Jerkface (any/all)

It’s not merely inefficient, it has a negative efficiency; the more you do it, the less food you have. To produce meat, we have to feed animals. To feed a combined biomass that dwarfs all wild land animals on earth, we need to grow food with agriculture. Growing food to feed to animals and then consuming the meat results in a net loss of food as compared to just growing the food. Every step up the food chain represents enormous losses. Animal ag does not produce food. I know that is hard to accept but it’s a unescapable thermodynamic reality.

The reason animal ag has exploded so much over recent decades is that it allows industrialists to capitalize the vast surplus of food that is grown. More food is grown than humans alone can possibly eat. But capitalism demands constant growth, or it eats itself. Animal ag creates demand for this surplus food. It doesn’t benefit anyone except the industrialists who exploit both us and the animals. Even returning to 1950s levels of animal ag intensity would slash its footprint to a barely significant fraction of what it is now. It’s an absolute catastrophe and people are conditioned to completely tune it out.

We need food, but animal ag consumes more food than it produces. Grazing and other forms of “resource upcycling” cannot make up the massive difference.

They literally stole the training data. Everything after that is fruit of the poisonous tree.

Animal ag consumes more food than it produces. It is a method for investors to refine cheap, plentiful, safe, and sustainable plant food into a harmful, addictive, expensive luxury product. Many of the costs are hidden from the consumer in the form of subsidies.

Western meat consumption has multiplied several fold in the last couple of generations. There is no “need” to that, there is only “want” and pure addiction.

The things you are saying are so utterly uninformed, but you’re so confidently incorrect. It’s maddening. We both know for certain that you have never researched animal ag. Why are you trying to advance arguments when you know you have never researched it? What is motivating this stupid, arrogant behaviour?

We can deal with both, but one of those is definitely worse than the other

The worse one is animal ag, by orders of magnitude!! Fucking do some research. Animal ag produces more climate change effects than ALL TRANSPORTATION ON EARTH COMBINED. Data centers don’t even move the needle beside that. It’s wildly hypocritical to criticize people’s private AI use on the basis of water consumption while you consume animals. If you actually gave a shit about water use, you’d be looking to your own easily changed behaviour first. But this is just a conditioned response founded in ignorance. It’s piling on and superstition. As soon as the subject of AI leaves your mind, you stop giving a single shit about water usage.

it’s the one that we have existed without for thousands of years.

We have had neither for more than a few decades. Animal ag as it exists today did not exist when I was born. There is several times more biomass in humans and farmed animals than all the wild land animals combined. This has not been going on for thousands of years, that is utterly uninformed and frankly amazingly unobservant.

You have no idea what you are talking about, but you’re soooo confident. It’s pointless to continue, you’re going to keep making shit up because you are unwilling to process the feelings that come up when you consider that you might be wrong. Which, I am sure you can appreciate, would put blood on your hands.

but beans and nuts are going to rack up your calories a ton compared to meat.

Where are you even getting this?? This is bonkers.

If you are getting enough calories from whole food plants, you are necessarily getting enough protein. If you eat nothing but rice, and you are getting enough calories, you are necessarily getting enough protein. “Protein” is a bullshit marketing angle. You are a victim of marketing.

Plants are nutrient-dense and calorie-poor. This is what you want for health. Animal flesh is exactly the opposite, plus contains things that actually kill you. The more meat a human eats, the younger a human dies and the more major diseases a human experiences. Just google: “meat all cause mortality” and educate yourself A LITTLE TINY BIT.

So if I grind up your children and eat it, they become “just food” and you should get off your high horse. If my industry changes the climate and you burn and freeze, it’s “just food” and you should get over yourself. It’s like saying, “It’s just a joke, brah!” It’s a childish attempt to evade responsibility for the consequences of your choices.

And I’m “pretty sure” that you are talking about what you WISH were true, not what you KNOW is true. Unfortunately, many people in this forum actually know what IS true, and you are so far off the mark, you would be humiliated if you actually grasped it.

Animal ag consumes more food than it produces!! JFC people! We grow several times more plants than humanity can possibly eat, and then we refine it through the bodies of vulnerable individuals and murder them. THAT’S NOT FOOD, that atrocity.

Anyone who consumes animals and bitches about AI’s water use is a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot – but for whom?

Lawns take up more water than all the datacenters. Golf courses take up more water. Get a fucking grip. You better not be complaining about water usage with the flesh of vulnerable individuals still stuck between your teeth because animal ag consumes an order of magnitude more water, emits more greenhouse gasses than all transportation combined, and gives NOTHING back but death and destruction.

There are ethical problems about using the fruits of stolen labour to enrich yourself.

25 years isn’t that long. If that’s all it takes to transition to a static model, I take that deal any day of the week. The longer we predicate everything on growth, the worse transition gets.

To be fair, it’s a cracker of a manual, and you cannot finish the game without being pretty familiar with it.

Disability can even be temporary. A mother who cannot put her child down experiences life with one arm and mobility issues. Accommodating disability helps everyone, as you say.

But also, a surfeit of resources and wealth. We’ve seen global population crashes before and (aside from the mass death that predicated them) I understand that the aftermath was actually quite pleasant.

If our system can’t support even a steady state population, it needs to fail. Constant growth is a ponzi scheme.

Ultimately, so what? What is the problem you are attempting to prevent? Declining population is not per se a problem.

I would not even bring a dog into this world, let alone a human.

I had a degreed engineer ask me to help them tally the count of screen objects because they kept losing track. There were just over 10 items. I told them they needed to discuss the issue with their manager because clearly that’s a problem.

Dude, that’s not someone who didn’t learn to count, that’s someone experiencing a cognitive issue or who has a learning disability. Don’t be a dick. Just count the things. Please use your intact senses and faculties to help others when you have the opportunity.

Yeah, fascism.