debate

basically the one that said meat was bad was used as a way to help gauge on water use age while the other one was used for the argument while looking at what would happen in the future with exponential growth of human population

so the second article you linked was factually incorrect or atleast bias, they had to make an edit heres the edit "The researchers did not find that vegetarians or vegetarianism are harmful to the environment, or that producing vegetables is more harmful to the environment than producing meat. What they found, in light of the data they examined, is that producing some vegetables and other foods results in high use of natural resources – and that eating more of those foods (as recommended for health by the USDA) in two particular scenarios results in higher energy use, blue water footprint and greenhouse gas emissions." "One limitation of only looking at the per-calorie level of resources and emissions in foods, however, is that it doesn't necessarily reflect what people actually eat. As others have pointed out, some foods that require a lot of natural resources to produce – such as lettuce, for example – would likely never constitute the basis of a diet, vegetarian or otherwise, since they're so low in calories." "Other research suggests that eating less meat is a good thing for the environment. One previous study found that following a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet (no meat, fish, or poultry) would result in a 33 percent decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, and vegan diets go even further, with a 53 percent decrease in emissions." so iv already agreed that certain vegetables take alot of water, but it still isnt as much when compared to meat again, your article agrees that meat still uses more resources

heres one thing i will agree with i agree on the contingency that i dont know enough to really debate this issue, which is why i prefer to stick to ethics, which is something i know a lot more about i agree that diversifying our food seems like a good idea, but that is something id still argue against because it is still not ethically sound nor environmentally sound compared to other alternatives @the lettuce thing read the full article, they cover that issue in their revision "One limitation of only looking at the per-calorie level of resources and emissions in foods, however, is that it doesn't necessarily reflect what people actually eat. As others have pointed out, some foods that require a lot of natural resources to produce – such as lettuce, for example – would likely never constitute the basis of a diet, vegetarian or otherwise, since they're so low in calories."

and knowing that it will require more land in the long run to grow food to wether to eat meat which encourages a non-sustainable market thus making them look for better ways to get the products out there while staying on the people's good side. which leads to artificially grown meats such as in the meat berry concept.