this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2025
807 points (89.1% liked)
You Should Know
39636 readers
1754 users here now
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content.
**
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated.
If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
the graphic you posted comes from this article, which shows it is based on poore-nemecek 2018. i've detailed teh problems with this study in another top-level comment here, but, basically, it's not good science. i feel you're spreading misinformation.
I wouldn’t call this “detailing the problems.” You wrote a few paragraphs and possibly listed a few.
How much of cattle feed is cottonseed? In the US only or worldwide? What are alternatives? Would they be better or worse?
poore-nemecek is conducting scientific malpractice by combining LCA studies as they have. the problem with behrens, admittedly, is more of a feeling of misgiving, and I don't know if there is any study that properly accounts for reclaimed agricultural water, or of that's even a reasonable thing to do when your end product is a simple statistic like land use, water use, or ghge.
I think the best thing to do is probably look at inefficiencies in any specific operation and help them improve, but that doesn't give simplistic answers like telling 8 billion people to eat more or less of something.
For someone who seems so righteous and careful about saying the right thing, I think it’s funny you end with “telling 8 billion people to eat more or less of something” when that’s an obvious exaggeration on your part. Global meat consumption is highly skewed. For example, apparently, the US consumes 21% of the world’s meat (world population review, which cites FAO, 2010) yet accounts for about 4% of the world population.
I'm advocating for a method to actually improve outcomes, and, yes, lampooning the simplistic answers offered here. but if the answers are more complex, there is not any nuance or further explanation offered here. the data gathering and analysis methods offered are flawed, and it doesn't take a degree in statistics or environmental science to understand this.
you've latched onto one glib comment I've made while glossing over the real methodological missteps.
It’s a “glib comment” you’re making to further discredit the study. I could be wrong but I don’t think you’ve posted any actual studies that talk about what’s wrong with the Poore Nemecek article. It was published in 2018 so there should be plenty.
Instead, you say you “detailed” what’s wrong with the study when you, at best, gave a short overview. Then you made exaggerations to further discredit the study. You also say the study is so bad “it doesn’t take a degree in statistics or environmental science” to understand why it’s so bad.
You could very well be right but I just see someone puffing up their chest and not actually using intellectual methods to convey their point of view while expertly pretending to be doing that.
simply reading the LCA studies cited by poore and nemecek will show they are misusing the data.
Surely within the 6000+ articles that cite it there must be a great study going to town on Poore and Nemecek, then.
or you could read their own citations.
I thought you were the one advocating for better methods? Pretty lazy advocate lol. I’m just challenging you and … nothing.
I told you where to find the information. I can't make you read it.
You're saying a study cited 6000+ times is so bad but you can't produce a single well cited article that critiques it yet it is so obviously bad that anyone -- without a degree in environmental science or statistics -- can easily go throw the cited LCA studies and go "fuck this shit stinks"? Give me a fuckin break.
the studies they cite state explicitly that LCA studies should not be combined, which you would find if you read literally any of their abstracts.
Oooo a “teh” in the wild—a rare site in the mobile internet age! (I’m not being mean, I’m just remarking the rarity!)
The ballpark numbers seem well in line with similar studies I have seen elsewhere. So while I don't doubt there might be minor flaws in this particular source material, the point still stands.
We shouldn't nitpick too much about stuff that's generally trying very hard to get facts right while the right or making up shit left, right and center and call fact-checking a limitation of their free speech.
Suggestion: point out flaws but also confirm that it's definitely not just made up and probably largely correct
Red meat is a staple of right wing peoples identity since a lot of them are cattle farmers and merica. So a study like this, posted to Lemmy is just great.
I think it's more related to hypermasculinity and meat. Eg grilling steaks. The whole bacon craze with men. Those Burger King commercials with all the meat and the girls licking ranch. Hungry Man frozen dinners with the meat as the biggest and most important thing.The fact that they call their dicks their meat or sausage (does look like sausage so I get). The weightlifting bros and high protein diets that are usually meat. Keto and men and Joe Rogan. The Atkins diet being marketed to men. I was just doing a back and forth with a guy on Lemmy who insisted the only food you need to eat is meat because it has all the vitamins you need (it does not, or at least, muscle meat does not and he didn't seem into eating organ meat like heart and liver).
But yeah it's also probably related to "Beef, it's what's for dinner" stuff too.
I just think it's the masculinity thing because a lot of rightwing men have to hide any bit of femininity they can, and most people are a mix of masculine and feminine traits normally so it causes rightwing men to overcompensate to hide it.
circle jerking