Amazon soya and beef exports 'linked to deforestation' • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon soya and beef exports 'linked to deforestation'

#61

Post by rhn_mk1 » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 2:16 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #53

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the lens of "who will clean this up", future generations. Looking at "who was there before and will be after my visit", then human civilization outlives each and every one of us.

>Looking at the lens of "who will clean this up", future generations. And how do we weigh the satisfaction of potential future people against people currently existing? It's not easy; if we assign some value to future people, then that implies we should try to have more children, to maximise the sum total of future people's satisfaction. >Looking at "who was there before and will be after my visit", then human civili…

> if we assign some value to future people, then that implies we should try to have more children, to maximise the sum total of future people's satisfaction.

Not quite. While it would be true (The Repugnant Conclusion) if every future person had positive quality of life, there can be a point where adding new people pushes everyone's quality of life into negative.

> Metaphysically speaking, it's quite possible that every moment of human experience is going to happen anyway, regardless of what we do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain.

My point was more that the purpose of life could be seen as sustaining the continuity of this civilization. Presumably, Boltzmann brains would not correspond to any civilization more often than any other, so they don't take anything away from the value of a life and the duty to preserve resources.

Re: Amazon soya and beef exports 'linked to deforestation'

#62

Post by afandian » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 2:20 PM UTC

bzb3 wrote: post #32

afandian wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what I mean. The immediate response is often one of dismissal, and it takes quite a lot of effort to move beyond it.

Would you say what of any other political position? Probably not.

Not sure what you're trying to say.

But IMHO any belief is worth challenging. 'Bad' beliefs should be pushed back on, 'good' beliefs should stand more than surface leven scrutiny.

Re: Amazon soya and beef exports 'linked to deforestation'

#63

Post by chrisdirkis » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 2:35 PM UTC

tiew9Vii wrote: post #60

MaximumYComb wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many calories are you eating daily and how many grams of protein? Unless you're a bodybuilder at the end of a cut it wouldn't be very hard to get enough protein on even 2000 calories. I know this because I'm a large, military serving man who has been full vegan and now chooses to eat vegan where possible. The big loss is food culture. It revolves around meat and animal products.

I’ve looked in to eating more non meat meals. What I struggled with is getting the macros right. For example to hit 190g of protein a day, eating vegan my carbs would be way up compared to my current diet. At the moment I’m trying to drop body fat and from dexa scans/metabolic test they recommend I keep my protein high, increase fats and try to reduce carbs. I’ve tried doing the macros on a few vegan recipes but stru…

From a quick search, common dietary recommendations for protein seem to be 0.8g to 1.4g per kg bodyweight per day. 190g per day would likely be way more than most people need, being that both a) a lot of people weigh less than 190/1.4 (much less 190/0.8) and b) a lot of people won't need more than the standard dietary requirements of protein.

Definitely seems like you're not in at least one of these sets, though, so definitely not going for a "I know more about a healthy diet for you than you do", because hahaha no I don't. Mostly just posting to emphasise to casual readers that they (likely) don't need to target 190g protein per day.

Re: Amazon soya and beef exports 'linked to deforestation'

#64

Post by chrisdirkis » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 2:43 PM UTC

captainmuon wrote: post #36

afandian wrote: post #4

Here's an interesting thought experiment for meat-eaters: Why not stop eating beef? your response might be a knee-jerk "but I really like it!". Everyone knows the huge environmental costs we are responsible for when eating meat. But it's really interesting to pursue the tension in your own personal logic-brain vs lizard want-it-brain. I've stopped eating most refined sugar and massively cut down on meat in the past f…

Here's my unorthodox take. If I do the morally right thing and decide to stop eating beef, why should I be punished by not getting to eat beef ? It sounds silly but I'm not kidding. If I could vote to reduce the global production of beef by one average person's consumption, I would do so immediately. I would probably continue to eat it though. I'm aware that many people would make the same choice, and this will resul…

A fun take from the currently defunct SlateStarCodex was buying "offsets" for activities you wanted to support. Carbon offsets for plane trips already exist, in the range of $30 to $150 or so.

In theory, you could find someone who normally eats meat and offer them some amount of money per day to be vegetarian/vegan (or, find two people and pay them to halve their meat intake, or whatever). This might satisfy a moral obligation while costing you in a currency that you're happier to spend.

The obvious argument is "why not buy offsets and then also not do the bad thing for 2x effect". I don't think anyone's morally obligated to buy carbon offsets arbitrarily even if they're not flying, and similarly, maybe people aren't obligated to not do the bad thing either? But this gets into the weeds of moral obligation in general, which is probably a complex topic. Suffice to say, while buying an offset might cost some amount of money, not eating meat is ~free, and that's a trade some people may be willing to make if they're feeling obliged to reduce meat production too.

Re: Amazon soya and beef exports 'linked to deforestation'

#65

Post by normallove » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 3:37 PM UTC

afandian wrote: post #4

Here's an interesting thought experiment for meat-eaters: Why not stop eating beef? your response might be a knee-jerk "but I really like it!". Everyone knows the huge environmental costs we are responsible for when eating meat. But it's really interesting to pursue the tension in your own personal logic-brain vs lizard want-it-brain. I've stopped eating most refined sugar and massively cut down on meat in the past f…

Red meat is possibly the most nutrient dense food in the world. With everything from essential proteins and fats, to minerals like zinc, iron and magnesium, to water soluble vitamins like biotin. It's also tasty and satisfying to eat.

My parents had only two children, same as my grandparents. My family isn't growing and taking up an exponential amount of resources, so I do not personally feel responsible for unsustainable population growth. Therefore I will not sacrifice my health and well-being in order to satisfy some resource quota being morally applied. Meat production isn't even a proportionally large source of energy use compared to transportation and electricity, so being asked to give up eating it to increase sustainability before larger slices of the pie are confronted really smacks of dogmatic imperialism.

I think the discussion would fare far better with people who think along lines that I do, if you focused on 'how can we make meat production more energy and land efficient' instead of 'you are sinful for eating meat, give it up.' More efficient grazing patterns and breeding animals to better digest alternative food sources like kelp, for example, are promising. I'm sure there are many other avenues yet thought up.

Re: Amazon soya and beef exports 'linked to deforestation'

#66

Post by luckylion » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 3:50 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #58

luckylion wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But hey, it's all the media making up a story. I'm on a diet, please don't put words into my mouth. There are months that we have too little rain, but we're far from continuous drought conditions. We're still getting 50+ liters/sqm per month.

Germany is in drought conditions. https://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=37937

That's a different issue entirely from ground water though. The droughts mentioned are surface water, not ground water. The lower water usage does affect ground water levels but not surface water, because we're not pumping up surface water. That's not a specifically German issue, many regions that have less industry now than they had 60 years ago are dealing with the same problem.

The surface water strongly affects farms and forests, but we won't change that by using less ground water (unless the hope is to have the ground water climb to -1m everywhere, at which point we're living in a bog). Additionally, rising ground water might have nasty side effects for plants, as salt in the earth will also be transported up.

Surface water retention is about management, not about offsetting that with savings. We do get plenty of surface water, but much of it will be "wasted" because it'll cause floods. Aggressive diking and straightening of rivers does play a part there, and we'll be wise to adapt to changing weather patterns and climate.

Re: Amazon soya and beef exports 'linked to deforestation'

#67

Post by henearkr » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 3:51 PM UTC

anwseringmrns wrote: post #41

henearkr wrote: post #28

Personally, I take my proteins in lentils. And yeast. I completely cut my soya some times ago on health considerations: phytoestrogens and poor fat quality of soya.

Why are you afraid of phytoestrogens? they are lowering estrogen levels and don't affect testosterone.

I admit it is only a speculation, but I made a link between the phytoestrogens and some health problem I had.

I had a scare with a autoimmune problem, but luckily it was benign. However I learnt that estrogens weaken the mechanism by which the body learns to avoid fighting itself, and that it was explaining why women had a lot more of some kinds of autoimmune diseases than men. And the missing puzzle piece was when I understood that my autoimmune problem started a few years after I discovered Japanese food culture, and as I had always been in fond of soy drinks, soy creams, tofu, etc, when I was in Japan I was drinking/eating/dreaming soy every meal of every day (this for a few years).

Are you sure about they are lowering estrogens level?

To draw you the picture, I was drinking tonyu (soy drink) all the time so there always was some in my stomach (except when I was sleeping). Maybe the mechanism by which phytoestrogens lower blood level estrogens works only when you give it time to overcompensate after your last intake.

Re: Amazon soya and beef exports 'linked to deforestation'

#68

Post by anwseringmrns » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 4:52 PM UTC

henearkr wrote: post #67

anwseringmrns wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you afraid of phytoestrogens? they are lowering estrogen levels and don't affect testosterone.

I admit it is only a speculation, but I made a link between the phytoestrogens and some health problem I had. I had a scare with a autoimmune problem, but luckily it was benign. However I learnt that estrogens weaken the mechanism by which the body learns to avoid fighting itself, and that it was explaining why women had a lot more of some kinds of autoimmune diseases than men. And the missing puzzle piece was when I…

You can read about estrogen lowering effect of soy milk here (studies included) - outline.com/5UkBSS

Re: Amazon soya and beef exports 'linked to deforestation'

#69

Post by jiofih » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

simias wrote: post #51

jiofih wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The water doesn’t get “spent” though, unless you manage to turn it into some toxic sludge (which I imagine US farms do). In the usual resource lifecycle of a cattle farm, that water goes right back where it came from - 99% is “green water”.

Animal urine and feces are not clean water, if you only have a couple of animals it doesn't matter but at a large scale you need to treat it before releasing it into the wild unless you want to taint the water supply. Of course the water molecules don't disappear, but that's not the point. There's plenty of water on earth, but only a tiny fraction is clean enough for human consumption. If you pour your bottle of mine…

This is only a problem for mass-scale industrial farming - that is the thing to be avoided instead of looking for fixes for its consequences.

Re: Amazon soya and beef exports 'linked to deforestation'

#70

Post by UweSchmidt » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 5:29 PM UTC

MaximumYComb wrote: post #52

UweSchmidt wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the availability of vegetarian / vegan meals in western society. Sophisticated food culture revolves around meat. It requires planning and work (in addition to dealing with the lizard brain). In particular, as a gym-goer I want my protein, and if soya is out too, then it's quite a bit more difficult. Excuses, I know.

How many calories are you eating daily and how many grams of protein? Unless you're a bodybuilder at the end of a cut it wouldn't be very hard to get enough protein on even 2000 calories. I know this because I'm a large, military serving man who has been full vegan and now chooses to eat vegan where possible. The big loss is food culture. It revolves around meat and animal products.

If you order a normal salad in a restaurant, not the salad with chicken, you get very little protein I assume. Where is the vegan protein, non soja, anyway? Rhetorical question, it's on me to do the research, but here we are. A piece of meat is always available and estimating "enough protein today" is easy. It's getting better of course, restaurant and supermarket selections are improving.