3 ms·

The quote says: "Even if plant suffering were of the same intensity as animal suffering, omnivores would produce seven to ten times more suffering than plant l

The quote says: "Even if plant suffering were of the same intensity as animal suffering, omnivores would produce seven to ten times more suffering than plant lovers alone." Note the word "suffering". The quote is comparins suffering, not killing. > The 7-10x number is relative to the number of plants you'd have killed if you instead ate plants directly. The quote says: "Worse, the production of one animal protein requires 7 to 10 plant proteins." So the quote is counting proteins, not animals or plants.

karpierz 5y ago
I'm not sure what you're contradicting? In order to get 1 calorie of meat, you need to use 7-10 calories of plants. So by necessity, if you eat 1 calorie of meat, you are producing (at least) 7-10x the suffering relative to eating 1 calorie of plants, since 7-10x as much plant mass (and hence plants) needed to suffer to create the meat. I'm going to stop responding at this point because I'm not sure how else I can explain this.
- cheese_goddess 5y ago
  > In order to get 1 calorie of meat, you need to use 7-10 calories of plants. But where does this counting of calories come from? The article is talking about proteins. It says "the production of one animal protein requires 7 to 10 plant proteins" (my underlining). > So by necessity, if you eat 1 calorie of meat, you are producing (at least) 7-10x the suffering relative to eating 1 calorie of plants, since 7-10x as much plant mass (and hence plants) needed to suffer to create the meat. So, when you say "7-10x as much plant mass (hence plants)", you mean that 1 unit of plant mass = 1 plant, or did I wilfully misunderstand you again? > I'm going to stop responding at this point because I'm not sure how else I can explain this. You can explain it if you get the units right. Are we talking of proteins, calories, or units of suffering? What are we counting exactly? Maybe try to explain that?

karpierz 5y ago

I'm not sure what you're contradicting? In order to get 1 calorie of meat, you need to use 7-10 calories of plants. So by necessity, if you eat 1 calorie of meat, you are producing (at least) 7-10x the suffering relative to eating 1 calorie of plants, since 7-10x as much plant mass (and hence plants) needed to suffer to create the meat. I'm going to stop responding at this point because I'm not sure how else I can explain this.

cheese_goddess 5y ago
> In order to get 1 calorie of meat, you need to use 7-10 calories of plants. But where does this counting of calories come from? The article is talking about proteins. It says "the production of one animal protein requires 7 to 10 plant proteins" (my underlining). > So by necessity, if you eat 1 calorie of meat, you are producing (at least) 7-10x the suffering relative to eating 1 calorie of plants, since 7-10x as much plant mass (and hence plants) needed to suffer to create the meat. So, when you say "7-10x as much plant mass (hence plants)", you mean that 1 unit of plant mass = 1 plant, or did I wilfully misunderstand you again? > I'm going to stop responding at this point because I'm not sure how else I can explain this. You can explain it if you get the units right. Are we talking of proteins, calories, or units of suffering? What are we counting exactly? Maybe try to explain that?