Veganism

What would production and distribution of animal-derived resources look like in a good socialist country? Will we strive to make it more sustainable, like Norway's fishing practices, or abolish it altogether due to the incredible waste that meat takes to be produced?
Also, how far should we go to reduce suffering in nature? Do we as the dominant species have a duty to reduce the suffering (which imo is the only objective evil), or just let them terrorize each other as long as it doesn't affect the ecosystems that we depend on?

Attached: 1546566697050 stalk.webm (752x582, 2.93M)

Other urls found in this thread:

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616317267)
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I say we eat Humans instead of Animals. We don't raise them though, that would be enslavement. Make it so that people see nothing wrong with getting eaten or eating others.

This, but unironically

A good socialist society should be pestilence and gmo free-like Cuba, and like Cuba practice urban farming, but unlike Cuba it should be more advanced using technology of vertical farming. Animal meat should be replaced by lab grown meat.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (655x527, 349.41K)

utopian boomers out

Not really boomers, more Gen X soccer moms.

Fucking meme-tier. Greenhouses and vertical farms are far more energy-intensive than regular farming, and you would literally have to use gene-modded plants in order to make it efficient. It's something that might be viable 30-50 years from now, provided we get rid of fossil fuels as an energy source, but right now it's a pipe dream.

Why
Why

It also uses waaaaaaaaaay less resources.
For example, you only need 4 liters of water for a kilo of tomatoes grown in a modern greenhouse with plants in insulation material fed with dripfeeding water, as opposed to 150-200 ish liters of water.
Not insignificant given how even my country the netherlands, which one of the wettest in europe, has a draught so bad that farmers were forbidden from irrigating their fields to secure drinking water supply and structural integrity of the soil.

Also a load of shit.
Putting a pane of glass over a plant makes it just grow better and its not even intensive in any way. It saves on moisture and allows more efficient use of resources.

Youre just talking out of your ass.

aha! found you skeleton rider commie!

Attached: skeleton commie.jpg (641x900, 151.01K)

I assume he means pesticide, not the bubonic plague

I know that, but he didn't.

Attached: smug.jpg (1280x720, 69.69K)

Anthroposophy heavily influenced Naziism and continues to influence the Deep Ecology Movement and the Anti-Vaccination Movement in addition to all this ORGANIC SHIT we see all the damn fucking time.

See all this Organic shit you see all the time is from Biodynamic agriculture which believes in a mystical connection between a farmer and his land that is interfered with when a farmer practices mechanized agriculture (It all has to do with the "spiritual" qualities of the Blood and the Soil. You heard that before?.) Hitler along with the rest of the Nazis believed Steiner's concept of biodynamic agriculture and for that reason, considered scientific agriculture verboten. This is actually why the Nazis pursued Barbarossa and felt a need for lebensraum so much.

Steiner's concept of biodynamic agriculture is one of the reasons World War II happened.

Not only did Anthroposophy create World War 2 but it also is responsible for all the irrational opposition to all forms of GMO in agriculture. I doubt anyone here will support Monsanto controlling all the seeds in the whole world but useful stuff like pesticides, modifying animal genes so that they don't die all the time, or even modifying spiders to make silk that is stronger than Kevlar is all against Anthroposophy.

Did you guys know you cannot use artificial fertilizers for "organic" bullshit food? That means they have started mining guano on shitty islands again and destroying the ecosystems, instead of, you know, just taking nitrogen out of the fucking air, which is 80% nitrogen.

I think Greenpeace-tier environmentalists are dumb but you might be going a bit far mate

It also uses vastly more steel and glass than regular farming, and emits more greenhouse gasses.

Not at all, try actually reading up on it. Simply "putting a pane of glass over a plant" is not efficient. To get a sufficient yield to justify the costs, you need specially bred and modified plants which makes better use of the limited space, and even then it's far from certain whether it justifies the additional resource and energy costs.

Gee a building made of glass uses more glass than a field.
Also glass and steel are cheap as shit so who gives a shit.
Growing plants doesnt actually use greenhouse gasses, and generally you use less fuel to run a greenhouse as you deliver everything with pipes, instead of driving a giant tracktor over the field to spray it with pesticide.
On that note, a lot of greenhouses here are pesticide free. Because of their closed off nature, they use bumblebees and other insects to kill the damaging insects, reducing the reliance on pesticides.

I will take my efficiently grown, more organic than regular vegetables grown in a well controlled greenhouse over plowing over massive forrests to just plug some seeds in the dirt, overfertilize (which destroys the local environment due to algae blooms), overirrigate (which salinates and destroys the environment even beyond the farm) and drowned in pesticides.

Additionally, in a greenhouse you can increase the co2 concentration (which you get from other industry which produced co2) which increases yields while also functioning as a minor carbon sink.

But I will amuse you, I will look up some papers to prove my point, they might be in dutch though since other countries have retarded agriculture.

Lab grown meat.

