10mo ago

deepseek

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

243 comments

Still true no matter where you live because the carbon costs of raising animals is higher than plants.
- You didn't even read my statement.
  If your answer is going to be again some variation of the dogma: "Still true no matter where you live because the carbon costs of raising animals is higher than plants." without considering that some plants used to feed animals are incredibly cheap to produce(and that humans cannot live on those planta), and that some animals live on human waste without even needing to plant food for them. Then don't even bother to reply.
  
  I did read your statement And the costs of those feeds are not free. You are growing a feed plant to full maturity. Then you harvest said feed which has its own costs and then you give it to the animal which produces its own footprint.
  Eating a different plant would have a lower cost than growing feed for an animal.
  
  At this point I'm just going to say that you are very wrong about how agriculture and farming works, specially on a traditional environment.
  And we haven't even entered in the great world of fishing, because you know, you don't need to grow crops to feed fish.
  I have nothing against veganism, but I have a lot against misinformation. So I will end here my part of the conversation.
  
  Yeah you have no idea what my background is si that’s not a safe bet. Im willing to believe you just don’t understand the carbon cycle based on your comments because you keep using the word “free”.
  Fish farms have their own footprint and environmental problems as you still need to feed them and they still produce carbon and waste.
  I think the issue here is you seem to be uncertain how the carbon costs are factored.
  
  You know that you can take fish out of rivers or the sea, don't you? Humanity have done so for thousands of years, without liberating CO2 in the process.
  Who are you to tell some guy that take a fishing rod and go to the coast and take a couple of fish for dinner that he is polluting the atmosphere for not eating a plant instead?
  
  And yet there’s still a carbon cost attached to eating said fish because you have to catch it. Plants always have a lower cost
  Regardless most aren’t catching their own fish and are eating farmed fish.
  
  That statement is not supported by fact or logic, it's irrational. You are in a dogma. This is useless.
  It's like arguing with a religious person "God exist" is their argument, and that's it. This is the same. So, sorry, I'm out.
  
  Says the guy who can’t understand the carbon cost of an animal is higher than a plant whose energy comes from the sunlight.

243 comments