466
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Animal Ag gives us valuable food. Sure there are better alternatives out there but it literally gives us something we need to live.

[-] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago
[-] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Oh I'm well in agreement with that one. Huge waste of water for a sport that is almost always reserved for rich people to enjoy.

[-] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

Keeps Trump away from the "launch nuclear missiles" button.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Animal ag consumes more food than it produces. It is a method for investors to refine cheap, plentiful, safe, and sustainable plant food into a harmful, addictive, expensive luxury product. Many of the costs are hidden from the consumer in the form of subsidies.

Western meat consumption has multiplied several fold in the last couple of generations. There is no "need" to that, there is only "want" and pure addiction.

[-] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

To say it gives nothing back is simply a lie though. It literally provides one of the most important things people need. Food. Just because it's an inefficient method does not mean it provides nothing.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

It's not merely inefficient, it has a negative efficiency; the more you do it, the less food you have. To produce meat, we have to feed animals. To feed a combined biomass that dwarfs all wild land animals on earth, we need to grow food with agriculture. Growing food to feed to animals and then consuming the meat results in a net loss of food as compared to just growing the food. Every step up the food chain represents enormous losses. Animal ag does not produce food. I know that is hard to accept but it's a unescapable thermodynamic reality.

The reason animal ag has exploded so much over recent decades is that it allows industrialists to capitalize the vast surplus of food that is grown. More food is grown than humans alone can possibly eat. But capitalism demands constant growth, or it eats itself. Animal ag creates demand for this surplus food. It doesn't benefit anyone except the industrialists who exploit both us and the animals. Even returning to 1950s levels of animal ag intensity would slash its footprint to a barely significant fraction of what it is now. It's an absolute catastrophe and people are conditioned to completely tune it out.

We need food, but animal ag consumes more food than it produces. Grazing and other forms of "resource upcycling" cannot make up the massive difference.

this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
466 points (91.9% liked)

Technology

86866 readers
5153 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS