Why is Vegan, Inc. so pissed off?

Plant Based News is both a website and a twitter account for vegan activism.

Like any decent activist, they combine news with propaganda. I’m fine with that. It gives me a reason to look into some of their claims and push back.

This is the push back on one such claim they made. In fairness to them, they just repeated it. OurWorldInData.org was the source. To Plant Based News’ credit, they provided the link when I asked for support.

The assertion was OurWorldInData.org first line on the post, “[l]ivestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories.”

Big, if true.

They provide a bar graph showing Earth’s surface is 29% land (149 million km sq.) and 71% ocean (361 million km sq.) Of that 29% of land, 71% is habitable, (104 million km sq). About half (51 million km sq) of that 71% of habitable land is used for agriculture with the balance made up of forests, shrubs, urban and built-up land and fresh water.

50% of 71% of 29% of land is used for livestock, identified as meat and dairy.

Of that 50% of land used for agriculture, 77% (40 million km sq) is used for livestock: Meat and dairy. Based on their calculations-and my math-, agricultural land for livestock is about 27% of the Earth’s surface. 23% of the land, (11 million km sq) is use for crops.

That’s a lot of numbers. It can be mind-numbing, but there’s a point to this madness. After just a bit more of the numbers.

Our World In Data claims that based on the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 18% of the global calorie supply comes from the livestock and 83% of the global calorie supply comes from plant-based foods.

Big, if true.

My initial reaction to that claim was it seemed improbable.

It is easy to visualize what part of the Earth is habitable. The poles not so much. The deserts aren’t ideal. Mountains are debatable as to habitable (the deserts, too, I suppose).

If you live in the US and have flown coast to coast, you might have seen Iowa or Nebraska or Kansas or any of the other plains states. Are there cows in Iowa? Yep. Corn, too.

Even after reading their page, that claim remains improbable. But, there is at least one other issue.

The claim is the global calorie supply is inequitable to the poor since they don’t have as much meat as the rich.

The equitable distribution of meat is not their goal. By stating calories is the goal, not nutrients or macronutrients, they focus on the wrong thing, in my opinion.

Antony Davies, the Words & Numbers podcast economist and former podcast guest noted that trees could provide enough calories for the world for years and years and no replanting required. Problem solved; calories for everyone.

I realize that’s a silly response. Of course no one is going to eat trees for sustenance.

Antony did offer two more points and I’ll read them. He writes, “India and China likely drive the results for two reasons: (1) together, they comprise more than one-third of the world’s population, and (2) they are currently consuming among the least calories. Duplicating what they are doing across the rest of the world would mean imposing significant hardship.

As with every doom-and-gloom prognosis, this one ignores technology and markets. Over the past 200 years, we have managed to reduce world hunger from 98% to less than 10% at the same time that the world population increased by 700%. Technology, driven by markets, achieved this. They will go on achieving this as the world’s caloric intake continues to rise.”

I mentioned the Words & Numbers podcast. There is also a Facebook group and I crowd sourced some responses to the sketchy math used to reach the conclusions about land use. Several group members offered some good information. Here’s one comment. “Another funny thing they did. They included milk in with meat. Now that brings up a whole new conversation but for many people, even vegetarians, milk consumption is permissible. It looks like they threw in dairy with meat to confuse the picture.
As an aside. I recently learned that cow milk production has changed dramatically in the last 50 years. In the 1970s, the average cow produced about 5000 pounds of milk per year (about 600 gallons). Today the average cow produces 21,000 pounds (about 2500 gallons) of milk per year!
And in one report they succeeded in having a cow produce almost 4x that or 8000 gallons a year!!
So there’s certainly reason to expect additional technological Improvements”

Excluding milk and milk products, butter, yogurt and cheese primarily, excludes a lot of fat and protein sources. It also excludes a lot of pleasure in the eating. That’s not a thing you can measure, but part of the joy of eating is flavor.

I will share one last crowd sourced comment which seems relevant to the discussion of land use. This person wrote, “I think it has a lot to do with how much land it actually takes to graze cattle. However it’s not environmentally feasible to grow veggies etc. on that land. It’s usually very poor drought prone land. Which is one reason cattle ranches need that much land. If they are all vegans/vegetarian they are trying to make meat look evil and imply that the land is wasted that way. When it would take a ridiculous amount of extra water and infrastructure to get any other kind of production from that land.”

Land that can’t be used for growing plants because it’s too rocky, too far from water or too expensive to make fertile and useful is a good point.

Milk and milk products are good sources of nutrition for a lot of people. Cow milk is a big target, but goats also offer milk and more than a few goat milk cheese makers have built a fine life selling goat milk.

Vegan Inc comes across as pretty ruthless. The behave like central planners, they seem happy to judge the non-vegans as filthy animal murderers and appear to have no problem telling you how to live your life as they see it.

The average vegan seems far less militant. I interviewed Khalil on this show. I’ve known Khalil for years, and he was a vegan when we worked together. We ate differently and shared meal time, just not meals. We ate in peace. I suspect most vegans prefer peace over protest, but I don’t know.