More benefits of greenhouses:
You can grow food in arid areas, even deserts, because the greenhouses retain the moisture. You could even use solarpanel-incorporated or matte panes if the sun is too intense for the crop in question. Additionally, the water doesnt instantly flow away into the sand.
You can also grow food in places where, you know, there is no fucking soil, like on rooftops in cities.

And lastly to whoever hates greenhouses, keep in mind that not every country is a fucking cuba-tier well situated, year round hot and sunny place with lots of soil. A lot of the world is either fucking cold as balls, fucking hot as balls or fucking dry as balls.

Are you mentally retarded? Both steel and glass have enormous energy costs related to their production. They're cheap because the productiveness of labour is very high.
Greenhouses actually burn fossil fuels in order to increase the CO2 levels inside (they don't "pull it from the atmosphere" as you imply, they are a net producer of CO2 even without factoring in energy use), so that the plants grow faster. There's also the factor of energy use from lighting etc., which you conveniently ignore, and which is necessary in order to ensure these "higher yields". This is only exacerbated by vertical farms, which require electrical lighting since they don't get enough sunlight. Again, you don't know shit.
Can be done literally everywhere. This is not a factor in favour of greenhouses. There are a lot of initiatives that you can take to make regular farms higher yield, more sustainable, and more resource-efficient, and all of them are more viable than vertical farms at the present moment.
I also like how you switched from "vertical farms" to "greenhouses". Greenhouses don't even have the benefit of taking up less space.

that webm is fucking scary tbh

I dont imply that at all, learn to fucking read. Factories that produce co2 themselves as a byproduct supply it to greenhouses instead of spewing it into the atmosphere.

Except for the fact that due to the closed and relatively sterile nature of these greenhouses (you have to wear coats and have yous shoes cleaned to enter and shit) they can control the insect population. Additionally, you dont have birds. Without greenhouses, you can set free bumblebees and other counter-pest insects all you want but they will both fly off and other pests will just take their place.
And there is nowhere where they have the pipe system I am talking about, I am talking about the pipes that go directly to the root of the plant. Good luck trying to dripfeed plants in regular soil. Its both impossible to meaningfully build, and all the water and nutrients will just wash out.
I dont give a shit about vertical farms, that other faggot did. Also vertical farms are fine for mushrooms though.
Except for the massive support racks you can easily build and maintain in a greenhouse.

Oh and with LED's tuned to the specific wavelenght the plants absorb best, the energy usage in greenhouses that use lighting has gone way down.

Some things I found while searching:
In my country they are fitting a lot of greenhouses with hot-warm water systems, which can capture heat from the greenhouse during the day, store it, and then use it at night, and vice versa. This drastically reduces the energy usage of greenhouses which would normally use natural gas burning to warm and ventilation to cool. Without greenhouses, we would grow grass and mud, which is only good for cattle, so pick your poison.

Greenpeace had a guy who made Tor in it. It's a CIA Nazi plot

I was under the impression that doing that was very carbon intensive.

And a greater amount of greenhouses have their own furnaces because they don't want all the impurities that come with these factory byproducts.
Why are you even replying to me, then? I'll humour you and say that you might be right in all the things you say - I actually like hydroponics and stuff like that, it has potential - the problem, that you keep ignoring, is that none of this justifies the massively increased energy use, and therefore emissions that come with it. At the moment, greenhouses are only economical for high value crops. If we were to ignore that, and try to replace regular farms with greenhouses, we would cook the planet before we ever even came close. A third of our total land area is covered by farmland. Replacing that would require covering millions of square kilometres in glass. You keep painting regular farming as this horrible, inefficient, unsustainable practice while framing greenhouses as this wonder solution, and this is just false. There are plenty of initiatives to make open-air farming more sustainable and more efficient (and of course you choose to scoff at the one which has the most potential), but greenhouse farming, under present conditions, is utterly unsustainable.

Its energy intensive but I will take that over mining over several islands for birdpoop and destroying those ecosystems, then shipping it to where it is needed, even though we cannot by a longshot get enough guano to feed the entire world.
Then build filters, dont grow crops inefficiently just because some people do growing crops in a grounhouse badly.

Because you bash greenhouses and make retarded claim about them, so I defend greenhouses.

Well user, I'm sure if things were that simple everyone would be doing it. The fact of the matter is that the reality of greenhouse farming worldwide does not correspond to your idealised vision.
You haven't even disproven the original claims that I made. Instead you just ignored them and sperged out at me. I am well aware of the benefits of greenhouses, I even said that it might be viable in a few decades, once our technology has advanced and we've gotten rid of fossil fuels. The problem is that at the present moment the benefits do not justify the massive drawbacks at the present moment. Looking at this study (sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616317267) the carbon footprint from growing tomatoes in greenhouses is, in the best case scenario, barely lower than the worst carbon footprint from open-field cultivation, and at worst are 20 times higher. The energy use could range as high as 160 MJ/kg tomatoes, and the water use was far higher than your claimed "4 liters", ranging between 25,6 and 60L/kg, with open-field being a little higher.