Shit, is ploughing a girl less environmentally friendly?
I guess there's a serious risk of a baby which is like the least environmentally friendly thing possible
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
245 points (83.4% liked)
Science Memes
20039 readers
2509 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
That's why I had a vasectomy
There's no way for me to get a femboy preggers
Hmm yes
There are at least two things wrong with your statement.
I don't think any part of that statement was incorrect
It's important to note that I said "wrong," not "incorrect."
Are you trying to kink-shame me?
Kind of depends on context, purpose, & objective but they'll say right, defenition and then frame "truth."
Sounds like you need to brush up on your double-negative rules then!
Wrong hole, no risk really.
Depends. There's a a chance of equivalence in methane expulsion, but it depends on the diet...
And the through that is plowed
The main problem is that, not ploughing increases the need for pesticides, currently around 8% of energy used and reduces yield. While not ploughing increasing requiring 3x the pesticides might not be the case, a 20% reduction in yield seems plausible.
The main energy consumption in farming is fertilizer at around 50%, but more importantly half the emissions are related to animal agriculture. Cutting back on that would actually make a difference.
and moving away from monoculture mass farming would remove the need for fertilizer. There are many solutions that capitalism doesn't want.
I don't believe you could save the emissions from animal agriculture. Most animal ag is on land that isn't suitable for growing crops, if it was ended, the land would become useless and left to go wild where it would support just as many just as polluting animals, but with no possibility of treating the pollution problem as no one would be managing the wild animals
I don't believe you could save the emissions from animal agriculture.
The easiest is to stop converting more land to animals use.
Most animal ag is on land that isn't suitable for growing crops,
But 6% of global emissions are from feeding crops to animals.
if it was ended, the land would become useless
Aside from reducing our emissions by 16%, meaning it would be about as useful as removing all emissions from the transport sector.
and left to go wild where it would support just as many just as polluting animals,
Laughable, but if if it where true it could easily be solved with reintroducing predators and rewilding the artificial grass lands.
but with no possibility of treating the pollution problem as no one would be managing the wild animals
What is more polluting? Animals shiting in the forrest every day at a different place or month worth of stored manure deposited on one field in a day, with barely any plant at the moment? Which of those will naturally break down and which will be washed into the ground water?
Where are the huge amounts of biomass fermenting into methane? Some swamps and every farm.
I… recognize that person
Don't hold out on us. Drop a link. (If they are consensually posting content)
u/MaxHamster69 on reddit, their own account
Bro has a nice cock
username checks out, i guess
lol true I am envious
Top tier memes as always fossilesque. Thank you for making the fediverse a better place.
Luv u 2. 🥰
With pleasure, is there like an application process or
15-20% of CO2 emissions? From what? What are you trying to say? Use your words.
I had the same question a few hours ago, but I found some science.
Tldr: 30% of energy use is in diesel, and about half of that is for tilling fields.
Rant:
Note that this is energy use, so only CO2 emissions are counted, while methan is ignored. If we stopped farming animals, the effective emissions of the sector would be cut in half. Even if we are unwilling to change out diet, maybe we should look at reducing the amount of fertilizer instead.
I was going to do that anyway
Wouldn't gliding be faster?