5 ms·

Yeah, on the same token I'm totally mystified that people used horses to pull plows. What the heck were they thinking?

arcticbull 10y ago
I would argue the difference here is we could just, you know, eat the plants but we don't want to. 36% of US corn goes to feed animals for meat and dairy (3%-40% efficient). [1] There would be significantly more food to go around if the plants were just eaten directly. It would be more like if there were plows at the time that operated on solar but nobody wanted to use them, and instead, decided to tie horses to the plows because they would rather. Had a hard time working farm subsidies into the analogy. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-c...
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  If we all lived in 3 foot by 7 foot cubes it would cost a great deal less to heat our homes as well. Just because a more optimal way to do things exist doesn't mean anyone actually wants to do it. I enjoy eating meat, thus I will continue to do so.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - arcticbull 10y ago
    The difference is one's uncomfortable, the other you're just used to. Plants are no less tasty, they're just different. I eat meat too, I'm just saying.
    - bobcostas55 10y ago
      >Plants are no less tasty Sketch out a model of the evolution of dietary preferences in the ancestral environment (esp post-fire) and you will quickly see this is an insane thing to believe.
      - kranner 10y ago
        You're talking pre-agriculture.
      - arcticbull 10y ago
        Fair, I could restate that not as 'no less tasty' but 'tasty in their own right'. Though there are also plenty of societies that are primarily vegetarian, as in South India, and I don't see them running for the nearest meat market due to the insane flavor advantages of a good cut of meat.
    - nightski 10y ago
      Meat is extremely tasty but I am not going to just eat meat. Similarly with vegetables, I love cauliflower and broccoli but at the end of the day I need variety. Just because one is very tasty doesn't mean it makes the other any less desirable. On the same topic, it's ironic how we lump "meat" into a single category. How the animals are raised and fed has a huge effect on the flavor and taste of the meat. If McDonalds hamburgers disappeared I wouldn't even notice. If I am not able to buy grass fed ribeye from a local farm I'd be very disappointed.
  - warent 10y ago
    Fair enough. It may be worth empathizing that animals probably don't enjoy being farmed and slaughtered by the billions
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      I doubt corn wants to be farmed and eaten either. Should we stop the use of antibiotics to preserve the lives of billions of bacteria? You see its not a matter of caring about life when you boil it down. The majority of vegans are pro choice for example. This is a matter of where you draw the line. You may move that line a little bit further down the food chain than I but all mammals must kill to survive.
      - warent 10y ago
        Neither bacteria or corn are animals, and bacteria isn't even part of the Eukarya domain, it's something else entirely. I was pretty specific about saying animals in my post. Why animals? Because we are known to mourn the death of other animals.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        >Because we are known to mourn the death of other animals. We don't mourn the death of food animals typically so its OK then? Your criteria are arbitrary, and that's fine for a personal value but you certainly can't expect others to agree with you.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > we could just, you know, eat the plants but we don't want to. You're really arguing something separate here. We can't eat a lot of plants that animals can. 36% of corn goes to feed animals for meat, but what percentage of corn is inedible for humans? (husks, leaves, cobs) There's a reason we don't domesticate carnivores - we're not creating any more food sources. We don't compete with things that digest cellulose.
  - arcticbull 10y ago
    I believe that corn stalks and husks are not particularly good feed for livestock, they're very low protein (3-4%) and thus usually have to be supplemented. Ideally, it would be mulched back into the ground to prevent erosion and soil depletion, AFAIK.
- hinkley 10y ago
  Those endless fields of corn in the midwest are feed corn, not corn on the cob. They're destined for processed food or to feed animals. Soy isn't all that much different. What would have to happen is that we start planting something else, that's more immediately edible.

I would argue the difference here is we could just, you know, eat the plants but we don't want to. 36% of US corn goes to feed animals for meat and dairy (3%-40% efficient). [1] There would be significantly more food to go around if the plants were just eaten directly. It would be more like if there were plows at the time that operated on solar but nobody wanted to use them, and instead, decided to tie horses to the plows because they would rather. Had a hard time working farm subsidies into the analogy. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-c...

cmdrfred 10y ago
If we all lived in 3 foot by 7 foot cubes it would cost a great deal less to heat our homes as well. Just because a more optimal way to do things exist doesn't mean anyone actually wants to do it. I enjoy eating meat, thus I will continue to do so.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- arcticbull 10y ago
  The difference is one's uncomfortable, the other you're just used to. Plants are no less tasty, they're just different. I eat meat too, I'm just saying.
  - bobcostas55 10y ago
    >Plants are no less tasty Sketch out a model of the evolution of dietary preferences in the ancestral environment (esp post-fire) and you will quickly see this is an insane thing to believe.
    - kranner 10y ago
      You're talking pre-agriculture.
    - arcticbull 10y ago
      Fair, I could restate that not as 'no less tasty' but 'tasty in their own right'. Though there are also plenty of societies that are primarily vegetarian, as in South India, and I don't see them running for the nearest meat market due to the insane flavor advantages of a good cut of meat.
  - nightski 10y ago
    Meat is extremely tasty but I am not going to just eat meat. Similarly with vegetables, I love cauliflower and broccoli but at the end of the day I need variety. Just because one is very tasty doesn't mean it makes the other any less desirable. On the same topic, it's ironic how we lump "meat" into a single category. How the animals are raised and fed has a huge effect on the flavor and taste of the meat. If McDonalds hamburgers disappeared I wouldn't even notice. If I am not able to buy grass fed ribeye from a local farm I'd be very disappointed.
- warent 10y ago
  Fair enough. It may be worth empathizing that animals probably don't enjoy being farmed and slaughtered by the billions
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    I doubt corn wants to be farmed and eaten either. Should we stop the use of antibiotics to preserve the lives of billions of bacteria? You see its not a matter of caring about life when you boil it down. The majority of vegans are pro choice for example. This is a matter of where you draw the line. You may move that line a little bit further down the food chain than I but all mammals must kill to survive.
    - warent 10y ago
      Neither bacteria or corn are animals, and bacteria isn't even part of the Eukarya domain, it's something else entirely. I was pretty specific about saying animals in my post. Why animals? Because we are known to mourn the death of other animals.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        >Because we are known to mourn the death of other animals. We don't mourn the death of food animals typically so its OK then? Your criteria are arbitrary, and that's fine for a personal value but you certainly can't expect others to agree with you.
jimmywanger 10y ago
> we could just, you know, eat the plants but we don't want to. You're really arguing something separate here. We can't eat a lot of plants that animals can. 36% of corn goes to feed animals for meat, but what percentage of corn is inedible for humans? (husks, leaves, cobs) There's a reason we don't domesticate carnivores - we're not creating any more food sources. We don't compete with things that digest cellulose.
- arcticbull 10y ago
  I believe that corn stalks and husks are not particularly good feed for livestock, they're very low protein (3-4%) and thus usually have to be supplemented. Ideally, it would be mulched back into the ground to prevent erosion and soil depletion, AFAIK.
hinkley 10y ago
Those endless fields of corn in the midwest are feed corn, not corn on the cob. They're destined for processed food or to feed animals. Soy isn't all that much different. What would have to happen is that we start planting something else, that's more immediately edible.