i am more than willing to engage on any positive claim you want to make (i probably agree with a lot of them). what i’m not willing to do is tolerate personal attacks and dogpiling.

if I told you jumping jacks would save the world would you do it? if what she’s doing is exactly as effective as jumping jacks, should she be wasting her time, or finding a method that is effective?

more wot in my feed plz

it’s not true that people ruin commons. people preserve commons. the tragedies that have occured happened under capitalist enclosures of the commons, but the story that goes “people sharing resources don’t share nicely and ruin it for everyone else” is a capitalist myth designed to encourage privatization and non-cooperation.

tragedy of the commons is a capitalist myth

each billionaire is 3 seasons, and it is as over the top as ty Pennington: every applicant gets healthcare, housing, and a job.

the studies they cite state explicitly that LCA studies should not be combined, which you would find if you read literally any of their abstracts.

I told you where to find the information. I can’t make you read it.

or you could read their own citations.

simply reading the LCA studies cited by poore and nemecek will show they are misusing the data.

I’m advocating for a method to actually improve outcomes, and, yes, lampooning the simplistic answers offered here. but if the answers are more complex, there is not any nuance or further explanation offered here. the data gathering and analysis methods offered are flawed, and it doesn’t take a degree in statistics or environmental science to understand this.

you’ve latched onto one glib comment I’ve made while glossing over the real methodological missteps.

a study like this, posted to Lemmy is just

circle jerking

poore-nemecek is conducting scientific malpractice by combining LCA studies as they have. the problem with behrens, admittedly, is more of a feeling of misgiving, and I don’t know if there is any study that properly accounts for reclaimed agricultural water, or of that’s even a reasonable thing to do when your end product is a simple statistic like land use, water use, or ghge.

I think the best thing to do is probably look at inefficiencies in any specific operation and help them improve, but that doesn’t give simplistic answers like telling 8 billion people to eat more or less of something.

it’s a 1% drop in total meat production. beef is just a portion of that. The whole reason for the blip though, was beef production.

you got rookie numbers. i could have had tens of thousands.

do you think the only way it can be non eugenics based is if they shared those same sentiments to every country in every language in equal proportion?

yes

edit: and the sentiment needs to be conveyed in a way that is equally weighted culturally and linguistically. which is to say there is no method, to my way of thinking, to advocate for antinatalism that is not eugenics.

check 1995-1996

i’m saying abstaining from beef can’t causally decrease ghge

the suggestion that you are a best in class mental gymnast isn’t a thought terminating cliche

it is, and saying it isn’t doesn’t change that.

by your rationale there would be no way to mention any activity without it being a suggestion that all current recipients must immediately perform said activity,

they are advocating for a set of actions. not simply mentioning them.

Stating something is true with no supporting argument other than “I said so” followed by some shaky(at best) logic doesn’t leave much in the way of conversation points.

that’s not what happened. what i said were all truth claims. you can decide whether i was wrong about any of them (i’m not), but no argument at all is needed.