Interesting idea to maximise persuasion/streamline argument.
But I'm not sure I buy this, personally, in this context.
I think something as complex as food systems requires a nuanced response. This actually brings up a further notable point around food resilience. From the book:
'it’s clear that the more diverse and complex an ecosystem is, the healthier and more resilient it is.
'When someone argues that all meat is “evil,” decentralized, regional, and regenerative food systems, which offer both better quality of life for animals and more sustainable food for humans, are excluded from the discussion. From a globalization perspective, this is also a challenging ethical position as the folks making the case to remove all animal inputs in the global food system are pushing for food policies that would destroy the food systems in developing countries.
'A truly resilient food system requires as much life as possible, and this means animals and plants... Encourage this system to be as diversified and resilient as possible.
'Different regions have area-specific ecosystems that can provide different foods. In some areas it may make more sense to raise camels or goats, depending on what the landscape can provide. When we see regions feeding themselves instead of relying on outside food, we generally see more resilience.'
Firstly just to say: the book isn't advocating factory farming at all.
- On the point of efficiency (p. 227):
‘The antimeat camps raise concern about how much food is diverted away from people toward the “inefficient” process of feeding animals… this is largely a false pretense’ – and has a chapter (chapter 10) dedicated to explaining that there are vast swaths of land that can't be used for crops, but which animals can be rearer on. So the opportunity cost from the initial inputs (for pasture-raised meat) is not as straightforward as inefficiency calculations suggests.
- The book argues regenerative agriculture could feed the U.S. – while being better for the long-term environment (p. 232):
'Do we have the land for it? Diana consulted with a few experts to run the numbers, including Dr. Allen Williams, an ecosystem and soil health consultant, farmer, and former agriculture professor ... [List of many other people consulted]... One critical piece of information to keep in mind is to remember that we’re comparing industrial monocropping to regenerative agriculture, which have drastically different impacts on the land. Even though it takes more land to produce well-managed grass-finished beef, it could be argued that the regenerative solution is a smarter one for our future than the chemical one. At a recent conference about grass-fed beef, Rowntree said in his presentation, “I’d rather have 2.5 acres of regenerative agriculture than 1 acre of extractive agriculture.” [And that regenerative agriculture leads to more utilisable land]
‘let’s dive into what sort of acres we’d need in the US to finish all our beef herd on grass… the numbers are rough and could certainly be challenged, but… If we look at the current amount of idle grassland, underutilized pasture, and cropland that would be freed up from grain production in an all-grass-finished scenario, the short answer to our question is yes. We do have the land to finish all our current beef cattle on pasture in the US.
‘If we are now grass-finishing all beef cattle produced annually in the US, we can reduce the ninety to ninety-four million acres of corn planted. Approximately 36–40 percent of today’s corn crop actually goes into livestock feed (cattle, pigs, and chickens)…
‘If we take just fifteen million acres of cornfields and consider these productive (after all, they once were thriving grasslands), each of them can finish 1.25 steers per acre. Altogether, these acres finish 18.75 million cattle. In addition to converting some of our corn acres back to grassland, there are over five hundred million acres of privately owned pastureland in the US, and many experts we’ve spoken to estimate it’s only being utilized at 30 percent capacity. This leaves enormous potential for better grazing management.
‘And again, these acres will be a net gain to our agricultural land because they would be beneficial to our ecosystems instead of destroying them… soil, water cycles, and mineral cycles, and more wildlife.’
- And they argue (p. 234):
‘Not only could it be possible to finish all US beef cattle on grass, but grass-finishing beef is more profitable as well.’
- On the health point, I am also not a registered dietician! Diana Rodgers (the lead author of the book) is. [Updated reply:] There are a few very good pages from p.103–108 in the book. I will refrain (for brevity) from citing volumes, and just share:
'While the American and British dietetic organizations maintain a vegan diet is safe for all life stages, both Germany and Switzerland specifically don’t recommend vegan diets for pregnant or lactating women, infants, children, or adolescents. And in May 2019 a group of doctors from the Belgian Royal Academy of Medicine put forward a proposal to make feeding babies a vegan diet illegal. The committee stated that a vegan diet is unsuitable for unborn children, children, and adolescents, as well as pregnant and lactating women.'
I won't push more as I feel the health argument is already run exhaustively in many places. But my main point in posting all this is that I think the environmental/ethical side of EA thinking here might not have been robustly challenged (and thus is much more interesting!).
- The book makes the counterintuitive argument more sentiment animals are dying from second-order effects of present-day plant cropping than pasture-raised meat (per calorie).
'A vegan diet is not a bloodless diet, and may even destroy more life than a regenerative, pasture-centric model.'
- I would consider there is a longtermist perspective on soil health, and that if we deplete soil with monocropping, that’s not going to be good for future generations (of all forms of sentient life) – and thus is a big ethical consideration.
- I agree with your logic statement.
The book's authors are, I consider, arguing "Y" could or should be regenerative agriculture/pasture-raised meat, rather than meat alternatives or lab-grown/clean meat.
- I agree with you, yes, smarter methods of plant farming should absolutely be explored.
But (as a newcomer to EA), it seems to me some of the knock-on effects of meat alternatives (destructive agricultural practices; lots of animals still dying)/clean meat (immense energy considerations) are not being fully discussed or challenged – and that some 'red teaming' (e.g. from the above co-authors) could be helpful.
https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/marie-gibbons-clean-meat/ (this has a particularly gruesome and stirring story of a cow’s eye being removed without anaesthetic, but doesn’t touch on potential unintended consequences of dispensing with regenerative farming)
Thanks for replying, Mauricio.
