it’s not because a product is not made in a industrial fashion that it’s de facto good, sustainable or eco friendly. it’s like calling natural stuff better than chemical stuff. it’s just a common bias.
you can’t get meat without giving a lot of proteins to an animal. at the end if you end up eating this protein instead of giving it to the animal to grow tissue you always will win in efficiency.
some will argue that we can’t eat grass. that’s right we can’t. but with all things considered if we eat proteins from plants we can digest, the balance will always be positive, regarding CO2 emissions, natural ressources being wasted like soil and water, and naturally the cruelty.
some will argue that prairies are stocking CO2. yes they are, but the cattle growing on them will produce more.
some will argue that eating soy will give you boobs. I’m sorry but it won’t. too bad if it’s boobs you were looking for.
etc etc. the scientific literature is quite explicit on this matter. all that I know is that if we decided to switch to a total plant based alimentation right now, we would need a period of transition were cattle or fishing will still be needed in some specific countries with specific ecosystem.
at the end if you end up eating this protein instead of giving it to the animal to grow tissue you always will win in efficiency.
but most people don’t want to eat what we feed to livestock. and a lot of what we do feed to livestock is actually parts of plants that we have already taken what we want from. another significant part of livestock food is just grazed grass, which takes almost no effort on our part and which we can’t eat anyway.
it’s cute you think i haven’t. i have some real problems with poore-nemecek 2018, and i will flat-out dismiss any paper based on it. i was recently linked to one that came out same year but whose author i cannot remember that dealt with LCAs that also had terrible methodology. if those two papers are representative at all of the state of the current research into agricultural ecology, the field is a fucking disgrace to the academy. and, unfortunately, many of the papers that have come out in the last 5 years are based on poore-nemecek, and should be rigorously evaluated.
but since you seem like you have read some papers on the subject, do you have any to suggest?
the owid links are heavily dependent on poore-nemecek and i’m not going to bother trying to separate the wheat from the chaff there. i don’t know if i’ve seen cassidy2013 or Erb 2016, but i will certainly be digging into them and their methodology. i am very concerned about the fact that poore-nemecek shows up in the references for Eisen 2022. if you’ve read these can you explain the methodology? if not, can i task you with actually reading eisen et al (and its references) so you can explain its methodology while i read the other two?
Oh no this would be a waste of your time I’m afraid I’m not a researcher in this field but follow the work of some. Unfortunately they are not active around here so I can’t even tag them.
You seems pretty articulate tho. Can I ask for your credentials?
it’s not because a product is not made in a industrial fashion that it’s de facto good, sustainable or eco friendly. it’s like calling natural stuff better than chemical stuff. it’s just a common bias.
you can’t get meat without giving a lot of proteins to an animal. at the end if you end up eating this protein instead of giving it to the animal to grow tissue you always will win in efficiency.
some will argue that we can’t eat grass. that’s right we can’t. but with all things considered if we eat proteins from plants we can digest, the balance will always be positive, regarding CO2 emissions, natural ressources being wasted like soil and water, and naturally the cruelty.
some will argue that prairies are stocking CO2. yes they are, but the cattle growing on them will produce more.
some will argue that eating soy will give you boobs. I’m sorry but it won’t. too bad if it’s boobs you were looking for.
etc etc. the scientific literature is quite explicit on this matter. all that I know is that if we decided to switch to a total plant based alimentation right now, we would need a period of transition were cattle or fishing will still be needed in some specific countries with specific ecosystem.
but most people don’t want to eat what we feed to livestock. and a lot of what we do feed to livestock is actually parts of plants that we have already taken what we want from. another significant part of livestock food is just grazed grass, which takes almost no effort on our part and which we can’t eat anyway.
Still not worth it regarding the outcome if not for the dollar generated for the few.
We need to stop destroying our resources.
Please go read some papers on the subject.
it’s cute you think i haven’t. i have some real problems with poore-nemecek 2018, and i will flat-out dismiss any paper based on it. i was recently linked to one that came out same year but whose author i cannot remember that dealt with LCAs that also had terrible methodology. if those two papers are representative at all of the state of the current research into agricultural ecology, the field is a fucking disgrace to the academy. and, unfortunately, many of the papers that have come out in the last 5 years are based on poore-nemecek, and should be rigorously evaluated.
but since you seem like you have read some papers on the subject, do you have any to suggest?
edit:
minor typo AND i looked up the paper: Heller, MC (2018)
I am cute and hope that you feel so too.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11382?origin=ppub
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
IPCC reports are on their website.
the owid links are heavily dependent on poore-nemecek and i’m not going to bother trying to separate the wheat from the chaff there. i don’t know if i’ve seen cassidy2013 or Erb 2016, but i will certainly be digging into them and their methodology. i am very concerned about the fact that poore-nemecek shows up in the references for Eisen 2022. if you’ve read these can you explain the methodology? if not, can i task you with actually reading eisen et al (and its references) so you can explain its methodology while i read the other two?
Oh no this would be a waste of your time I’m afraid I’m not a researcher in this field but follow the work of some. Unfortunately they are not active around here so I can’t even tag them.
You seems pretty articulate tho. Can I ask for your credentials?