commie @ commie @lemmy.dbzer0.com

About

---

Read more

Posts

12

Comments

2,784

Joined

2 yr. ago

if the source material can't convince you, then live in ignorance

you can read the sources that poore-nemecek cite. they are explicit that their research cannot be combined with other LCAs

whose land is it, and what is their prediliction for money?

your case study is over a decade old. do you have any supporting data?

eating meat has no effect on the planet.

The entire point of veganism is that it is an entire order of magnitude more efficient than eating meat.

the definition provided by the vegan society makes no mention of efficiency.

That's study doesn't cover people who have some or all of their food subsidized or provided for free, people who hunt fish or trap for their food, nor those who raise their own. it covers nobody who is working poor, only people who pay full retail price for all their food.

I never accepted your definition

your semantic games won't change the facts

2/3 of crop calories go to humans

non humans cannot be dehumanized. it is tautological.

you can't dehumanize nonhumans

the papers themselves. look at their LCA references

this land can be given back to biodiversity,

there is no reason to think this is going to happen. they'll build a mall or a skyscraper.

they're literally not human

The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals

That's a lie. 2/3 of the world's crop calories go directly to people. One third of the world's crop calories go to livestock, but that's as the other user is mentioning, mostly crop seconds or parts of plants that we can't eat.

poore-nemecek is based on misreading LCA studies. LCA as a measurement is not transferable between studies. poore-nemececk just went through and did averages. it's not good science. it's not even science.

the same plants that are being fed to animals are the plants that we eat too. animals are mostly said crop seconds or parts of plants the people can't or won't eat.

this is posturing and the rhetoric. it is not evidence.

calling me names doesn't make what I'm saying any less true