Wait, why would having a non-Apple store being allowed in iOS affect you? If people want to install non-Apple approved apps from their own devices, it doesn't imply you have to do the same.
Actually, engineers in big companies have more control than it seems. After all, privacy is not only about intent, but also execution, and care needs to be taken at every level.
Privacy requires engagement from all levels, and I'm this case Facebook seems to be doing the trigger thing after f*** things up quite a bit in the past.
> Livestock agriculture is the leading driver of climate change AND biodiversity loss.
I am pretty sure that's not correct, not even close [1]. Transportation is the main driver of gas emissions (28%) followed by electricity production (27%) and industry (22%). Agriculture (livestock and crop) is <10%.
In most countries, livestock can graze in areas where cultivations cannot happen (Australia is a good example iirc) and can help with soil health.
> Additionally, if we would let nature reclaim the land that's currently used for livestock agriculture, it has the potential to capture >100% of the CO2 emissions until 2050.
Most of the food livestock consume are leftovers of human-grade crops. So we would still "need to" have that cultivations going and throw the leftovers anyways. Or most likely some company would find a way to feed humans that.
According to this[0] Our World In Data article, which is based on 2018 data, livestock (including fisheries) produces about 15% of all emissions, assuming that animal-based products account for about a third of the supply chain costs of the food industry:
Total food emissions: 26%
Direct livestock + fish: 31% of that 26%
Due to livestock land use: 16% of that 26%
Due to crops for animal feed: 6% of that 26%
Due to supply chain (1/3 of total): (18/3)% of that 26%
Total: ((31+16+6+(18/3))/100)*0.26 = 15.34%
And according to this[1] Our World in Data article, transport makes up about 16.2% of emissions.
The analyses can differ depending on how far you "travel up the chain" of production, but it appears that transportation and animal agriculture are within the same ball-park, plus or minus 5% perhaps.
> Most of the food livestock consume are leftovers of human-grade crops.
This is incorrect. Most livestock feed is soy, and humans can and do eat soybean meal. About 98% of soybean meal is used for animal feed and only 1% is used to produce food for people.[2] For soybeans as a whole, only about 6% grown worldwide are turned directly into food products for human consumption.[3]
I would like to see where that 98% really comes from, the links you posted talk about 70% (and most of that being consumed by poultry, not cattle). And even that seems excessive [1]. I would love to see a clear separation between the soybean. meal (leftover from oil and soybean grinding) and explicit feed grade soybeans.
Globally, GHG emissions from livestock agriculture make up between 1/4 and 1/3 of all GHG emissions (depending on the source, but here's a good one: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food). And this does not take into account CO2 sequestered by land that is already converted to cultivated land (i.e. not natural vegetetation) - so the potential of additionally sequestering carbon is much higher.
That's right that Australia doesn't have a lot of natural forests, but even there natural vegetation is better at sequestering carbon than land that has been converted to be used for agriculture. But if you look at this map here [0], you'll see that Western Europe, South America, Southern Africa and South East Asia all have great potential to capture CO2 if we let the natural vegetation regrow.
> Most of the food livestock consume are leftovers of human-grade crops.
No it's not. Furthermore, from a protein and nutrition stand-point, the plants we grow today are enough to feed the whole world.
It is not as simple as you think, and there is quite a bit of people cannot be healthy with such diet.
> Many are also passionate about it because there are other benefits that come with it - no longer needing to kill sentient beings (you probably wouldn't eat your dog, so why eat a pig who is of equal awareness and intelligence?)
Plenty of "sentient beings" are killed for crop farming. I am not even sure meat eaters cause more deaths than most vegans, specially if they are not pbd.
Do you realize that /more/ animals die from crop harvesting for feeding animals? Because if you aren't raising animals for food, you don't need to harvest crops for them. The net amount of crop deaths goes down.
Further, it's the fallacy of perfection - we can't stop all deaths, but we can do our best to get as many as possible unnecessary deaths to end.
Veganism is about what is practicable - i.e. what can be done in practice, not perfection.
I mean, if someone cares that much about real practical death reduction of sentient beings, they wouldn’t be vegetarian, they would eat grass fed beef.
One death for hundreds if not thousands of meals. That or seafood if you don’t consider shrimp sentient.
