Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
No, it doesn't.
The entire mid- and western US is largely unable to grow crops - "this land was made for the buffalo, and hates the plow".
See Bowl, Dust.
To make it grow crops, we've been pumping out a massive aquifer since the early 20th century. Subsidence caused by this is a major concern, in addition to the aquifer not refilling as fast as we use it.
In the western portions of CO, basically all of Wyoming, NM, Arizona (arid places), crops simply can't grow at any significant level - but that land can grow crops for grazing animals, especially cows. Sheep and goats destroy such grazing land, which explains the conflict between cattlemen and sheepherders in the 19th century.
Really the entire breadbasket is naturally suited to cows, not crops, as it supported millions of bison.
You should probably read more before pontificating.
Yes, but you omitted all the croplands we use for feeding non-human animals.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture
Also, if our goal is to find the truth in all of this, why be mean?
They didn't really omit that as an oversight, it's just not relevant to their thesis - agricultural land used for animal feed is not super relevant to the disparity in land utilization, as 80% of all agricultural land usage is pasture/grazing. Only 7% of agricultural land is used for growing animal feed.
Agreed about being a little mean though, although I do sympathize with being frustrated about this as AG land use is a very often misunderstood statistic.
poore and nemecek did some sloppy work in that 2018 paper, and it's conclusions should not be believed
You raise some valid points, but I don’t see why it’s necessary to be so rude about it.
How is that rude
Stop farming animals, rewild the pastures, grow human food where animal feed was once grown.
What do you think the buffalo live on genius ?
This is true, but personally, I vote that instead of cows we reintroduce the buffalo. Let the herds roam free across the land. Allow people to hunt the buffalo for food if they want - but you must use a bow or blackpowder rifle, and can only mount a horse or a bicycle.
A death from arrow wounds is absolutely agonizing, especially for a creature as large as a buffalo - it's awful that we still allow it. But black powder is much more humane (relatively), and many states have black powder seasons - including several for buffalo. Though if we're allowing black powder, we really should just let people use proper hunting rounds to minimize the suffering of the animal.
Black powder isn't as humane a round if something goes wrong. Way better to hunt with a semi-auto, just in case you need a quick follow up shot.
A person concerned about being humane doesn't murder vulnerable individuals in the first place.
Uhh what? I'm assuming you're some militant vegan... people eat meat, that's not going to stop ever.
it's worse than that: they're an evangelical vegan
He's right
I lack a magic wand, I can't suddenly stop people from killing altogether. Meat consumption is down, though, and hopefully will continue to fall until it's a practice we stop as a culture. In the short term though, we should at least try to make sure those pointless deaths come with as little suffering as possible - people are souring to the cruelty of bowhunting, and that is at least a start.
I don't really understand how my capacity for language is relevant to that concept, but okay.
what makes you think that?
edit: this user does not, in the course of this discussion, actually prove this claim. they do resort to trolling, and eventually they ignore a request to disengage. read it if you like, but nothing happens except they get more and more abusive.
Numbers, mostly. Meat consumption rose slightly in the US, plateaued across asia and has fallen heavily in europe, which are the only regions I have reliable data for (South America looks unchanged though I don't have a great source for that - I have no source for African or Oceania meat consumption rates)
can you cite this?
I can, is there some reason you're being quite so rude?
thanks for the reply
I didn't mean to be rude, but I thought short replies were the norm here.
I'm just skeptical.
I'm very much looking forward to your citations.
thank you!
This thread is averaging paragraph length responses, what could have given you the idea that short-form demands for citations on claims you could verify with a trivial web search was the norm here? That seems like total BS to cover for being called out over your habit of rather arrogant sealioning.
There's a great deal more data available which also supports my conclusions, I encourage you to engage with the subject matter directly in light of that.
your numbers are in per capita rates, but Asia is exploding in population, and still increasing in consumption per capita.
I don't think there is any reason to believe meat consumption is decreasing. it's probably increasing
For someone that spends this much time policing other people's claims, you're remarkably bad at interpreting data or the initial claims said person actually made.
saying it doesn't make it true.
if I've said something wrong, you can explain it
our exchanges, until now, have been solely on the subject matter. this aside belies an interest, on your part, in making the matter personal instead.
please, engage with the subject matter.
Would you mind consolidating your replies? This is going to get confusing. Also, no, I had already criticized your behavior prior to that comment.
where?
instead of criticizing my style, try to stick with the subject matter
It's like engaging with a bad-faith hydra - one of these is literally just a single word reply. If you can't even make your nonsense feasible to engage with why should I extend you the courtesy of treating you as anything other than the poor troll you're behaving like?
You've misunderstood my initial claims and/or the data, which are both abundantly clear - and on top of that you've spent this whole time acting like a jerk. I'm not going to reward this behavior.
this is just posturing and accusations. your evidence doesn't sufficiently support the claim you e made, and now you're making excuses not to present sufficient evidence. I strongly suspect you don't have it.
Lmfao I already provided evidence that 1:1 matches exactly what I said (because I based my initial claims off it), quit yer bullshit.
saying it doesn't make it true
It doesn't make it false, either. That's the nice thing about truth, it doesn't care what you think about it, it's just self-evident. Good grief you're really not very good at this.
anyone can read what you claimed, evaluate the supposed evidence you provided, and see it does not support your claim.
Well no, they can read the evidence and then draw their own conclusions. I'm not so arrogant as to try and speak for them, a moral burden you appear delightfully unencumbered by.
anyone who believes what you've presented supports your claim does not understand the claim or the evidence or both.
So now you're not only trying to speak for them, you're implying they're stupid? Bold move there buddy.
disengage
Wut? So you admit you can't... what, win on the merits of your argument? Was that your goal here? Well good, hopefully you choose not to be such a dick when engaging with people next time.
asking for sources for dubious claims isn't sealioning, but your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith
That's not how bad faith engagement works, and my claims are not dubious, they're directly supported by the data.
for someone who purports to know, you are either lying, or out of your depth
not the data you've provided. do you have some more?
Beefalo