Search Results: questions are removed

After asking a question about if eating meat should be illegal and had a more nuanced poll about people's reaction I'm going to ask the third question: Is the meat industry as environment hostile as someone claims (why/why not)? I found arguments on the internet. #MeatBan #MeatShaming #Environment

Meat definition = Any animals including fish

Arguments for it's polluting:
* Require a lot of farmland. In addition you can grow healthier food with the same place if there's only vegetables grown according to the pro-vegetarian site "Framtiden. no"
* Less forests and savanna removed because of the need of farmlands; meaning less wild animals in the woods gets extinct
* Animals making methane gasses, ingredients used to make foods for them, fertilizers and transportation of animals.
* Animal rights - they gets to live, stress less etc.
* If less people ate meat, more people would get sick and die since not everyone knows how to live a properly vegan lifestyle which mean less people on earth and more resources to the rest of the population.

Arguments against:
* Growing vegetables still requires a lot of areal, water, fertilizer, pesticide etc.
* Forests would still get removed because of the need of farmland. Not all countries have equally suitable climates and terrain to grow vegetables, so some needs animals. The alternative is importing food from long distances which mean pollution, or very expensive technology like green house etc.
* What do we do with the animals still being alive after a ban? After living generations and whole lives on a farm adapting to living in the wild would be difficult without the proper training. Not as many animals are needed for cheese and milk as meat. Humane?