modern pig production”

Chilean-born Marco Evaristti is courting controversy to make a point about the treatment of pigs in Denmark, where about 25,000 piglets die daily as a result of the conditions in which they are bred.

wait until Marco finds out that they are bred to be killed.

Farmers who grow feed can also switch to growing food.

Slaughterhouses… maybe they can switch to growing fungi.

“Pastured” and “factory” are not opposites, they’re the same thing with a different scale of intensity. There’s no meaningful ethical difference, but there are points to make about the environment and the climate, such as the basic fact that “grass fed” means more enteric CH4 emissions, making “factory farming” better for the environment due to efficiency. No amount of “regenerative grazing” is going change that, the methane is tied to the amount of fiber in the rumen, and grasses & forbs are full of fiber.

For a more detailed explanation see: Grazed and Confused

Economically speaking is when you see how this is scam on meat eaters. Most of the animal flesh comes from CAFOs. That’s not because grasslands are ugly and CAFOs are beautiful, it’s because that’s the most efficient way to exploit those animals, which means it’s the most efficient way to keep production costs low, which means that it’s the most efficient way to come to market with the lowest prices, which is how “the market” is expanded to a large part of the population (who expects cheap meat). The productive grasslands are already maxed out in most of the World and overgrazing is very common.

The US is plagued with ranchers going into natural parks and other places where they compete with wild herbivores (and call on state agencies to exterminate predators). Put simply, if CAFOs disappeared, then the average meat eater would find animal flesh to be very expensive - a food that is afforded a few times per month in “main dish” quantities, or even a few times per year (traditionally at Easter and Christmas holiday feasts). I would be glad to see that happen, but it wouldn’t be enough, and it fails to teach the ethical lesson, to do the moral work. It only makes animal-based meat a more obvious luxury (it has always been one), creating black markets and creating economic demand to deforest land and to occupy cropland and turn it into pasture – and that’s something that wars have been fought for, for thousands of years.

The only sensible option is to go vegan globally (don’t let animal farmers get away with exports). That frees up plenty of cropland to be reforested or used in more extensive ways.

Virtue signaling is a good thing. The problem is lack of virtue, not presence of signals.

how are they paying for the hosting?

The good thing is that people who care about nutrition tend to understand the value of prevention.

The burden of evidence is really on them, the world of nutrition science is very mature in terms of evidence based dietary recommendations and that mass of science is going to suddenly go away because these people cry of conspiracies and epidemiology while sharing meat-industry funded papers (including epidemiology related ones). Much like other pseudoscience fandoms, they exist because of being privileged and loud, not because of being correct.

The very idea is as dangerous as drinking raw milk while throwing fuel & matches in every forest. I wouldn’t be a good moderator for that as I would be morally obligated it to shut it down or use it to post ‘demotivational’ content. These “carnivores” are at the level of flatearthers.

It’s because they buy the veterinary products as a way to circumvent existing reasonable limits for human use of ivermectin. It’s implicitly against doctors’ recommendations and prescriptions.

Alternatively, they’re buying ego-boosting pills/pastes that feed the fantasy that they’re special/chosen people who are in the know about “secrets hiding in plain sight” like a common antiparasitic drug having incredible curative properties.

Sometimes they kill their kids. It’s not really fair to the kids.

they’re free to choose the narrative that makes sense to them, even if one narrative is being pushed much more heavily than the other.

This just translates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean or “reversion to mediocrity”. Much like 🤬🤬🤬🤬it’s /all, every time that mainstream spills into a community it ruins it and brings it closer to the mainstream.

In biology, you may recognize some of these phenomena from biochemistry: osmosis and diffusion. The demand to disable the “semi-permeable membrane” ends the purpose of the compartment.

Either the invading posts/comments get removed or the influx of participants (including voting) has to be rationed somehow. Doing neither is not a discussion about narratives, it’s a mobbing. It’s the opposite of promoting discourse, as that setup heavily favors the “mainstream” narrative, the status quo.

I should mention that I’ve been a moderator of internet communities since before Web 2.0 and I find the moderation tools for Lemmy type platforms to be terrible. If the expectation is to not have practical moderation, but instead to separate into fedi-islands and block the problematic networks, well, that would be a very blunt way to get to the same goals. Instead of having moderators individually ban users, you have admins ban entire networks of users.

There is no getting away from the need for moderators. Musk proved that again since he took over Twitter. Zuckerberg is proving it again now. You’re not building a protopia by hampering moderation, you’re building a cyber-wasteland. Any success with that will be temporary, like a pump and dump: you get a period of growth and a honeymoon, and then the critical mass of assholes is achieved and they turn everything to shit, and then most users have to start searching for greener pastures food forests to migrate to. Another term for that is unsustainable, it can’t last.

The point of this is that you should be able to counter those comments with words, and not need moderation/admin tools to do so.

Rationality is much more complex than you think. The experience of the COVID-19 pandemic should’ve taught you that already, first hand. The simple model of persuasion by presenting reasonable arguments and evidence is wrong. There’s an entire field looking into cognitive biases that show how irrational humans are. How exactly do you plan to argue with people who believe in “alternative facts” and “post-truth”?

All I see in the article you posted is a lack of experience in dealing with bullshit, a lack of understanding of the viral or memetic nature of bullshit.

It’s harder to just dismiss that comment if it’s interrupting your fictional story that’s pretending to be real. “The moon is upside down in Australia” does a whole lot more damage to the flat earth argument than “Nobody has crossed the ice wall” does to the truth. The purpose of allowing both of these is to help everyone get a little closer to reality and avoid incubating extreme cult-like behavior online.

It’s disheartening that you haven’t learned yet that flateartherism is a variant of creationism, another religiously inspired pseudoscience.

cabbage pasta https://heartfultable.com/cabbage-pasta/

Tack!

The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone. – Frank Wilhoit

There are paradoxes in the system, but rest assured that these religions, the Abrahamic ones and other World religions, are all conservative in their construction.

You are not going to find the answers to the paradoxes, you’re not going to find the equilibrium. I’m certainly not going to give you the solutions in some obscure comment, this kind of stuff requires shelves of books and papers.

Note that if you think the satire magazine is some dangerous fascist organization posting their propaganda in order to recruit for an underground militia type organization, you have to prove that. It’s not too difficult to prove or disprove, but that can be a skill in of itself, something all moderators everywhere should have.

Here’s one of their covers satirizing French racists:

I would like to see more opinions from the Greenland locals, but I doubt that they want to exchange Denmark with the USA.