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

The Coming Food Catastrophe

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 634 posts

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#521

Post by elvis10ten »

pvarangot wrote: post #386
exploding_water wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The third solution doesn’t make much sense since livestock consumption is mostly made up of inedible foods that we can’t eat like husks, stems, leaves, etc. of plants. Livestock is effective for up-cycling foods we can’t digest and turning it into foods that we can such as meat and dairy. Also there is a lot of food waste in the US. Good food that is suitable for livestock…

Soooooooo "Roughage Products" which is fiber, that humans also need to eat BTW, is usually something like 25% of pelleted food. The main ingredient in pelleted food is usually digestible by humans and between 6% to 15% protein, it's like 25% to 30% depending on the pelleted food. Pound by pound going by the estimates that "eat cow advocates" use you need 12 pounds of food per pound of beef produced, if half of that i…

how do vegans rationalize owning pet animals?

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#522

Post by geoka9 »

Gordonjcp wrote: post #290
spywaregorilla wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't really make any sense though. It changes nothing about the geopolitical reality of what's going on. If the US sends a merchant ship and a cruiser, what is russia going to do exactly? Try to bomb the ships? They will lose, and get shot down. Why would it suddenly be WWIII? Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global thermonuclear war time".

> Why would it suddenly be WWIII? Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global thermonuclear war time". Because Vladimir Putin is currently very very defective.

He's also very very scared to do anything of consequence. Look, the Ukrainian invasion was the only reckless thing he's ever done and look how it turned out.

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#523

Post by geoka9 »

FpUser wrote: post #496
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

those other people choose to, as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia if you expect them to surrender or accept less, well, you'll have to make your case to them

>"those other people choose to, as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia" If that was the case we would have active war in Crimea in 2014. >"if you expect them to surrender or accept less, well, you'll have to make your case to them" Why would I make any case? I do not expect anything. It is their choice. Also I do not think the talking was about Ukraine in particular. The statement was…

> If that was the case we would have active war in Crimea in 2014.

Nobody believed it was happening, i.e. Ukrainians never expected having to fight Russians. Now it's completely different; Ukraine has been preparing for an escalation of the war for 8 years.

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#524

Post by FpUser »

geoka9 wrote: post #523
FpUser wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"those other people choose to, as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia" If that was the case we would have active war in Crimea in 2014. >"if you expect them to surrender or accept less, well, you'll have to make your case to them" Why would I make any case? I do not expect anything. It is their choice. Also I do not think the talking was about Ukraine in particular. The statement was…

> If that was the case we would have active war in Crimea in 2014. Nobody believed it was happening, i.e. Ukrainians never expected having to fight Russians. Now it's completely different; Ukraine has been preparing for an escalation of the war for 8 years.

>"as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia"

That was the statement. I replied to. By taking Crimea Putin had taken a great deal more than "an inch"

>"Nobody believed it was happening,"

Nobody believed the Crimea was taken?

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#525

Post by geoka9 »

lazide wrote: post #257
nosianu wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buy some MREs. They are made to last and to have everything essential for survival. Shelf life is about 5 years, depending on how it's stored: https://www.mreinfo.com/mres/mre-shelf-life/

Make sure to pack some fiber though too! They'll plug you up something fierce if you eat them a lot.

Bran is cheap and should last a long time.

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#526

Post by dang »

Tao332 wrote: post #436
dang wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It said "Karen" and the commenter edited it. Edit: I've added the context back by quoting what the GP originally said. I guess one good passive-aggressive stealth edit deserves another.

Sorry, "passive-aggressive stealth edit"? You got what you wanted. They took out the mean word. Don't get pissy about it and start gaslighting people.

Editing a comment after the fact in a way that deprives a reply of its original context and makes it look stupid is, in most cases, a dick move. I think most users understand that. It doesn't make a difference whether the reply was by a moderator or not.

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#527

Post by geoka9 »

FpUser wrote: post #524
geoka9 wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that was the case we would have active war in Crimea in 2014. Nobody believed it was happening, i.e. Ukrainians never expected having to fight Russians. Now it's completely different; Ukraine has been preparing for an escalation of the war for 8 years.

>"as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia" That was the statement. I replied to. By taking Crimea Putin had taken a great deal more than "an inch" >"Nobody believed it was happening," Nobody believed the Crimea was taken?

> Nobody believed the Crimea was taken?

Nobody in Crimea believed it was being taken, until it was. By that time, the Ukranian government was beheaded, whatever left of the army was demoralized. There was literally a few thousand dollars in the state's coffers. Insurgency in the east was ramping up; a few volunteer battalions were formed overnight, financed by neighborhood donations, and sent off to fight the (covert) invasion in the east. It's actually a miracle Ukraine survived in 2014, so fighting the Russian regular army (with a big Naval base) in Crimea was not on top of the list.

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#528

Post by radu_floricica »

closedloop129 wrote: post #506
lenkite wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"main ingredient in pelleted food is usually digestible by humans" You would truly need to be starving from famine or an "Instagram Go-Green Promoter" to eat this.

>You would truly need to be starving That's what the debate is about.

I don't think we had a famine in the last half century that was caused purely by production. The beauty of a working free market is that starving people are willing to pay quite a lot for cheap food, and so it's virtually impossible to starve just by being poor. The problem was always that the food couldn't get to them. I'd bet on a half-half mix of regulatory issues and fighting.

But yeah, production issues can increase price, which will create a whole lot of issues downstream - for example even if people won't literally starve, some of them won't be able to both eat and make rent. Which will predictably piss them off, and this is how you get Arab Spring as a consequence of corn ethanol.

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#529

Post by codebje »

elvis10ten wrote: post #521
pvarangot wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soooooooo "Roughage Products" which is fiber, that humans also need to eat BTW, is usually something like 25% of pelleted food. The main ingredient in pelleted food is usually digestible by humans and between 6% to 15% protein, it's like 25% to 30% depending on the pelleted food. Pound by pound going by the estimates that "eat cow advocates" use you need 12 pounds of food per pound of beef produced, if half of that i…

how do vegans rationalize owning pet animals?

I am a mere vegetarian but I justify it by aiming for generally better, not perfect.

(Also I adopted my cat about a decade before I became a vegetarian, it doesn't seem morally superior to destroy her because I had a change of heart.)

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#530

Post by Guthur »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #518
Guthur wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah no. Maybe I'm just stupid, so please explain to me how all the European countries that are so united in solidatary with Ukraine can square the round hole of also paying Russia vast sums of money for energy?

explain to you because you do not know, and wish to learn, and thus you are asking in good faith? or "explain", as in you think the majority of countries are not united in opposition to russia, and you would like to advance this claim? I want to be clear here, I am all for sharing knowledge, so if you need an explanation because you don't know, and don't just plan to argue, please say so and I will share all I can, w…

So you have no interest in explaining to me how EU countries (Germany etc) paying Russia for energy helps Ukraine? I'm quite serious, I don't know how paying Russia helps Ukraine, or are they not paying for energy? maybe I am ill informed.

And please don't come back with misdirection, either answer the question or lets leave it like that because it's a waste of both our time.

Post reply on HN