5 ms·

The correct solution to providing affordable protein for the world is to use nuclear power to desalinate seawater and irrigate the Sahara Desert to turn it into

The correct solution to providing affordable protein for the world is to use nuclear power to desalinate seawater and irrigate the Sahara Desert to turn it into a vast grassland that can support a billion cattle. The plain fact of the matter is that humans evolved on an almost exclusively meat-based diet and to this day thrive on an almost exclusively meat-based diet. Not only are plants toxic for humans, but widespread agriculture results in the loss of insect life, due to the massive use of insecticides, which in turn contributes to the loss of bird life due to the loss on insect life. Plant-based diets are terrible for human health and terrible for the environment, what with all the fossil-fuel-based fertilizers. The sooner we come to our senses and massively invest in regenerative herding the better off we'll be as a species. We should all be eating mostly red meat every day, with maybe a bit of fruit here and there -- this is by far the healthiest diet both for the human body and for the Earth as our home. And no, I'm not trolling -- this is my sincere and deeply-held belief.

n_o_u 5y ago
I'd honestly be really interested in seeing references. These are some strong statements, I'm searching for research on what you're claiming, but so far it does not appear to agree.
- dennis_jeeves 5y ago
  I really wish I could do this for you. But you see, collecting all references will end up taking several days of my time. But you can start with these 2 people here: https://shawn-baker.com/about/ https://shawn-baker.com/about/ http://www.ketotic.org/ http://www.ketotic.org/ Their talks do cite many references.
wcoenen 5y ago
> irrigate the Sahara Desert to turn it into a vast grassland that can support a billion cattle. There are currently about a billion cows[1], and these produce 14.5% of green house gases[2] (in the form of methane, measured as co2-equivalent). Doubling that would not be very good. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-population-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-pop... [2] https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/using-global-emission-statistics-distracting-us-climate-change-solutions https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/using-global-emission-s...
- phonypc 5y ago
  OP's idea is batshit, but worth noting that a doubling of the cattle population doesn't necessitate a doubling of emissions. Actually, your second link kinda goes into this. It's written by an animal agriculture advocate who recommends improving the efficiency of, rather than reducing, animal agriculture.
oehpr 5y ago
You don't get to propose a suite of projects to negate their costs. Because we're not some hive mind working with singular purpose. So: Last time I checked cattle used more water and more land than alternative sources of calories. You want us to eat meat, subsidies for cattle then? That's going to produce less calories at greater land and water use. You want to terraform the desert? The word "terraform" is no sweet nothing. Talk about destruction to the environment. My goodness. You want us to use nuclear reactors for energy? I do understand that desire. But you propose to install this in the Sahara? The place with tons of low value land and way too much sun? Might I propose an alternative energy source that is currently beating nuclear at price per watt in CLOUDY areas?
mellavora 5y ago
The Sahara used to be the breadbasket of Europe, full of water, plants, animals, ... before people fucked it over circa 2000 years ago. It would be nice to get it back.
- phonypc 5y ago
  Citation needed. With a quick search, it looks like the Sahara has been dry for about 5400 years, with a wet-dry cycle going on for millions of years caused by changes in the Earth's orbital axis.
tfehring 5y ago
>The plain fact of the matter is that humans evolved on an almost exclusively meat-based diet At one point in our evolutionary chain (that of Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens), sure. At other points (Australopithecus) we were exclusively vegetarian. For much of our history (that of Homo habilis and more recent Homo sapiens) we've eaten significant amounts of both plants and animals. I'd love to see a source for the claim that plants are toxic for humans. Considering that many humans eat exclusively plants, and that those people seem to have lower all-cause mortality rates than people with otherwise similar characteristics [0], I suspect that that could only be true if you're using a very non-standard definition of "toxic." [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24898223/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24898223/
dennis_jeeves 5y ago
>And no, I'm not trolling -- this is my sincere and deeply-held belief. You have been too modest. Actually most of what you said can be relatively easily collaborated by experimentation. Personally - I've been mostly on a read meat diet for the past decade.

n_o_u 5y ago

I'd honestly be really interested in seeing references. These are some strong statements, I'm searching for research on what you're claiming, but so far it does not appear to agree.

dennis_jeeves 5y ago
I really wish I could do this for you. But you see, collecting all references will end up taking several days of my time. But you can start with these 2 people here: https://shawn-baker.com/about/ https://shawn-baker.com/about/ http://www.ketotic.org/ http://www.ketotic.org/ Their talks do cite many references.

wcoenen 5y ago

> irrigate the Sahara Desert to turn it into a vast grassland that can support a billion cattle. There are currently about a billion cows[1], and these produce 14.5% of green house gases[2] (in the form of methane, measured as co2-equivalent). Doubling that would not be very good. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-population-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-pop... [2] https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/using-global-emission-statistics-distracting-us-climate-change-solutions https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/using-global-emission-s...

phonypc 5y ago
OP's idea is batshit, but worth noting that a doubling of the cattle population doesn't necessitate a doubling of emissions. Actually, your second link kinda goes into this. It's written by an animal agriculture advocate who recommends improving the efficiency of, rather than reducing, animal agriculture.

oehpr 5y ago

You don't get to propose a suite of projects to negate their costs. Because we're not some hive mind working with singular purpose. So: Last time I checked cattle used more water and more land than alternative sources of calories. You want us to eat meat, subsidies for cattle then? That's going to produce less calories at greater land and water use. You want to terraform the desert? The word "terraform" is no sweet nothing. Talk about destruction to the environment. My goodness. You want us to use nuclear reactors for energy? I do understand that desire. But you propose to install this in the Sahara? The place with tons of low value land and way too much sun? Might I propose an alternative energy source that is currently beating nuclear at price per watt in CLOUDY areas?

mellavora 5y ago

The Sahara used to be the breadbasket of Europe, full of water, plants, animals, ... before people fucked it over circa 2000 years ago. It would be nice to get it back.

phonypc 5y ago
Citation needed. With a quick search, it looks like the Sahara has been dry for about 5400 years, with a wet-dry cycle going on for millions of years caused by changes in the Earth's orbital axis.

tfehring 5y ago

>The plain fact of the matter is that humans evolved on an almost exclusively meat-based diet At one point in our evolutionary chain (that of Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens), sure. At other points (Australopithecus) we were exclusively vegetarian. For much of our history (that of Homo habilis and more recent Homo sapiens) we've eaten significant amounts of both plants and animals. I'd love to see a source for the claim that plants are toxic for humans. Considering that many humans eat exclusively plants, and that those people seem to have lower all-cause mortality rates than people with otherwise similar characteristics [0], I suspect that that could only be true if you're using a very non-standard definition of "toxic." [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24898223/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24898223/

dennis_jeeves 5y ago

>And no, I'm not trolling -- this is my sincere and deeply-held belief. You have been too modest. Actually most of what you said can be relatively easily collaborated by experimentation. Personally - I've been mostly on a read meat diet for the past decade.