everything I’ve said here is true. but have a nice day

companies that make things that are not consumed lose money and go out of business.

this couldn’t happen if production is caused by consumption. this means that companies that go out of business because the product isn’t consumed are companies that were always operating on the risk of the product might not be consumed. in fact, all companies fit this description. All production is made without a guarantee of return. we can’t say that the return causes it.

Without the consumption the activity would not have happened.

you can’t prove a counterfactual

production happens before purchases and an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past. ipso facto, consumption cannot be the cause of production.

dairy cattle live about 5 years, and then become beef, but a beef operation doesn’t keep the animals that long because there’s no point if they can graze them for a year and put em in a lot for 6 months.

I don’t see how it could have caused it. people chose to slash and burn the forest of their own volition. they have full agency in their decisions. if they’d have asked me, I would have said “don’t do that”. I can’t possibly be responsible for their choices

There is absolutely no way the level of meat, cheese, and eggs could be supported on animals just eating and using land in a natural state though.

ok. whether I eat it though, or not, won’t change whether the industry grows or shrinks.

I have seen one year grazine and few years in the feed lot.

it’s only a few months on a feedlot. beef cattle don’t usually live more than 18 months

The amazon rainforest was logged to create grazeland for cattle.

this is bad. it doesn’t make eating beef bad.

vegan being 1/1 usage of plant matter and chicken 1/3, pork 1/6., beef 1/14

assuming this is true, which I haven’t looked into the methodology, broadly speaking, we don’t feed animals plants and parts of plants that we want to eat. beef cattle graze most of their lives. soybeans are pressed for oil, and the byproduct is what is fed to livestock. sure, we grow alfalfa and feed corn, but I’m just not convinced it’s a bad use of resources: making food is good, and I don’t see anything wrong with eating beef or chicken or pork.

my goal was actually to get you to give me compelling data. I’m not quite sure how it ended up the other way around.

both the quotes I just gave are directly from papers referenced by poore and nemecek.

I’m not suggesting a Google search. I’m telling you to read the paper and the papers it references for it’s LCAs

I’m telling you to read a specific paper and it’s own references.

none of thatwould invalidate it though.

you’re not qualified to evaluate their methodologies, but you disagree with my analysis of their methodologies without reading them? I don’t feel you are actually engaging with the material.

are you asking me to judge their methodology because it is way out of my field.

I assure you it is written in plain English. no hard math is required to understand that they compiled data that was collected with disparate methodologies, and did so against the express direction of the original authors as well as accepted practice. further, the failed to disclose this, even when citing papers which committed the same faux pas which did disclose it.

I gave you the critique. read their LCA references.

they address land use and water use

poore-nemecek 2018 is oft-cited. it is the one that is often used to justify the claim you made. but that meta “study” misuses its source data: LCA findings are not transferable between studies. this is explicitly stated by some of of the source papers which also violated this rule, but poore and nemecek disregarded this guidance and didn’t even mention it.

but where did you get those? because i’ve found some LCA meta “studies” that i don’t trust which are usually the ones trotted out. i was hoping you had good data sources.