/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13045717

132KiB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

The role of meat in environmental impacts.

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 17:01:32 2021 No.13045717 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13045753 >>13045766 >>13045832 >>13046193 >>13047214 >>13049514 >>13049551 >>13051651 >>13051689

What is you opinion on this video?
Nothing jumped out at me as being particularly incorrectly researched or fallacious, but I would like alternate opinions. So I'm inclined to agree with the point being made, but don't want to jump at the opportunity. Especially since I'm not vegan myself and this rather accurately panders to the views I already have.

Vegan/vegetarian anons are appreciated as they would be more critical, but anyone that can argue for either side would be appreciated in this thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 17:07:32 No.13045753 Report

Quoted By: >>13045886 >>13046768

>>13045717
If I had to say something personally,

He makes the point that manure is used as fertilizer and that the majority of feed is inedible, however the inedible material could be used directly as fertilizer more efficiently, no? I would think that there would be more nutrients available since the animal would not be an intermediary. So this argument seems rather weak to me.

I also am not particularly sure about the testimony of Dr. Frank Mitloehner, but I also think distrusting him would be unbased.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 17:09:05 No.13045766 Report

Quoted By: >>13051689

>>13045717
Forgot to attach the link to the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g&ab_channel=WhatI%27veLearned

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 17:21:19 No.13045832 Report

Quoted By: >>13046183 >>13046707

>>13045717
>What is you opinion on this video?
>Doesn't post a link to a video
FFS OP

Vegans just want special attention for their special diet. None of the reasons vegans give for why they're vegan contribute to their decision not to eat meat, especially since most of their grievances are satisfied with a less extreme stance. They mostly trade animal suffering for human suffering. That said, they are usually correct about the environmental advantages of eating less meat. For example, any food animal will require about ten times as much space as plant based foods (per calorie) because about 10% of the energy is stored at each trophic level. This is ignoring other environmental detriments or animal agriculture like nutrient runoff or methane production.

Fuck vegans and veganism. Just cut back on how much meat you eat. Try to limit it to less than 20% of your meal and avoid ruminants and it should all be fine. Avoid carnivores (like salmon) too. Since they're a trophic level higher than herbivores they take about 100 times the land per calorie of plant based foods.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 17:31:19 No.13045886 Report

Quoted By: >>13046707

>>13045753
>the inedible material could be used directly as fertilizer more efficiently, no?
No.
This dude researches his shit well, and is generally balanced with little political leaning.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 18:36:17 No.13046183 Report

Quoted By: >>13046707 >>13047102 >>13051638

>>13045832
Watch the video first, he actually addresses these points
>ruminants are fed on grasslands which are very low-quality soils and they can't be used for farming
>other animals are fed mostly food leftovers and other human-inedible stuff which means that they do not reduce the amount of available human food
>the methane production by animals is not very significant compared to pollutions from other sources (5% of overall pollution) and actually decreases per unit of food in more advanced coutries

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 18:39:21 No.13046193 Report

Quoted By: >>13046959 >>13047329 >>13049551

>>13045717
I will eat meat because it feels good, and if that contributes to ecological collapse then I'll eat even more meat because humans deserve to go extinct

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 20:35:16 No.13046707 Report

Quoted By: >>13046768 >>13047102

>>13045832
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g&ab_channel=WhatI%27veLearned

yea sorry I forgot to attach it in the main post.

To address what you said though: the majority of the calories that ruminants are fed are unavailable to humans. See the video or >>13046183

>>13045886
are you sure about that? why is this? Do they fix certain nutrients or make them more available or something? I haven't heard of that before.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 20:48:38 No.13046768 Report

Quoted By: >>13046942

>>13045753
>>13046707
Environmental Engineer here. I believe there could be legitimacy in saying that cow manure might be have a higher efficacy rate in growing crops by having more readily available nutrients for plant uptake. In general, certain things can be composted easier (I compost and there are do's and don'ts of what you can in order to maintain the micro-organism population). I could see the argument that leftover sugary dunkin donuts would probably be best disposed of by letting a cow eat it and shit out usable manure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 21:29:28 No.13046942 Report

Quoted By: >>13047051

>>13046768
Yea I could see that being the case.

