I hear what you're saying. The difficulty is that you're another non quant trying to make a general argument and failing.

I'll spell out what a strong argument for the point you're trying to make might look like:

A) An estimate of the total number of calories coming from purely grazed meat on this sort of land.

B) An estimate of the total number of calories of meat consumed.

C) A/B > 3/4.

I think I did better than your quant way :-)

Without having to resort to any kind of estimates[0] I have demonstrated for anyone interested that a purely vegan alternative will render lots of land unproductive, so - even given an optimal use of the rest of the land - you will still leave unused resources on the table.

I can go deeper into this subject, but I think this will suffice for now.

And: I'm all for reducing consumption and waste, and actually enjoy the reduce-reuse-part of the reduce-reuse-recycle-idea so this shouldn't be seen as a defense for overconsumption, bad farming practices or anything but rather an attempt to bring some realism into this thread.

[0]:really my only given is that not all land is usable for effective production of anything except grass.

> lots of land.

How much in comparison to farming generally?

You're attempting a bait and switch: 1) Claim veganism is bad because it would reduce output if everyone switched now. 2) Claim veganism is bad because it would reduce output at the margin of an optimal policy.

These two things are quite different scenarios. Scenario 2) is tacitly accepting that most people would be vegan most of the time. But hey, if you want to argue that under both our optimal policies there would be many more plant eaters, fine by me.

> How much in comparison to farming generally?

This has already been answered elsewhere in this discussion.

> You're attempting a bait and switch: 1) Claim veganism is bad because it would reduce output if everyone switched now. 2) Claim veganism is bad because it would reduce output at the margin of an optimal policy.

I'm not doing a bait and switch. Here is what I wrote:

1.) in a sibling thread before this one:

> So maybe your idea would work in a more temperate climate. And maybe it would provide extra food for people further north, but it would mean a lot of land that cannot be used for anything but pastures would go out of use.

2.) On top of this thread:

> I'm not saying this is not possible. But I am saying - as someone who has grown up on a farm and studied farming - that it might be somewhat more complicated.

I write that in reply to you writing a comment in support of this comment:

> Yeah, and the vast amounts of land used to grow those things can be redirected to other things that humans can eat.

> I have no idea why otherwise smart people get such a brain block on the topic of meat-eating. These "gotcha" points fall apart if you take 10 seconds to think about it.

Back to your claim of bait and switch :

It is more like as I proceed down the thread I get more and more specific to make my point easier to understand.

I still stand by my original claim.

My point is that while vast areas can be repurposed other vast areas cannot.

I point out early on that it might be possible anyway.

I also claim that like a lot of other topics it isn't something you can understand in ten seconds like the comment you supported seems to claim.

So, now you've had a chance to 'get more and more specific' (sic.), this is my understanding of your understanding of an optimal food production policy:

1. Vegan food production wherever possible. 2. Non-vegan food where vegan food is not possible (the Norwegian uplands case).

Is that correct? Or would you like to finesse things any more?

Now we are getting somewhere. That would be one reasonable if boring policy :-) Compared to todays reports from different parts of the world about

- feedlots,

- constant use of antibiotics,

- use of food grade grain for animal feed

- unhealthy overconsumption in small parts of the human population

- while others are starving

it sounds like an improvement.

If you ask what I want though I still think we could do even better than that.

There are a number of other parameters I think we should try to optimize for as well instead of thinking just vegan/not vegan:

- Regional and national or even local production to reduce fragile dependencies and reduce the need for transport.

- Healthier food.

- Happiness.

- Better conditions, both for workers and for the livestock.

- etc

There is a reason the Dalai Lama (nor any Tibetan) is not a vegetarian...not much arable land above 3k meters (well, you can grow some barley). Likewise, next door India has so much arable land vegetarianism makes sense, China on the other hand is in between, being fairly mountainous and lacking much arable land (so they have more vegetables but still rely on meat).

Worldwide distribution changes things up a bit, but barring that entire cultures fit their habits according to the land they had, not vice versa.

What's your point?

My point that some land being suited for growing thing and some land being suited to grazing is totally a thing. If the whole world were as arable as India, we might all be vegetarians. But it isn’t.