3 ms·
> This is full of lies, it is not an ethical alternative to cow's milk because it uses a ton of natural resources to produce. What doesn't take a ton of resour
by gridlockd 7y ago
> This is full of lies, it is not an ethical alternative to cow's milk because it uses a ton of natural resources to produce.
What doesn't take a ton of resources to produce while still being nutritious? What's unethical about taking natural resources to produce food in the first place? Nature is all about eating itself, perpetually.
> You cannot live without bees in the world.
That's a myth.
- klyrs 7y ago> What doesn't take a ton of resources to produce while still being nutritious? Absolutely? Nothing. Relatively? Just about anything but animals and nuts. Per gram of protein, nuts require more water than even beef: https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-...
- gridlockd 7y agoAnimals are pretty good at converting poor-quality plant protein into high-quality animal protein, along with certain micro-nutrients that plants do not contain at all, or at least not in a readily bio-available form. Also, water in and of itself isn't an exhaustible resource. If it becomes too expensive, water-hungry foods like almonds will simply price themselves out of the market.
- klyrs 7y ago> Also, water in and of itself isn't an exhaustible resource Freshwater, on the other hand. > If it becomes too expensive, water-hungry foods like almonds will simply price themselves out of the market. This macroeconomic argument hasn't played well. I've heard people say that carbon-based fuels will price themselves out if externalities become too severe. The end game is brimksmanship, and macroeconomic reasoning says its fine to deprive a local poor population of drinking water if local businesses can make greater profits selling almonds.