• trevor
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    It’s not about being eaten to extinction, obviously, but nice.

    If you consider cultivating new zoonotic diseases and pandemics into existence and wasting energy and resources on feeding animals the nutrients that humans can more efficiently benefit from directly to be “sustainable”, then I think it’s you that is using a definition of sustainable that is different from what is commonly understood.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Sustainability isn’t about absolute energy usage or energy usage per capita, or anything like that. It’s about ensuring that the activity at it’s current level of energy consumption can continue. So if it takes a 1000 acres of land to have a genetically diverse herd of animals that can feed a village of a given size forever, then the fact that 1000 times more calories in the form of anything else could be used on that land instead doesn’t mean the herd of animals are unsustainable.

      Diseases are a non-sequitur for sustainability discussions as is “wasted” energy. Efficiency is nice, but not necessary for sustainability.