4 ms·

All "haha, but it's tasty!!!!" jokes aside, and even ethics and morality aside (which is tough, because we cause a LOT of suffering here), growing meat is just

All "haha, but it's tasty!!!!" jokes aside, and even ethics and morality aside (which is tough, because we cause a LOT of suffering here), growing meat is just incredibly inefficient. We have to sustain so much additional biological machinery just to chop off some muscle tissue at the end, even if we assume everything of the cow will be used eventually, it's just incredibly wasteful.

close04 1y ago
The problem is that we don't factor in the externalities adequately in the price of most products. Building and operating an amusement park is also incredibly inefficient just to get a giggle. If every product would be priced in a way that includes all externalities you'd see a shrink in the industries with the highest (negative) impact. I'm setting aside the Pandora's box discussion about allowing only the rich the luxury of destroying the environment.
mindok 1y ago
Cow poo and periodic trampling are an incredibly important part of topsoil development in a number of ecosystems - eg prairies.
- danielbln 1y ago
  Sure, but most beef farming is mass scale factory farming. Framing it as "it's good for prairies" is a little disingenuous.
  - burnt-resistor 1y ago
    A lot disingenuous. A CAFO lot.[0] That's how most cows are raised. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_animal_feeding_operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_animal_feeding_op...
closewith 1y ago
By this approach, life is inherently wasteful. Resource use is not only necessary, but a human right. Deciding for others what is and isn't worth the use is immoral.
- danielbln 1y ago
  What kind of statement is that? Is it my human right to blow CFCs into the air? Maybe, yet we generally disallow that because it would ruin the fun for everyone else. Your right to use resources ends where my impact begins. Additionally, pointing out inefficiencies is a good thing and something we should do more of, because that's how we optimize.
  - closewith 1y ago
    CFCs are prohibited, like other toxic substances, because they are unequivocally detrimental to everyone. Energy use, agriculture, and husbandry are not. > Your right to use resources ends where my impact begins. No, it doesn't. If it did, no-one would be able to zero any resources as the planet is a zero-sum resource pool. I have the right to use resources even where it impacts other. The limits we place on resource use are and should be only in extremis where that impact reaches a level that is particularly harmful. Many agricultural practices meet this condition and have been banned. Many more should be. However, that does not extend to dictating that resources cannot be used for husbandry. Following your logic, I should be able to prohibit you using computers recreationally, prevent you from travelling in powered vehicles, prevent you from having children. Each of those has a far higher contribution to resource use than husbandry. > Additionally, pointing out inefficiencies is a good thing and something we should do more of, because that's how we optimize. Life is not an optimisation problem. Don't waste yours approaching it this way.
    - danielbln 1y ago
      You're conflating acknowledging inefficiency with advocating for totalitarian control. I pointed out that meat production is wasteful that's just a fact. Your response is to claim I must therefore support banning computers and children?! That's not how optimization works. We can improve systems without descending into authoritarian micromanagement. By your logic, we should never fix anything because someone might take it too far.
prox 1y ago
I know someone who works in agriculture reform and the lobby against any change is tough Like they get outspend to an incredible degree. You are not choosing, they are telling you what to choose. It doesn’t mean change isn’t possible but you are swimming against a powerful current called Lobbying and Marketing/Influencing.
dinfinity 1y ago
Something oft forgotten: cheese made from cow milk is actually really inefficient too. Chicken and pork meat rank lower than cheese from cow milk in environmental impact.
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  Chicken is one thing, since chicken meat is actually quite eco-friendly. Not sure about pork, to be honest.

close04 1y ago

The problem is that we don't factor in the externalities adequately in the price of most products. Building and operating an amusement park is also incredibly inefficient just to get a giggle. If every product would be priced in a way that includes all externalities you'd see a shrink in the industries with the highest (negative) impact. I'm setting aside the Pandora's box discussion about allowing only the rich the luxury of destroying the environment.

mindok 1y ago

Cow poo and periodic trampling are an incredibly important part of topsoil development in a number of ecosystems - eg prairies.

danielbln 1y ago
Sure, but most beef farming is mass scale factory farming. Framing it as "it's good for prairies" is a little disingenuous.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  A lot disingenuous. A CAFO lot.[0] That's how most cows are raised. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_animal_feeding_operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_animal_feeding_op...

closewith 1y ago

By this approach, life is inherently wasteful. Resource use is not only necessary, but a human right. Deciding for others what is and isn't worth the use is immoral.

danielbln 1y ago
What kind of statement is that? Is it my human right to blow CFCs into the air? Maybe, yet we generally disallow that because it would ruin the fun for everyone else. Your right to use resources ends where my impact begins. Additionally, pointing out inefficiencies is a good thing and something we should do more of, because that's how we optimize.
- closewith 1y ago
  CFCs are prohibited, like other toxic substances, because they are unequivocally detrimental to everyone. Energy use, agriculture, and husbandry are not. > Your right to use resources ends where my impact begins. No, it doesn't. If it did, no-one would be able to zero any resources as the planet is a zero-sum resource pool. I have the right to use resources even where it impacts other. The limits we place on resource use are and should be only in extremis where that impact reaches a level that is particularly harmful. Many agricultural practices meet this condition and have been banned. Many more should be. However, that does not extend to dictating that resources cannot be used for husbandry. Following your logic, I should be able to prohibit you using computers recreationally, prevent you from travelling in powered vehicles, prevent you from having children. Each of those has a far higher contribution to resource use than husbandry. > Additionally, pointing out inefficiencies is a good thing and something we should do more of, because that's how we optimize. Life is not an optimisation problem. Don't waste yours approaching it this way.
  - danielbln 1y ago
    You're conflating acknowledging inefficiency with advocating for totalitarian control. I pointed out that meat production is wasteful that's just a fact. Your response is to claim I must therefore support banning computers and children?! That's not how optimization works. We can improve systems without descending into authoritarian micromanagement. By your logic, we should never fix anything because someone might take it too far.

prox 1y ago

I know someone who works in agriculture reform and the lobby against any change is tough Like they get outspend to an incredible degree. You are not choosing, they are telling you what to choose. It doesn’t mean change isn’t possible but you are swimming against a powerful current called Lobbying and Marketing/Influencing.

dinfinity 1y ago

Something oft forgotten: cheese made from cow milk is actually really inefficient too. Chicken and pork meat rank lower than cheese from cow milk in environmental impact.

BobaFloutist 1y ago
Chicken is one thing, since chicken meat is actually quite eco-friendly. Not sure about pork, to be honest.