this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2026
-6 points (28.6% liked)

Friendly Carnivore

109 readers
17 users here now

Carnivore

The ultimate, zero carb, elimination diet

Meat Heals.

We are focused on health and lifestyle while trying to eat zero carb bioavailable foods.

Keep being AWESOME

We welcome engaged, polite, and logical debates and questions of any type

Purpose

Rules

  1. Be nice
  2. Stay on topic
  3. Don't farm rage
  4. Be respectful of other diets, choices, lifestyles!!!!
  5. No Blanket down voting - If you only come to this community to downvote its the wrong community for you
  6. No LLM generated posts . Don't represent machine output as your own, and don't use machines to burn human response time.

Other terms: LCHF Carnivore, Keto Carnivore, Ketogenic Carnivore, Low Carb Carnivore, Zero Carb Carnivore, Animal Based Diet, Animal Sourced Foods

Meta

Carnivore Resource List

If you need to block this community and the UI won't let you, go to settings -> blocks you can add it.

[Meta] Moderation Policy for Niche Communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
pulsejet@discuss.online
jet@hackertalks.com
psud@aussie.zone
xep@fedia.io
remote_debugging@programming.dev
xep@discuss.online
xep@piefed.social
-6
ELI5 - Cows Don't Pollute (hackertalks.com)
submitted 6 days ago by jet@hackertalks.com to c/carnivore@discuss.online
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Explained like I'm 5 - Cows don't pollute

A. Cows don't create carbon, they perform neither nuclear fission or nuclear fusion. They can't create elements.

B. Everything that comes out of a cow, must have gone into the cow.

C. Grass grows using carbon from the environment.

D. Cows eat grass, because they are a ruminant.

E. All the gas that comes out of a cow went into the cow as grass.

F. Therefore all the carbon that come out of a cow first has to be captured by grass to go into the cow.

G. Cows are part of a natural biocycle, they do not create pollution.

H. If cows don't eat the grass something will - animals, fire, microbes, and the biocycle will continue.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Methane has a average atmospheric lifetime of 10-12 years according to wikipedia. So yes, over a long period, a stable herd will have a stable methane cloud I guess.

But

  • What happens when we increase production of beef? More methane.
  • How can we reduce the amount of methane (and greenhouse effect)? By producing less beef.
[–] psud@aussie.zone 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We aren't increasing production. Who cares what would happen if the thing that isn't happening happens

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We aren't increasing production.

As in people who consume beef aren't increasing the production of beef? How so? Do you mean to say that supply and demand are unlinked?

Who cares what would happen if the thing that isn't happening happens

Where's the peck of pickled peppers Peter Piper picked?

[–] psud@aussie.zone 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

There is maybe one person eating only meat for every ten eating vegan, and people eating only meat don't eat more beef than what used to be normal before veganism appeared as a response to the climate crisis, we just eat a lot more fat

You need about as many cattle to feed us as you do to feed a turn of the 20th century person.

When you hear zero carbers talk of how much meat they eat they mean both the lean and the fat

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sure, nothing wrong with any of that.

But global demand for beef is rising, and therefore so is production. No matter how you shape your diet, each time you eat a piece of meat, you're part of increasing the pressure on our climate.

No judgement from me, I think that's completely my own and your own prerogative. But I think it's important we make the decision based on facts.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Global demand for beef isn't increasing in the English speaking world. It's probably the masses of China increasing beef intake

Luckily they also are world leaders in renewable energy

Anyway what I'm getting at is carnivore eaters don't eat more meat than a regular omnivore, we just deprive soap and candle makers of more fat

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Global demand for beef isn't increasing in the English speaking world. It's probably the masses of China increasing beef intake. Luckily they also are world leaders in renewable energy.

Sure. That also doesn't change the fact that no matter where in the world you are, no matter how much energy is produced renewably, each time you eat a piece of meat, you're part of increasing the pressure on our climate.

Once the planet has stopped heating catastrophically, there might be some budget of GHG that we can spend on producing and eating meat more or less sustainably. But until then, it's all part of increasing the pressure.

Anyway what I'm getting at is carnivore eaters don't eat more meat than a regular omnivore, we just deprive soap and candle makers of more fat

First of all, this point holds whether you eat meat once a year, or every day. It's not about more or less than the average, each piece of meat contributes.

Second, interesting point, I'd love to read more about the numbers going into that calculation if you can link them.

And just to make it clear: no judgement, these are just facts you need to make an informed decision.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Once the planet has stopped heating catastrophically, there might be some budget of GHG that we can spend on producing and eating meat more or less sustainably. But until then, it’s all part of increasing the pressure.

ok, following this logic, let's turn off all electricity generation, air travel, shipping, etc... food is foundational to society and health, we can't deny the planet healthy food and expect to solve all our other problems.

I’d love to read more about the numbers going into that calculation if you can link them.

https://www.aleph2020.org/

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

ok, following this logic, let's turn off all electricity generation, air travel, shipping, etc...

I agree. We should look at all sources of emission as try to reduce them, starting with those that have highest GHG impact with lowest societal value.

food is foundational to society and health, we can't deny the planet healthy food and expect to solve all our other problems.

Agreed!

https://www.aleph2020.org/

Thanks! I can't find the numbers you refer, could you link them directly? Is Aleph 2020 a pro meat production project?

[–] xep@discuss.online 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The ALEPH 2020 initiative was launched in 2020, with the support of an interdisciplinary group of internationally recognized experts. The ALEPH acronym refers to Animal-sourced foods and Livestock: Ethics, Planet, and Health. ‘Aleph’ is also the first letter of the Proto-Canaanite alphabet, which later morphed into the Greek 'Alpha' and Latin 'A'. Originally, the letter was derived from the West Semitic word for 'ox' depicted in a Proto-Sinaitic glyph, obtained from an Egyptian hieroglyph showing a bovine head. As such, it not only represented a vocal sound and scriptural element, but also notions of strength, vitality, fertility, and generosity. Throughout (pre)history, animals (hunted or domesticated) and animal-sourced foods have always held these connotations.

Recently, however, there is a remarkable tendency to invert their original meaning, especially in the urban centres of high-income countries. Their consumption is increasingly being represented as unethical and harmful to both our health and the planet, to the point that some advocate a diet without or with only low amounts of animal source foods, and in some cases even the end of livestock farming.

We argue that these astonishing claims are not only counter-intuitive but also that their scientific foundations are misinterpreted and presented out of context. By addressing the topics of ethics (animal health), sustainability (planetary health), and nutrition (human health), we claim that livestock and the foods derived thereof have an important role to play in future food systems.

Here, for your convenience, the text on the page about what ALEPH is. Did you not look too far downwards?

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes, I did, though it is not clear to me whether the group is meant to be a neutral observer of food production (as implied by "interdisciplinary group of internationally recognized experts" and working based on "scientific foundations"), or an explicitly pro meat production lobby organisation as e.g. indicated through sentences like "Throughout (pre)history, animals (hunted or domesticated) and animal-sourced foods have always held [connotations of strength, vitality, fertility, and generosity]."

How would you describe them? And could you link the numbers you mentioned?

[–] xep@discuss.online 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, since the description is clear. Perhaps you'd prefer to ascribe labels to them, such as "pro meat production lobby organization," instead?

Also, since I've not mentioned any numbers, I won't be able to link them.

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Sorry, mistook you for Jet I guess. They linked the Alpeh 2020 site as a substantiation of this claim, but I can't find it on the website:

Anyway what I'm getting at is carnivore eaters don't eat more meat than a regular omnivore, we just deprive soap and candle makers of more fat

In terms of the description of Aleph 2020, I don't find it clear sorry. Digging in further, they write

ALEPH2020's interdisciplinary scientific consortium consists of 44 experts who endorse, review, and/or provide the website's content.

So it's a scientific consortium with a website.

on a non-remunerated basis, [the founder] serves on the Scientific Board of World Farmers' Organization, the FAO/COAG Sub-Committee on Livestock, and the Sustainable Livestock Intergroup of the European Parliament

With a political element and connections to the World Farmers' Organisation?

Vegan activists advocate for eradicating livestock entirely, deeming it an immoral exploitation even with welfare measures in place. Some wish to pursue this through coercion, seeking legal enforcement of a 'vegan project'.

With sections on policy and ethics?

And graphics about how mainstream reporting is a vegan tech conspiracy?

It's an interesting project, but I'm not sure how to understand it. It's not a neutral research effort like CERN, it's not a farmer lobby, it's not an activist organisation like Amnesty. I guess it's like a very long opinion piece? Or how would you classify it?

I think classification is useful in terms of how the text should be read - a text from Amnesty should be read differently from a text from CERN.

[–] xep@discuss.online 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

To what end, so we can game GWP-20 while ignoring the lion's share of GWP-100 from industry, all the while getting sicker and losing topsoil?

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

No need to ignore GWP-100 or GWP-20 or accept losing topsoil. We can reduce the carbon footprint from beef production and from other food production and work on sustainable and healthy diets for all.

We probably have to do all of them at the same time, in fact.

But I don't know how we best fight climate change. My point was just that eating less beef translates into a clear and significant reduction of pressure on the climate. What you do with that fact is up to you.

[–] xep@discuss.online 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Unless I'm reading what you've said wrongly it's remarkable you think most GWP-100 is from food production.

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

I don't think most of GWP-100 is from food production. I think food production is a significant part of human GHG emissions. But I don't think it's the majority.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ruminant meat is essential to human health, there are lots of sick people in the world (almost a billion t2ds) and the climate impact of maintaining sick people is quite high. Getting the sick people off carbs and onto meat would really help everyone, including the climate.

We need ruminants to make topsoil, you can't remove them and create top soil.

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Sure - if we reduce the meat production to what is medically necessary and required for topsoil, I'm sure that would be a major reduction in livestock and climate pressure.

I am not saying get rid of all meat. I'm saying that each piece of meat you eat is increasing the pressure on the climate.

Ruminant meat is essential to human health

But what do you mean "essential"? What about the people that live long, healthy lives without it?