it's actually a tragic state for the academy. no reproducible studies. bad methodology. and everyone citing each other uncritically. it would be nice to have good data on ecology and nutrition, but everyone is so focused on just getting the paper out that no one is trying to advance the science.
I'm totally out of the loop on the nutritional side of this so I usually stay in my lane. I've read a lot of the lit on the environmental side and I can say with certainty that all the claims made about food production might be true, but the research simply isn't properly methodized to support it.
life cycle assessment. if you read the references in poore-nemecek 2018, you will find that they didn't even gather the studies themselves. they are doing a meta study of meta studies. when you read their sources, those papers talk explicitly about the problem of combining disparately methodized study data, but then go on to do so. poore-nemecek doesn't even acknowledge this faux pas.
We combined livestock production data with average species and product-specific land use data from [12] to estimate species, product and country-specific land use data associated with animal agriculture.
they just take poore-nemecek and plug it into their research. no discussion on the problem of combining disparately methodized lca data.
i'll tell you what: i opened every one of those links, then i went ahead and started clicking through to the actual papers. when you can present a peer reviewed study and explain how the methodology led to the conclusion you are making here, i'll be happy to discuss that paper (or all of them. i think you'll find that the gish gallop of links you dropped here actually draw on about 12 different studies, but most of them rely heavily on poore-nemecek 2018, so you could start there if you like.)
edit: a word of warning. the earth.org link is a mess. i was able to find most of the other papers, but i doubt you're going to find that to be a worthwhile or even fruitful venture. sticking with the stanford link should still glean you about 6 or 7 papers we can evaluate together.
your first link is just a labyrinth of uncited claims. the actual papers are at least 3 clicks deep. the fact that you cited it at all speaks to a weak understanding of what i have been saying this whole time. in fact, none of the links you provided are scholarly articles.
if you can't explain the methodology for the conclusions youre parroting, i'm not going to bother being the one who actually finds all your citations and their methodologies.
i will tell you that i know that poore-nemecek 2018 is the basis of a lot of pretty specious claims, and hayek 2014. so when you come back, with actual evidence, please know that i'll be dismissing improperly combined lca data outright.
Advocating for a carnivore diet is ecological madness, particularly a beef based diet when there are more ecologically friendly ways to achieve a carbohydrate deficient diet.
these are the claims i'm telling you are not rigorously proven.
I'm quite confident in my position, but if you are going to insist on making an ecological argument, cite something so we can evaluate it's methodology.
no one said we should
the comparison operator is commutative. it's the same thing.
comparing slaves to animals is what slavers do.
the meta-analysis is just one paper, too. and it's bad.
it's actually a tragic state for the academy. no reproducible studies. bad methodology. and everyone citing each other uncritically. it would be nice to have good data on ecology and nutrition, but everyone is so focused on just getting the paper out that no one is trying to advance the science.
this is just an admission that you don't know what the literature says.
I really can't recommend any papers. I don't trust any of them that make strong claims one way or another.
I'm totally out of the loop on the nutritional side of this so I usually stay in my lane. I've read a lot of the lit on the environmental side and I can say with certainty that all the claims made about food production might be true, but the research simply isn't properly methodized to support it.
life cycle assessment. if you read the references in poore-nemecek 2018, you will find that they didn't even gather the studies themselves. they are doing a meta study of meta studies. when you read their sources, those papers talk explicitly about the problem of combining disparately methodized study data, but then go on to do so. poore-nemecek doesn't even acknowledge this faux pas.
they just take poore-nemecek and plug it into their research. no discussion on the problem of combining disparately methodized lca data.
jesus. here's how i spent the last 20 minutes. this is before even reading the research:
i don't think it's true that they're pro-russia, and if the agitprop was true, i don't see the problem with disseminating it.
i'll tell you what: i opened every one of those links, then i went ahead and started clicking through to the actual papers. when you can present a peer reviewed study and explain how the methodology led to the conclusion you are making here, i'll be happy to discuss that paper (or all of them. i think you'll find that the gish gallop of links you dropped here actually draw on about 12 different studies, but most of them rely heavily on poore-nemecek 2018, so you could start there if you like.)
edit: a word of warning. the earth.org link is a mess. i was able to find most of the other papers, but i doubt you're going to find that to be a worthwhile or even fruitful venture. sticking with the stanford link should still glean you about 6 or 7 papers we can evaluate together.
your first link is just a labyrinth of uncited claims. the actual papers are at least 3 clicks deep. the fact that you cited it at all speaks to a weak understanding of what i have been saying this whole time. in fact, none of the links you provided are scholarly articles.
if you can't explain the methodology for the conclusions youre parroting, i'm not going to bother being the one who actually finds all your citations and their methodologies.
i will tell you that i know that poore-nemecek 2018 is the basis of a lot of pretty specious claims, and hayek 2014. so when you come back, with actual evidence, please know that i'll be dismissing improperly combined lca data outright.
these are the claims i'm telling you are not rigorously proven.
what is it that you think you know about WikiLeaks
I never suggested there aren't ecological problems. none of this shows that meat production is to blame
I'm quite confident in my position, but if you are going to insist on making an ecological argument, cite something so we can evaluate it's methodology.
first, the ecological argument is lacking in scientific rigor, so let's do away with that distraction.
second, and more importantly, no one is saying that everyone should eat a carnivore diet.
I've read every comment on this post.