121–130 of 137 posts
There’s a mass extinction happening and no one seems to care. We may see a complete collapse of the ecosystem in the next 30 years.
30 years? Somebody is optimistic. I give it 20 years tops, given the state of the oceans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go watch Gamechangers - see how easy it is to thrive on plants
I have posted a poll under the main thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35923261 What would your response be to my question 1) and question 2)
In the spirit of 'science' here is a potential experiment that can be conducted to resolve the debt: 1)Individual 1 is a vegan. he is given 10 acres of land, He is free to grow whatever he wants and eat. The restriction here is he cannot raise any animals whatsoever including insects for food. 2) Individual 2 is a animal products eater, is also is given 10 acres of land, he can raise whatever he wants: pigs, chickens…
If it were 100 farmers and 10000 acres, the it would be 1) vegan 2) carnivore.
This is because you need more diversity to be healthily vegan than you do to be healthily carnivore.
Carnivore is more damaging in both cases because however your slice it, you're going to have to dedicate more overall land to farming if you're eating animals, and that's a greater footgun probability re: eliminating a keystone species and disrupting your food supply.
If you repeated this experiment until you had no more room on the planet, then I think the carnivores would go extinct because of problems either re: the soil chemistry or re: the pollinators. The vegans would survive because so much less of the overall space would be dedicated to farmland.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have posted a poll under the main thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35923261 What would your response be to my question 1) and question 2)
I fail to see the point of your thought experiment In reality people are not isolated 10 acres plots of land, they eat what is available at the grocery store, which is part of an industry and a global chain of production. If you remove that, you should provide a valid reason. You're also welcome to go watch gamechangers to see what they have to say about nutrition, they have Phds I believe
I'm not carried away by credentials. There are some morons around with Phds. And I'm sure that you will find some Phds who will find fault with with what is espoused in gamechangers. My point is just because you look at a documentary, or even published papers, you as an individual cannot decide easily, because there are opposing views even among people with a lot of credentials. Of course most people choose to go with consensus. But then consensus itself can be quite wrong.
In the spirit of 'science' here is a potential experiment that can be conducted to resolve the debt: 1)Individual 1 is a vegan. he is given 10 acres of land, He is free to grow whatever he wants and eat. The restriction here is he cannot raise any animals whatsoever including insects for food. 2) Individual 2 is a animal products eater, is also is given 10 acres of land, he can raise whatever he wants: pigs, chickens…
I think the answer to both is the carnivore. If it were 100 farmers and 10000 acres, the it would be 1) vegan 2) carnivore. This is because you need more diversity to be healthily vegan than you do to be healthily carnivore. Carnivore is more damaging in both cases because however your slice it, you're going to have to dedicate more overall land to farming if you're eating animals, and that's a greater footgun probab…
Are you really sure about the "overall space" part? I mean have you really examined it? Do you have direct experience, as in having lived in a farmland, Or have you talked to a farmer? Or have you closely listen to accounts of farmers on videos or essays?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the answer to both is the carnivore. If it were 100 farmers and 10000 acres, the it would be 1) vegan 2) carnivore. This is because you need more diversity to be healthily vegan than you do to be healthily carnivore. Carnivore is more damaging in both cases because however your slice it, you're going to have to dedicate more overall land to farming if you're eating animals, and that's a greater footgun probab…
>The vegans would survive because so much less of the overall space would be dedicated to farmland. Are you really sure about the "overall space" part? I mean have you really examined it? Do you have direct experience, as in having lived in a farmland, Or have you talked to a farmer? Or have you closely listen to accounts of farmers on videos or essays?
Given a fixed amount of sunlight and a fixed time window, you've got W available Joules. Only X makes it into plant biomass. If you're eating a consumer, only Y makes it into animal biomass, and then only Z is available to the human.
In all known cases W > X > Y > Z, generally by factors of 2 to 20. The vegans are going to need X/Y times less farmland to meet their energy needs. Maybe they need a bit more than that to account for the nutritional diversity they require, but I doubt that'll offset it.
The biggest loss is gonna be W, and if you compare crops to grazing land it's pretty clear which one has more sun-facing chlorophyll.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fail to see the point of your thought experiment In reality people are not isolated 10 acres plots of land, they eat what is available at the grocery store, which is part of an industry and a global chain of production. If you remove that, you should provide a valid reason. You're also welcome to go watch gamechangers to see what they have to say about nutrition, they have Phds I believe
>they have Phds I believe I'm not carried away by credentials. There are some morons around with Phds. And I'm sure that you will find some Phds who will find fault with with what is espoused in gamechangers. My point is just because you look at a documentary, or even published papers, you as an individual cannot decide easily, because there are opposing views even among people with a lot of credentials. Of course mo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The vegans would survive because so much less of the overall space would be dedicated to farmland. Are you really sure about the "overall space" part? I mean have you really examined it? Do you have direct experience, as in having lived in a farmland, Or have you talked to a farmer? Or have you closely listen to accounts of farmers on videos or essays?
No direct experience, just biology class. This was on the final that I took today :) Given a fixed amount of sunlight and a fixed time window, you've got W available Joules. Only X makes it into plant biomass. If you're eating a consumer, only Y makes it into animal biomass, and then only Z is available to the human. In all known cases W > X > Y > Z, generally by factors of 2 to 20. The vegans are going to need X/Y t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The vegans would survive because so much less of the overall space would be dedicated to farmland. Are you really sure about the "overall space" part? I mean have you really examined it? Do you have direct experience, as in having lived in a farmland, Or have you talked to a farmer? Or have you closely listen to accounts of farmers on videos or essays?
No direct experience, just biology class. This was on the final that I took today :) Given a fixed amount of sunlight and a fixed time window, you've got W available Joules. Only X makes it into plant biomass. If you're eating a consumer, only Y makes it into animal biomass, and then only Z is available to the human. In all known cases W > X > Y > Z, generally by factors of 2 to 20. The vegans are going to need X/Y t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No direct experience, just biology class. This was on the final that I took today :) Given a fixed amount of sunlight and a fixed time window, you've got W available Joules. Only X makes it into plant biomass. If you're eating a consumer, only Y makes it into animal biomass, and then only Z is available to the human. In all known cases W > X > Y > Z, generally by factors of 2 to 20. The vegans are going to need X/Y t…
__MatrixMan__ , the biology class is a fair start. But isn't one of the core principles of what is considered 'good' science, experimentation, or what happens in practice?
Are you proposing that there's an ongoing experiment somewhere in practice that might inform my view? I'm open to that, but my impression of actual farmers is that they're bound by so many artificial constraints that their experience is unlikely to align with sound experiment design.