Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chickens in Trees

suziepetryk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 156 posts

Re: Chickens in Trees

#141

Post by Karrot_Kream »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #131
HappMacDonald wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what the old timey protein options looked like. I know that modern vegans have a more challenging time sourcing protein. Old time diets didn't have the same limitations that modern vegan diets do, so they could for example lean on eggs and similar options. But if you subtract 90% of protein sources from a modern diet, they had to have been eating something to make up that deficit and I'm always in the mar…

> I know that modern vegans have a more challenging time sourcing protein. I'm having trouble understanding your post, maybe because you got this backwards. Modern vegans have a trivial time sourcing protein. Tofu, wheat gluten (seitan), TVP, tempeh, and all the infinite vegetable options available year round instead of just seasonally.

I will say it's not that easy to find seitan and tempeh in a lot of the West. Tofu and TVP these days seem to be everywhere. If you have an easy source for these (and don't have to make your own like seitan) be thankful. Though if you're vegan thanks for fighting the good fight :) (signed not a vegan but someone who grew up with a cultural disdain for eating meat)

Re: Chickens in Trees

#142

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #140
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all Buddhists are vegetarian. It would be really hard to live in the Tibetan plateau or in Mongolia and be vegetarian, just because the land supports grazing and not much farming beyond that. Yet those areas are heavily Buddhist, even if even the monks eat meat.

Definitely and despite ~ 70-80% of India being Hindu only a third of India is vegetarian, so there are more non-veg than veg Hindus. But those cultures often frown on relishing meat (much in the way Protestants "frown" on promiscuity or Muslims "frown" on showing skin even though in practice it absolutely happens) or eating meat and only meat. In a lot of Buddhist Asia you can ask for the "monk's menu" and you'll get…

I’ve spent time on the Tibetan plateau and suffered from meat overload. We only had meat to eat each night, and my gums began to feel really uncomfortable. I guess at high altitudes, veggies really are a luxury.

India has a lot of carb veggies as well, which I found really interesting. I found it hard to get leafy greens of some sort (the vegetables you need to eat to stay healthy, cooked or otherwise) when I visited Delhi and Jaipur. But that could have just been me picking the wrong places to eat. China has much more leafy greens in my opinion, but again I’m limited in experience when it comes to South Asia. They definitely take the cake in making tofu taste like meat, but I’m not really into that.

Re: Chickens in Trees

#143

Post by Karrot_Kream »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #142
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely and despite ~ 70-80% of India being Hindu only a third of India is vegetarian, so there are more non-veg than veg Hindus. But those cultures often frown on relishing meat (much in the way Protestants "frown" on promiscuity or Muslims "frown" on showing skin even though in practice it absolutely happens) or eating meat and only meat. In a lot of Buddhist Asia you can ask for the "monk's menu" and you'll get…

I’ve spent time on the Tibetan plateau and suffered from meat overload. We only had meat to eat each night, and my gums began to feel really uncomfortable. I guess at high altitudes, veggies really are a luxury. India has a lot of carb veggies as well, which I found really interesting. I found it hard to get leafy greens of some sort (the vegetables you need to eat to stay healthy, cooked or otherwise) when I visited…

You're totally right, South Asian diets tend to be poor in leafy greens and tend to stick with protein and carb heavy veggies like rice, grains, cauliflower, lentils, and beans. I've encountered and was raised with a small cultural disdain for leafy greans ("we aren't cows why should we eat like them" is how I've heard it joked about), but this is changing with new nutritional science and greater popularization of Western food fads like salads. Chinese diets definitely have more leafy greens.

I also find Japanese food to be shockingly short on veggies but same thing, it's hard to grow veggies there so a lot is imported, which makes veggies a bit of a luxury. Fruits are ridiculously hard/expensive to get there. Japanese food is a good example of a diet that historically was pretty meat poor and fish rich, though is changing with meat imports and modern processed fast foods like fried chicken ("chikin") and chicken nanban.

Re: Chickens in Trees

#144

Post by dredmorbius »

spetryk wrote: post #123
dredmorbius wrote: post #78

I'm extraordinarily disappointed that Doug Zongker's seminal work in the field was not mentioned or cited: https://isotropic.org/papers/chicken.pdf > Previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35745880 > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5830497 > And a dang compilation from 2023: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35746402 > Video: http://yewtu.be/watch?v=yL_-1d9OSdk >

Author here (of the blog post, not of the literary beauty you linked). This is amazing. I'll add a mention.

Chicken!!!

Re: Chickens in Trees

#145

Post by pvaldes »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #132
pvaldes wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, from a philosophical point of view, vegetarian movement is unfair for the plants Plants that are responsible of lots and lots of human well-being and as life beings deserve to be treated with a similar respect that we use with other organisms. Incidentally is also bad for human health Yes, it is. Those articles that claim that you can live on a strict vegetarian diet without any bad consequences for your health…

What are these bad consequences so that someone can challenge your position?

Vegetarianism can be easily linked to a higher risk of chronic illnesses such as cancer, and heart, respiratory and neurological diseases.

Re: Chickens in Trees

#146

Post by adrianN »

ars wrote: post #118
adrianN wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I believe my argument is not hurt by replacing the word „beat“ with „spank“. Adding that physical punishment was done out of love strengthens my argument, I think.

