4 ms·

Bit of a tangent, but nearly all foods have an animal death rate per calorie, so there's no such thing as insignificant food. The exchange rate is usually bett

by strken 3y ago

Bit of a tangent, but nearly all foods have an animal death rate per calorie, so there's no such thing as insignificant food. The exchange rate is usually better for grains than for e.g. chicken or even beef[0], though. [0] https://animalvisuals.org/projects/1mc/ https://animalvisuals.org/projects/1mc/ Note that I'm a little skeptical of the numbers here, particularly those for grass-fed beef. Not that it matters for the purpose of claiming rice has a cost in lives.

senkora 3y ago
Relevant SMBC: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-10-09 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-10-09
kjkjadksj 3y ago
Kind of an interesting link. Another thing to keep in mind is that the rice patty being there means a natural habitat is now lost to make way for the farm. In truth there is no guilt free meal or anything else.
eru 3y ago
Well, we can relatively easily put a dollar value on human lives, too. So any kind of waste that we can put a dollar value on, also has a value in human lives. Make of that what you will.
jefftk 3y ago
I think this is an interesting idea, and people inclined towards veganism might be able to better achieve their goals by going for a suffering-minimizing diet, but the studies this is based on aren't very good. For example: > 33 field mice were fitted with radio collars and tracked before and after harvest. The researchers found that only 3 percent of them were actually killed by the combine harvester (amounting to one mouse). An additional 52 percent of them (17 mice) were killed following harvest by predators such as owls and weasels, possibly due to their loss of the crop cover. It is unknown how many of these mice would have been eaten by owls or weasels anyway. That last sentence is key: without a control you can't draw much from this experiment. Additionally, while they say "animals" many times they're not clear on which ones they're including. The decision on whether to consider insects would be especially important.

by strken 3y ago

senkora 3y ago

Relevant SMBC: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-10-09 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-10-09

kjkjadksj 3y ago

Kind of an interesting link. Another thing to keep in mind is that the rice patty being there means a natural habitat is now lost to make way for the farm. In truth there is no guilt free meal or anything else.

eru 3y ago

Well, we can relatively easily put a dollar value on human lives, too. So any kind of waste that we can put a dollar value on, also has a value in human lives. Make of that what you will.

jefftk 3y ago

I think this is an interesting idea, and people inclined towards veganism might be able to better achieve their goals by going for a suffering-minimizing diet, but the studies this is based on aren't very good. For example: > 33 field mice were fitted with radio collars and tracked before and after harvest. The researchers found that only 3 percent of them were actually killed by the combine harvester (amounting to one mouse). An additional 52 percent of them (17 mice) were killed following harvest by predators such as owls and weasels, possibly due to their loss of the crop cover. It is unknown how many of these mice would have been eaten by owls or weasels anyway. That last sentence is key: without a control you can't draw much from this experiment. Additionally, while they say "animals" many times they're not clear on which ones they're including. The decision on whether to consider insects would be especially important.