all four of those are just rehashing the poore nemecek paper and editorializing without the rigor of peer review. they are extrapolating far beyond the scope of the actual article and drawing conclusions that are not justified in teh paper itself.

[–] chetradley@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Animal agriculture uses a disproportionately large portion of habitable land per calorie (or gram of protein even) https://ourworldindata.org/land-use

The top drivers of deforestation are beef production and soy (70-75% of which is used for animal feed) https://www.worldwildlife.org/magazine/issues/summer-2018/articles/what-are-the-biggest-drivers-of-tropical-deforestation

Animal agriculture is a main driver of antibiotic resistant strains if bacteria, something the WHO calls “an increasingly serious threat to global public health that requires action across all government sectors and society.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638249/

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

that doesn't show that cutting out meat for my diet would have any impact at all. You're just talking about impacts the industry has. I already understand the industry has impacts. I'm saying that my diet doesn't change that.

[–] chetradley@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a bad faith argument then. You're saying:

The only thing that would convince you is an impossible to test hypothetical.
You understand the industry causes severe environmental damage, but you'll continue to support that same industry.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

I haven't made any arguments at all. I just don't believe things without proof.