Live data from Hacker News

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

economist.com

301–310 of 314 posts

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

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not vague if the other side directly argues against capitalism. Then it means they can be arguing for is likely a command economy, which… yeah. Not going to solve anything. Which I am inclined to try to make abundantly clear in such a discussion. But I also disagree with you. “The system” should not reward anyone. People create value, and people reward those who they think provide value by becoming their custome…

> It’s not vague if the other side directly argues against capitalism. Then it means they can be arguing for is likely a command economy, which… yeah. Could be feudalism, could be technocracy, could be replacing all limited companies with coops, could be getting rid of publically traded companies and allowing only partnerships. > But I also disagree with you. “The system” should not reward anyone. People create value…

What I described is a fundamental mechanic, kind of like “do good stuff and people will do good stuff for you”.

All of your questions basically reduce to “what to do if people abuse this mechanic by disguising bad stuff as good, violating trust, hurting the environment, or such?”

Well, you can either alleviate the symptom or treat the cause.

The only way of treating the cause is working on deep-seated insecurities and psychological trauma that make humans feel motivated to secure themselves at the expense of others and the environment-to abuse this mechanic or facilitate its abuse.

The measures that prevent the abuse by restricting the agency of market participants only alleviate symptoms.

I don’t know what exactly you mean by “system”. If you are saying the current measures are insufficient, I don’t argue, they could (should) be improved. Still, any set of these measures is never the end in itself, as it doesn’t treat the root cause.

If you think restricting agency is the ultimate solution, then we will have to agree to strongly disagree on fundamentals.

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

#302
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I see, thanks for the elaboration. You may be correct, but there is more nuance based on my reading of the report: in particular, the "agriculture" category is somewhat misleading. I read a bit of the report, so I might as well post my findings here :) "Agriculture" appears to measure the emissions generated directly from agricultural processes themselves, as well as "secondary" combustion inputs. This includes "ente…

Yes, but be careful what you mean by "we". The truth is that most meat is consumed in certain parts of the world, particularly Western, industrialised countries. The USA, Australia and Argentina consume the most meat:

https://www.mekkographics.com/meat-consumption-by-country-an...

The United States, China and Brazil produce the most beef:

https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production

In my reading, there is a great inequality in distribution of both consumption and production and if both could be equalized downwards, that would mean a significant reduction overall.

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

#303
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted you because doing one thing does not preclude doing the other. Using an electric car and solar panels is very good for the environment. You can also eat less/no meat in addition.

To become fully carbon neutral everyone has to go vegan eventually, no?

No. Who said that, other than vegans? It's a lie. Everybody else, the IPCC, the FAO, environmental organisations, they all say we need to shift diets, in particular western diets, towards a plant-based diet:

> Such recommendations include for example: having a mostly plant-based diet, focus on seasonal and local foods, reduction of food waste, consumption of fish from sustainable stocks only and reduction of red and processed meat, highly-processed foods and sugar-sweetened beverages.

https://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-dietary-guideli...

But a plant-based diet is not vegan (although a vegan diet is plant-based), it's a diet where the majority of calories come from plants:

> A plant-based diet is a diet consisting mostly or entirely of plant-based foods.[1][2][3] Plant-based diets encompass a wide range of dietary patterns that contain low amounts of animal products and high amounts of plant products such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds.[4][5] They do not need to be vegan or vegetarian[6][7] but are defined in terms of low frequency of animal food consumption.[8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant-based_diet

For example, the Mediterranean diet is a plant-based diet:

> The principal aspects of this diet include proportionally high consumption of olive oil, legumes, unrefined cereals, fruits,[3] and vegetables, moderate to high consumption of fish, moderate consumption of dairy products (mostly as cheese and yogurt), moderate wine consumption, and low consumption of non-fish meat products.

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

A plant-based diet includes fish, dairy, eggs and meat, although meat in moderate to small quantities.

