7 ms·

None of those things have anything to do with the discussion though, which is developing nations torching natural ecosystems. Neither my beef nor my car is in

None of those things have anything to do with the discussion though, which is developing nations torching natural ecosystems. Neither my beef nor my car is in any way a factor in this. Also, your comparison is disingenuous. A pound of beef or chicken contains far more calories and protein than a pound of any vegetable. And grass fed beef actually requires less energy to produce than vegetables.

wiz21c 8y ago
for the beef : https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/is-grass-fed-beef-better-for-the-environment.html https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/is-grass-fed-beef-bette... for the car : just stop using a car, that'll be better for the environment.
- deialtrous 8y ago
  I do not understand the relevance of that tabloid article. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I live in Canada. All my beef comes from Canada. The fact that people in other countries burn forests to graze cattle does not mean that Canadians consuming Canadian beef cause those other countries to burn forests. My beef consumption is 100% irrelevant, they will burn the same amount of forest regardless of what I eat, because they are not burning it to feed me.
  - arbitrary_name 8y ago
    If you stop eating beef, others can eat Canadian beef and not brazilian beef. Your consumption has an effect.
    - deialtrous 8y ago
      That assumes that Canadian beef production is at or near its limit. It is not even close. We could produce far more, but there is no market for it. So if Canadian beef consumption goes down, all that happens is Canadian beef production goes down. No impact is had on the amazon. We can be very confident of this because Canadian beef consumption has gone down, and Canadian beef production went down with it, not Brazilian beef production.
    - deialtrous2 8y ago
      That assumes that Canadian beef production is at or near its limit. It is not even close. We could produce far more, but there is no market for it. So if Canadian beef consumption goes down, all that happens is Canadian beef production goes down. No impact is had on the amazon. We can be very confident of this because Canadian beef consumption has gone down, and Canadian beef production went down with it, not Brazilian beef production.
curiousity 8y ago
Beef is a product made from cows. Cows require land, food, water, and infrastructure. Producing beef leads to the destruction of ecosystems, like the Amazon Rainforest [1]. By consuming beef, you are contributing to this phenomenon the article discusses. The emissions from your car, similarly, contribute to climate change and the destruction that goes with it as well. The lifestyle one chooses to lead, the products one consumes, and the decisions a person makes are all very much factors in the reduction of animal populations. I'm starting to believe that you aren't arguing in good faith, in part because your statements are just thrown out there without any evidence or citation. Sure, a pound of beef or chicken contains more protein or calories than a pound of vegetables. But that's a nonsensical and misleading claim - many more pounds of vegetables went into producing that pound of beef and chicken. Many of those calories, by the way, were exhausted by the metabolic processes of those animals too. A much more efficient utilization of resources would involve just using those vegetable calories directly. [1] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/194008291300600309 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/194008291300600...
- deialtrous2 8y ago
  >Beef is a product made from cows. Cows are not globally fungible. Beef production in the US has absolutely nothing to do with the amazon being destroyed. There is no part of the amazon in the US, no US cattle are raised in the amazon, no feed fed to US cattle comes from the amazon. US beef production is not related at all. >I'm starting to believe that you aren't arguing in good faith, in part because your statements are just thrown out there without any evidence or citation. Sure, a pound of beef or chicken contains more protein or calories than a pound of vegetables. But that's a nonsensical and misleading claim I did not make that claim. I responded to someone else making a misleading claim. Assuming bad faith makes it more likely to misread things. >many more pounds of vegetables went into producing that pound of beef and chicken. No vegetables go into producing it. Grain might, but vegetables do not. Lettuce is far more wasteful of land than beef is, but we do not see campaigns against lettuce consumption, only against beef consumption. This is not logical.

wiz21c 8y ago

for the beef : https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/is-grass-fed-beef-better-for-the-environment.html https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/is-grass-fed-beef-bette... for the car : just stop using a car, that'll be better for the environment.

deialtrous 8y ago
I do not understand the relevance of that tabloid article. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I live in Canada. All my beef comes from Canada. The fact that people in other countries burn forests to graze cattle does not mean that Canadians consuming Canadian beef cause those other countries to burn forests. My beef consumption is 100% irrelevant, they will burn the same amount of forest regardless of what I eat, because they are not burning it to feed me.
- arbitrary_name 8y ago
  If you stop eating beef, others can eat Canadian beef and not brazilian beef. Your consumption has an effect.
  - deialtrous 8y ago
    That assumes that Canadian beef production is at or near its limit. It is not even close. We could produce far more, but there is no market for it. So if Canadian beef consumption goes down, all that happens is Canadian beef production goes down. No impact is had on the amazon. We can be very confident of this because Canadian beef consumption has gone down, and Canadian beef production went down with it, not Brazilian beef production.
  - deialtrous2 8y ago
    That assumes that Canadian beef production is at or near its limit. It is not even close. We could produce far more, but there is no market for it. So if Canadian beef consumption goes down, all that happens is Canadian beef production goes down. No impact is had on the amazon. We can be very confident of this because Canadian beef consumption has gone down, and Canadian beef production went down with it, not Brazilian beef production.

curiousity 8y ago

Beef is a product made from cows. Cows require land, food, water, and infrastructure. Producing beef leads to the destruction of ecosystems, like the Amazon Rainforest [1]. By consuming beef, you are contributing to this phenomenon the article discusses. The emissions from your car, similarly, contribute to climate change and the destruction that goes with it as well. The lifestyle one chooses to lead, the products one consumes, and the decisions a person makes are all very much factors in the reduction of animal populations. I'm starting to believe that you aren't arguing in good faith, in part because your statements are just thrown out there without any evidence or citation. Sure, a pound of beef or chicken contains more protein or calories than a pound of vegetables. But that's a nonsensical and misleading claim - many more pounds of vegetables went into producing that pound of beef and chicken. Many of those calories, by the way, were exhausted by the metabolic processes of those animals too. A much more efficient utilization of resources would involve just using those vegetable calories directly. [1] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/194008291300600309 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/194008291300600...

deialtrous2 8y ago
>Beef is a product made from cows. Cows are not globally fungible. Beef production in the US has absolutely nothing to do with the amazon being destroyed. There is no part of the amazon in the US, no US cattle are raised in the amazon, no feed fed to US cattle comes from the amazon. US beef production is not related at all. >I'm starting to believe that you aren't arguing in good faith, in part because your statements are just thrown out there without any evidence or citation. Sure, a pound of beef or chicken contains more protein or calories than a pound of vegetables. But that's a nonsensical and misleading claim I did not make that claim. I responded to someone else making a misleading claim. Assuming bad faith makes it more likely to misread things. >many more pounds of vegetables went into producing that pound of beef and chicken. No vegetables go into producing it. Grain might, but vegetables do not. Lettuce is far more wasteful of land than beef is, but we do not see campaigns against lettuce consumption, only against beef consumption. This is not logical.