id argue those incentive programs are, themselves, eugenics policies, but I also think ending them is complicated, as doing so I’m one jurisdiction and not in others is, you see, eugenics.

whatever metrics you use to decide who gets to procreate, you will certainly bias the gene pool. That’s eugenics

your semantic understanding of eugenics doors not seem to understand why people opposed eugenics and eugenics policies.

it does not address the moral argument that is at the root of this discussion.

the moral argument in this thread is about allocation of resources. if you want to make a separate moral argument, you’re free to do so.

Even if this were true

it is

Human food crops could have been grown instead, on a fraction of the land.

human food crops are grown. soy is a great example. about 80% of soy is pressed for oil, and the byproduct is fed to livestock.

The majority of all the plants that humans grow are fed to livestock.

this is a lie

most people don’t want to eat soy cake, or crop seconds, or spoilage. feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources, not a waste.

deleted by creator

the vast bulk of the food they eat is grown agriculturally.

sure, but I can’t eat cornstalks and I don’t want to eat soy cake, so feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources.

no, you said those calories are wasted.

any policy you can implement to address “overpopulation” is eugenics. so there is nothing (ethical) to do about it.

this is legal just about everywhere in the usa.

most of what animals are fed are parts of plants people can’t or won’t eat, or grazed grass. in that way, we are conserving resources.

this just isn’t true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandry#Environmental_impact Plenty of sources are referenced in this section

this is a gish gallop. which study are you citing? the 22 year old study (reference number 78)? which of the dozens of references did you actually read?

you can read the citations on that study and see that LCA studies cannot be combined

I showed my reasoning, and the evidence is in the citations of the study we are discussing, and their citations

there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but that doesn’t mean that animal agriculture is okay

of course not. but it is probably ok, regardless of whether there is ethical consumption under capitalism

part of the advantage of not eating animals is that it takes less plants to eat just plants, then it does to eat animals - since you have to feed those animals too

animals graze, and what crops they are fed are often crop-seconds or parts of plants that people can’t (or won’t) eat.