Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I'm sorry, what?
40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
291–300 of 360 posts
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#292Not trying to be overly flippant... who cares? The paper opens with "to feed a growing population" without asking is that what we need? want? where we are actually heading to? Is feeding the world a real problem? I've yet to see compelling evidence that it really is except as a secondary effect of logistics, energy supply, and war. edit: I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy probl…
[deleted]
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
So..."Pakistan's problem is a Pakistan thing", unrelated to markets.... ...but Bangladesh's success is purely attributable to markets? It's not "a Bangladesh thing"? You might want to check your prejudices there.
There’s a Civilization-game style “tech tree” for cultural and social development. Some societies are further along in that development than others. Pakistan faces the same cultural problem as Afghanistan and parts of the middle east: in large parts of the country, extended kinship groups dominate society, precluding the development of civic institutions and functioning government. That’s not true for the whole count…
> There’s a Civilization-game style “tech tree” for cultural and social development.
...I'ma stop you there.
There really isn't.
And you'll get a lot farther in life if you stop thinking of real people and their development and culture as video game abstractions.
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coming back later, I realized earlier I looked up the calories but I didn't compare them to anything else. So while tart cherries "only" have 50 calories per 100g, sweet cherries are up around 60, not very different. An apple also has about 50-60 per 100g. So does an orange. Fruit isn't super dense in calories to begin with because it has so much water, but it's still a meaningful amount, and tart cherries are pretty…
Which is to say consuming tart cherries is not a significant source of calories and not something "people in need" are in need of at all. Maybe just quit being needlessly pedantic? Every point you've attempted to raise in this thread has been entirely pointless and equally ridiculous.
> Which is to say consuming tart cherries is not a significant source of calories and not something "people in need" are in need of at all.
This applies to almost all fruit though. But saying people in need don't need any fruit would be a terrible stance. What gives?
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
Market also decided that the Irish could only eat potatoes.
It was actually a disgusting set of edicts and regulations called the Penal Laws, enacted by the English crown, which formalized and wrote into law the informal restrictions imposed on Irish Catholics after the Tudor conquest, as part of a broader genocidal colonialization scheme. Very cool attempt to try and sweep that little fact under the rug. Fun fact, Adam Smith cites the penal laws as an example of the dangers…
Can be a bit of both? Free market advocates were certainly involved saying it should work itself out. It kinda did by letting millions die.
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#296Surprised how many people in the replies actually think their beef is grass fed.
All our beef is grass fed, because we don't use grain finishing in New Zealand. Many US people apparently dislike the taste of our beef (grain finishing has a milder flavour). Cattle for beef is mostly farmed on land that is too crappy to grow crops.
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
And none of that is for feeding starving people who have no food. It's all to grow profitable luxury food.
People starving come from parts for the world affected by global warming, which unsustainable farming is one of the reasons. Which, in turn, crates mass migration issues. Which, in turn, is a major reason behind massive shift of Overton window and the current world situation we're in.
Every country that has a problem with starvation has huge population growth.
They have at least 2.5% population growth yearly which translates to doubling population in 28 years, while some have as high as 4.5% which means they double every 15-16 years.
If a population has a food problem, why does it double every 15 years?
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
So..."Pakistan's problem is a Pakistan thing", unrelated to markets.... ...but Bangladesh's success is purely attributable to markets? It's not "a Bangladesh thing"? You might want to check your prejudices there.
There’s a Civilization-game style “tech tree” for cultural and social development. Some societies are further along in that development than others. Pakistan faces the same cultural problem as Afghanistan and parts of the middle east: in large parts of the country, extended kinship groups dominate society, precluding the development of civic institutions and functioning government. That’s not true for the whole count…
[deleted]
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#299Not trying to be overly flippant... who cares? The paper opens with "to feed a growing population" without asking is that what we need? want? where we are actually heading to? Is feeding the world a real problem? I've yet to see compelling evidence that it really is except as a secondary effect of logistics, energy supply, and war. edit: I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy probl…
When they complain about these lost calories is anyone asking them if they have a better way to turn grass into food we can eat? Eating beef lets us eat grass we couldn't otherwise, indirectly. It also has a whole bunch of minerals and nutrients that are particularly beneficial.
We don't need a steak every day, but two servings of beef a week can be a truly great infusion of protein and nutrients in someone's diet.
These are found calories, not lost.
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#300As a sidenote for this audience - this is multiple magnitudes higher global warming impact than AI. If anything this and daily commutes optimization are the key ways software engineers can directly impact carbon, way more than AI as a tool.