The initial take-away from this article is meat consumption needs to be reduced to achieve the goals they say are necessary.

There’s another read to it.

There is a war on meat. There has been for some while. Cow farts. Remember that from AOC? The Our World in Data post was written in 2017. In the piece they discuss yields in meat and grain increasing, but also, the population increasing and then they try to land the punch with this, “by 2050 we will have a further 2-3 billion people to feed.”
Okay, that’s reasonable. Looking to the future is a good idea.
And, a long view is a good idea. But, I question that this idea is their idea.

The World Economic Forum published an online article in 2016, reposted on Medium.com, called “We Must Eat Less Meat. Could These Three Alternative Help Save Our Planet?”  This passage reveals how they intend to take meat out of the equation as a source of climate change—its always climate change. They write, “part of the solution is around reducing demand for livestock, and we are beginning to see lower levels of meat consumption in the developed world, with, for example, 25% of US consumers decreasing meat intake in 2014.

We are also beginning to see government action aimed at reducing citizens’ meat consumption. For example, the Chinese government recently announced plans to reduce its citizens’ meat consumption by 50%, while countries such as Denmark are having active consultations on the introduction of the red meat tax. We can expect similar legislative programmes in other jurisdictions in the years to come.”

Did you catch that? Taxing meat. In a way, the price increases due, in part to inflation, are taxes on meat. Inflation is a tax on your current cash since purchasing goods requires more green pieces of paper.  Back on episode 155 I did an episode about an Oregon group that wants to put an end to the meat business in Oregon. And an end to hunting and fishing.

A proverbial line in the sand was drawn years ago. You are one or the other: Vegan or animal murderer. There is passion and propaganda on both sides. I myself am a Keto fan. I see how it has helped me lose some of my belly. I know people who have had health turn-arounds on Keto. That’s a good thing. People eating themselves to wellness is good.

To build on my previous statement, I suspect most vegans are happy you are happy. It is the militant side that is a problem. If Keto folks were demanding you give up wheat for a T-Bone, I would oppose that, too.  Central planning, top down, one size fits all is never the answer to any question unless it is a game show. I’ll take That Wasn’t Real Central Planning for a billion, Mayim.

Expecting a government to know the wants of all the people is just plain stupid. But, more to the point, do you think the government that two years ago said 15 days to flatten the curve is the right choice for deciding how best to feed 350,000,000 people?

Frankly, the war on meat is also a war on humans. The militant vegans seem to have no problem with compromising human health and wellness. And the war on humans has many fronts. Food is just one. It’s a good one to fight. Opposing central planners and their agents, Veganism, Inc is one such agent, are good fights.

Who are we fighting?

That’s a good question.

The World Economic Forum holds an annual convention at Davos, Switzerland every year except last year. This year, Ngaire Woods, who is the founding Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government and Professor of Global Economic Governance at Oxford University,” said “The good news is the elite across the world trust each other more and more” and then shared what she saw as the bad news. “the bad news is that the majority of people trusted that elite less.” Take a moment and collect yourself that she said the quiet part out loud and recognize that this is just a game to them.

By game I don’t mean play for entertainment. I mean they use people as pawns on the quest for global one-world governance. Sounds preposterous, doesn’t it? This is from the intelligence.weforum.org page
“Global governance is a means to manage issues that cut across national borders – whether it is a pandemic, a financial crisis, climate change, or a geo-economic dispute. Though traditionally centered on diplomacy and international organizations, a wide variety of public and private actors now engage in cross-border governance. The work itself has expanded well beyond treaty-making to include formal and informal monitoring, standard-setting, enforcement, and financing. Effective governance is essential to secure peaceful, healthy, and prosperous societies, particularly now amid COVID-19, worsening ecological crises, mounting geopolitical tension, and growing nationalist backlash against globalization.”

We’ve come quite a way from how much land do cows use.

Remember the old joke, which is oddly placed here, about how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. How do you get the world to change behavior? Two weeks at a time.

The issue isn’t choosing a vegan diet. If you want it, do it with this affiliate link.

The issue, pushed by a select few through rather impressive propaganda means, is to make choices for you. You like meat, they’ll ask. Well, you can have nothing or this plant-based, highly processed manufactured thing. So, see, they’ll give you a choice, but you can’t choose not to participate. If you heard Geddy Lee here, you are right. But, choosing not to decide means starving. Is that a choice or coercion?

This topic is nearly endless. It is worth discussing at times because they who push for it aren’t going to stop pushing.

So, push back.

I admit I’ve been a bit down by the magnitude of the force. They’re organized, exceedingly well funded, and seem to be everywhere. But, look at the news, not the main stream news of course, about the global resistance to lockdowns and jab mandates and passport mandates.

I mentioned Rush a moment ago. Now it’s Dee Snider and Twisted Sister turn.

We’re not gonna take it. Anymore.

You know how it goes.

 

Listen to this as a podcast episode.