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

131–140 of 314 posts

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

#131

Post by rexpop »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #115
bsder wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy. Educate women. As soon as that happens, the reproduction rate falls below the replacement rate. The problem is that global society is actually not ready for a population that shrinks instead of grows. Many of our institutions are effectively pyramid schemes that rely on more people entering the bottom and paying for them than pull out money and exit from the top. (Side note: I believe China is actually falling.…

> Easy. Educate women. Since men are physically more powerful, you also need a society with laws and people that will protect women and women’s rights. Women’s rights to mate with who they want, when they want, how they want, and earn income and be financially independent to be able to make those decisions independently.

Educating women is the most effective way of equipping them to protect their own interests.

To enlighten yourself, consider reading Federici's "Revolution at Point Zero" and Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed."

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

#132

Post by tootie »

tillinghast wrote: post #90
samatman wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reality, the United States is the largest exporter of calories in the world, and the overwhelming source of direct food aid, and has been since WWII.

This is giving the dystopian chills when I consider that the Uber-wealthy proponents of population reduction (Bill Gates) are buying up crop land. Long game?

Gates never advocated population reduction. He has advocated for improvements in human development that inevitably leads to reduced fertility rates (ie slower growth). Gates owns a lot of farmland for one guy, but it's a miniscule percentage of the total farmland in the US.

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

#133

Post by guerby »

tedk-42 wrote: post #105
jazzyjackson wrote: post #69

Earlier 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…

Surely the methane they produce far outweighs any carbon sink benefits

Before this:

https://theconversation.com/historical-photo-of-mountain-of-...

There were a lot of bisons in the americas, estimated 60 millions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison

"With a population in excess of 60 million in the late 18th century, the species was down to just 541 animals by 1889."

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2022/01-31-2022.php

"There were 91.9 million head of cattle and calves on U.S. farms as of Jan. 1, 2022"

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

#134

Post by zoomablemind »

> "... a Russian naval blockade has prevented past harvests from reaching their destinations. The loss of this output has caused already high grain prices to surge. The World Food Programme warns that 47m people are at risk of hunger as a result."

I understand that the point of the article is about reallocating and tightening up the belts of consumption, so to speak. However, how about exerting more pressure onto the aggressor which russia openly is?

The world needs to recognize russia's actions as deliberate and premeditated steps to cause the collapses in food supply chains. This is not opportunistic, but rather a calculated policy, just as it is with gas and oil supply.

It's not about the cattle, it's about the "humans" in charge of the kremlin!

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

#135

Post by novok »

Retric wrote: post #93
jazzyjackson wrote: post #69

Earlier 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.

Only about %25 of agricultural land is arable and viable for growing crops, the other %75 can only be grazed by ruminants like cattle. Just on that fact alone, ruminant animals are never going away from the food supply until you could synthesize everything in a lab from some basic raw materials, and have that food actually be healthy to humans. That is long, long long away. Without cows, the prices of vegetables will go up a lot and put even more pressure on the remaining %25 of land.

There is something to be said about growing animal feed on arable land to feed to animals directly although that could be used to make food that humans can digest directly instead. But you still need bio-available protein, and plants do really badly on that. If you actual compare meat to plant matter on what is actually digested and absorbed by humans to get the equivalent nutrition, you'll find that plants actually do not perform that well beyond carbs and some micro-nutrients on an efficiency basis. You still need fat, protein and the other micro-nutrients.

Animals also convert indigestible agricultural waste products from plant growing into something humans can use, meat.

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

#136

Post by justinclift »

collegeburner wrote: post #128
Retric wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> to get protein out of plants. Humans can not extract that protein ...

Doesn't that mean "choose different plants" would be the more efficient / better approach there?

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

#137

Post by wartijn_ »

lvl102 wrote: post #102

Seems we need to reduce world population by 1/2 or more. Aren’t we at least contracting in developed countries? Anyway to ask India/China to stop growing so fast?

That seems like a strange conclusion to draw from this article. It even says "But in fact, more than enough grain is already grown to meet humanity’s needs." Seems more like the number of people isn't the biggest problem, but the lifestyle of a part of those people is. To me it look like the problem will be solved if North America and Europe drastically reduce their meat consumption.

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

#138

Post by fortysixdegrees »

zamfi wrote: post #29
fortysixdegrees wrote: post #24

Quoted post unavailable.

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.

People with lots of resources do the EV and solar panel thing and get sasiated. Right - box ticked, move on.

Making a difference requires reducing travel, reducing the use of all heavy transport, reducing meat consumption.

Solar panels are great, but you don't get let off the hook because you've gone and spent the cash to do it and be guilt free from there on

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

#139

Post by robocat »

sumy23 wrote: post #130
pessimizer wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And in 20 years time, it will be your turn to be retroactively punished for currently belonging to a society that is burning the world?

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

#140

Post by fortysixdegrees »

tcfhgj wrote: post #84
jazzyjackson wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

depends on the meat and the non-meat. There is carbon-negative beef, and there are plants that require enormous amounts of artificial soil additives. Probably the biggest factor is whether the meat comes from a ranch in your general area and if the bell-pepper in your salad was flown in from holland.

meet the reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Hq8eVOMHs&t=4s

Great video.

What seems obvious to those of us interested in the topic is clearly quite foreign to most people in this forum after reading the comments.

Post reply on HN