The change is spanking is not because spanking is harmful but because the world doesn't need it. The environment people are in is much more gentle, so it's not necessary to raise children that can handle large amounts of adversity. We also don't teach our kids to defend themselves against sword attacks, for the same reason - it's no longer necessary. Your argument implies that the past behavior was bad and we should…

I’m not particularly knowledgeable about early child development but I believe the science we have today says that spanking is in fact harmful and spanking your children does not „toughen them up“.

Re: Chickens in Trees

#147

Post by jhbadger »

thinkingemote wrote: post #50
globular-toast wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot more people would be veggie if they had to kill the animals themselves. You just wouldn't do it unless you were really hungry, which I doubt anyone on this forum has experienced even once.

The sibling comments to this are truthful, we wouldn't be vegetarians but I think we would be eating more vegetables. When I was vegetarian in my youth I visited my grandparents in the country and asked them about killing animals themselves. They did have relationships with their animals and didn't enjoy doing it but its what they did. I think if you ask modern animal farmers today they would say they do not enjoy ki…

>This is reflected by a thousand years or so for most of the West with significant parts the calendar where there was abstinence from meat which for many now people would consider impossible. At most we would be periodic vegetarians, omnivores with the balance towards the vegetarian.

It's important to note that in the Christian traditional at least, fish and other aquatic animals weren't considered "meat" and were fine for eating on meatless days -- which survives to this day in the tradition of Friday being a common day to eat fish (Fridays were traditionally "meatless").

Re: Chickens in Trees

#148

Post by ndr »

thfuran wrote: post #84
ndr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could argue that is natural adaptation. Modern chickens are likely going to be more successful at propagating their genes into the future.

Only if by natural you mean "not supernatural".

I didn't mean that "artificial" is an artificial distinction. I meant that the evolutionary fittest chicken long-term might be the modern farmed chicken. It's a weird tradeoff their specie is managing to make.

Re: Chickens in Trees

#149

Post by slackfan »

globular-toast wrote: post #35
tomcam wrote: post #34

I made the mistake of buying chickens as livestock. I fell in love with the day-old chicks the moment we got into the car to take them home. Plan was that 1/3 would become food, 1/3 would die of disease, and the remainder would lay eggs. Unfortunately I lost my taste for chicken. We lost 1/3 due to predators, not disease, despite building a $20,000 chicken run. I was depressed for months. And I have been through some…

A lot more people would be veggie if they had to kill the animals themselves. You just wouldn't do it unless you were really hungry, which I doubt anyone on this forum has experienced even once.

I see you're making wild assumptions about peoples' backgrounds, including hunger, income status, and whether they've ever been fishing or not. Check your privilege.

Re: Chickens in Trees

#150

Post by ars »

Galatians4_16 wrote: post #137
ars wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's better to eat the "food waste", rather than create more waste in the first place. If I have leftover rice, I'd rather refrigerate it and eat it tomorrow, instead of feed it to chickens. Rabbits can not eat food waste, they have very sensitive digestions. Very few fish will eat food waste (mostly just tilapia will do so). > feed bacteria and worm waste to plants Plants do not eat bacteria. You can't just "feed" w…

Plants do eat bacteria waste (see aquaponics), rabbits can eat some kitchen plant waste, but should of course not solely be fed that, (same with chickens), rabbit poop can be fed to fish and chickens (rabbits themselves eat it like 3x because poor digestive tract)… There are obviously a few steps I left unmentioned, as I am keeping my comments simplistic for the format. You seem to have selective comprehension issues…

> Plants do eat bacteria waste (see aquaponics)

Sort of. Some bacteria do convert ammonia into a form that plants can eat, but the majority of bacteria waste is just CO2.

> rabbits can eat some kitchen plant waste

Very very very little. A couple leaves from romaine lettuce and that's about it. They can not eat vegetable peelings for example.

Chickens can.

> rabbit poop can be fed to fish and chickens (rabbits themselves eat it like 3x because poor digestive tract)

This is not correct. Rabbit poop is mostly cellulose and chickens can not digest it, nor can most fish except for tilapia. Rabbits do not eat their poop 3x - they have a special partially digested waste that they will eat a second time, sometimes, it depends on their diet. They do not re-eat their regular poop.

> It is quite simply a natural cycle using no oil for centuries

And it releases lots of CO2. The CO2 the plant absorbed is released when it decays. What's your goal? Reduction of CO2? Less stuff in landfill?

This started with your claim that not refrigerating will reduce CO2 emissions. This is not true. When you "recycle" leftover food, all the CO2 in the food is emitted, and you have to grow more.

The amount of CO2 emitted to recycle food is FAR FAR more than the CO2 from running a refrigerator.

I understand you long for the old days and how we did things, but you are overlooking the downsides. Each person in the past used far more resources than they do today, the world had fewer people and it worked out. It's not possible to support this many people using the inefficient methods of the past.

Before the industrial revolution almost every single tree in Europe was cut down in order to support human life there, it was not sustainable - they ran out of trees.

Using technology the increase in efficiency was so great we also got "treats" other technology we greatly enjoy. There are downsides of course, too much CO2, but going back to the old ways is NOT the solution.

Post reply on HN