Vegans certainly like to pretend that "plant-based" means "vegan", but that's just their propaganda. Please don't help spread such lies.

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

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 em…

Indeed. Thanks for clarifying.

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

#305
post #293
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I guess I should have said "currently" -- very few grids are 100% renewable; some offer the option to individual customers (hi EBCE!) but usually what this means is that the operators purchase enough power from renewable sources to cover that customer's daily use, but crucially it's not always at the time of use. For example, the user might be supplied with power from a fossil fuel power plant at night, but then extra solar power is purchased during sunnier periods to compensate.

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

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

None of those are straw men; I've heard every single one, including one of my favorites "cow overpopulation" from you "cheese goddess" specifically.

The same way plenty of farm animals are supplemented with b12 for later human consumption, it's mindlessly easy to get the adequate amount of b12 in a vegan diet. Tons of vegan food come fortified, and if not, a 1000mg supplement once a week couldn't be simpler.

Both the American Dietetic Association[0] and British Dietetic Association[1] confirm that a well-planned vegan diet is healthy for all stages of life.

_My_ bingo card says: someone whose entire life and identity has been in animal agriculture takes personal umbrage to the notion that their lifestyle is immoral and destroying the planet.

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/ [1] https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/vegetarian-vegan-plant-based...

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

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

None of those are straw men; I've heard every single one, including one of my favorites "cow overpopulation" from you "cheese goddess" specifically. The same way plenty of farm animals are supplemented with b12 for later human consumption, it's mindlessly easy to get the adequate amount of b12 in a vegan diet. Tons of vegan food come fortified, and if not, a 1000mg supplement once a week couldn't be simpler. Both the…

Who is that "somoeone whose entire life and identity has been in animal agriculture"? I work in IT. I chose my username because I make cheese as a hobby.

btw, when did I say anything about "cow overpopulation"? I don't even know what that is?

Oh, wait. Of course. It's a straw man. Nevermind.

> Both the American Dietetic Association[0] and British Dietetic Association[1] confirm that a well-planned vegan diet is healthy for all stages of life.

The key words being "well-planned". As the Vegan Society says, most vegans have low homocysteine levels which is a clear indication that their diets are not "well planned" and put them in danger of heart disease, stroke and pregnancy complications, at least.

That is "most" vegans, in the words of the Vegan Society.

Then of course there's the vegans who feed their kids vegan diets without any planning at all and end up damaging their kids' health, or killing them:

> In 2002, a vegan couple from New Zealand was accused of child abuse after ‘failing to provide the necessities of life’ for their six-month-old child. Their son died of medical complications due to vitamin B12 deficiency after the parents left the hospital against medical advice to treat their son with herbal remedies (23). In addition, seven infants exclusively breastfed by vegan mothers developed nutritional vitamin B12 deficiency. Most of these children presented with hypotonia, lengths and weights below the third percentile, and psychomotor retardation that improved with the appropriate nutritional supplementation (24).

> As recently as 2005, despite the significant available literature on the potential risks of alternate diets, strict vegan parents were taken to court and charged with neglect after one of their children died of malnutrition (25). Their other four children were all found to be below the lowest appropriate percentile for height and weight for their age. These parents avoided taking their children to see physicians and the children were not immunized.

https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/2528709

So, well-planned diets, my foot. Most vegans have no idea what to do to stay healthy while eating their preferred diet. And do you know why? Because irresponsible internet vegans like you try very hard to hide the fact that a vegan diet is a health risk. The Vegan Society at least is honest about that:

> The risk to these groups alone is reason enough to call on all vegans to give a consistent message as to the importance of B12 and to set a positive example. Every case of B12 deficiency in a vegan infant or an ill informed adult is a tragedy and brings veganism into disrepute.

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

My guess is that this is because those folks care deeply about their principles and don't just use them as a bludgeon to win internet arguments, like you guys.

