What is the newest installment of 'Random Thoughts' on Physics Forums?

[WWGD]

Would be interesting to see a map where Chinese investors have bought land since 2,000. I guess such a map is closer to a correct answer than any we can give.

Your calculation lacks evidence. The top 4 cattle producers are also the top 4 soybean producers. And if you can grow soybeans, you can also grow lupine.

It does not imply that both are grown in the same soils. Ergosphericals source even states non-flat terrains and some pastures are not productive towards agriculture. Then you can require only those lands be used for cattle. And the main issue is with beef.

 

[fresh_42]

It does not imply that both are grown in the same soils.

Sure, but you converse the reasoning. Cattle and soybeans are grown on different grounds, of course. But that does not mean that it has to be the case. Again, grass is grass, and rice, corn, and cereals are all grass. And again, the top 4 countries in cattle production are the same as the top 4 in soybeans production. Doesn't sound exclusively to me.

It is by far more ecologically stupid to grow almonds in California.

 

[WWGD]

Sure, but you converse the reasoning. Cattle and soybeans are grown on different grounds, of course. But that does not mean that it has to be the case. Again, grass is grass, and rice, corn, and cereals are all grass. And again, the top 4 countries in cattle production are the same as the top 4 in soybeans production. Doesn't sound exclusively to me.

It is by far more ecologically stupid to grow almonds in California.

I agree with the California part. Developing an agricultural industry in what's essentially a desert seems like lunacy. I am being something of a devil's advocate here in order to help flesh out the arguments; though maybe possibly just for myself. And I urge caution in making these changes. I don't know of any culture over history that was fully vegan . Why not, if Veganism is superior in so many ways? And just considering that all countries at the top of life expectancy at birth are omnivorous, while vegetarian ones are further down on the list. Surely, there are confounding variables to consider here , but it seems food for thought. My body just seems to ask me specifically for meat. It may just be habit, maybe not. I'm just urging caution. Change is neither good not bad on its own.
Edit: Just to be clear, I don't claim to be offering conclusive counters to Ergosphericals and others' valid points. Just using these points to urge caution.

 

[BillTre]

I don't know of any culture over history that was fully vegan

vegetarian ones are further down on the list

You seem to have contradicted yourself.

 

[WWGD]

You seem to have contradicted yourself.

Ok, India today is largely vegetarian. I don't know if it always has been. Similar for Bangladesh. Surely the fact that life expectancy at birth is comparatively low is food for thought.

 

[WWGD]

My overall point is that, despite all legitimate issues today, quality of life by just-about every measure has been improving within the status quo. Including in areas related to health and nutrition.

Of course, that doesn't imply no changes should be made, just to think we were largely doing a good amount right up till now.

 

[ergospherical]

And just considering that all countries at the top of life expectancy at birth are omnivorous, while vegetarian ones are further down on the list. Surely, there are confounding variables to consider here , but it seems food for thought.

A factor to consider is that meat is relatively expensive, so generally as the affluence of a society increases so does meat consumption; we've seen an increased appetite for the "Western-style diet" in emerging economies like China¹, for example.

¹ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...roblem-and-the-western-diet-could-be-to-blame

 

[WWGD]

I tried

A factor to consider is that meat is relatively expensive, so generally as the affluence of a society increases so does meat consumption; we've seen an increased appetite for the "Western-style diet" in emerging economies like China¹, for example.

¹ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...roblem-and-the-western-diet-could-be-to-blame

I tried the veg diet for a while and I just didn't feel good. Same for my brother and some friends. I need to be able to work and need to have the energy for it.

 

[ergospherical]

I tried the veg diet for a while and I just didn't feel good. Same for my brother and some friends. I need to be able to work and need to have the energy for it.

I believe this is common (although I haven't tried myself, so I wouldn't know from personal experience). Perhaps it is due to deficiencies in nutrients, e.g. vitamin B12 and/or iron.

