Plant-based: Difference between revisions

1,774 bytes added ,  16 May 2023
Line 189: Line 189:
|Not if they're cooked/blended properly and you have good [[gut flora]]. {{npn}}
|Not if they're cooked/blended properly and you have good [[gut flora]]. {{npn}}
}}
}}
{{faq
|Aren't chickens needed on farms to control pests by eating the bugs that infest crops?
|Sometimes yes. However, this alone wouldn't even come close to producing as much chicken as people eat.
}}
{{faq
|What about [[fertilizer]]? Don't we need animals to fertilize the soil by pooping?
|Animals don't add minerals to the overall system. They can only poop out whatever minerals were already there in the soil/plants. Also, mass production of meat/dairy/eggs requires more crops, which just increases the need for fertilizer even more.
}}
'''Q:''' <q>What to do with all the animals if everyone goes vegan?</q>
'''A:'''
* Option 1: Keep them until they die of old age.
* Option 2: Keep slaughtering them at the same rate they currently are.
* In either case, the farmers '''stop breeding more animals'''{{x|except to maintain the species by keeping around ~0.1% of their population{{x|maybe that's more in the realm of scientists, conservationists, zookeepers etc. - but no matter who does it, it's [[Term:viable|viable]]}} }}.
* In either case, people would still eat meat ''for another year or so'', after '''pledging''' to go vegan.
* Maybe the "pledge" part is weird and hypothetical, but so is the idea of everyone going vegan tomorrow.
* If everyone ''gradually''{{x|as in, people slowly phase out meat in their diets - or people go "cold turkey" vegan but each starting from a different day - or anything in between: there wouldn't need to be a whole lot of coordination between people necessarily; just a general trend of being more plant-based}}went vegan, there'd be no "shock in demand"{{x|as economists would say}}, and thus no "what do we do with the animals". Farmers already control how many animals are bred. They would just breed fewer of them.