You’re not going to beat thermodynamics. I understand mono crops and GMOs are problematic. It’s never been my argument that plant food production is problem free. The majority of crops grown in the US are for livestock. Many more people could be fed with the same land usage or land usage could be drastically decreased if we weren’t feeding livestock. We’re simply not going to get something for free, there’s no way to get more energy out than you put in, much less after converting it.

It’s physics, livestock require more energy than plants. To produce the same food calories of crops people eat in the form of meat you would need more land than the crops themselves. At minimum you would need more crops than what we grow now and more land for more livestock. The majority of our crops now are grown to feed livestock. If we weren’t eating meat we could drastically reduce our resource usage to feed people. It’s almost like the food equivalent of the rocket equation aka more fuel means more mass means you need more fuel which means more mass and so on. Although that’s not a perfect analogy but you get the idea.

Physics is simply not going to give you something for free. Cows aren’t breaking thermodynamics anytime soon. Simply put we could feed far more people with the same land usage or reduce our land usage by over half if we weren’t eating meat.

I wish the environment and non-human organisms shared your opinion. If it’s waste energy capture in a location that isn’t displacing wildlife then yes it’s a total win. If for instance we’re destroying an ecosystem to clear land for cattle it’s not so amazing. I’ll give the example of the mass deforestation of the amazon for cattle.

I get what you’re trying to say but it’s not physically possible to get something for nothing. Cows aren’t breaking the laws of thermodynamics. Also I’m not saying people would eat grass, typically the food we grow for livestock isn’t meant for human consumption. That same field can produce other food or be left to nature because we wouldn’t need it to begin with. Once again if it’s otherwise waste energy in a location that isn’t displacing wildlife then it’s an absolute win as far as energy capture. I think that’s the idea you’re trying to get at.

The gap in bioavailability is much smaller than the gap in energy loss. You’re not going to get something for nothing aka it’s a net loss. It’ll be an increase of 10% to 20% in bioavailability but you have to pay a 90% (97% in the case of beef) loss to get that 20%. Once again there’s a very strong argument for insect based protein which nearly mitigates all the issues and drops this loss substantially to almost 50% while providing the same bioavailability. Also ultimately lab grown meat once the technology matures will likely be as if not more efficient than current traditional plant farming and less environmentally destructive than livestock and likely current farming.

Sure, there are many sources of fat. People naturally and normally eat more than one food item. We’re not beating thermodynamics anytime soon. Anytime there’s a conversion of energy from one form into another there is a loss and when we’re speaking about growing animals to eat such as cows it’s a substantial loss of around 90%, that is only around 10% of the energy in the feed gets converted into beef we eat. So instead of growing food to feed people we are growing food to feed animals to feed people and outside of circumstances such as recovering waste energy in land used for cows or livestock that isn’t displacing natural habitat (like cutting down Brazilian rainforest) we will be at a loss. It’s not anyone’s fault, it’s just physics.

We are currently in the middle of a mass extinction event caused by humanity and we are seriously flirting with a full biosphere collapse. It’s worthwhile for us all to understand what is happening and what we are doing, not just for ourselves but for our children, grandchildren, and future generations.

Insect based protein is very cheap to produce. Producing a pound of edible insects requires about 12 times less feed than producing the same amount of beef, and a fraction of the water. 100g of beef sirloin provides about 19-26g of protein, while 100g of crickets yields about 8-25g depending on the species and processing. Insects are cold-blooded so they don’t waste energy maintaining a high body temperature.

link

link

Now to counterpoint, it’s a developing market so outside of areas where this is already common it’s a specialty item currently. Now if a country actually had an issue with feeding and limited resources then crickets, mealworms, and grasshoppers would be a much more environmentally friendly and efficient way to source non-plant protein.

Now as for B12 you’ll get about 1.2ug/$1 with beef sold around $9.25 per lb and you’ll get 21.4ug/$1 with nutritional yeast sold at $18 per lb. Fundamentally the B12 in beef is produced by bacteria in the cows stomach. Similarly the B12 in nutritional yeast is produced from Pseudomonas denitrificans or Propionibacterium freudenreichii). So in essence one could just cut the middlemen out of both and get B12 directly from B12 producing bacteria where the cost of 1ug is about $0.0000015 or $0.0.0000018 to get the same amount one could get per $1 from beef priced at $9.25 per pound.