That's also fallacious thinking because you're knowingly murdering a being, i.e. it is a requirement that the animal is killed to eat it. But when practicing veganism, there is no requirement for murder. That is, while crop deaths may happen, it is not a requirement that it does. We could in fact engineer machines that don't kill animals while harvesting crops, and in fact "crop deaths" is wildly overblown by meat eaters as an argument. Statistically it is not significant.
What's further, you're wildly under estimating how much food the death of one cow would give you.
These are all super common arguments against veganism and easily disproven
> (...) while crop deaths may happen, it is not a requirement that it does.
Wait, so just because you consider that it is not a requirement, it is ok? The reality is another and veganism could be ending the world and you would be defending a best case scenario that doesn't exist?
> Statistically it is not significant
Have you ever worked in fields? I haven't spent significant amount of time there, but I have spend weeks in a farm owned by relatives. I don't know what you call significant, but the meat processing that happens there is not "not significant". Rodents, snakes, even foxes. And all that without counting insects.
> These are all super common arguments against veganism and easily disproven
I don't think so. You are just using some higher moral ground to defend your position: "I don't want deaths; yes they happen but they are not a necessity for my beliefs".
All that without considering the damage we could be making to the human race. We don't know the impact of large scale veganism on long term health.
I am pretty sure Amazon deforestation affects the rest of the world too.
While I don't completely agree with the need of deforestation of the country, I upvoted you because I agree with the rest of the message. Specially, I agree other countries are using the moral superiority card after getting a early start causing the current climate crisis.
Most of the benefits you mention come from weight loss, and almost any intervention that can cut weight during the first years would report similar improvements.
Plenty of people lose weight, drop blood sugar and drop blood pressure by going keto. And some with a more extreme carnivore diet.
The real comparison here would be to have "2 people like you" 6 years ago and have two interventions. One going vegetarian and another going keto or carnivore, and see where there are now.
As unethical as eating soy from a deforested area. Or eating mostly anything with sugar, canola oil or palm oil. But people don't ask those to be in non deforested areas, and they don't ask to increase the price to make sure soil is not destroyed by monocrop cultivation.
That's not entirely true. There is a whole movement around boycotting palm oil for example, just as there is with beef. It certainly could be more widely supported.
It's worth noting that a lot of the soy from deforested areas also goes towards feeding livestock. The soy that humans eat (or drink) tends to be more more ethical on average.
> Most of the food animals eat is not human-grade, and a big part of it are by products of food for human consumption it would not be used anyways.
Food grown in deforested rainforests often isn't human grade because, stripped of the natural forest ecosystem, the land often doesn't have the nutrients to support high-quality agriculture. Don't you think pretty awful that we destroy some of natures most important ecosystems to make room for poor quality agricultural land?
1. Deforest land, for some purpose at most tangentially related to agriculture (presumably to use the wood)
2. Land becomes fairly useless; find most productive usage possible
3. Animal agriculture / grazing fields
That is, I doubt land is being specifically destroyed for this purpose -- there's enough available land to simply use as-is... unless it's already been destroyed as a byproduct of other activity.
For reference, only about 6% of soybeans grown worldwide are turned directly into food products for human consumption.[0] Most goes to feeding animals that are used for human consumption.
> As unethical as eating soy from a deforested area
Exact. Soy monocultures are devastating for environment, is an evil league respect to pastures, that still hold thousands of species. Soy fields have one species for Km and Km. Period.
Pastures in areas that are naturally grassy is fine. Pastures that have been created by deforesting the Amazon are not at all ok (Brazil is the worlds largest exporter of beef - not all of that is Amazonian land, but a lot of it is).
Soy is often grown in deforested rainforest areas too. But as a sibling comment says, only 6% of soy goes towards direct human consumption. The rest is for animal feed.
> As unethical as eating soy from a deforested area.
Not really, though - the GP link says it takes 50 calories of feed to make 1 calorie of Beef, so eating the feed directly would require 50 times less land.
Let me doubt that assessment. That would be true if (1) the 50-to-1 was true (doubt it); (2) what we feed the cattle is human-grade food and (3) 1 calorie of a plant was as nutritious as 1 calorie of meat.
Sure but soy beans are about 10x-20x more energy efficient than cattle at feeding humans so much less deforestation. Skip the middle man and eat your veggies and beans.
