5 ms·
Even at this low level, the analysis is false. Walking consumes no gas. This is why you cannot arbitrarily pick an incongruent levels of abstraction. The entire
by 001sky 12y ago
Even at this low level, the analysis is false. Walking consumes no gas. This is why you cannot arbitrarily pick an incongruent levels of abstraction. The entire premis of gas_equivalent_calories is flawed, then, unless we take steps to apply it correctly.
- rosser 12y agoThe physical act of walking, itself, consumes no gas, sure. That's not the point. The point is to be mindful of where the calories you're burning came from. And if you're in the developed world, with industrial agriculture, then your food is almost certainly steeped in petrochemicals.
- 001sky 12y agofood is almost certainly steeped in petrochemicals. So is automobile production. So the analysis is flawed. Which is fine, but it's also false once corrected for capital intesity (and depreciation). So the result is lame. It is not counter-intuitive or even...interesting. But YMMV.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]