I also recall reading a little while back about a study which suggested veganism is correlated with higher depression rates compared to meat-eating ¹. The direction of causation is not clear (i.e. are people with symptoms of depression more likely to become vegan, or vice versa?).

¹ https://www.businessinsider.com/veg...on-anxiety-than-meat-eaters-2021-10?r=US&IR=T

 

[WWGD]

Found some pretty old SQL Server files (.sql) containing system queries to map logins to users and roles. Wonder if they're worth much.

 

[Jarvis323]

I agree with the California part. Developing an agricultural industry in what's essentially a desert seems like lunacy.

Ironically, one of the biggest water wasters (I think the biggest water user) in California agriculture is actually alfalfa used to feed dairy cattle. It has been a while since I was researching the topic. I think it has gotten better to some extent because inefficient flood irrigation methods are being phased out more over time.

In terms of environmental costs of meat production, the commonly cited ones are

(1) Land use ( apparently 26% of Earth's ice free land is used for grazing). Forrest's are cleared to make room for more.

https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf

(2) Soil erosion depending on how the livestock grazing is managed. Although, now I am seeing contradictory sources claiming that more grazing can actually help. I think this is actually an issue which depends on the local environment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overgrazing

(3) Water usage.

https://muse.union.edu/mth-063-01-f18/2018/09/16/the-water-footprint-of-livestock/

(4) Risk of animal diseases crossing over to humans.

(5) Energy use and greenhouse gases.

In general meat production is considered highly resource intensive. Most of the world consumes much less meat than the average American. As countries become more developed, and the middle classes rise up around the world, more and more people are eating more meat. When factoring in how much demand worldwide as the population grows and more people are able to afford it, the environmental cost becomes quite huge. There is already not much land available for more grazing, so it drives deforestation to make more room. It also leads to more industrial farming with livestock packed together, which is considered inhuman, and also brings high risk of disease, and heavy use of antibiotics that leads to resistant super-germs.

On a side note. Besides high meat consumption, individual people in the developed world also wreak quite a bit of havoc on the environment in other ways.

The average American produces about 1,700 pounds of trash per year. About 286 pounds of that is plastic.

If everyone in the world followed suit, it would mean 2,000,000,000,000 (2 trillion) pounds of plastic trash per year. That doesn't seem like much when considering the total plastic waste in the world is about 600,000,000,000 pounds per year already. But that's including industrial use, not just the general public's trash.

There is actually more plastic trash now on Earth, not including the plastic being used or not yet thrown away) weighs more than all land and sea creatures in the world combined. And most of this coming from a relatively small percentage of the world's current population. Just imagine when the rest of the world catches up in terms of consumerism, and the population triples.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-made-stuff-now-outweighs-all-life-on-earth/
https://www.unep.org/interactive/beat-plastic-pollution/

So at some point the less and less exclusive class of privileged people who exorbitantly contribute to the pollution and destruction of the environment will have to find more sustainable ways to live their lives. It's already pretty insane in my opinion that we knowingly trash the world so badly already, and for the most part don't do anything to change it.

I've been making an effort to avoid plastic whenever possible. It blows my mind how hard it is though. It's hard to even shop for clothes that isn't made of plastic.

I eat meat. But I eat less of it than I used to.

 

[WWGD]

Ironically, one of the biggest water wasters (I think the biggest water user) in California agriculture is actually alfalfa used to feed dairy cattle. It has been a while since I was researching the topic. I think it has gotten better to some extent because inefficient flood irrigation methods are being phased out more over time.

In terms of environmental costs of meat production, the commonly cited ones are

(1) Land use ( apparently 26% of Earth's ice free land is used for grazing). Forrest's are cleared to make room for more.

https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf

(2) Soil erosion depending on how the livestock grazing is managed. Although, now I am seeing contradictory sources claiming that more grazing can actually help. I think this is actually an issue which depends on the local environment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overgrazing

(3) Water usage.

https://muse.union.edu/mth-063-01-f18/2018/09/16/the-water-footprint-of-livestock/

(4) Risk of animal diseases crossing over to humans.

