4 ms·
Makes perfect sense until you consider the massive amounts of inputs, measured in land or energy, it takes to grow those crops on the smaller amount of land foo
by splitstud 5y ago
Makes perfect sense until you consider the massive amounts of inputs, measured in land or energy, it takes to grow those crops on the smaller amount of land footprint you ARE measuring.
- dqv 5y agoWe still us 1.5x the land for for growing feed for animals (excluding feed exports). If you're suggesting that feed requires less inputs, provide the sources that back up that suggestion.
- npsimons 5y ago> If you're suggesting that feed requires less inputs This is the thing that really gets me. It's so bloody obvious from the second law of thermodynamics that animals are going to require more resources than plants. There's even a name for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level This, much like weight loss and treating mental illness, seems to be one of those communal Dunning-Kruger areas of HN. Probably because people don't want to admit that their diet is contributing to global warming, or they have some "hurr durr, vegans suck!" attitude. Then again, I've noticed an influx of people denying the fact of the January 6th insurrection, so I shouldn't really be surprised.