Do you think that the arguments are accurate in your opinion?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 21:34:48 No.13046959 Report

Quoted By:

>>13046193
/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 22:00:07 No.13047051 Report

Quoted By:

>>13046942
They over estimate how much legitimate water it takes to make beef yes 100 percent, as well as the carbon footprint. So in general I do agree with this video. That doesn't mean meat should be had every meal, but rather moderation and specifically those meats that are grown with some sustainability in mind.

Even though living animals are carbon neutral, that doesn't mean having our current system of industrialized meat production thus having more cows alive producing methane than would naturally be present is a great thing as it could be stored in a longer lifespan carbon form such as CO2 absorbing beings like plants/trees.

The best approach imo is trying to reach a model of meat production which is sustainable on the land. Regenerative agriculture if you will. We run into issues with swath's of monoculture crop land having no animals basically depleting nutrients from the soil, even with constant fertilization, and that is due to the extreme amount of production we force out of each sq/ft without regard for the long term. Also, cows are not very energy efficient, as they are warm blooded and require a lot of feed to keep their huge mass warm. So maybe even changing from meat focus to smaller livestock like goat would be better. IIRC goats also require a lot less water.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 22:13:09 No.13047102 Report

Quoted By: >>13047316 >>13049460

>>13046183
>>13046707
They aren't fed with the grasses in their pasture. They're fed with grains, which are suitable for human consumption. Besides that, 5% of the total is a huge amount of emissions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 22:35:46 No.13047214 Report

Quoted By: >>13047316

>>13045717
Dogs are worse for the environment than cows and poultry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 22:55:15 No.13047316 Report

Quoted By: >>13047322 >>13047655

>>13047102
Grains are human digestible anon, their feed mainly consists of non human digestibles. Like, (as the video mentions), corn husks, almond hulls, basedbean husks, waste from beer production, etc.

>>13047214
Personally I think fishing is worse than livestock. Fishing practices are pretty garbage, and are not at all sustainable. Like 90% of all great ocean garbage patches are fishing nets. Dolphin, whale, orca, and sea turtle conservation is just a smokescreen for the malpractices of the fishing industry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 22:56:57 No.13047322 Report

Quoted By:

>>13047316
I saw that documentary too

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 22:58:11 No.13047329 Report

Quoted By:

>>13046193
Absolutely based

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Apr 2021 23:39:27 No.13047482 Report

Quoted By: >>13049479

I've seen a few of this guy's videos before, and I think that for a youtuber he does an excellent job of doing his homework and avoiding bias. His general thesis, that the environmental impact of eating meat is not a strong argument against it, was demonstrated quite well.
There are other arguments against eating meat, however. Firstly, a major factor in American livestock farming's efficiency is that they pump the livestock chock full of steroids, antibiotics, and hormones. As far as I know, the jury is still out in terms of research demonstrating that those things are not having an impact on human physiology. Secondly, meat (especially red meat) is carcinogenic at high rates of consumption. Yes, meat is very nutrient-dense, but eating it daily or almost daily greatly elevates the risk of cancer. Thirdly, the moral argument. In a future where we have come up with a concrete definition of what makes a being qualify as conscious and therefore deserving of the same right to a good life as a human, if that definition includes livestock then what we are doing now makes the holocaust look like just a minor boo boo, ethically speaking. The conditions for those animals are miserable.
A few notes: the third argument I laid out is the weakest one right now, and I acknowledge that. It assumes that a question we have not yet answered has been answered in a certain way. Second, I'm not an expert on any of this, so take everything I've said with a grain of salt.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Apr 2021 00:22:48 No.13047655 Report

Quoted By: >>13047723 >>13051463

>>13047316
Ultimately if doesn't matter what they're fed. The area required to produce that food is the same.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Apr 2021 00:37:53 No.13047723 Report

Quoted By:

>>13047655
Did you watch the video anon?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Apr 2021 08:20:58 No.13049460 Report

Quoted By:

>>13047102
>Literally spouts 2 misconceptions the video btfos without further development or counter-evidence
Why are you like this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Apr 2021 08:27:09 No.13049479 Report

Quoted By:

