Idea plant based can feed us as it uses less resources is a lie, created by false accountancy of ideologically motivated scientists backed by Wellcome, & corporate food companies,& elite billionaires invested in fake meat. This thread is why it cannot without dreadful problems👇 
Livestock use a lot of land because they graze often over large distances, many cases sustainably hundreds of years, and that land is shared by multi economic & cultural activity, AND significantly biodiversity. Often land that is unsuitable for crops eg mountain, desert & arctic
Such provides economic/cultural autonomy to millions; whole cultures. Sometimes important thing NOT just nutritional value but CO-product (cannot see swakara cashmere etc just bi product) & local production/income provides. AND supports biodiversity eg Namibia cheetah pop UP
Namibia primarily livestock ag, herd dogs minimized conflict with predators, a good conservation record. Contrast habitat destruction for corp plantation crops like sugar etc W Africa where leopard have vanished & lions almost. And, soil improving-yes Namibian dung beetles
So, when you have vegans like Joseph Poore, a young scientist who used to work for Marakon, cited often by BBC who comes up with generalized data claiming large study when in fact only 0.003% of farms, not distinguishing between type water use for eg, question the narrative
So idea Welsh milk takes more water use than Cal almonds needs to be seen in terms of high rainfall (rains most days in Wales) v low rainfall Southern California (the girls don't they warn ya) . A LUDICROUS claim in terms of water resources, which you cannot generalize about
Then you have vegan 'scientists' like Marco Springmann, & other 80% vegan/veg advocating scientists EATLancet, funded by Wellcome who became one of biggest UK arable farmers 2015 & by 2017 two years before EATLancet decided on plant based, question narrative & confirmation bias
Then Ripple (Union Concerned Scientists warning to humanity) & Harwatt, both Loma Linda (7th Day Adventist vegetarian advocating Uni) connected academics, reducing livestock to nutrients, land use & not considering tilled v pasture seq re GHGs, question narrative/belief bias
More to come .....
Problem with Science especially reducing things to numbers,narrow focus. Numbers mislead, when you don't have whole picture. Science should be about observation not reduction select data to abstract number crunching: bad pic at best & fraudulent accountancy worst: oh irony Horton
So reduction livestock nutrients alone when often clothing at least co-product, not considering diff systems but producing generalized figs, inability factor things like cultural/economic, skills etc, inability to work out for eg LCA of wool eg re longevity/biodegradibility👇
...ignored (just consider the fossil fuel saving on wool, less clean req & no microfibre pollution etc); not cosidering CO2 seq pasture c tilled soil release plants; not considering land SHARED multi use & biodiversity whereas plant based esp pesticides damage it further afield👇
...means Science has made a complete ass of itself over animal v plant based diet use. And many of the public instinctively know it: they are NOT having the wool pulled over their eyes by false accounting any more than when corporate accountants do it re tax avoidance
My academic training was Anthroplogy; a discipline of Science which learned early & hard the faults in measuring skulls etc re race and how that abused by ideology . Thus, QUALITATIVE data is as or even more important than quantitative. I have never left that behind 👇
Wherever I go or people I contact I try & learn about them & their environment. Anthropologists will also tell you why morality not absolute but culturally relative; & I've noted how veganism primarily a manifestation of western white urban alienation from food & clothing👇
...even within their own nations.They clutch straws such as generalizing how cattle fed with soya; not true majority of cases and don't even observe sheep on pasture a mile from their own urban areas. Many academics, in ivory towers & influenced by elitist notions of philosophy👇
...have been distant from 'common humanity' for a long time. Orwell pointed this out. Marxism, Singer (animal rights), notions of utilitarianism, down to health etc makes them too distant to actually observe & learn. And these elitist mistakes have been made before...
Whenever I hear 'Wellbeing' it sets alarm bells off. Sanskrit “su” meaning “well” and “asti” meaning “being” is where symbol of vilest ideology ever thought up originated (add a 'ka') and here it is back again. And it doesn't stop there: rewilding was also a connected Nazi idea
In real wild areas people have a relationship of hunting & sustainable animal use including livestock.Modern idea is, like Nazi ones based vogue notions of wellbeing of people skipping in forest idyll, & sneers at existing land stewardship that ACTUALLY protects real biodiversity
Eco people don't like to be reminded of the genesis of their ideas. And in combination with corporatism, another Nazi idea, and 'ethical elitism' (they actually think themselves the enlightened ones re protectors of nature) the dangers are evident.
And so through ethical positions, they believe they are justified in cooking books with select data for greater good, to prevent animal suffering.BUT nothing ethical about lies; & nothing ethical about attacking livelihoods cultural & economic autonomy & food security of billions
Not to mention,ruining cred & objectivity of Science. But, this eco/animal rights/academic ethics position, is a godsend to billionairre elite & corporations. Just consider, while was obvious why corporates REALLY got rid real fur(yes even Debenhams and C&A sold it in the 70s) 👇
-it lasts a long time,is expensive to manufacture so profit low- and they like customers coming back so its better to sell synthetic.But there has been no public outrage about leather, and yet, where has it all gone from the high st? PU leather breaks so you need new constantly👇
and profit margin VERY high. High st corporates have duffed us up with crap clothing, its been BAD for environment, and yet manufacturers have sold it as 'ethical'. Same is true re Boohoo recently - until the public backlash. People KNOW wool is good for environment & synth 👇
is bad.Corporates still hijack eco concern with greenwash. Even recycled plastic is still plastic. Still microfibre pollution. It'll never be leather or wool totally repairable recyclable & biodegradable easily. BUT corporates less profit margin and you dont need new for ages
And the production is with exploited cheaply paid labour in many cases; whereas the option of animal based clothing means a whole culture & economy autonomy & skilled workers paid for production & creation. As for plant based clothing...that can be bad too eg some cotton
This is where vegan will say "hemp" as desperate straw. Hemp, like bamboo fibre, not without problems. Habitat destruction, use petro chemical process to make it decent as its poor naturally, irrigation & not food. Whereas meat wool & hide from same resources sheep/camelids.
And so at scale plant based shift will be an ecological disaster. It panders to corporates who want to duff you up with chickenfeed like they did synthetic clothing. Here my home county based sheep; & Almeria, plant based. You cant rock up for a picnic...👇
...gallop a horse, provide sustainable clothing, autonomous farming & dependent jobs/culture,or share vibrant biodiversity (otters, voles, deer, hornet robber flies, birds prey etc)in Almeria's plastic covered horror. So do you REALLY want more of latter?THIS rogues gallery does
I'd prefer to support animal based economies, and challenge the narrative
Global corporations, Davos and Silcon valley tech elites, WEF and UN environment, Public Health fascists, energy companies (wind farms solar etc all need land) etc want to control world resources by kicking off livestock/environment stewards to sustain their growth & power
Be sure to follow from here :
