Of the total area that is used by humans (Agriculture, Urban and Built-up Land),
- urban and built-up land is 1m km²,
- agriculture is 48m km²,
so agriculture is 48 of 49 millions km² used, that’s 98%. The remaining 2% are all streets and housing and other infrastructure together.
I lack a magic wand, I can’t suddenly stop people from killing altogether. Meat consumption is down, though, and hopefully will continue to fall until it’s a practice we stop as a culture. In the short term though, we should at least try to make sure those pointless deaths come with as little suffering as possible - people are souring to the cruelty of bowhunting, and that is at least a start.
I don’t really understand how my capacity for language is relevant to that concept, but okay.
what makes you think that?
Numbers, mostly. Meat consumption rose slightly in the US, plateaued across asia and has fallen heavily in europe, which are the only regions I have reliable data for (South America looks unchanged though I don’t have a great source for that - I have no source for African or Oceania meat consumption rates)
can you cite this?
I can, is there some reason you’re being quite so rude?
thanks for the reply
I didn’t mean to be rude, but I thought short replies were the norm here.
I’m just skeptical.
I’m very much looking forward to your citations.
thank you!
This thread is averaging paragraph length responses, what could have given you the idea that short-form demands for citations on claims you could verify with a trivial web search was the norm here? That seems like total BS to cover for being called out over your habit of rather arrogant sealioning.
There’s a great deal more data available which also supports my conclusions, I encourage you to engage with the subject matter directly in light of that.
your numbers are in per capita rates, but Asia is exploding in population, and still increasing in consumption per capita.
I don’t think there is any reason to believe meat consumption is decreasing. it’s probably increasing
For someone that spends this much time policing other people’s claims, you’re remarkably bad at interpreting data or the initial claims said person actually made.
our exchanges, until now, have been solely on the subject matter. this aside belies an interest, on your part, in making the matter personal instead.
please, engage with the subject matter.
Would you mind consolidating your replies? This is going to get confusing. Also, no, I had already criticized your behavior prior to that comment.
asking for sources for dubious claims isn’t sealioning, but your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith
That’s not how bad faith engagement works, and my claims are not dubious, they’re directly supported by the data.