4 ms·

The calories in meat aren't relevant, it takes more calories in animal food to produce meat than the calories in the meat. The meat industry is a strain on the

• viraptor 5y ago
  You're taking about long-term effects, which are true. But that meat waiting to be distributed is already there. If the deliveries disappear for a few days/weeks, you don't suddenly get extra plants to distribute in that timeframe.
  • dahart 5y ago
    True. Yeah I thought the whole sub-thread here was talking about long-term effects, not a short-term one-time gap of unused supply. The top comment was talking about the general necessity of meat to our economy, right?
    • lainga 5y ago
      Well general and specific, and short- and long-term, are orthogonal. Oil is also generally necessary in the US economy in the short-term, if (conceivably) not in the long-term. On the other hand electricity is not necessary in the short-term specifically to aluminum foundries, but in the long-term it is (or the crucibles solidify).
      • dahart 5y ago
        Sure agreed. I'm perhaps not understanding what part of the above that this distinction clarifies. Sudden loss of oil would bring the entire economy to a halt and certainly result in mass loss of life. Sudden loss of human edible meat would no doubt be a major blow and an enormous waste, but would not generally result in a lot of people dying or stop the economy. It would certainly bankrupt and cripple the operations of meat farmers, but loss of oil would bankrupt and cripple all farmers, and all transportation and distribution of food.
• swiley 5y ago
  Beef is grown using cellulose which contains calories that are unavailable to humans. Unless you've discovered a very neat chemistry trick that would also make fuel much cheaper.
  • dahart 5y ago
    I wasn't suggesting that people eat hay. We could use the same land to grow edible plants and vegetables instead, right?
    • aparks517 5y ago
      I imagine some grazing land could be converted, but I do think most of it is used for grazing because that's about all it's good for. My family used to graze a small herd on land that could /almost/ be used to grow grain (with lots of chemical help), but definitely not vegetables.
      • dahart 5y ago
        That is a very good point. I poked the internet about it and got this interesting information back which backs up your thought: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/march/data-feature-how-is-land-used/#:~:text=Grazing%20lands%20generally%20are%20less,land%20may%20revert%20to%20forest https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/march/data-feature.... Maybe worth mentioning that poultry feed is grains and "mostly" edible in theory (though maybe not in today's practice), and poultry is the largest segment of meat in the US? Also relevant are that per-capita meat consumption in the US has gone up dramatically in the last 50 years, and so has the average caloric intake. Looking at history, it seems like we have room to downsize some, right?
        • aparks517 5y ago
          > poultry feed is grains and "mostly" edible in theory Yeah, some of them definitely. We fed our chickens a fair bit of wheat, which of course makes good bread. Plenty of field corn too, which... I guess if you like corn chips as much as I do... okay! Poultry and eggs might be better for you than loading up on grains though. > per-capita meat consumption in the US has gone up dramatically in the last 50 years, and so has the average caloric intake Perhaps as little as double those fifty years ago it would have been unthinkable that even the poorest among us could be troubled by obesity. We live in an age of riches and I guess we're still figuring out how that works. What a problem to have, though! > it seems like we have room to downsize some, right? This is perhaps the most amusingly uncontroversial thing I've read on the Internet lately. Thank you