this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
211 points (89.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36167 readers
1138 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question 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.

Questions 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 META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, 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.



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.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I heard something to do with Nitrogen and …cow farts(?) I am really unsure of this and would like to learn more.

Answer -

4 Parts

  • Ethical reason for consuming animals
  • Methane produced by cows are a harmful greenhouse gas which is contributing to our current climate crisis
  • Health Reasons - there is convincing evidence that processed meats cause cancer
  • it takes a lot more calories of plant food to produce the calories we would consume from the meat.

Details about the answers are in the comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4lan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Which applies even more to meat production. You have to grow massive amounts to feed livestock, more than if we just grew and ate the food directly.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

animals are fed parts of plants that people can't or won't eat. all of the studies about the ecological impacts ignore this fact and then attribute the water used to produce, say, cotton to beef.

[–] 4lan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not arguing that we should eat animal feed, but rather use that land to grow food for humans

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

we already do that. for instance, soybeans. over 80% of the global soy crop is pressed for oil for human use, but then the industrial waste is fed to livestock.

[–] 4lan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's funny how nowadays when a cow eats what is naturally supposed to eat we charge double price for it and consider it some specialty. It's no wonder they have to jack them up with hormones.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

cows mostly eat grass. the grain finish is just to fatten em up

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly my point. We can’t just look at the meat. We have to look at the entire process.

Even if we stopped eating meat agriculture in its own right is a big problem.

If we stopped eating meat we’d have to grow a lot more crops to make up for it which will only cause other problems instead of fixing the root cause.

[–] 4lan@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If we stopped eating meat we would have 50% more land for farming human food than we currently do (we currently use 33% of cropland for feed alone). Raising cattle is not efficient at all, it is a waste of energy and land and water.

It's not like the land we used to grow the feed we'll just evaporate. This is why so much lobbying has gone into pushing the narrative that we all need to eat a ton of red meat.

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am not disagreeing. My whole point is that agriculture in itself is a problem. Simply getting off meat doesn’t solve the problem.

We need a way to make agriculture not so wasteful and damaging to the environment. Cutting out meat reduces the need for agriculture but doesn’t eliminate it. As long as agriculture is around we will be destroying our environment.

Downvote me all you want.

[–] 4lan@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So we shouldn't reduce the problem on one front because we can't get rid of the impact completely?

Without agriculture we would all starve, you can't say the same for beef.

Why not reduce the damage that agriculture causes AND reduce the impact and scale of beef production?

All I hear is excuses to keep eating factory-farmed hormone-laden beef.

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

So we shouldn't reduce the problem on one front because we can't get rid of the impact completely?

I literally never said this. You are saying it.

All I hear is excuses to keep eating factory-farmed hormone-laden beef.

I literally never said this either. You’re pulling this out of your ass.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws of current day agriculture. Sounds like you just want to argue and you’re injecting your own dialogue to accomplish that.