Author Topic: Beyond Burger 2.0  (Read 8763 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10868
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #405 on: December 05, 2019, 06:32:30 PM »
Moderator Comment Discussion about whether or not sugar is addictive has been split off and can be found here:
https://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=51624.msg9641054#msg9641054

In a very ham fisted manner.

"Ham fisted"? Seems more a kid-glove approach to me. At another board I know of, a digression like the one about sugar would have been moved into a thread called "Snippiness" which is a dumping ground for anything and everything the mods don't like. Now sugar has its own thread where anyone who wants to can continue that discussion.

It was ham fisted, because CarbShark started the argument (yet again, sigh...) that sugar is addictive, and the Moderator chose to transfer the discussion to a new thread, with one of my comments as the first one, giving the impression that I think the idea that sugar could be addictive is anything worth considering seriously.  The Moderator should have started with the first CarbShark comment with the sucrose addictive nonsense (comment #389).  And anyway.  CarbShark had started a thread regarding sugar being addictive already a while back.

I'm pretty sure that the forum software requires the posts in the new thread remain in chronological sequence. Obviously, your comment didn't start the digression, the post you were replying to probably should have been the "OP".

Offline Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 17368
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #406 on: December 05, 2019, 06:52:16 PM »
It could have been. But the post it was started with was a cleaner break and gave no false impression of anyones opinion and contained all of the relevant information to carry on the conversation.

People are free to sulk about it.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13107
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #407 on: December 05, 2019, 07:15:32 PM »
It could have been. But the post it was started with was a cleaner break and gave no false impression of anyones opinion and contained all of the relevant information to carry on the conversation.

People are free to sulk about it.

If this goes on maybe split it into a separate thread? Start with whatever post you like.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13107
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #408 on: December 05, 2019, 08:11:07 PM »

There is no broad consensus on the environmental impact of eating meat.

You're pulling a single statistic from a single crop with a single meat product and claiming that I'm disputing that.

Maybe there isn't a broad consensus. Maybe there has only been one study that pegs it at 20x. What I'm asking is if you think there is no broad consensus then could you supply some kind evidence, beyond your own assertion, there is, in the literature, differences in opinion about the carbon footprint of the beef industry as compared to other agricultural products...

I think these documents sum up pretty well my position. What I've said before and stand by is that providing nutrition to billions of humans whether it's plants or animals, is not environmentally friendly. Animal agriculture has been unfairly singled out because it is somewhat less efficient than plant agriculture, but it's not the boogyman that vegans and vegetarians would have you believe and especially if you live in the developed world, it's impact is not nearly as high as reported. 

Skeptical Science actually refers to some of the claims about animal agriculture that have been expressed and defended in these forums as a myth.



How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?




How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?




Quote
Moreover, in developed countries where the 'veganism will solve the problem' argument is most frequently made, animal agriculture is responsible for an even smaller share of the global warming problem than fossil fuels.  For example, in the USA, fossil fuels are responsible for over 10 times more human-caused greenhouse gas emissions than animal agriculture.

(Also, if you haven't spent time on the Skeptical Science web site, it's well worth it.)
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9926
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #409 on: December 05, 2019, 08:47:40 PM »
... The best thing individuals can do is to drive and fly less (or switch to electric cars) and use less fossil fuel based energy for heating and cooling. ...

So people should only do the single "best" thing and ignore all the others? I don't think anyone has said (I certainly haven't) that the meat industry is the largest contributor to climate change. We are saying that it is a significant contributor, which your chart supports.

I don't even say that you "should" quit eating meat. I am saying that the meat industry is an environmental disaster, and the claim that it is benign is untenable. Switching to a plant-based diet is just one of many things a person can do to mitigate global warming. Anybody who says that "Veganism will solve the problem" is an idiot. Has anybody actually said that? I find it hard to believe. But it is one of the things a person can do. Eat whatever you like. But own your effect on the environment.

The use of fossil fuels for transportation, electricity, heat, and industry is also an environmental disaster. That in no way changes the fact that the meat industry is another.
Daniel
----------------
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2763
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #410 on: December 05, 2019, 09:04:49 PM »
It could have been. But the post it was started with was a cleaner break and gave no false impression of anyones opinion and contained all of the relevant information to carry on the conversation.

People are free to sulk about it.

I’m not sulking.  I just deleted the comment, so the new thread started with an empty box.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8903
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #411 on: December 06, 2019, 08:04:52 AM »

Skeptical Science actually refers to some of the claims about animal agriculture that have been expressed and defended in these forums as a myth.






Based on your source beef production indeed has a 20x greater carbon footprint as compared to a vegetable protein source like lentils. Great. Thank you for another source on this.