(5) Energy use and greenhouse gases.

In general meat production is considered highly resource intensive. Most of the world consumes much less meat than the average American. As countries become more developed, and the middle classes rise up around the world, more and more people are eating more meat. When factoring in how much demand worldwide as the population grows and more people are able to afford it, the environmental cost becomes quite huge. There is already not much land available for more grazing, so it drives deforestation to make more room. It also leads to more industrial farming with livestock packed together, which is considered inhuman, and also brings high risk of disease, and heavy use of antibiotics that leads to resistant super-germs.

On a side note. Besides high meat consumption, individual people in the developed world also wreak quite a bit of havoc on the environment in other ways.

The average American produces about 1,700 pounds of trash per year. About 286 pounds of that is plastic.

If everyone in the world followed suit, it would mean 2,000,000,000,000 (2 trillion) pounds of plastic trash per year. That doesn't seem like much when considering the total plastic waste in the world is about 600,000,000,000 pounds per year already. But that's including industrial use, not just the general public's trash.

There is actually more plastic trash now on Earth, not including the plastic being used or not yet thrown away) weighs more than all land and sea creatures in the world combined. And most of this coming from a relatively small percentage of the world's current population. Just imagine when the rest of the world catches up in terms of consumerism, and the population triples.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-made-stuff-now-outweighs-all-life-on-earth/
https://www.unep.org/interactive/beat-plastic-pollution/

So at some point the less and less exclusive class of privileged people who exorbitantly contribute to the pollution and destruction of the environment will have to find more sustainable ways to live their lives. It's already pretty insane in my opinion that we knowingly trash the world so badly already, and for the most part don't do anything to change it.

I've been making an effort to avoid plastic whenever possible. It blows my mind how hard it is though. It's hard to even shop for clothes that isn't made of plastic.

I eat meat. But I eat less of it than I used to.

Valid points . But there have been significant negative issues with Vegan diets. I'm on my phone, so it's difficult to provide links. But here is a screen shot.

Modern diet , which includes meat, has coincided somehow with an improvement in health in most areas. Not sure if I can filter out hidden variables, but it's something to consider. I tried vegetarian and worked very poorly for me as well.

 

[BillTre]

Some issues:

• Its obvious that vegetarianism can be done successfully. Many people do.
  However, from my experience with it, I can see how someone could do it wrong and become depleted of some nutrients, and therefore have problems.
  If you aren't aware of these issues and/or don't want to do all the cooking, it may not work for you as a personal choice.
  The easiest way around this is to do it with a knowledgeable person (a mentor). No different from learning how to do things in the lab.
• Another issue is that eating meat has probably been an important part of the human diet for a long time. Some people think that meat, as a nutrient rich food source, was an important resource in enabling the production of the huge, energy expensive human brain.
  (Cooking of food (predigesting it) had a similar impact on expanding available energy resources.)
• Meat tastes good, in general, to most people. It has a lot of umami flavor (one of the 5 taste sensations).
  This may be the result of selection for the ability to detect of good food resources.
  If so, this may provide the liking of meat with a possible biological basis, both proximal (physiological) and ultimate (evolutionary reason).

 

[kyphysics]

Pretty disappointed that stores are short on Frito-Lay snacks. Bare shelves and also lack of diversity of products. Certain flavors haven't been available for a year now.

I am craving Ruffles Double Crunch Cheddar chips...these cannot be found in my city!

 

[WWGD]

Just to quickly followup on the aspect of animals killed by growing crops, to address that criticism of meat-eating:

Surely, fewer, if any actual farm animals will die, but other types surely will. So the point on efficiency in terms of calories returned per resources invested is taken. But not so clear on death tolls, unless one values farm animals above others.

