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

Friendly Carnivore

109 readers
1 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 1 week 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 3 points 5 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 4 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 3 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 4 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 3 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?