Anyway, I return to my point. If a meat simulation or a tank grown meat product is AS unhealthy but has a smaller environmental footprint, that's an initial, but not final, win. It's like an HIV vaccine that provides immunity to 20% of users isn't ideal but against the backdrop of public health, a 20% reduction in ANY disease is a public health win.

And my ultimate point, to my own tastes, the BB patties taste better and are juicier than many meat burger patties I've had. I will order a BB over a normal burger purely for taste.



« Last Edit: December 06, 2019, 08:09:17 AM by mindme »
"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13107
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #412 on: December 06, 2019, 10:52:14 AM »
Right it seems to support your position on the point I wasn’t arguing




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9926
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #413 on: December 06, 2019, 11:07:31 AM »
I'm actually surprised that lentils (my least favorite of all the legumes) have less than half the emissions of dried beans (the other legume). Beans and tofu are at the top of my list for main-course protein foods. I also eat fish, though I've cut way back. Tofu and beans are very dependent on the cook for their flavor, but done right they are amazing.
Daniel
----------------
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2763
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #414 on: December 06, 2019, 11:51:34 AM »
Anyway, here’s is another source which has a lot of very ‘neat’ graphs:

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

It seems to me to be a bad argument that since agriculture causes such a small percentage of American greenhouse gas emissions, then it’s not worth doing anything about them.  The per capita greenhouse gas emissions for Americans from agriculture is larger than the total per capita greenhouse gas emissions from all sources for many countries of the world.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8903
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #415 on: December 06, 2019, 01:18:29 PM »
Anyway, here’s is another source which has a lot of very ‘neat’ graphs:

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

It seems to me to be a bad argument that since agriculture causes such a small percentage of American greenhouse gas emissions, then it’s not worth doing anything about them.  The per capita greenhouse gas emissions for Americans from agriculture is larger than the total per capita greenhouse gas emissions from all sources for many countries of the world.

If that's an argument then it is a bad argument. "We shouldn't worry about X when we could totally eliminate Y." I think Dr. N refers to that as the nirvana fallacy. If we can just get one thing totally perfect... We can devote time and resources to making agriculture more efficient as well as air travel, say.
"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13107
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #416 on: December 06, 2019, 01:27:51 PM »
Anyway, here’s is another source which has a lot of very ‘neat’ graphs:

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

It seems to me to be a bad argument that since agriculture causes such a small percentage of American greenhouse gas emissions, then it’s not worth doing anything about them.  The per capita greenhouse gas emissions for Americans from agriculture is larger than the total per capita greenhouse gas emissions from all sources for many countries of the world.
That’s not the argument that’s being made.

The argument is simple. The impact of agriculture production, meat and plant, on global warming should be truthfully and accurately represented in relation to all other causes without distortion.

From there an assessment can be made about where to focus efforts and where best to encourage action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: December 06, 2019, 03:59:21 PM by CarbShark »
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Jeremy's Sea

  • Kintsukuroi, baby.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5119
  • 667 - Neighbor of the beast.
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #417 on: December 06, 2019, 02:41:04 PM »
I'm actually surprised that lentils (my least favorite of all the legumes) have less than half the emissions of dried beans (the other legume). Beans and tofu are at the top of my list for main-course protein foods. I also eat fish, though I've cut way back. Tofu and beans are very dependent on the cook for their flavor, but done right they are amazing.
Interesting! I do like lentils though.
Knowledge is power. France is bacon.

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12264
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #418 on: December 06, 2019, 03:47:38 PM »
I'm actually surprised that lentils (my least favorite of all the legumes) have less than half the emissions of dried beans (the other legume). Beans and tofu are at the top of my list for main-course protein foods. I also eat fish, though I've cut way back. Tofu and beans are very dependent on the cook for their flavor, but done right they are amazing.
Interesting! I do like lentils though.
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2763
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #419 on: December 06, 2019, 04:07:23 PM »
Anyway, here’s is another source which has a lot of very ‘neat’ graphs:

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

It seems to me to be a bad argument that since agriculture causes such a small percentage of American greenhouse gas emissions, then it’s not worth doing anything about them.  The per capita greenhouse gas emissions for Americans from agriculture is larger than the total per capita greenhouse gas emissions from all sources for many countries of the world.
That’s not the argument that’s being made.

The argument is simple. The impact of agriculture production, meant and plant, on global warming should be truthfully and accurately represented in relation to all other causes without distortion.

From there an assessment can be made about where to focus efforts and where best to encourage action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you mean to say a person can’t reduce his or her CO2 emissions by doing all the things you’ve mentioned before, while at the same time reducing or eliminating consumption of ‘meant’ (sic).

The environmental damage of meat production isn’t confined to global heating.  There’s also the environmental damage from feedlots, which also include ethical considerations.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

 

personate-rain