> How much could this reduce the total environmental food print of cattle? I.e. including all the energy used to grow the crops they eat, the deforestation to make room for the crops + cattle, the waste the cows produce.
Quite a bit. Most of the deforestation you are mentioning happens for monocrop cultivation, from which livestock consume (mostly) the leftovers. That's usually hidden in data by using total weight, but the reality is that 86% of the dry matter consumed by livestock are not edible by humans [1].
>All improvements are good, but I'd like to know if this is more than a distraction to make people feel better about continuing to demand products they know are damaging the environment (e.g. Amazon deforestation).
Both are compatible. You can be against the Amazon deforestation and pro-reduction of emissions of current cattle. Most of the beef consumed in the US (~90%) is raised in the US.
> Industrial farmed animals aren't eating grass, they're eating crops like soy. If you find soy milk and soy-based meat alternatives decent for example, consider eating those directly instead of products from soy-fed cows - it'll be vastly better for the environment with seaweed or not.
Ahhh... No, thanks. It will also be vastly worse for my health.
> Most of the deforestation you are mentioning happens for monocrop cultivation, from which livestock consume (mostly) the leftovers.
This is incorrect. Humans can and do eat soybean meal. About 98% of soybean meal is used for animal feed and only 1% is used to produce food for people.[0] For soybeans as a whole, only about 6% grown worldwide are turned directly into food products for human consumption.[1]
> Ahhh... No, thanks. It will also be vastly worse for my health.
The peer-reviewed science we have suggests that higher soy consumption correlates with increased lifespan and positive health outcomes. Can I hazard a guess that you think MSG is bad for your health too? These are antiquated views.
> "So far, the evidence does not point to any dangers from eating soy in people, and the health benefits appear to outweigh any potential risk. In fact, there is growing evidence that eating traditional soy foods such as tofu, tempeh, edamame, miso, and soymilk may lower the risk of breast cancer, especially among Asian women. Soy foods are excellent sources of protein, especially when they replace other, less healthy foods such as animal fats and red or processed meats. Soy foods have been linked to lower rates of heart disease and may even help lower cholesterol."
> The peer-reviewed science we have suggests that higher soy consumption correlates with increased lifespan and positive health outcomes.
Couple of things here:
(1) Correlation is not causation
(2) Garbage in, garbage out -> referring to most observational studies.
> Can I hazard a guess that you think MSG is bad for your health too? These are antiquated views.
I don't know if it is bad for my health long term, even though I guess yes. I don't think there are good studies pointing in either direction. It is definitely not healthy short term for me, since I get bad headaches and flushes when I eat something with MSG.
The problem is that there should be good studies when adding something humans don't consume into their diet. Humans have consumed meat for hundreds of thousands of years, yet now it is the source of all evil. We haven't consumed rapeseed at all yet its oil is labeled "healthy". In my book skepticism is a virtue.
>t might work if intelligence wasn't important for members of lower castes but was for higher castes, perhaps due to the nature of their culture or work. Then low castes wouldn't select for intelligence but high castes would. Not saying that's what actually happened but it shows that selective pressure could still exist without inter-caste mobility.
This makes absolutely no sense, unless the "not so smart" were not considered for reproduction or were eliminated. How are you selecting for IQ if the only thing you need to get married is to be in that cast? Arranged marriages don't help with natural selection; you just need to exist in the right family.
It really depends how things work over there. Castes are associated with jobs and I have seen some articles that some 'teacher' cast has higher intelligence, just like eg ashkenazi jews. It could be that being pretty unsuccesful at your caste-assigned job would have left you unemployed and thus not being able to support a family, thus not being able to marry. thats obviously speculation, of course.
It does not make any sense, no matter how you look at it.
Sure, you can see those "articles", but don't forget that those are going to be based on IQ tests, and those are correlated with intelligence and... wait for it... education.
If I was of the superior caste that's what I would try to make people believe: "we are superior, and we are here because we are smarter than you. Best of luck in your next life".
Someone with a high iq will be more capable of following a certain education path. So education and iq being correlated usually means the iq measure is working as intended. If however going to a great school improves your iq that proves the specific iq measure used is flawed (as its supposed to measure innate intelligence, not education). As for the other part, I agree my line of reasoning is rather unsympathetic.
