-5
ELI5 - Cows Don't Pollute (hackertalks.com)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/carnivore@discuss.online
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Explained like I'm 5 - Cows don't pollute

A. Cows don't create carbon, they perform neither nuclear fission or nuclear fusion. They can't create elements.

B. Everything that comes out of a cow, must have gone into the cow.

C. Grass grows using carbon from the environment.

D. Cows eat grass, because they are a ruminant.

E. All the gas that comes out of a cow went into the cow as grass.

F. Therefore all the carbon that come out of a cow first has to be captured by grass to go into the cow.

G. Cows are part of a natural biocycle, they do not create pollution.

H. If cows don't eat the grass something will - animals, fire, microbes, and the biocycle will continue.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 5 days ago (2 children)

Yes, I did, though it is not clear to me whether the group is meant to be a neutral observer of food production (as implied by "interdisciplinary group of internationally recognized experts" and working based on "scientific foundations"), or an explicitly pro meat production lobby organisation as e.g. indicated through sentences like "Throughout (pre)history, animals (hunted or domesticated) and animal-sourced foods have always held [connotations of strength, vitality, fertility, and generosity]."

How would you describe them? And could you link the numbers you mentioned?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago* (1 child)

    I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, since the description is clear. Perhaps you'd prefer to ascribe labels to them, such as "pro meat production lobby organization," instead?

    Also, since I've not mentioned any numbers, I won't be able to link them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago

    Sorry, mistook you for Jet I guess. They linked the Alpeh 2020 site as a substantiation of this claim, but I can't find it on the website:

    Anyway what I'm getting at is carnivore eaters don't eat more meat than a regular omnivore, we just deprive soap and candle makers of more fat

    In terms of the description of Aleph 2020, I don't find it clear sorry. Digging in further, they write

    ALEPH2020's interdisciplinary scientific consortium consists of 44 experts who endorse, review, and/or provide the website's content.

    So it's a scientific consortium with a website.

    on a non-remunerated basis, [the founder] serves on the Scientific Board of World Farmers' Organization, the FAO/COAG Sub-Committee on Livestock, and the Sustainable Livestock Intergroup of the European Parliament

    With a political element and connections to the World Farmers' Organisation?

    Vegan activists advocate for eradicating livestock entirely, deeming it an immoral exploitation even with welfare measures in place. Some wish to pursue this through coercion, seeking legal enforcement of a 'vegan project'.

    With sections on policy and ethics?

    And graphics about how mainstream reporting is a vegan tech conspiracy?

    It's an interesting project, but I'm not sure how to understand it. It's not a neutral research effort like CERN, it's not a farmer lobby, it's not an activist organisation like Amnesty. I guess it's like a very long opinion piece? Or how would you classify it?

    I think classification is useful in terms of how the text should be read - a text from Amnesty should be read differently from a text from CERN.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent