3 ms·

> How could that conversation work while respecting the second law? Well, if you start with 15 million calories worth of corn, feed it to pigs, and you get 3.5

> How could that conversation work while respecting the second law? Well, if you start with 15 million calories worth of corn, feed it to pigs, and you get 3.5 million calories of pork back out, the rest of the energy is exerted to keep the animal alive through its life. The second law is respected. Meanwhile, an equivalent acreage of broccoli only provides 2 million calories, being far less efficient at converting the environment's resources into calories than corn, so it is starting from behind and never makes up for just how efficient corn really is. The second law continues to be respected. If you fed that broccoli to pigs, you might not even get half a million calories of pork back, but that's why we don't feed pigs broccoli. Still no violation of the second law. I am not really sure where you think the violation was meant to occur?

alex_young 6y ago
Cherry picking some unproductive crops doesn’t prove your argument against animal agriculture’s impact on climate change. Some actually useful real data: http://www.waldeneffect.org/blog/Calories_per_acre_for_various_foods/ http://www.waldeneffect.org/blog/Calories_per_acre_for_vario...
- randomdata 6y ago
  > Cherry picking some unproductive crops doesn’t prove your argument It was asked by a previous commenter in the thread to cherry-pick a crop that is less efficient than a cherry-picked animal. It was never meant to prove anything, only to helpfully answer the specific question asked. Trying to change the subject now does nothing to help your cause, which nobody really disagrees with in the first place. Even if you come from a heartfelt place, it is troubling that you did not take the time to read the thread before pushing your agenda. That is not the type of community HN strives to be.
  - alex_young 6y ago
    Your point about corn being really efficient isn’t exactly well substantiated to be honest. I totally agree about civility, but I think it’s a bit disingenuous to be pointing fingers. Have a good night.

alex_young 6y ago

Cherry picking some unproductive crops doesn’t prove your argument against animal agriculture’s impact on climate change. Some actually useful real data: http://www.waldeneffect.org/blog/Calories_per_acre_for_various_foods/ http://www.waldeneffect.org/blog/Calories_per_acre_for_vario...

randomdata 6y ago
> Cherry picking some unproductive crops doesn’t prove your argument It was asked by a previous commenter in the thread to cherry-pick a crop that is less efficient than a cherry-picked animal. It was never meant to prove anything, only to helpfully answer the specific question asked. Trying to change the subject now does nothing to help your cause, which nobody really disagrees with in the first place. Even if you come from a heartfelt place, it is troubling that you did not take the time to read the thread before pushing your agenda. That is not the type of community HN strives to be.
- alex_young 6y ago
  Your point about corn being really efficient isn’t exactly well substantiated to be honest. I totally agree about civility, but I think it’s a bit disingenuous to be pointing fingers. Have a good night.