they combine disparately methodized LCA data. this is explicitly against good practice. the fact that they found outrageous disparities got them great headlines and impressive graphs, but the underlying science is questionable at best. I could go deeper but this is the thousand foot view.
goedel
joined 2 years ago
this is poore-nemecek 2018. it is not good science.
If its less money out of one's bank then the subsidies are a secondary consideration if they're considered at all
It could be that in wealthy countries it is cheaper to consume meat due to factors like subsidization. Or, as I said, a thousand other factors.
there could be a thousand confounding factors. you probably oversimplified
you're just name calling
The central analogy to the civil rights movement and the women's movement is trivializing and ahistorical. Both of those social movements were initiated and driven by members of the dispossessed and excluded groups themselves, not by benevolent men or white people acting on their behalf. Both movements were built precisely around the idea of reclaiming and reasserting a shared humanity in the face of a society that had deprived it and denied it. No civil rights activist or feminist ever argued, "We're sentient beings too!" They argued, "We're fully human too!" Animal liberation doctrine, far from extending this humanist impulse, directly undermines it.
Speciesism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations.
what in the boomer book is this doing on lemmy
your not countering them, you're just being mean.
objectively, it is a veterinary procedure. that's the reality.
now who is putting words in others' mouths?
view more: next ›
of course it's not. Meta analyzes fly in the face of the guidance for LCAs. it's just not good science.
since I'm already being tasked to address this again, it's worth pointing out that poore and nemecek didn't even gather the LCA data themselves. they, themselves, actually cite other meta-analyzes of LCA data. those meta-analyzes do recognize that they are violating best practices in the text themselves, and just go ahead and do it anyway. egregiously, poore and nemecek Don't even acknowledge this faux pas and pass off their "findings" as sound investigation.