4 ms·
I don't consume animal products, but -while well intentioned- I'm not sure a dashboard with these types of huge numbers does much as an advocacy tool. People a
by xnx 9mo ago
I don't consume animal products, but -while well intentioned- I'm not sure a dashboard with these types of huge numbers does much as an advocacy tool.
People are ill equipped to put such large numbers in context, let alone ~40 of them.
Like a slide deck, better to limit to one number and one message per page(/screen). Otherwise, it's just a data dump.
- graemep 9mo agoI do not see the point of large numbers. If its not OK to eat meat, then its not OK to eat one. If is OK, why does scale make it not OK? I did not expect Asia to be quite so dominant. I did expect, but interesting to see confirmation, that the Americas grow so much grain for animal feed.
- jampekka 9mo agoThe scale is highly relevant for environmental issues. https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture Edit: replaced scattered numbers with a proper source.
- margalabargala 9mo agoThe scale is only relevant when adjusted for animal size. Raising and eating 10000 shrimp is a lot less impactful than raising and eating 10000 tuna. Counting them both as "one animal" means environmental issues is not something the page cares to illustrate.
- rmah 9mo agoMost people live in asia. thus most foods are both produced and consumed in... you guessed it asia.
- graemep 9mo agoThat does not follow because there are cultural and economic variations. You will notice big variations in what animals are eaten.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]