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

291–300 of 314 posts

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

#291

Post by cheese_goddess »

uwagar wrote: post #258
cheese_goddess wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is patently false. It is burning fossil fuels that is destroying the planet by contributing almost 75% of the global Greenhouse Gas Emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#sector-by-sec... Please don't spread dangerous lies! By saying that meat is destroying the planet you're distracting from the true source of climate change: oil .

what do you think of the documentary cowspiracy? in any case if most of the grain production isnt going for feeding humans, it is quite ridiculous.

> what do you think of the documentary cowspiracy?

I haven't watched it but from what I've read about it, it seems like ideologically driven propaganda rather than a documentary.

> in any case if most of the grain production isnt going for feeding humans, it is quite ridiculous.

Why? The title of the article is misleading. If you look at the second graph, it's obvious that the amount of grain that is eaten directly by humans (1337 tonnes) is greater than the amount that goes to any another single use (the next highest is animal feed at 987).

In fact if you sum all the other uses up from that graph they come to 1570 tonnes, where 245 of that is "processing & losses", and another 73 is "seeds". Those are categories that overlap with grains used to feed humans directly (and other uses also) so it's not clear they should be counted separately . In short, only 1252 tonnes are definitely used to do other things than to directly feed us (namely, they become feed and fuel). So despite what the article says, most of the grain we produce seems to go to feed humans directly.

And as the article points out, it's not "grain" in general that's not fed to humans, but corn ("maize"). Most wheat and rice does go to feed humans directly and only a tiny amount of wheat or rice goes to other uses.

So, misleading title.

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

#292

Post by rexpop »

blindmute wrote: post #232
rexpop wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Au contraire, the men can collectively decide to oppress them, but it is not going to do them much good if all the women in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan have PhDs. What is it, I ask you, that makes a population difficult to oppress?

I tried to slap my wife, but my hand was repelled by her PhD force field

First of all, it's gross to use depictions of violence in a conversation in order to cow your counterpart.

Second, a woman with a PhD would have more opportunities to avoid marrying you.

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

#293

Post by tcfhgj »

zamfi wrote: post #278
tcfhgj wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understood. However this is rather counter productive as it requires more environmentally costly storage as well as solar capacity. Additionally, it totally neglects all other sources of renewable energy.

It is next to impossible to use only renewable electricity from the grid. I agree with you, the statement was meant to illustrate the original poster’s rather unhelpful maximalist stance.

> It is next to impossible to use only renewable electricity from the grid.

And how do you come to this conclusion?

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

#294

Post by readthenotes1 »

omarfarooq wrote: post #98
readthenotes1 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greed only plays a supporting role here. Gluttony is the cardinal sin more to blame.

Gluttony is greed.

There's an old list of sins: Pride Greed Lust Anger Gluttony Envy Sloth

Whether or not you believe the religion whose followers came up with this list, it does provide a handy way to categorize human behavior.

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

#295

Post by throwanapple »

cheese_goddess wrote: post #290
throwanapple wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biodiversity loss also counts as destroying the planet. Don't let climate change distract you from other sources of planet destruction. There's this concept called planetary boundaries.

> Don't let climate change distract you from other sources of planet destruction. Not a good wording. Climate change is a major driver of biodiversity loss. In general, there isn't any problem we're facing right now that's worse than climate change any way you look at it.

Not saying climate change isn't important, just that these systemic issues are interlinked and should be addressed together. We won't last long without healthy ecosystems.

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

#296

Post by cheese_goddess »

throwanapple wrote: post #295
cheese_goddess wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't let climate change distract you from other sources of planet destruction. Not a good wording. Climate change is a major driver of biodiversity loss. In general, there isn't any problem we're facing right now that's worse than climate change any way you look at it.

Not saying climate change isn't important, just that these systemic issues are interlinked and should be addressed together. We won't last long without healthy ecosystems.

No objection there from me. I'm just saying that as far as I understand it, one important reason why climate change is bad is that it directly affects ecosystems.

That we also destroy ecosystems directly must also be stressed as you say. And the two are indeed interlinked, for example habitat destruction causes both biodiversity loss and decreased ability to bind carbon. This "land use change" is a major source of emissions from agriculture and industrial farming is the main reason for it, for example rainforests razed to make space to grow soya to feed to cows. So yeah. I think we agree more than we disagree on that.

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

#297

Post by cheese_goddess »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #173
causasui wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ha… good one… seems you dealt with this topic many times before. Add slaughterhouse workers and PTSD to the mix.

You guys are so eloquent and persuasive, it's incomprehensible why everyone has not joined your ranks already.

Btw, congratulations for sneaking real problems like B12 and other nutrient deficiencies suffered by vegans in with all the straw men:

> Most vegans show adequate B12 levels to make clinical deficiency unlikely but nonetheless show restricted activity of B12 related enzymes, leading to elevated homocysteine levels. Strong evidence has been gathered over the past decade that even slightly elevated homocysteine levels increase risk of heart disease and stroke and pregnancy complications.

https://www.vegansociety.com/resources/nutrition-and-health/...

My bingo card says: "Typical irresponsible dismissal of the health risks of a vegan diet".

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

#298

Post by cheese_goddess »

Fargoan wrote: post #253
eixiepia wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did that for years, ruined both my health and teeth. No thanks.

I've heard it doesn't work for everyone. I've been vegan for 19 years and am fine

You've been vegan for 19 years but does that mean you haven't had any meat or animal products in those 19 years?

Because from what I understand, most vegans do eat at least some meat and animal products once in a while. "Breaking vegan" they call it. And it's OK to do it as long as you're vegan, otherwise it's not right and you're a murderer.

Because only being vegan is an ethical stance. Where being vegan of course means posting vegan memes on twitter and stuff like that.

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

#299

Post by cheese_goddess »

tcfhgj wrote: post #87
photochemsyn wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally see this argument pushed by vegans whose central issue is really animal rights, which is a valid concern, but the claim that a 100% vegan world, all other things being unchanged, would be one free from fossil-fueled global warming is simply not true. Generally speaking the claim is that significant amounts of agricultural energy go into growing grain for animals, and that domestic animal populations resul…

> but I don't think 'fixing the climate' is really a very strong one. and why is that?

Because everyone on the planet going vegan tomorrow will not fix the root cause of climate change which is burning fossil fuels. Three quarters of Greenhouse Gas emissions are caused by burning fossil fuels in sectors other than agriculture (in general, not just farming):

https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector

Namely energy use in industry and buildings, and transportation.

Even taking into account the power used for transport, storage etc, of food, the food system as a whole accounts for one quarter of emissions:

https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions

So even if we stopped eating any food at all tomorrow, we'd still not be stopping climate change, which is caused ... say it with me ... by burning fossil fuels.

  Burning fossil fuels.
That thing right there is the cause of climate change and that's the thing what we have to address, and address immediately.

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

#300

Post by cheese_goddess »

melling wrote: post #52
mahogany wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Th graph in this article is useful to answer your question:

https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions

According to the article, 26% of all GHG emissions are from food production.

Of that:

31% of all food production comes from livestock and fisheries.

27% comes from crop production, with 6% for animal feed and 21% for human food.

24% comes from land use, 8% for human food and 16% for livestock.

18% comes from ransport and other emissions from the supply chain.

Post reply on HN