Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but I don't think 'fixing the climate' is really a very strong one. and why is that?
They say why in the rest of the comment.
But they don't, really. They just try to distract us, instead. Works on some.
Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans
121–130 of 314 posts
Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans
#122Go vegan
Yeah but my ancestors natural human history circle of life top-of-the-food chain indigenous people crop deaths protein deficiency b12 free-range cage-free humanely-killed cow overpopulation lions and gazelles moral relativity plants feel pain canine teeth bacon is delicious though
Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I said, there's a limit to such land, and a limit to how much cattle that can be raised on that land. There's a reason why cattle farming went from extensive to intensive methods.
Limit? The US federal government has over 100 million acres of public land for animal grazing.
That is another problem.
And it anyway affects only the US, a very small fraction of world population or land area. That the US is a very large part of the problem, e.g. importing beef, does not help.
Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans
#124The grass family contains over 9,000 species distributed throughout the world. Of that, 35 have been cultivated as cereals. Of these, the following are important today: Barley, Corn, Goat grass, Millet, Oats, Rice, Sorghum, and Wheat. Of the important grains and/or cereals listed above, only corn (maize) is a New World native. Corn is an important member of the grass family. Corn (Zea mays) was domesticated from a wi…
>Of the important grains and/or cereals listed above...
I'm not sure what you meant to communicate with "and/or", but "and" would probably have sufficed.
Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans
#125In 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.
Humans and our domesticated animals really dominate the planets resources. I wonder how long it can sustain us mistreating it like we do. "Humans and their livestock represent 96% of all mammals on earth in terms of biomass, whereas all wild mammals represent only 4%" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29#/media/F... "The standing biomass of domesticated poultry, mostly chickens, has been calculated as…
Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans
#126Quoted post unavailable.
There’re many ways people can reduce their impact on environment. Buying $60k+ luxury cars isn’t one. Reducing amount of meat can be, but you can give a shit and reduce your impact much more while still eating a lot of meat. People screaming that unless you reduce meat intake you’re killing earth are as narrowly minded focused on single issue as people screaming that unless you buy an EV, you’re killing earth.
not true not true
Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't worry, CA can't do it forever as that water is coming out of a giant underground sea that is collapsing, it will never fill up again. https://energyskeptic.com/2021/aquifer-decline-in-california... https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/c... https://revealnews.org/article/9-sobering-facts-about-califo...
The profits that went to a few human owners of that agribusiness should be clawed back
That won't put the water back. Revenge is just the final form of prioritizing the comfort (or discomfort) of a handful of bad actors over the well-being of the other 99.9999% of the world.
There's no answer except functioning government and the general eradication of solipsistic liberal/libertarian fantasies, and that's never going to happen.
Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're pumping water to grow grass in the desert just for the beef, there are better uses for the water. However, cows have the unique ability to turn grass into protein, so if all an area can grow is grass, cows are a great way to get calories out of it. Properly allowed to graze freely, cows can be a net improvement on a particular ecology as a carbon sink (manure is an improvement to the soil), but shipping the…
You get more protein per X acres eating corn than feeding that same corn to cows and eating the cows. If you prefer meat then chicken is worse than eating corn but still much better than cows. We eat beef because it’s delicious and that’s it’s only advantage at scale.
No, ruminants use bacteria we don't have to get protein out of plants. Humans can not extract that protein, so we use animals to do it then eat them.
Theres about 30 grams protein in 1000 calories of corn. There's about 90 grams in 1000 calories beef. This is because cows are very good at extracting protein.
Also, I can just let cows graze on Texas praire. I can't necessarily do that with corn.
Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
The profits that went to a few human owners of that agribusiness should be clawed back
That won't put the water back. Revenge is just the final form of prioritizing the comfort (or discomfort) of a handful of bad actors over the well-being of the other 99.9999% of the world. There's no answer except functioning government and the general eradication of solipsistic liberal/libertarian fantasies, and that's never going to happen.
> That won't put the water back.
No, but it will partially compensate for impacted communities' subsequent economic precarity.
Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
The profits that went to a few human owners of that agribusiness should be clawed back
That won't put the water back. Revenge is just the final form of prioritizing the comfort (or discomfort) of a handful of bad actors over the well-being of the other 99.9999% of the world. There's no answer except functioning government and the general eradication of solipsistic liberal/libertarian fantasies, and that's never going to happen.
> That won't put the water back. Revenge is just the final form of prioritizing the comfort (or discomfort) of a handful of bad actors over the well-being of the other 99.9999% of the world.
Punishing the perpetrators won’t put the water back in the same way punishing a murderer won’t bring the victim back. We don’t punish to make right. We punish to deter.