Interesting idea to maximise persuasion/streamline argument.
But I'm not sure I buy this, personally, in this context.
I think something as complex as food systems requires a nuanced response. This actually brings up a further notable point around food resilience. From the book:
'it’s clear that the more diverse and complex an ecosystem is, the healthier and more resilient it is.
'When someone argues that all meat is “evil,” decentralized, regional, and regenerative food systems, which offer both better quality of life for animals and more sustainable food for humans, are excluded from the discussion. From a globalization perspective, this is also a challenging ethical position as the folks making the case to remove all animal inputs in the global food system are pushing for food policies that would destroy the food systems in developing countries.
'A truly resilient food system requires as much life as possible, and this means animals and plants... Encourage this system to be as diversified and resilient as possible.
'Different regions have area-specific ecosystems that can provide different foods. In some areas it may make more sense to raise camels or goats, depending on what the landscape can provide. When we see regions feeding themselves instead of relying on outside food, we generally see more resilience.'
Thanks Yair.
Firstly just to say: the book isn't advocating factory farming at all.
- On the point of efficiency (p. 227):
‘The antimeat camps raise concern about how much food is diverted away from people toward the “inefficient” process of feeding animals… this is largely a false pretense’ – and has a chapter (chapter 10) dedicated to explaining that there are vast swaths of land that can't be used for crops, but which animals can be rearer on. So the opportunity cost from the initial inputs (for pasture-raised meat) is not as straightforward as inefficiency calculations suggests.
- The book argues regenerative agriculture could feed the U.S. – while being better for the long-term environment (p. 232):
'Do we have the land for it? Diana consulted with a few experts to run the numbers, including Dr. Allen Williams, an ecosystem and soil health consultant, farmer, and former agriculture professor ... [List of many other people consulted]... One critical piece of information to keep in mind is to remember that we’re comparing industrial monocropping to regenerative agriculture, which have drastically different impacts on the land. Even though it takes more land to produce well-managed grass-finished beef, it could be argued that the regenerative solution is a smarter one for our future than the chemical one. At a recent conference about grass-fed beef, Rowntree said in his presentation, “I’d rather have 2.5 acres of regenerative agriculture than 1 acre of extractive agriculture.” [And that regenerative agriculture leads to more utilisable land]
‘let’s dive into what sort of acres we’d need in the US to finish all our beef herd on grass… the numbers are rough and could certainly be challenged, but… If we look at the current amount of idle grassland, underutilized pasture, and cropland that would be freed up from grain production in an all-grass-finished scenario, the short answer to our question is yes. We do have the land to finish all our current beef cattle on pasture in the US.
‘If we are now grass-finishing all beef cattle produced annually in the US, we can reduce the ninety to ninety-four million acres of corn planted. Approximately 36–40 percent of today’s corn crop actually goes into livestock feed (cattle, pigs, and chickens)…
‘If we take just fifteen million acres of cornfields and consider these productive (after all, they once were thriving grasslands), each of them can finish 1.25 steers per acre. Altogether, these acres finish 18.75 million cattle. In addition to converting some of our corn acres back to grassland, there are over five hundred million acres of privately owned pastureland in the US, and many experts we’ve spoken to estimate it’s only being utilized at 30 percent capacity. This leaves enormous potential for better grazing management.
‘And again, these acres will be a net gain to our agricultural land because they would be beneficial to our ecosystems instead of destroying them… soil, water cycles, and mineral cycles, and more wildlife.’
- And they argue (p. 234):
‘Not only could it be possible to finish all US beef cattle on grass, but grass-finishing beef is more profitable as well.’
- On the health point, I am also not a registered dietician! Diana Rodgers (the lead author of the book) is. [Updated reply:] There are a few very good pages from p.103–108 in the book. I will refrain (for brevity) from citing volumes, and just share:
'While the American and British dietetic organizations maintain a vegan diet is safe for all life stages, both Germany and Switzerland specifically don’t recommend vegan diets for pregnant or lactating women, infants, children, or adolescents. And in May 2019 a group of doctors from the Belgian Royal Academy of Medicine put forward a proposal to make feeding babies a vegan diet illegal. The committee stated that a vegan diet is unsuitable for unborn children, children, and adolescents, as well as pregnant and lactating women.'
I won't push more as I feel the health argument is already run exhaustively in many places. But my main point in posting all this is that I think the environmental/ethical side of EA thinking here might not have been robustly challenged (and thus is much more interesting!).
Thanks Rockwell.
- The book makes the counterintuitive argument more sentiment animals are dying from second-order effects of present-day plant cropping than pasture-raised meat (per calorie).
'A vegan diet is not a bloodless diet, and may even destroy more life than a regenerative, pasture-centric model.'
- I would consider there is a longtermist perspective on soil health, and that if we deplete soil with monocropping, that’s not going to be good for future generations (of all forms of sentient life) – and thus is a big ethical consideration.
- I agree with your logic statement.
The book's authors are, I consider, arguing "Y" could or should be regenerative agriculture/pasture-raised meat, rather than meat alternatives or lab-grown/clean meat.
- I agree with you, yes, smarter methods of plant farming should absolutely be explored.
But (as a newcomer to EA), it seems to me some of the knock-on effects of meat alternatives (destructive agricultural practices; lots of animals still dying)/clean meat (immense energy considerations) are not being fully discussed or challenged – and that some 'red teaming' (e.g. from the above co-authors) could be helpful.
Thanks for commenting, Richard. Yep, I think we're in agreement.
For completeness, I should say: things I’ve read/watched/listened to to try and find arguments against Sacred Cow: