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

Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 314 posts

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#51

Post by zamfi »

wyre wrote: post #42
zamfi wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this kind of post is not, as you might surmise, that people disagree with the notion that reducing meat consumption is helpful from an emissions perspective. It is that the binary presentation implies an either-or when in fact both are helpful. Plus it just shits on people and nobody likes that.

There is no more time left for this kind of pragmatism. It doesn’t matter it people disagree, the truth is supporting meat consumption is supporting industries that are actively killing us and the planet.

I assume you are being serious, but the truth is that supporting ICE vehicle sales and the fossil fuel industry as a result is supporting industries that are actively killing us and the planet also.

I sure hope you bike (or drive a conflict-free electric car, I guess?) and are powered by your own solar panels if you feel this way.

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#52

Post by melling »

mahogany wrote: post #46
melling wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, providing supporting evidence would be helpful. After a quick look, the data doesn’t seem to support your claim? https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... I still get the feeling that 40% of the electricity globally being generated from coal is a far bigger problem. Because of the war, coal usage is actually increasing. https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/06/24/all-the-european-c... Those…

Asking genuinely: what point are you making with that EPA data? That switching our method of transportation is more impactful than switching our diet because transportation is a bigger chunk of the emissions pie?

Transportation and electricity add up to 52% of emissions. All of agriculture is 11%. What part of that is meat? A little more than half?

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#53

Post by zamfi »

mahogany wrote: post #46
melling wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, providing supporting evidence would be helpful. After a quick look, the data doesn’t seem to support your claim? https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... I still get the feeling that 40% of the electricity globally being generated from coal is a far bigger problem. Because of the war, coal usage is actually increasing. https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/06/24/all-the-european-c... Those…

Asking genuinely: what point are you making with that EPA data? That switching our method of transportation is more impactful than switching our diet because transportation is a bigger chunk of the emissions pie?

Not the OP, but I’d guess: yes.

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#54

Post by Maursault »

mcdonje wrote: post #48
wintermutestwin wrote: post #8

A staggering amount of California's water is used for alfalfa, which gets shipped to China to feed cows. In essence, we are allowing certain farmers to sell CA's water to China.

The alfalfa is also used for cows grown in CA for CA residents. That's also a bad thing. Cow farms should be significantly limited in arid climates. There are ecologically better alternatives.

There are way too many cows, man, and all because of marketing and greed.

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#55

Post by zamfi »

heretogetout wrote: post #40
zamfi wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this kind of post is not, as you might surmise, that people disagree with the notion that reducing meat consumption is helpful from an emissions perspective. It is that the binary presentation implies an either-or when in fact both are helpful. Plus it just shits on people and nobody likes that.

Isn't the math clear that meat consumption requires more emissions than non-meat consumption, on average (as in per calorie)?

Did I say somewhere that meat consumption is not problematic?

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#56

Post by cookiengineer »

fortysixdegrees wrote: post #24

Quoted post unavailable.

Take my upvote, cause you're right!

Also: don't drive a car to begin with. Use muscle power wherever possible. All weight that's not you and not your stuff and that's transported is a waste of energy.

Moving a 2500kg+ car to transport a 100kg human to buy less than 20kg of groceries? Only humans could come up with that.

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#57

Post by nradov »

heretogetout wrote: post #40
zamfi wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this kind of post is not, as you might surmise, that people disagree with the notion that reducing meat consumption is helpful from an emissions perspective. It is that the binary presentation implies an either-or when in fact both are helpful. Plus it just shits on people and nobody likes that.

Isn't the math clear that meat consumption requires more emissions than non-meat consumption, on average (as in per calorie)?

You should probably sit still and not move around too much in order to minimize the number of calories you need to stay alive. If that's the metric we're optimizing for, anyway.

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#58

Post by RhysU »

bmitc wrote: post #27
karmakurtisaani wrote: post #4

In 70 something years we went from 60% forest coverage of earth's land mass to 30%. I can't help but wonder how it would be without any animal agriculture.

It is a really depressing reality that we have carved out. It isn't even clear to me at all what we've gained through this destruction. It also isn't clear if the Green Revolution was a net long-term benefit. You might be interested in the book Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States by James C. Scott. I have it sitting on my desk and have watched some talks by the author, but I haven't gotten to the…

That is an excellent book.

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#60

Post by toomuchtodo »

bmitc wrote: post #27
karmakurtisaani wrote: post #4

In 70 something years we went from 60% forest coverage of earth's land mass to 30%. I can't help but wonder how it would be without any animal agriculture.

It is a really depressing reality that we have carved out. It isn't even clear to me at all what we've gained through this destruction. It also isn't clear if the Green Revolution was a net long-term benefit. You might be interested in the book Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States by James C. Scott. I have it sitting on my desk and have watched some talks by the author, but I haven't gotten to the…

Would you happen to have any links to the talks you mentioned?
Post reply on HN