this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
578 points (89.7% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

5490 readers
984 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You’re also assuming infinite land here

no, i'm not. i was comparing the work done to plant a field of potatoes against raising an equivalent amount of cattle. i'm making no sweeping policy proposals.

[–] papertowels@lemmy.one 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Great, in a vacuum, and assuming efficiency of land does not matter, you are correct in saying it takes less work to produce less calories.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

not just in a vaccuum but literally any time you have the option to plant a field or put a cow in it, it will always be less work to put a cow in it.