>>13047482
>Firstly, a major factor in American livestock farming's efficiency is that they pump the livestock chock full of steroids, antibiotics, and hormones. As far as I know, the jury is still out in terms of research demonstrating that those things are not having an impact on human physiology
Completely valid. As a Brit watching a video from a Japanese-resident YouTuber though, it isn't just the USA these anti-meat lobbyists complain about. USA practices should be improved towards a more organic approach as in many other countries.
>Secondly, meat (especially red meat) is carcinogenic at high rates of consumption. Yes, meat is very nutrient-dense, but eating it daily or almost daily greatly elevates the risk of cancer
The jury is still out on this. "Red and processed meat" is the phrase often used, often with confounding between a high red-meat diet and a generally unhealthy diet (including tobacco and alcohol on top). These studies mainly use surveys, so even though they are "evidence", they hold little credibility and RCTs would be needed. The video also doesn't say "eat red meat every day", and I think most would agree an "everything in moderation" approach.
>Thirdly, the moral argument. In a future where we have come up with a concrete definition of what makes a being qualify as conscious and therefore deserving of the same right to a good life as a human, if that definition includes livestock then what we are doing now makes the holocaust look like just a minor boo boo, ethically speaking. The conditions for those animals are miserable.
Agreed, but this is more of a USA thing. Everyone should be eating organic, and should generally be eating lower volumes of food with less waste (which a diet of less-affordable foods allows - you can't buy as much to gorge on and waste). On the "no kill aminal" side of it, this comes down to subjectivity. We are animals, and we are omnivorous animals - biology doesn't care about emotions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Apr 2021 08:43:26 No.13049514 Report

Quoted By: >>13051510 >>13051563

>>13045717
It did never make sense to me the "the food we grow for cows could be used to feed us" argument when they eat grass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Apr 2021 08:58:37 No.13049551 Report

Quoted By:

>>13045717
I saw the video

Generally, the only good argument that vegans have is the ethical one. If you care so much about the well-being of animals then meat should be a no-no

My problem with the video specifically is that he used only one source, that scientist. Having only one source to back your claims is not a very good sign.

>>13046193
not only based but also redpilled

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Apr 2021 18:41:37 No.13051463 Report

Quoted By:

>>13047655
The area used to produce this food is not necessarily an area that could be used to produce human food directly. It doesn't even make financial sense. If meat is $8/lb and takes up significantly more resources, why not just grow rice for $3/lb? I finished the video and he makes a lot of valid points against the reductionist rethoric of anti-meat.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Apr 2021 18:48:36 No.13051510 Report

Quoted By:

>>13049514
Most cows are corn fed aren't they? Grass fed beef is just too expensive to be widely sold

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Apr 2021 18:57:41 No.13051563 Report

Quoted By:

>>13049514
>"the food we grow for cows could be used to feed us" argument when they eat grass.
The majority aren't surviving on grass. The regions that support entirely grass fed beef are small and would never meet the world's demand.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Apr 2021 19:14:47 No.13051638 Report

Quoted By:

>>13046183
>ruminants are fed on grasslands which are very low-quality soils and they can't be used for farming
The majority aren't surviving on grass, the demand for meat has exceeded the grasslands available to support that amount of cattle needed.

>other animals are fed mostly food leftovers and other human-inedible stuff which means that they do not reduce the amount of available human food
Some of this is by choice. For example, field corn is often grown in place of sweet corn, but it doesn't have to be that way. Field corn has multiple uses, but it's primarily grown to feed livestock. Those fields are quite capable of supporting other crops that could feed humans directly.

From an environmental standpoint, going completely vegan doesn't make sense. It's true that there's some land available that naturally supports ruminants, so it makes sense to eat some beef. However, our current system is still incredibly wasteful.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Apr 2021 19:17:15 No.13051651 Report

Quoted By:

>>13045717
I love meat in my mouth

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Spiritual+abandoned+good+baboon_ (...).jpg, 89KiB, 779x667

Anonymous Thu 29 Apr 2021 19:25:15 No.13051689 Report

Quoted By:

>>13045717
>>13045766
this is just /pol/tard conspiracy theories. bill gates told me i need to eat the bugs and soi to save the planet. he is like iron man from marvel comics, saving the world with science. you people are literally voldemort.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches