And a tariff on it will increase the price, because that is just how economics works.

this is not very scientific.

we could have a more robust economy where we do make everything and they make everything and nothing needs to be more expensive, if we just let it be less profitable

good science is recognizing that LCAs are not transferable between studies, so poore-nemecek’s analysis must be disregarded.

this is just recycled poore nemecek. it’s bad science gaining entrenchment.

you are putting specific terminology in place of the words as written,and claiming it’s a clear connotation, when it is not

federated not Facebook

this paper doesn’t tell us how much methane is produced. it’s as detailed as your comment.

what is the data? how much do they produce?

the paper compiles LCAs from disparate sources. but LCAs are not transferable between studies. the entire basis of the analysis is bad science.

this is just poore-nemecek, and it is bad science.

the more I dig into this paper the worse it gets. it’s calculating inputs from feed and land use change. this is as bad as poore-nemecek. but it’s not even using data from the operations, instead it’s just guessing.

no one should take this paper seriously, except academic rhetoricians who need to show their colleagues how the trappings of science are used to spread claims without evidence.

edit:

page 65: this report is an extrapolation based on ivanovich et al, which itself is an extrapolation based on poore-nemecek. this is bad science built on bad science.

I’m totally open to the claims that are presented, but the evidence used to support it simply can’t do that.

if they could prove it, this would be worth discussing. these are just guesses.

I will soon be 40, but I recently found some pictures that I sent to my then girlfriend now wife where I look fuckin great

it’s better than “threadiverse” which at once includes the name of a Facebook product and seems to also give Facebook all the credit for mastodon, Lemmy, pixelfed, peer tube be etc, while also making them appear to be second class citizens.

but I am not endorsing this “social web” thing yet, either.

stop wasting both of our time.

you’re free to not respond at any time.

Approximately 0.01% of lemmy’s user base would conflate simple “use” with exploitation.

can you substantiate this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNPV5c2Verc

I’m surprised you don’t have a better understanding of exploitation

you have no idea what my understanding is. that’s not the subject of our discussion. don’t make this personal.

we are discussing the vegan society’s understanding.

the barest definition is a synonym of “use”. the vegan society could clear up this ambiguity but they have chosen not to do so, and there is no reason to assume they prefer a special definition of exploitation.

The absence of exploitation is indicated through consent,

no, it’s not. it’s exploitation by the barest definition, like exploiting a fallow field or a forest. the definition of exploitation can by synonymously defined as “use”. using a corpse is exploiting it. using a corpse which has, with informed consent, been consigned for use is still exploitation.