No it does not. You cannot eat nor consume what livestock does, period. Their entire diet is shit you cannot eat, it’s literally roots, and stalks and basically garbage your body cannot use. They also drink non portable water.
Good
I’m proud to say I am 3 months smoke free, after 15 years smoking without a break!
There ya go, keep it up! And if no one has said it, I am proud of you.
I can confirm, no one has said you are proud of them.
I quit in September! Congrats! Quitting smoking was way harder than quitting drinking for me, and I was a daily drunk functional alcoholic for years.
Wow, qutting drinking and smoking, you must be a strong character. I don’t know you but I’m pretty proud of you. Wish you the best!
Thanks, it was tough, but very worthwhile. Hope the best for you also!
We’re counting on you now
Well done pal! Keep the good work
Good job to all the people quitting!
Think of all that tobacco farmland that could be converted to food crops
You want to convert something to useful land? Get rid of golf courses.
Por que no los dos?
And livestock
Livestock is more useful than tobacco and golf courses
Debatable. Depending on the golf course location and management, there could be an argument for them at least providing some space for biodiversity.
Tobacco doesn’t produce as much of use, but also doesn’t come with the same methane emissions, or slurry runoff.
Which golf course isn’t an artificial mix of sand, roads and monoculture full of pesticides? I would guess they also have traps against wildlife that may damage their perfect loan.
I was definitely thinking of a hypothetical golf course; I’m not under any illusions that the vast majority are biodiversity deserts.
We have way more than enough livestock. Humans should be eating less meat.
Sorry for not being clear; that was the point I was trying to make.
deleted by creator
Not for the same resource input it doesn’t.
deleted by creator
Vital eh?
I’d forgotten that I ought to be dead.
deleted by creator
Humans can synthesize all amino acids themselves. Any external source is optional, and outside of extreme scenarios like quickly gaining muscle mass nothing you need to think about.
If you do find yourself in the extreme scenario, you will have no problems picking from the huge range of non-meat protein sources.deleted by creator
Livestock is one of the reasons we can feed everyone…
Quite the reverse in fact! Livestock produces fewer calories and nutrients per square meter than crops.
And cemeteries
And enough pavement that anyone can store their cars close to pretty much any destination they have in mind.
Do we actually need more food crops though?
I thought we already produced enough food to feed the whole planet. Distribution is the real problem.
Smaller more diverse farms would help, but the grocery stores would have to learn how seasonal, regional crops work. Instead of offering pineapples, kiwis, and strawberries 365 days a year.
Instead of offering pineapples, kiwis, and strawberries 365 days a year.
Why can’t they? At least in North America refrigerated railcars make year round fresh fruit an option. Plus frozen fruit is an option anywhere
I vote just keeping the fields dormant so we can actually do crop rotation and stave off massive crop failures.
Personally I’d like to see the fields replaced with the forests that were cut down for them in the first place but that’s not likely to happen
They’d just be replaced by soft woods to be cut down every 20 or 30 years. Trees are nice, but North America’s old growth forests are what they are at this point. They’re not a great carbon sink, either.
IMHO, trees got stuck in the mind of the environmentalist movement in the 1970s, and it distracted from a bunch of things that were way more important. I’d almost call it controlled opposition.
Arguably we need more algae and other water dwelling carbon sinks.
Would work if we decentralized the fuck out of everything and people could live in the forests
The industry interference: Here have more of the stinky cancer paper tubes that don’t do anything but make you addicted then sooth the addiction.
There is a high from nicotine, it just goes away so quickly as you get addicted.
It also goes away quickly when not addicted.
Source: tried nicotine, was disappointed.
Try it again!
Congratulations, you have been awarded the “Worst Advice of the Month” award. Shame on you.
That’s not the only thing they do. They also reduce your capacity for work… and life. I have a reason to believe that people dying from “overwork” are actually because:
- People work (and play) more when they are young and in school etc.
- Get used to their ability to work as much and subconsciously set a mental bar.
- Get into office space full of secondary smoke / start smoking
- Smoke reduces their ability
- They don’t realise their reduced ability and keep on working as much as previously set bar.
- dedz
Just a hypothesis. No scientific backing.
… other than first hand exp with reducing ability to work after long term exposure in a heavily contaminated environment.
What offices have smoke?
Overwork is still very common despite less people smoking.
Also, nicotine is a simulant and really doesn’t make you less productive. Just like coffee won’t. Actually there’s an argument it should help.
nicotine
I won’t act like I know what comes out of people’s exhalation after they come into an unventilated room after smoking in the stairway just next to it (with the only door blocking anything, being always kept open), but I can say for sure that:
- Cigarettes give out much more than just nicotine vapour.
- The smokers in question have proven to be neither more competent, nor more productive. On the contrary, they sit around, asking other ppl to do their work (in the name of help) and as the other people waste their own time explaining their work as they do it, the smokers don’t even learn from what is being taught to them.
If it is a stimulant that comes out of that smoke, it’s definitely stimulating unwanted attributes of the brain.
Millennials killing the tobacco industry
I quit cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. Yay mood swings and anxiety! (Don’t worry, I know it’s for the best)
Worst thing about alcohol imo is that I can never do anything really productive. Like a beer or two and instead of idk, reading or making something or programming I’ll just be doing nothing. Takes my focus right out
I mean, if you’re feeling worse – is it really for the best?
