this paper is over half a decade old, and i’ve been whining about it pretty much that whole time, but i don’t recall the last time i actually dug into the methodology. to my recollection, they call it a metastudy and they compare LCAs from disparate studies, but LCAs themselves are not transferable between studies. that’s just one point.
if i recall correctly, they also used some california water study as the basis of their water use claims, but the water use included things like cottonseed, which is not grown for cattle feed, and using it in cattle feed is actually a conservation of resources. cotton is a notoriously light and water-demanding crop, so using the heavy byproduct to add to the water use of california dairies is, to me, dishonest.
i have no doubt that if i were to slice up this paper citation-by-citation, every one of them would have some misrepresented facts or methodology being repackaged as, i don’t say this lightly, vegan propaganda.
So what’s a better study or metastudy? The actual results, aside from poultry being weirdly low-resource, seem about right when you consider the way energy usually moves through food webs.
That’s “Life Cycle Assessment”, for anyone else that’s wondering.
personally, i believe that attempts to quantify any complex system into discrete metrics is likely to have blind spots and misunderstand the system as a whole. i think that if you are concerned about the environmental impacts of agriculture, the correct approach is to evaluate each operation on its own and try to optimize it for inputs and outputs.
You can probably see how actual statistics are useful for policy or public discussion, though, right?
We aren’t going to fix any big picture problem by leaving it up to the businesses pedaling whichever product. Like, you wouldn’t apply that to an oil well, would you?
I don’t particularly have a comment on this specific piece of research (which is why I asked for a good alternative). What does science mean to you exactly?
this is literally the final for a 400-level philosophy course. i’m not going to be writing a 5-page essay here. i can characterize my own beliefs as an approximation of other’s though. i tend toward karl popper and other critical rationalists.
i think this question is too much to ask outside of a purely academic environment, and honestly don’t want to deal with it here. is there another question you think you could ask that would actually be answerable in a succinct way and tell you what you want to know about my perspective?
Do you often feel attacked by vegans? What exactly is vegan propaganda? Everyone uses studies on both sides, that’s how unsettled science works. Are most of them wrong? Of course, because again its not settled.
Seems convenient to discount the other viewpoints studies as propaganda when the opposing side is funded just as precariously.
Its not my fault you choose to interpret my words that way. All I’m doing is referring back to the unsettled part.
You say you only listen to science, then when people bring you science you say its the wrong kind of science, but never get specific. Sort of how you cherry pick half sentences of mine and make stupid jokes about them.
Is the goal here to just defend your position to th3 bitter end? You aren’t even in the main group vegans would take issue with, yet you act like you are their spokesman.
Honestly, if you are just going to reply in bad faith and hyperbole just dont bother. The only reason I replied to you here is because I thought you could carry on a discussion, but apparently thats the crux of the whole matter on this site isnt it.
this paper is over half a decade old, and i’ve been whining about it pretty much that whole time, but i don’t recall the last time i actually dug into the methodology. to my recollection, they call it a metastudy and they compare LCAs from disparate studies, but LCAs themselves are not transferable between studies. that’s just one point.
if i recall correctly, they also used some california water study as the basis of their water use claims, but the water use included things like cottonseed, which is not grown for cattle feed, and using it in cattle feed is actually a conservation of resources. cotton is a notoriously light and water-demanding crop, so using the heavy byproduct to add to the water use of california dairies is, to me, dishonest.
i have no doubt that if i were to slice up this paper citation-by-citation, every one of them would have some misrepresented facts or methodology being repackaged as, i don’t say this lightly, vegan propaganda.
Dug up the paper in question for anyone curious: https://sci-hub.se/https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216. At a cursory glance, I’m not seeing any of the referenced concerns. But, y’know, down vote away I guess.
I encourage you to read the citations and learn about LCAs
i was shocked when i realized you have to read absolutely every tiny bit about a study. i hate that. reading is not the problem. understandig it is.
i mistrust large studies, i think they are bloated intenionally.
So what’s a better study or metastudy? The actual results, aside from poultry being weirdly low-resource, seem about right when you consider the way energy usually moves through food webs.
That’s “Life Cycle Assessment”, for anyone else that’s wondering.
are meaningless, because they misuse the source data.
personally, i believe that attempts to quantify any complex system into discrete metrics is likely to have blind spots and misunderstand the system as a whole. i think that if you are concerned about the environmental impacts of agriculture, the correct approach is to evaluate each operation on its own and try to optimize it for inputs and outputs.
You can probably see how actual statistics are useful for policy or public discussion, though, right?
We aren’t going to fix any big picture problem by leaving it up to the businesses pedaling whichever product. Like, you wouldn’t apply that to an oil well, would you?
I can see how politicians and bureaucrats would prefer statistics, but I don’t believe that’s a good source for public policy myself, no.
And priests prefer faith. How do you think it should work?
If you’re against science as a concept maybe I shouldn’t even bother.
I’m not against science. this paper is scientific malpractice.
I don’t particularly have a comment on this specific piece of research (which is why I asked for a good alternative). What does science mean to you exactly?
this is literally the final for a 400-level philosophy course. i’m not going to be writing a 5-page essay here. i can characterize my own beliefs as an approximation of other’s though. i tend toward karl popper and other critical rationalists.
i think this question is too much to ask outside of a purely academic environment, and honestly don’t want to deal with it here. is there another question you think you could ask that would actually be answerable in a succinct way and tell you what you want to know about my perspective?
I already said
I suppose you did, but I find “no policy, no what-if, lets businesses decide” to be a pretty poor answer.
that’s not what I said
@commie @CanadaPlus dude, this ain’t no hill you need to die on …
Thanks? I didn’t think there was any dying yet. I wasn’t even arguing there, professionals are often happy to point you to their preferred sources.
Do you often feel attacked by vegans? What exactly is vegan propaganda? Everyone uses studies on both sides, that’s how unsettled science works. Are most of them wrong? Of course, because again its not settled.
Seems convenient to discount the other viewpoints studies as propaganda when the opposing side is funded just as precariously.
the only viewpoint I care about is the truth. the only studies I care about have scientific rigor.
Everyone uses studies on both sides, that’s how unsettled science works. Are most of them wrong? Of course, because again its not settled.
this is gold
the joke wrote itself.
Its not my fault you choose to interpret my words that way. All I’m doing is referring back to the unsettled part.
You say you only listen to science, then when people bring you science you say its the wrong kind of science, but never get specific. Sort of how you cherry pick half sentences of mine and make stupid jokes about them.
Is the goal here to just defend your position to th3 bitter end? You aren’t even in the main group vegans would take issue with, yet you act like you are their spokesman.
Honestly, if you are just going to reply in bad faith and hyperbole just dont bother. The only reason I replied to you here is because I thought you could carry on a discussion, but apparently thats the crux of the whole matter on this site isnt it.
I haven’t done that once.
I’ve been explicit.
my position is that we should only believe true things. and, yes, I mean to defend that to the bitter end.