 

[WWGD]

Some issues:

• Its obvious that vegetarianism can be done successfully. Many people do.
  However, from my experience with it, I can see how someone could do it wrong and become depleted of some nutrients, and therefore have problems.
  If you aren't aware of these issues and/or don't want to do all the cooking, it may not work for you as a personal choice.
  The easiest way around this is to do it with a knowledgeable person (a mentor). No different from learning how to do things in the lab.
• Another issue is that eating meat has probably been an important part of the human diet for a long time. Some people think that meat, as a nutrient rich food source, was an important resource in enabling the production of the huge, energy expensive human brain.
  (Cooking of food (predigesting it) had a similar impact on expanding available energy resources.)
• Meat tastes good, in general, to most people. It has a lot of umami flavor (one of the 5 taste sensations).
  This may be the result of selection for the ability to detect of good food resources.
  If so, this may provide the liking of meat with a possible biological basis, both proximal (physiological) and ultimate (evolutionary reason).

I have no one I know who could mentor me. I would have to find someone who would likely expect payment, spend time, money, energy in making a change that would not surely provide that much benefit. Doesn't seem very practical.

 

[fresh_42]

Just to quickly followup on the aspect of animals killed by growing crops

There is no way to manipulate the balance sheet so long until meat consumption justifies itself. Many of the reasons which lead to less biodiversity on farms could be addressed by other methods, e.g. by planting hedges aside the fields, reducing pesticides, etc. Your reasoning is similar to somebody justifying the use of nuclear weapons because it shortens a war. One kilogram of beef needs 15,400 liter water, 3 kilogram crops, and produces 200 liter methane a cow a day. You can argue about the figures, but even if it is slightly less, it does not clear the balance, not to mention that growing cattle doesn't help biodiversity either.

I am not saying that we should not eat meat. But at least we shouldn't pretend as if it could be justified. We wouldn't have conquered the world without beef, and people like the Inuit do not have an alternative. However, we modern office sitting, not moving employees do not really need meat to survive.

 

[WWGD]

There is no way to manipulate the balance sheet so long until meat consumption justifies itself. Many of the reasons which lead to less biodiversity on farms could be addressed by other methods, e.g. by planting hedges aside the fields, reducing pesticides, etc. Your reasoning is similar to somebody justifying the use of nuclear weapons because it shortens a war. One kilogram of beef needs 15,400 liter water, 3 kilogram crops, and produces 200 liter methane a cow a day. You can argue about the figures, but even if it is slightly less, it does not clear the balance, not to mention that growing cattle doesn't help biodiversity either.

I am not saying that we should not eat meat. But at least we shouldn't pretend as if it could be justified. We wouldn't have conquered the world without beef, and people like the Inuit do not have an alternative. However, we modern office sitting, not moving employees do not really need meat to survive.

I stated that I agree with the resource aspect. But there is the fact that , just as in the case of growing crops, the process of raising cattle may be optimized as well. The point is animals will die in significant numbers either way. That was my point; given many state that preserving animal life by itself is enough reason to support Veganism/vegetarianism. That's what I am putting into question, and not more than that.
Edit: And the issue of shortening wars is not imo as clear as you make it. However tragic, the bombing in japan may have ultimately saved lives.

 

[fresh_42]

And the issue of shortening wars is not imo as clear as you make it.

Depends on the war, doesn't it? I haven't specified any.

However tragic, the bombing in japan may have ultimately saved lives.

Nonsense.

 

[WWGD]

Depends on the war, doesn't it? I haven't specified any.

Nonsense.

Good. Someone on the Internet just decided it was nonsense, no arguments offered. I'm changing my mind ASAP.
I suggest we drop , abandon politics. I agree I brought this last part up. Let's please drop it.

 

[fresh_42]

Why isn't there an English word for "having eaten enough"? We say somebody is "satt". This has the same Latin origin as "satisfied". But being satisfied and being "satt" is not the same, since the former is an overall statement whereas the latter refers only to food. And why don't we have a word for "having drunk enough" in either language?

 

[Bystander]

Why isn't there an English word for "having eaten enough"? We say somebody is "satt". This has the same Latin origin as "satisfied". But being satisfied and being "satt" is not the same, since the former is an overall statement whereas the latter refers only to food. And why don't we have a word for "having drunk enough" in either language?

