Animal food linearly translates to human food. In an exponential coordinate system, meat/vegan is almost irrelevant. Global nutrition depends mostly on artificial fertilizers that is, fossils. At scale, you can neither maintain a meat-based nutrition without fossils nor a vegan one.
Climate crisis comes still on top of this.
So be prepared for food from (low quality soil) graze land.
It’s not linear, bud. The loss of calories to raising animals for food is about an order of magnitude.
Animals raised on grasslands only aren’t going to replace the system, they’re already maxed out and represent a tiny amount of the total “flesh pie”. If you’re arguing for deforestation and draining swamps to create more grazing land, that’s just going to accelerate the climate heating. Also, the climate chaos and increasing heat will make this pastoralism a dead end since the animals will die from heatstroke, starvation and lack of clean water, along with various diseases.
There’s a shitload of literature on food security, why don’t you go read.
The energy relationships will always remain the same, matching trophic levels. We can get more food by eating straight from the primary producers: plants. No, marginal grasslands will not do.
Even going down for collapse, keeping the animal farming sector translates to more famine. And if you keep the luxury, that translates to more social conflict over luxuries, more mafia, more “leather underground”, more secret animal farming and detouring of food.
then you better learn about veganic quickly.
Animal food linearly translates to human food. In an exponential coordinate system, meat/vegan is almost irrelevant. Global nutrition depends mostly on artificial fertilizers that is, fossils. At scale, you can neither maintain a meat-based nutrition without fossils nor a vegan one.
Climate crisis comes still on top of this.
So be prepared for food from (low quality soil) graze land.
So we’ll eat like Garfunkel’s rabbit.
Now you understand the Sound of Silence.
Gene therapy for regrowing teeth 👍
I wouldn’t bother. Too few humans deserve even that, IME.
It’s not linear, bud. The loss of calories to raising animals for food is about an order of magnitude.
Animals raised on grasslands only aren’t going to replace the system, they’re already maxed out and represent a tiny amount of the total “flesh pie”. If you’re arguing for deforestation and draining swamps to create more grazing land, that’s just going to accelerate the climate heating. Also, the climate chaos and increasing heat will make this pastoralism a dead end since the animals will die from heatstroke, starvation and lack of clean water, along with various diseases.
Be prepared for eating plants exclusively.
A linear coefficient magnitudes above 1 is still a linear coefficient.
Let’s argue which dead end comes first. Land, oil or climate? Please give some numbers.
There’s a shitload of literature on food security, why don’t you go read.
The energy relationships will always remain the same, matching trophic levels. We can get more food by eating straight from the primary producers: plants. No, marginal grasslands will not do.
Even going down for collapse, keeping the animal farming sector translates to more famine. And if you keep the luxury, that translates to more social conflict over luxuries, more mafia, more “leather underground”, more secret animal farming and detouring of food.
Again, this has been known for a long time with history, not just theory. Here’s a fun example from Germany: https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/troy-vettese-do-not-let-them-eat-meat/
That example is pre-Haber-Bosch.
The relationship remains the same even before industrial agriculture, probably more than with all the nitrogen cycle hacking.
Talking about collapse, I assumed a lot of deaths are involved. To avoid the collapse, a maintained N cycle hack is mandatory.
There are ways to adapt, perhaps enough to avoid collapse just from that.
Here’s a good intro:
https://www.tabledebates.org/building-blocks/nitrogen-food-system