The food that animals eat from “calories we grow” is not very rarely hand-picked, and so your statement is not relevant in this example, nor helpful in answering my question.
The point is that less animals = less food needed. And less people need to grow food
And if some people still need to hand harvest food, well, then that’s not an engineering problem, but a political one. And either way irrelevant to your statement, because it was then never about the food needed anyway.
Animals eat a significant chunk of the plant calories we grow, you know.
The food that animals eat from “calories we grow” is
notvery rarely hand-picked, and so your statement is not relevant in this example, nor helpful in answering my question.Most food is harvested by machines
The point is that less animals = less food needed. And less people need to grow food
And if some people still need to hand harvest food, well, then that’s not an engineering problem, but a political one. And either way irrelevant to your statement, because it was then never about the food needed anyway.
How very convenient for your argument. Typical vegan. Fuck, this whole thread is juvenile. This species is doomed. 😘
“How convenient that reality is aligned with your argument”
?