>>13441333>blogpostThese assertions in the blogpost rely on the same technicalities listed prior. Most crops are grown for human consumption of a specific part of the plant, i.e. the seeds for oils or grains, fruits, etc. It is merely the technicality that the vast majority of the output is a byproduct and that in the last four or five decades that people started to sell those byproducts as a means of waste disposal for consumption by cattle. As such, the 80% number is really a lie.
>The world is bigger than america.It is. But, the US is one of the largest food producers in the world. Even China is dependent on imports from the US for soi and a few other crops. Most of the US agricultural land that is is used to grow corn, soi, etc.
>>13441341>you are conflating the effect bison have on prairie and grassland at pre-industrial levels with the effect industrial levels of cows have on the same areaIf the cows are raised traditionally and not held in feedlots for a good portion of their life while relying on byproducts of agriculture, then they will have no greater impact than bison. In terms of weight, food consumption, and water consumption, cattle and bison are quite similar. Again, you ignore the reality that most the impact is actually derived from the fact that people run factory farms where the soil is depleted from constant tilling, use of artificial fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides which run-off into local tributaries, etc.
I agree that the industrial economy has issues. However, without the industrial system, we don't really have any problems. You're mistaking the forest for the trees.
>blogpostI don't understand why you are simply too lazy to archive pages and post the archives to your blogposts instead of helping websites get their tracking cookies onto your computer.
>>13441336>sad attempt at a strawmanNot a strawman. It's the reality
>many such cases!look in the mirror