Voluntary suffering in order to bring about future positive ends is essentially integral to having a good life. That’s like saying to someone who just started exercising and is complaining about being sore, “if you’re feeling worse, is it really for the best?” Yes. It definitively is.
Cigarettes no problem really, but the other stuff was seriously detrimental to my concentration abilities at work.
Maybe you can get some medicine approved form that helps your anxiety without the negative side effects.
Those come with other side effects
Let’s gooooo 🔥
Wish so much that I’d never started. This shit is so addictive.
Good. Now it’s oil’s turn.
Tucker Carlson cancelled by big healthcare before he could get the check from Philip Morris.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-nicotine-frees-your-mind
I thought we were over it. But there are so many school teenagers on the way to school in my area, smoking. The stinky normal kind. They must be really stressed out?
If a kid sees their mom and dad smoking all the time, they’ll probably start to believe that it’s not as dangerous as other people say. “They seem to be fine, so I should be fine too.” I legitimately heard this often while growing up, sadly. If you grow up around a bad smell, you might not think of it as “bad” smell, since you’re already used to it.
If someone is already depressed and hates life, they might not care about the harm that they’re causing themselves 20 years later. I’ve known way too many people who didn’t believe that they would stay alive until adulhood. Some of these people started these bad habits expecting to not have to stick around long enough to deal with the consequences.
Throw in the chaos of the last handful of years, along with the constantly depleting mental health resources, and I can’t say that I’m really all that suprised.
Even today, many countries have certain types of people trying to obliterate what’s left of mental health resources. Then they wonder why their kids are struggling with mental health.
I can only imagine what it’s going to be like for Gen Alpha when they get older, poor kids.
I don’t smoke in any regular capacity. Last time I smoked was new years this year. The time before that was October '22.
On new years eve I drank, and I thought I could keep the alcohol high going if I smoked. Bad idea, the next day was shot too. Completely fucked. Never again.
Every time I smoke I’m reminded why I didn’t smoke for >1 year prior.
I’ve been surprised in recent years how much more smoking has subtly popped back up in media. Most times it’s also not in a way that applies to the plot or illuminates anything you didn’t already know about a character.
Also in sports, things like Nickelodeon getting so involved with the NFL for kids with cartoon recreations of games, etc. They are propping up a new generation of sports hero role models in people like Joe Burrow. For awhile, he’d be celebrating all their victories with trashy cigar parties in the locker room, as like, a kid in his early 20s who just got slimmed by Nickelodeon a few days before?
It’s been pretty odd to see the resurgence in media in the last decade plus.
On earth we have a land shortage. If you grow animal feed, that could have also been a foodcrop. In terms of land efficiency, meat is an order of magnitude less efficient.
We do not grow crops for just animal feed, the majority of what they consume is waste byproducts from what you are able to consume. It’s around 85% of their diet. So unless you have a way to all of a sudden eat stalks or roots or leaves and grass, it’s wasted if not feed to livestock.
I’ll try to take a more nuanced and in depth look.
As a start, I’m relatively sure the main use of a large chunk of agricultural land is solely food production. A cursory search gives data like this image
from this page.
It’s reasonable to assume some of the plant waste of food crops feeds some of the livestock, but if that much land is exclusively used for animals it would seem reasonable we could at least double the human plant food production with a reduced animal portion in that land use.
From a pure energy efficiency perspective animals are around 10%, so if you take half of produced plant calories and use them for animals, that will result in 10x fewer calories of animal products than the other half of the plants. This lines up with the energy spread by end human food product, which seems to be something like this:
By the raw numbers and that coarse approach we expect 75% ⸱ 10% : 25% ≈ 1:3.3, the actual data seems to be slightly worse at 1:4.
So it seems to me we are using something like 25% of the land area to produce 80% of the food, just by not passing it through animals. And if you are right then some of the animal calories are even supplemented with the plant waste of those 25%.
The raw energy approach is actually quite a good approach by now, because we can use technology to transition most things into each other. You can pass plant waste into animals and loose 90% of the energy, or convert cellulose into (digestible) sugar and get the full energy. Or use it for other things that take energy like drug production. Using the plant waste on animals still brings that opportunity cost that means more land is used in other places to get the cellulose for those alternative uses, or to produce sugar the old fashioned way from more dedicated crops.
Traditionally you had land that you could not use for agriculture but could use to graze goats, you had plant material you could not use for anything but feeding animals. Animals were our bioreactors to transform that material or land into usable products. Now we have better chains of use.
The energy approach will finally be complete when we can turn plant material straight into animal products, with methods like lab grown meat or artificial milk, but we are not there yet. When we are, the energy balance of those should be close to that of plants and this entire problem simplifies greatly.
much of the waste that is fed to animals does not have a better use, as you are suggesting. for instance, soycake. no one wants to eat that, but it’s high protein. giving it to animals conserves resources.
much of the land that is attributed to animal agriculture is grazing land, and is not suitable for growing crops.
The raw energy approach is actually quite a good approach by now, because we can use technology to transition most things into each other.
this assumes some sort of centralized economy, instead of letting farmers give wasted apples to their neighbors horses or whatever.