"Stuffed, sauced, ossified, drunk,...?"

 

[fresh_42]

"Stuffed, sauced, ossified, drunk,...?"

They all have a (negative) connotation, "satt" has not.

 

[WWGD]

They all have a (negative) connotation, "satt" has not.

Satiated?

 

[fresh_42]

Satiated?

Google translates this as "satisfied". To me, it sounds like a chemical solution that cannot take more stuff to resolve. I meant an adjective for "not hungry" and "not thirsty". This does not mean being fed up or drunk. They simply do not exist. Of course, there are workarounds.

Another funny little word is "doch". It is used in kids' yes-no-yes-no-... game. But it is more than a simple "yes" and can also be used without playing the entire game. It means, "I object to your argumentation and repeat with emphasis that I am right" all in one little word. The Hungarians say "de igen" which means, "but yes", which is at least closer than merely a "yes". AFAIK the Russians also simply say "да". I miss "doch" in foreign languages. Too bad it has "ch" in it.

 

[collinsmark]

Google translates this as "satisfied". To me, it sounds like a chemical solution that cannot take more stuff to resolve. I meant an adjective for "not hungry" and "not thirsty". This does not mean being fed up or drunk. They simply do not exist. Of course, there are workarounds.

"Satiated" is the correct English word here (i.e., "had enough to eat.") Google might translate it as "satisfied," but that doesn't reflect all the connotations.

"Satiated" means having had enough quantity to eat or drink without offering any commentary on the quality. One can be satiated after eating a meal, while still being horribly dissatisfied with the quality of the meal, assuming one ate enough of it.

And it's not an uncommon word. I use it frequently when discussing the pros and cons of various weight-loss diets.

Another funny little word is "doch".

Now that's a word that might not have a good English translation. I seem to remember that word when I took German language classes. It always seemed mysterious to me. In my recollection, it was just left out altogether in the German \rightarrow English translation, and sometimes just seemed to be thrown in all willy-nilly to the English \rightarrow German translation. (Edit: although that might be due in part to my waning memory of the subject.)

 

[fresh_42]

"Satiated" is the correct English word here

Maybe, and it probably means "gesättigt" in German, i.e. a verb. I was looking for an adjective, not a verb that is used as such.

"Ich bin satt" should be the everyday version of "I am satiated", which, if I read it correctly, is a bit more sophisticated, which by the way doesn't have a good German correspondence either.

 

[collinsmark]

Maybe, and it probably means "gesättigt" in German, i.e. a verb. I was looking for an adjective, not a verb that is used as such.

"Satiated" is most commonly used as an adjective.

Furthermore, it is most commonly used as an adjective in the "subject nominative" in the predicate of the sentence. For example, after eating enough such that I'm no longer hungry, I might say, "I am satiated." Here, "satiated" functions as an adjective modifying "I."

Although it could, albeit less commonly, still be used as an adjective with a more direct modification, such as "The satiated collinsmark left the table after eating only two hot dogs."

It's even less common that it would be used as a verb, although you still could: "Let's make sure to satiate all our dinner guests by stuffing mashed potatoes down their throats before they have a chance to leave." That would be unusual, but grammatically acceptable.

 

[fresh_42]

Now that's a word that might not have a good English translation. I seem to remember that word when I took German language classes. It always seemed mysterious to me.

"Doch" has really a universal property. Besides a simple "yes" or "but, yes" in the sense to contradict somebody, it could also be used as a strengthener or conjunction.

"Du bist ja doch gekommen!" means "You came after all!" but after all sounds like "after all the things that have been said". However, it should mean "despite your plans", "although you said you wouldn't / had no time". As a conjunction, it means something between "although" and "but". It is a mighty tiny word.

 

[collinsmark]

Oh, also, "satiated" can in some circumstances be a synonym for "appeased." As an example, "The pitchfork wielding, angry mob became satiated only after tearing the criminal apart from limb to limb, then throwing each limb, one by one, into the bonfire."

It's mostly used for food though.