choosing a course of action that results surely in extinction is genocidal

you can’t know what others need

Anyway. I see you’re not serious in this conversation and are just trolling. Have a good one.

this is an ad hominem and a thought terminating cliche. what i’m saying is true. your fallacious rhetoric doesn’t change that.

Our best scientific understanding is that a CNS is essential for sentience

i think what you mean is that sentience has only been substantiated in organisms with a cns.

Do you actually believe there is a sentient being in a plant, or a rock for that matter?

i never said that. what i said is that you can’t prove there isn’t.

Should we, according to you, grant the same amount of ethical consideration to a tomato as to a cat/pig/bird/etc?

i don’t know what you mean by ethical consideration.

it also requires aesthetic needs to be met, social needs, and self actualization. for many people, those may require that you, for instance, master french cuisine, or eat your grandmother’s lasagna, or just have hotdog and beer at the ballpark.

vegans have been around since the 1940s, and my guess is there are more now than ever, but the meat industry grows year-over-year every year. being vegan doesn’t decrease the amount of meat dairy or eggs produced. it certainly doesn’t reduce the amount of vegetables grown.

maslow would like a word with you

you seem to be a rage troll

calling me names doesn’t change the truth of what I’m saying

you aren’t my doctor or my nutritionist. you don’t know what I need, or anyone else.

and people need more than nutrients

you don’t know what others need

you can minimize plant usage by going vegan.

no, you can’t. the industry doesn’t change it’s growth due to vegans.

there is no sentience and thus, no capacity for suffering inside plants

this can’t be proven

we don’t need to eat animals

maybe you don’t. you don’t know what anyone else needs

this is a plan that would lead eventually to the total destruction of the species. it’s genocide

The LCA studies that they cite specifically give guidance that it cannot be combined with other LCA studies. some of the studies they cite are meta studies that actually acknowledge this, but the poore-nemecek paper doesn’t even bother to acknowledge it.

since this study relies on poore-nemecek 2018, at least in part, I’m suspicious. they also admit they didn’t gather the data themselves, and although they never mention LCAs directly, my guess is there is a similar mishandling of source data. but I’ll read it today or tomorrow

but this is from poore-nemecek 2018. it’s not good science.

do you have something else to support this claim?

imstill reading your 2012 water footprint paper, btw

And milk alternatives are much better than dairy when it comes to water usage

what makes you think that?