As for lab grown meat, the technology will mature. It’ll be a very important technology for humanity if we ever decide to build permanent space colonies or more likely to happen sooner, the biosphere collapses due to humanities mismanagement of the environment.

Like anything to support your statements would be appreciated. I think you think nutritional yeast is far more expensive than it actually is. Also I’m not saying everyone has to be completely plant based. Once again there’s a very strong argument to make for insect based protein sources and lab grown meat, particularly once the technology matures.

Do you have a link to the source by chance? For the global population of 8.3 and soon to be 9 billion and the current demand for meat I’m not sure there’s much of an option. There’s simply not enough earth for such a diet for the majority of people. I do think though there’s a very strong argument to make for insect based protein and lab grown meat, particularly as the technology matures.

I searched like normal, verified the statements in the links and edited it myself. If you have a preferred search engine I should have used I’m open ears. For reference I used duckduckgo. If like others you would prefer a different diction then I can edit the comment to your liking.

I’ve said myself that crop farming as it is not without issue, particularly circumstances like farming crops that are not well suited to a location or the season and genetic modification to sustain greater uses of pesticides such as roundup. As for transportation, that’s an issue for both food sources. Locally grown can be more efficient and environmentally friendly but it’s a case by case basis.

Conceptually almost all the energy we consume is coming from the sun, arguably some from geothermal but one could argue the source of that is the sun’s gravity helping the earth form. There’s also radioactive decay but that’s energy from other stars to form those materials. The more steps one takes from an energy source the more loss there will be. Think power generation, converting to AC, transporting, and converting again into DC to charge your phone. There are only small cases where meat production will be locally efficient as a means of waste energy capture. Simply put our demand is far greater than the supply of meat produced in that way. The most efficient and environmentally neutral means of food production for 9 billion people is plant based aka not growing food to feed food to feed people but just growing food to feed people.

That said there’s a very fair argument to be made for insect based protein sources and lab grown meat, particularly once the technology matures.

I researched, checked the links to confirm the statements, and edited it myself. If it’s not to your preferred diction I can change it for you. I think we can have a discussion about those statements and what you believe in your post refutes them all.

Saying something is from an LLM isn’t an argument of the statements. Maybe good for a new fallacy, the llm fallacy. Just because something is or seems to be llm generated does not itself mean the statement is false or true. You’re free to link to something that refutes the environmental impact of meat production. The statements above are pulling from those studies and factual sources. I guess we can go through and start questioning the methodology they used if you want to actually have a discussion.

What was the argument? Also there are more environmental concerns than just CO2, there is deforestation, habitat destruction, waste of farmland for feed crops, water consumption, and pollution runoff. I understand that farming crops is itself not problem free and we could better produce crops as well. Like maybe farming almonds in a water restricted location and genetically modifying crops to withstand higher levels of Roundup is also problematic for humans and the environment. When speaking though about feeding what will soon be 9 billion people there isn’t a perfect answer with our current level of technology. Humans will have an impact regardless, but we can do a lot to substantially reduce that impact from where it is currently.

If you care about the mass extinction and collapse of the biosphere we are causing then one should reduce or fully remove animal products. By excluding all animal products, this diet has the lowest carbon footprint. It typically emits between 0.7 kg and 2.6 kg of CO₂ equivalents per day, depending on calorie intake and food sourcing. This represents a 50% to 75% reduction in food-related emissions compared to a standard meat-based diet (link). A standard diet including varying amounts of poultry, pork, dairy, and red meat generally sits in the middle of the spectrum. Emissions range from 3.8 kg to 5.3 kg of CO₂ equivalents per day. The carnivore diet produces the highest emissions by a wide margin. This diet can generate upwards of 7 kg to 9 kg or more of CO₂ equivalents per day, resulting in a carbon footprint that can be up to 4 to 24 times larger than that of a strictly vegan diet. Research consistently highlights that beef production is a massive driver of these elevated figures, producing about 60 kg of CO₂ equivalents per kilogram of meat—roughly 100 times more than most fruits and vegetables.

ಡ⁠ ͜⁠ ⁠ʖ⁠ ⁠ಡ

Also they are pink short of certain medications.

If you don’t take in any liquids for long enough you won’t have any urine. It’s carried by your blood from source to destination. Your sweat similarly is from liquid transported by your blood

Your sweat also comes from your blood.

She meant Juan, her gardener and her secret lover in her youth. He gave her the most passionate love making of her entire life.

More so neural plasticity is a common side effect. Whatever comes from that can be something like this.

Dude, what did she say?