this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2024
689 points (83.3% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26948 readers
3439 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

but much of the plant matter that animals eat is grazed or waste from some other agricultural product.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

TBF land clearance for grazing land is a catastrophic issue for the environment and going on in places like the Amazon rainforest.

Some ecosystems are naturally evolved to supporting grazing species like the grasslands of North America which was once home to millions of Buffallo but that's not true of most land currently used for grazing.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

land clearance for grazing land is a catastrophic issue for the environment and going on in places like the Amazon rainforest.

absolutely. I have some ideas about what to do about it, but none of them involve buying beans

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's at a point where I'm all for a UN resolution to end land clearance in locations like the Amazon Rainforest, to be enforced by lethal means if necessary.

Billions of lives may depend on securing such important ecosystems.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't have any influence with the un.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Haha not saying you do but it’s what I would like to see happen

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 0 points 2 months ago

The UN doesn't even have any influence with the UN. Even if I supported lethal enforcement of environmental protections (which I do in many cases), the UN's idea of enforcement is a kindly-worded letter. If the USA doesn't back something the UN has no power. And the USA is one of literally only two countries in the entire world that don't recognize access to healthy food as a human right.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

that can be true, but we also grow a substantial amount of feed for agriculture usage, even if it's not local to us. A lot of alf alfa being grown is exported.

It's all dependent on whatevers cheapest at the end of the day. And regardless of this fact, a lot of energy is still lost in this process, cows are a significant contributor to climate change, ironically.

[–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

There was a good discussion of this on Reddit recently. Sorry to link to Reddit, but it's a good, topical post worth perusal.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Agriculture/comments/1dv7fw9/how_much_good_land_is_used_to_grow_food_for/

ETA:

We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).

^https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf^

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

yeah that pretty much checks out. The best solution to climate change is to kill shit like private jets and yachts. But that's unlikely to happen.

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

The best solution to climate change is to kill shit like private jets and yachts.

I severely doubt those emissions are anything but negligible because there are so few yachts and jets.

Edit: Yeah, just downvoting is cheap, so here's just a single statistic for you: https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions

Total aviation is responsible for about 2.5% of worldwide carbon emissions. That's all air travel, private jets included. While it's obviously very popular to focus on the luxuries of the rich, it just won't be effective to focus on those when fighting climate change, let alone being a solution as you claimed.

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What's an easier solution, in your opinion? Getting the ultra wealthy to give up their yachts and jets (by getting rid of the ultra wealthy entirely, which also addresses the evils of capitalism), or convincing hundreds of millions of people to change just about everything about the diet they've been eating for tens of thousands of years?

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago

That's actually a good question. Considering the political power the ultra-rich wield, I'm not sure. But I think we should focus what brings the most bang for the buck.

wait until you find out about all of the infrastructure and build costs for these things.

realistically we should do everything, but transit is one of the significant providers of emissions, along with power production and agriculture.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

all of agriculture is only about 20% of our GHG emissions. cows are a fraction of that.. there are definitely bigger issues.

as for the alfalfa, it's also a small fraction of global crops. 2/3 of all crop calories go to humans with only 1/3 going to livestock.. this includes about 70% of the weight of the global soy crop (after we have pressed it for oil), as well as fodder like corn stalks. we basically fed livestock trash and get food. it's a pretty good deal.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

all of agriculture is only about 20% of our GHG emissions. cows are a fraction of that… there are definitely bigger issues.

obviously, but in terms of livestock, cows are pretty significant.

30% of all global stock going to feed is a pretty large percentage of global crop production.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I think it's probably fine. it will work itself out when the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

i think it's a lot more likely to work out better in a highly decentralized system, i'm not much of a commie myself personally, as i prefer to live outside the bounds of normalcy, and unless i get a lot of say in the commie meetings i'm not sure i can justify existing in that society lol.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

the iww encourages your autonomy

bro this shit came from chicago and they call themselves the "wobblies?" Who the fuck created this a british person?

Shitposting aside, we do love a good humanitarian group posting from time to time

[–] aniki@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We don't base policy on some chuds thoughts

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm quoting the iww constitution, so I don't know what chud you're talking about