No Stupid Questions
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!
view the rest of the comments
show me one study that accounts for that.
I read your other post using poor and nemeck and even that article shows it.
if you can cite where in that article it gives credit to cattle for conserving water that would be wasted, I would eat my hat.
so how much water do they say cows consume through cotton?
You are making this argument: https://hoards.com/article-20263-lets-end-the-feed-versus-food-debate.html
You want me to peer review the article and check that they did what they claim they did? That they actually recorded the water use at each step?
no. I just want to see how much water they say cows consumed from cotton and the total amount of water they say was used to grow the cotton. and then I want you to ask yourself if it's reasonable to attribute ANY of that water to cows (it isn't)
Cam you link specifically what you mean? I don't see any attribution of cotton water to cattle in the 2018 Poor, Nemeck.
i'm having problems right now even pulling up the full article, but, to my recollection, they didn't actually gather any of this data themselves, so you should be able to find some oblique reference to water used somewhere in the body of the paper, and then follow the citation to the actual study that did gather the data.
The 2018 article doesn't mention cotton at all as far as I can tell.
that article is awesome
A non-peered review article from a totally unbiased source.
Coming up next, an article demonstrating the benefit of burning oil for the environment by Shell.
did he lie about something in that article?
Today we burn tons of oil. Say tomorrow we have switched to all electric. Do you think we'll keep extracting oil and that will create an environmental burden because of that oil sitting around?
That's the same reasoning.
Today we grow megatons of corn,... for different things, including feeding livestocks.
Tomorrow, if we have less livestock, we'll adapt the crops mix, just like rest of the world has been or is still doing fine without having mega-herds of cows.
We don't have too many cows because we had too much crops. We increased the crops to match the herds!
that's all speculation
No, we had cotton before we had 1billion cows, and it was working fine. We had corn before we had 1 billion cows and we were doing fine.
And other regions in the world have crops and never needed mega-herds of cows to deal with by-products.
We don't need more cars because of all the oil we extract. If we don't need oil, we'll stop extracting oil. That's not speculation.
Not trying to be a dick here, but do you honestly think that you, a non-expert who likely doesn't even practice in ecology or environmental sciences, are the authority here on whether any studies have attempted to account for the water consumption based on the feed variety and sources?
Because if you thought of it as a way to shoot down a random internet comment, then the experts who work in the field have certainly done so and followed through with those calculations already. Have you ever met a professor? They fucking love to tear apart arguments because it gets their names into publications and that's how they earn tenure and notoriety for grant funding.
you have no idea what my background is. this is just an appeal to authority.