3 ms·

> With respect to "crazy overhead" animals require land, food and water at an exponential rate of consumption compared to alternatives. Why is the overhead exp

by lqet 5y ago

> With respect to "crazy overhead" animals require land, food and water at an exponential rate of consumption compared to alternatives. Why is the overhead exponential in the rate of consumption?

bee_rider 5y ago
Well, the claim isn't "exponential in the rate of consumption," it is "exponential in comparison to alternatives" which is... not wrong really, just complete nonsense. E: Unfortunately "exponential" just sounds too cool, so everybody goes for it. To push back we will need pick something else cool sounding. Maybe "nigh incomparably larger"
- xyzzy21 5y ago
  Mathematically that's wrong.
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    What is? Their original statement I guess. I think it is more unparsable than wrong. I think the we should invite the philosophers and linguists in. From a programming point of view -- fatal compilation error, "exponential" is not a comparator.
windexh8er 5y ago
Is the implication that alt meats aren't being consumed and therefore more wasteful? I'm not sure I'm following - because when I started to look at the waste in existing livestock lifecycle you begin to understand that it's never been efficient, nor has the industry done much to pivot with better methods. Here's a water footprint comparison [0]. Here's a study that showcases where: "Agriculture accounts for 92% of the freshwater footprint of humanity; almost one third relates to animal products." [1] And here's a study that showcases how many people could be fed by grain given the footprint of food livestock need to be raised and bred [2]. And here's data showcasing the significant delta of available land vs diet types for different nations [3], many being unsuitable without external use of land for food. [0] https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-... [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212371713000024 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221237171... [2] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-m... [3] https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets
- lqet 5y ago
  > Is the implication that alt meats aren't being consumed and therefore more wasteful? No, I just didn't understand how the overhead of classic meat production can be "exponential", and I fail to find an explanation in your comment above. If your argument is that it is more wasteful to eat meat than to eat vegetables, I completely agree and this is hardly surprising. But this says nothing about the additional overhead and environmental impact of processing these vegetables into artificial meat on a global scale.
  - windexh8er 5y ago
    If the ingredient in a given product is known to be more environmentally impactful then the sun of the parts is, minimally, representative of those ingredients. It's well known, as you stated, that plants are less impactful on our world. The data linked in my parent comment showcases this. Alt meats are mostly plant based. Processing of livestock vs plants is much more costly, so I'm not sure where the disconnect is.
    - voxic11 5y ago
      The data linked in your comment does not indicate any relevant exponential relationships so its unclear what you mean by that word.
      - windexh8er 5y ago
        Maybe you didn't open any of the links. As an example, from "Water footprint of crop and animal products: a comparison" [0]... Litre per kilogram - vegetables: 322, bovine meat: 15415 (47x more water required for meat) Litre per kilocalorie - vegetables: 1.34, bovine meat: 10.19 (7.6x more water required for meat) Litre per gram of protein - vegetables: 26, bovine meat: 112 (4.3x more water required for meat) Litre per gram of fat - vegetables: 154, bovine meat: 153 (1.006535948x more water required for vegetables) It seems that with respect to water consumption bovine meat requires, in a way the particularly concerning word is often used, exponentially more for similar output - in most (3 out of 4) cases described by the article. [0] https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-...

by lqet 5y ago

> With respect to "crazy overhead" animals require land, food and water at an exponential rate of consumption compared to alternatives. Why is the overhead exponential in the rate of consumption?

bee_rider 5y ago

Well, the claim isn't "exponential in the rate of consumption," it is "exponential in comparison to alternatives" which is... not wrong really, just complete nonsense. E: Unfortunately "exponential" just sounds too cool, so everybody goes for it. To push back we will need pick something else cool sounding. Maybe "nigh incomparably larger"

xyzzy21 5y ago
Mathematically that's wrong.
- bee_rider 5y ago
  What is? Their original statement I guess. I think it is more unparsable than wrong. I think the we should invite the philosophers and linguists in. From a programming point of view -- fatal compilation error, "exponential" is not a comparator.

windexh8er 5y ago

Is the implication that alt meats aren't being consumed and therefore more wasteful? I'm not sure I'm following - because when I started to look at the waste in existing livestock lifecycle you begin to understand that it's never been efficient, nor has the industry done much to pivot with better methods. Here's a water footprint comparison [0]. Here's a study that showcases where: "Agriculture accounts for 92% of the freshwater footprint of humanity; almost one third relates to animal products." [1] And here's a study that showcases how many people could be fed by grain given the footprint of food livestock need to be raised and bred [2]. And here's data showcasing the significant delta of available land vs diet types for different nations [3], many being unsuitable without external use of land for food. [0] https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-... [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212371713000024 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221237171... [2] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-m... [3] https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets

lqet 5y ago
> Is the implication that alt meats aren't being consumed and therefore more wasteful? No, I just didn't understand how the overhead of classic meat production can be "exponential", and I fail to find an explanation in your comment above. If your argument is that it is more wasteful to eat meat than to eat vegetables, I completely agree and this is hardly surprising. But this says nothing about the additional overhead and environmental impact of processing these vegetables into artificial meat on a global scale.
- windexh8er 5y ago
  If the ingredient in a given product is known to be more environmentally impactful then the sun of the parts is, minimally, representative of those ingredients. It's well known, as you stated, that plants are less impactful on our world. The data linked in my parent comment showcases this. Alt meats are mostly plant based. Processing of livestock vs plants is much more costly, so I'm not sure where the disconnect is.
  - voxic11 5y ago
    The data linked in your comment does not indicate any relevant exponential relationships so its unclear what you mean by that word.
    - windexh8er 5y ago
      Maybe you didn't open any of the links. As an example, from "Water footprint of crop and animal products: a comparison" [0]... Litre per kilogram - vegetables: 322, bovine meat: 15415 (47x more water required for meat) Litre per kilocalorie - vegetables: 1.34, bovine meat: 10.19 (7.6x more water required for meat) Litre per gram of protein - vegetables: 26, bovine meat: 112 (4.3x more water required for meat) Litre per gram of fat - vegetables: 154, bovine meat: 153 (1.006535948x more water required for vegetables) It seems that with respect to water consumption bovine meat requires, in a way the particularly concerning word is often used, exponentially more for similar output - in most (3 out of 4) cases described by the article. [0] https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-...