commie @ commie @lemmy.dbzer0.com

About

---

Read more

Posts

19

Comments

3,546

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Your argument wasn’t that cows are different than dogs

that's all i've been arguing this whole time.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-production-tonnes?tab=chart&country=%7EOWID_WRL

that hasn't stopped the meat industry from growing.

Any fewer beef meals you have helps.

i don't think that's true, if meat production continues to grow.

cutting your meat consumption by half can have a significant impact.

i doubt it. many people have done that, and meat production grows year-over-year every year.

why do we need to grow corn and soybeans for them

we don't. but we do grain finish most cattle, because it's faster.

if you think about the energetic demand of growing food only to feed an animal that then will become food, rather than skipping this step and eating the original food instead.

most people don't want to eat grass or soy cake. letting cows graze, and feeding soycake (the byproduct of soybean oil production) to pigs and poultry is a conservation of resources.

your tulane link is not exactly good science. it relies on Clark (2019) which itself relies on Poore-Nemecek (2018). Poore & Nemecek built their data by combining LCA studies, a practice which is specifically discouraged by the studies themselves and the guidance on LCA studies generally. we can't really rely on those conclusions at all.

they also rely on Behrens (2017), which shares a problem with poore-nemecek, though a more nuanced one: they myopically distill data from input-output to calculate environmental impacts like water and land use and ghge. this seems reasonable at first blush, but in fact it overlooks the complexity of our agricultural systems. for instance, one of the things farmers feed cattle is cottonseed. cotton is grown for textiles, and the seed is largely waste product. feeding it to cattle is a conservation of resources, and doing so should in no way count against the land, water, and ghge statistics for cattle.

but that's not really here or there, as it turns out, because the thrust of the paper is not "these foods are bad for the environment" or "these foods are good for the environment". the actual claim made in the paper is "there is not actually sufficient data sources available to determine which foods have which impacts".

plenty of people have tried that, and the production of beef continues to grow.

this doesn't change whether dogs are different from cows

i didnt suggest eating any animal is ok. I'm pointing out that is simply untrue to claim there isn't a lick of difference between cows and dogs

I never said they are lesser. you are fighting a strawman

surely you are referring to the people who no longer want to defend dogs and cows not having a lick of difference

so you know they are not the same

this doesn't change the fact that dogs and cows are different

this appears to be an appeal to ridicule.

this has nothing to do with whether there is a difference between dogs and cows, which there clearly is.

even among animals we eat, there are clearly differences. denying this doesn't serve anyone.

in torture, the point is to cause pain. the pain incurred by animals in agriculture is incidental. it's not the point of the practice. if there were some other options that were just as cost effective or cheaper, farmers would use them.

comparing other races to animals is what racists do. comparing women to animals is what misogynists do. their fight for their own rights isn't premised on their ability to feel pain, but the fact that they, too, are fully human.