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

141–150 of 314 posts

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

#141

Post by zamfi »

diordiderot wrote: post #85
zamfi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

AHH a classic right wing gotcha https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som...

Huh?

We need to both (a) reduce emissions from transport, and (b) reduce emissions from agriculture.

The parent poster was implying (presumably, because my original post was saying “we should do both” in response to a post that said “(a) is irrelevant, only (b) matters”) that anyone not doing (b) was killing the planet, and I’m pointing out here that if that’s true, anyone not doing (a) is also killing the planet.

We need both! It’s not optional! Half these conversations are “ok sure but X is really all that matters!” — and that is completely false.

We need to reduce or eliminate emissions from all sources, full stop.

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

#142

Post by zamfi »

tcfhgj wrote: post #86
zamfi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

why do you have to have your own solar panels? doesn't make any sense to me I agree however on biking (or public transport). I will always try to live max 15-20km away from work, such that I always can use a bike or a velomobile. Please don't try to make ad hominem arguments, thanks.

“Own” as in “not from a grid” not self-manufactured.

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

#143

Post by lotsofpulp »

rexpop wrote: post #131
lotsofpulp wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

I wrote that women’s education is necessary, but not sufficient. All the women in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan can have PhDs, but it is not going to do them much good if the men collectively decide to oppress them.

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

#145

Post by bmitc »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #60
bmitc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Here's two I recently watched.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO__r8Q0bmU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVwrUsib4vU

They are a bit dry, as he is an academic through and through, but he is an academic that has spent a large amount of time in the field.

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

#146

Post by zamfi »

fortysixdegrees wrote: post #138
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.

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

Again…both are helpful.

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

#147

Post by [deleted] »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #117
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?

Most places outside Africa are contracting or rapidly turning toward it, with only a few places avoiding that fate. As the other poster pointed out, this is certainly true (and disastrous) for China, who accelerated their own population crash through communism's attacks on traditional religion and policies against children. Why would we need to reduce world population?

[deleted]

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

#148

Post by lvl102 »

wartijn_ wrote: post #137
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.

If we can cut our population by 1/2 or even 1/4 we would dramatically reduce pollution and increase resources per capita.

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

#149

Post by bell-cot »

orionion wrote: post #34

The 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…

Any reason not to have rye on your "important today" list?

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

#150

Post by Retric »

novok wrote: post #135
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.

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…

First most cattle in the US get the majority of calories over their lifetime from crops not directly grazing land.

The actual percentage breakdown is for land completely dependent on irrigation and land preparation. It’s not cost effective to use huge tracts of land for crops because we have such excess farmland, but maximum production would involve zero animals whatsoever.

Further, actual productivity on marginal or untended land is by definition very low. Cattle grazing on scrub that gets minimal rainfall is very expensive both in terms of effort and the energy expended by cattle to extract what little food is available while generally leading to desertification.

In terms of converting waste products, such organic material has a wide range of uses including feeding livestock. You could for example burn it for energy so calling it a waste product is very misleading.

Post reply on HN