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

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then the key is to align incentives. If the powerful bear consequences when something bad happens regardless of fault, then power will be wielded to prevent those outcomes rather than enact them. Anyone who does not wish to take that risk can dispose of their power.

There’s a hint of the idea that “power should be exceedingly inconvenient, not lucrative, and attract people who ‘irrationally’ want to make the world better as opposed to abusing it”, which I don’t disagree with. However, there’s another big concept, and that is “do not fire an employee who just learned a big and expensive, to you, lesson”. Punishing people simply because they failed, especially in a complex environ…

I agree with your perspectives with regard to civil servants, but the people with power I was referring to are the wealthy.

No state actor (other than arguably putin, but I'd characterise his power as individual and not derived from his role as a government agent) is as powerful as eg. rupert murdoch or peter thiel individually, and in aggregate (and in spite of not working together) the 0.01% are vastly more powerful than any state.

If 10% of the fortune 500 were confiscated and redistributed equally every time there's a pandemic or 5% of the amazon is burnt down or there is an unchecked oil spill, then the wealthy would ensure these things do not happen.

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

#309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

running short of water does not mean you have nothing to drink, it means famine. madagascar has terrible famine right now, becauae there is no rain. In Syria, all crops that are not irigated have died. current irrigation water is free. You cant use water from desalination, because it takes many tons of water to grow one kilo of food, and tens of tons of water to grow a kilo of beef. that would drive up prices more th…

Multiple nations are having water issues. Not just in myopic California. South Africa, the Mekong delta including Thailand and Vietnam, the PO river, parts of the US southeast are dealing with depleted aquifers and drought conditions, the Nile river supporting Egypt and Jordan, Lake Chad of Africa, etc. The water issue is global, as will be the impact on food prices. I expect significant refugees/migrants and authori…

[deleted]

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

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California will never, ever, ever run short of water... unless the Pacific Ocean dries up. Cheap electricity will result in cheap desalination. The sky is not falling.

running short of water does not mean you have nothing to drink, it means famine. madagascar has terrible famine right now, becauae there is no rain. In Syria, all crops that are not irigated have died. current irrigation water is free. You cant use water from desalination, because it takes many tons of water to grow one kilo of food, and tens of tons of water to grow a kilo of beef. that would drive up prices more th…

Have you ever actually bothered to make a cursory study of the history of food production over the last, say, 100 years in the USA?

Since FDR came into office in 1933 the US federal government has actively been dealing with a serious food problem: tremendous agricultural surpluses.

Virtually every wealthy country, even Japan, has the same problem: too many farmers and too much food.

"We are running out! The sky is falling!" Hey, if that's what you want to yell and scream, that's your prerogative. But, as the adage goes, "Facts are stubborn things."

In terms of crop value, California is the largest agricultural producer in the USA. I'm almost certain if California were to produce zero food whatsoever, the USA could still easily produce massive agricultural surpluses.

Go read Frances Moore Lappé’s infamous "Diet for a Small Planet" which was a very famous bestselling book in 1971. It has been almost 100% debunked as inane wishful thinking.

She claimed meat production had a negative environmental impact, was wasteful, and contributed to global food scarcity. Sure, just like factories can pump rivers full of pollution, if not properly regulated, cattle producers will tend to do the same thing. The answer is good laws and proper enforcement: not requiring people to eat tofu as a main course for dinner.

Frances Moore Lappé was an unhinged "tree hugger." Don't be like her. Use your head: study the history, and look at the technology.

While you are at it, imagine wind turbines spinning in the empty wastelands of the American West, pumping water from Canada to California.

Kansas and Nebraska were part of what was known as the "Great American Desert." But then some engineers figured out how to pump water from what is now the "dying" Ogallala aquifer.

We aren't living in caves, my man, trying to fight off lions and bears with spears.

Doomers. Sheesh. You guys disgust me. Go spread your falsehoods elsewhere.

Post reply on HN