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

I'm afraid there's only two of us left, so you'll have to.

In any case, if you have a particular gripe with Poore and Nemecek, there's no shortage of papers coming to similar conclusions, like this one, this other one, and a myriad more. Same can't be said of the opposite.

As things stand, arguing that beef is eco-friendly is as scientifically fringe as saying the Earth is flat. Certain attempts (nutritional, organizational, technological etc.) are made to reduce the ecological footprint of cows, but it remains huge nonetheless. You can't make cows less cows.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

one of them relies directly on poore-nemecek, and the other commits the same blunder as them: combining disparately methodized LCA studies

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

Only in one part, while sourcing the rest on other works, of which there's plenty, the other is a review article, and of course methods will have to differ somewhat.

I specifically go through review articles to show the studies are actually more than plentiful. You can look them up more thoroughly before dismissing. They all speak of the same picture, and it's about as clear as "the water is wet".

I provided you with a vast pool of studies to confirm what should be obvious to anyone who had at least school-grade biology. I would be much pleased if you could gather scientifically-backed points to the opposite. Show me research that demonstrates cows are actually not ecological disaster and are at least on par with pigs and chicken, or better yet, plant foods on ecological footprint, since that's the basis of your original claim.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

the conclusion might be correct, but these "studies" are junk science.