Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 205 posts

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#71

Post by dustingetz »

HNcantBtrustd wrote: post #68
solotronics wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, animals can digest many forms of plant that are useless as human food such as plains grasses and tree leaves. Vegetarianism is elitist in that many people on earth cannot afford to foregoe any availible source of protein and food, there are starving people already and telling someone in Africa they shouldn't eat a chicken that forages near their house is pretty narrow minded. I tend to eat vegetarian on my own…

Vegetarian is lower cost and better for the environment. Protein per calorie doesn't seem comparable.

Protein per calorie is higher in e.g. spinach but 1000 calories of spinach is like 6 bags.

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#72

Post by squish78 »

samvher wrote: post #52
chrisco255 wrote: post #41

This quote: "Ecologically, these Archaic hunters and gatherers had moved one entire link down the food chain, thereby eliminating the approximately 90-percent loss in food value that occurs when one feeds on an animal that is a plant-eater." This is just completely false. All meat consumed is bioavailable protein and nutrients. Even more so when it's cooked. Plants have reduced bioavailability due to high oxalate, ph…

The idea that a piece of meat is more nutritious than the same mass in plant matter is not in conflict with the idea that an ecosystem can feed more vegetarians than omni/carnivores.

Except in the winter in temperate climates when you can't harvest enough calories or protein to survive on a vegetarian diet

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#73

Post by spodek »

solotronics wrote: post #46
chrisco255 wrote: post #41

This quote: "Ecologically, these Archaic hunters and gatherers had moved one entire link down the food chain, thereby eliminating the approximately 90-percent loss in food value that occurs when one feeds on an animal that is a plant-eater." This is just completely false. All meat consumed is bioavailable protein and nutrients. Even more so when it's cooked. Plants have reduced bioavailability due to high oxalate, ph…

Also, animals can digest many forms of plant that are useless as human food such as plains grasses and tree leaves. Vegetarianism is elitist in that many people on earth cannot afford to foregoe any availible source of protein and food, there are starving people already and telling someone in Africa they shouldn't eat a chicken that forages near their house is pretty narrow minded. I tend to eat vegetarian on my own…

What does being vegetarian have to do with telling other people what they should or shouldn't eat?

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#74

Post by whatshisface »

ahelwer wrote: post #69
masklinn wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you eat an animal, you are consuming (in this analysis) all nutrients it has consumed over its entire life, of which 90% are wasted vs. just eating those nutrients yourself. Most of those nutrients you, as a human being, either can't eat at all or get nothing from. Humans can't feed on hay and silage.

Yeah, and the vast amounts of land used to grow those things can be redirected to other things that humans can eat. I have no idea why otherwise smart people get such a brain block on the topic of meat-eating. These "gotcha" points fall apart if you take 10 seconds to think about it.

I'm not an expert on global agriculture, but a lot of the famous Texas cattle ranches can basically only grow grass. If the natural state of the land is brush that only goes up to your ankles you aren't going to feed much other than grazers off it. The efficient solution would be to use the good land to grow food and the rest of the land to feed livestock, and that's what tends to happen (feedlot factory farms fueled by cereal crops notwithstanding).

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#75

Post by conjectures »

ahelwer wrote: post #69
masklinn wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you eat an animal, you are consuming (in this analysis) all nutrients it has consumed over its entire life, of which 90% are wasted vs. just eating those nutrients yourself. Most of those nutrients you, as a human being, either can't eat at all or get nothing from. Humans can't feed on hay and silage.

Yeah, and the vast amounts of land used to grow those things can be redirected to other things that humans can eat. I have no idea why otherwise smart people get such a brain block on the topic of meat-eating. These "gotcha" points fall apart if you take 10 seconds to think about it.

Yup. Think I've heard them all over the course of 20 years.

The obvious explanation is that people don't like the implication that their behaviour is unethical and look for clever outs. Rather than simply owning that benefits > costs from their point of view (a la 'I like bacon too much').

Of course questioning motivations is not a point to be made in an argument. However it is an entirely satisfactory Bayesian explanation of why so many people take the other side of the argument with such force.

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#76

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

chrisco255 wrote: post #41

This quote: "Ecologically, these Archaic hunters and gatherers had moved one entire link down the food chain, thereby eliminating the approximately 90-percent loss in food value that occurs when one feeds on an animal that is a plant-eater." This is just completely false. All meat consumed is bioavailable protein and nutrients. Even more so when it's cooked. Plants have reduced bioavailability due to high oxalate, ph…

I agree that the claim about "food value" is in need of rewording, but it's context makes it clear that we're talking the total number of meals that the ecology of the region can provide, and not the percentage of any given meal that happens to be bioavailable.

It's not about running faster than your vegetarian rival, it's about whether your tribe collapses because there isn't enough food.

Yeah, not all plant matter is food for humans, but if you only had, say, 100 square miles, and you wanted it to support as many humans as possible, how would you allocate resources between hunting and gathering?

The point is not that one choice is better than the other, it's that those who happened to make the right choice at the right time were the ones that survived.

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#77

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

chrisco255 wrote: post #41

This quote: "Ecologically, these Archaic hunters and gatherers had moved one entire link down the food chain, thereby eliminating the approximately 90-percent loss in food value that occurs when one feeds on an animal that is a plant-eater." This is just completely false. All meat consumed is bioavailable protein and nutrients. Even more so when it's cooked. Plants have reduced bioavailability due to high oxalate, ph…

> This is just completely false. All meat consumed is bioavailable protein and nutrients.

I think you're missing the point entirely. It's about the calories needed to feed the animal, and the 10:1 ratio is the usual number quoted for this.

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#78

Post by nyolfen »

spodek wrote: post #73
solotronics wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, animals can digest many forms of plant that are useless as human food such as plains grasses and tree leaves. Vegetarianism is elitist in that many people on earth cannot afford to foregoe any availible source of protein and food, there are starving people already and telling someone in Africa they shouldn't eat a chicken that forages near their house is pretty narrow minded. I tend to eat vegetarian on my own…

What does being vegetarian have to do with telling other people what they should or shouldn't eat?

lifestyles are typically packaged with identities, which are packaged with values

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#79

Post by Gomer1800 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #41

This quote: "Ecologically, these Archaic hunters and gatherers had moved one entire link down the food chain, thereby eliminating the approximately 90-percent loss in food value that occurs when one feeds on an animal that is a plant-eater." This is just completely false. All meat consumed is bioavailable protein and nutrients. Even more so when it's cooked. Plants have reduced bioavailability due to high oxalate, ph…

“Humans would have never evolved the ability to eat meat if it didn't confer a natural advantage over foragers.”

Is this really true though about evolution in general. Evolution happens because of adaptations due to selective pressures. This doesn’t necessarily mean that evolutionary changes are beneficial.

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#80

Post by squish78 »

ahelwer wrote: post #69
masklinn wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you eat an animal, you are consuming (in this analysis) all nutrients it has consumed over its entire life, of which 90% are wasted vs. just eating those nutrients yourself. Most of those nutrients you, as a human being, either can't eat at all or get nothing from. Humans can't feed on hay and silage.

Yeah, and the vast amounts of land used to grow those things can be redirected to other things that humans can eat. I have no idea why otherwise smart people get such a brain block on the topic of meat-eating. These "gotcha" points fall apart if you take 10 seconds to think about it.

Those vast amounts of land usually don't have viable soil for multi-year agriculture. Arable land is limited
Post reply on HN