• HotsauceHurricane@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I remember this mythbusters episode. They basically detected that plants “might “ scream or signal to other plants. They got some weird outliers too.

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Vegans consume fewer plants than anyone else. It takes a LOT of plants to raise a cow, pig, or chicken. From an economic point of view, meat is a way of refining mountains of cheap, plentiful, safe plant products into a scarce, harmful and addictive luxury product. This comes up a lot, you’d be amazed how many plants rights activists your average vegan runs into.

      • fsxylo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Vegans: we’ll have only a little vegetable cruelty, as a treat.

        Whatever keeps the high horse fed.

        • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          You’re going to have to unpack this a bit more for me.

          Edit: Ohhhh, you’re another one of those plant rights activists. Buddy, I eat plants for breakfast. You know what? Now I’m going to eat twice as many plants, just because it upsets you.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Unless you count grass and non-human consumables and non-potable water…sure…until then that’s bullshit.

        • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          How is that bullshit? I am not vegan, but that’s just a scientific consensus and a major reason why plant diet is way lower carbon than a meat diet. If you need to grow plant food for your animal food, eventually you have to grow way more plant food.
          Most animals raised for meat consumption are fed with crops, notably soy, not wild grass.
          Thinking animals raised for meat only consume resources (land (first cause of biodiversity loss), plants, water, energy) that would not be useful to humans anyway is undoubtedly wrong.

          Researchers Poore and Nemecek are a great source of meta-analysis information about those subjects. Check this summary here for example: http://environmath.org/2018/06/17/paper-of-the-day-poore-nemecek-2018-reducing-foods-environmental-impacts/

          Let me know if I misunderstood your point.

          • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            It’s less important that such arguments be factually accurate than that they are superficially convincing enough to distract the person giving the argument from thoughts and feelings they are unwilling to process.

        • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          What figures are you basing your ignorance off of? The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals. Animal ag is one of the largest consumers of fresh (ie “potable”) water. There are ten animals living in human possession for every human on Earth. Without intensive plant agriculture, we could not possibly feed them all. Grass and run-off is not what is producing your food.

          And since we are specifically discussing the hypothetical suffering of plants, why wouldn’t you count grass? You’re triggered.

          • boomzilla@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            The paper is from 2013. The number of animals in factory farming were ramped up since then.

            Then: She says crops not crop calories.

            “From the 41 crops analyzed in this study, 9.46 × 1015 calories available in plant form are produced by crops globally, of which 55% directly feed humans. However, 36% of these produced calories go to animal feed, of which 89% is lost, such that only 4% of crop-produced calories are available to humans in the form of animal products. Another 9% of crop-produced calories are used for industrial uses and biofuels[…]”

            55% + 9% = 64% = 2/3

            So you’re correct with the 2/3 crop calories(!) if we count the 9% biofuel/industrial stuff with it.

            But why is the following?

            “According to a 2011 analysis, 75% of all agricultural land (including crop and pasture land) is dedicated to animal production.”

            I’d suppose it’s because of this reasons: A. Pastures need a lot of space which for which often woods or rainforest are burned and biomes are destroyed. B. Probably the most eaten vegetable (potatoe) is very energy dense and has a lot less waste by-product and therefore needs a lot less space than animal feed like soy, wheat or corn.

            This is everything I need to know from your paper to say that the system of animal agriculture is fucked, wasteful and destroys nature and our health (not only because of the pandemics it causes):

            “Put another way, shifting the crops used for feed and other uses towards direct human food consumption could increase calories in the food system by 3.89 × 1015 calories, from 5.57 × 1015 to 9.46 × 1015 calories, or a ∼70% increase. A quadrillion (1 × 1015) food calories is enough to feed just over 1 billion people a 2700 calories per day diet for a year (which is 985 500 calories per year) [1]. Therefore, shifting the crop calories used for feed and other uses to direct human consumption could potentially feed an additional ∼4 billion people.”

            Pastures can be regenerated, btw: https://www.reddit.com/r/farming/comments/1ds3fvh/how_to_turn_pasture_into_a_garden/

            Edit: The latter is what the “Vegan Land Movement” is doing very successfully by rewilding pastures to wild lands again where a wide variety of wild life is finding a refugium now.

              • boomzilla@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                Nope. I’m not shifting anything. You were by changing the subject from crops to crop calories without taking into account humans can grow calorie dense foods on relatively small space opposed to animal feed which needs a lot crops, land and produces a lot of plant waste and in addition is inefficient because only a fraction of calories come out of the slaughtered being compared to the initial calories in plants.

                All that while we cull millions of feeling beings in the worst possible way right now because of H5N1 (add that to the polycrisis) waste enormous amounts of resources for little protein and calories and destroy nature.

                Here have a look at some frail vegans, while the world burns, mate:

                💪 💪 💪 💪 💪 💪 💪 💪 💪 💪

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  the same crops that feed animals feed people. they eat fodder and industrial waste from the same fields that produce food that people eat. it’s a conservation of resources.