That is not true in most people’s experience judging from previous HN threads unfortunately.
Generally one or two contributors are breaking their balls doing all the work and due to a schooling created desire to inpress others are just being taken advantage of.
Then thousands of freeloaders and cheerleaders riding on their back who are not even willing to donate $2 to the project demand more and more shit
Eventually the contributors eventually burning out and seeing how stupid the entire thing is (I.e no longer caring what these people say or think of the project) and the project suddenly gets abandoned
Two dudes creating something from a place of ego satisfaction and thousands of cheerleaders taking advantage of them is not a community
Unless said two guys (usually the core is up to 10) are implementing the project to work well for their own uses too.
Really, FOSS exists to solve problems of the developers, with good user interface sometimes an afterthought for this particular reason, as the developer is the ultimate power user often enough.
The exceptions are the true big projects, but they can end up in the 10 people situation due to sheer size of it. Those people are then usually maintainers, like in Linux.
Unless the project starves due to user/developer mismatch, or gets taken over by corporate interest and people start implementing stuff neither the developers nor users actually want, sapping the energy.
(I'm looking here at Mozilla Foundation specifically.)
I think most here can see the people pushing climate problems keep moving the goal posts and seem hallbent on just making it more difficult to produce food.
When we post solutions to their problems to areas of a well rounded discussion, they enter into a backs against the wall mindset , posting paragraphs and paragraphs back to us with any wacky counter arguments and not picking of the solution they can think of.
In this thread it was “we don’t have enough seaweed” and then they went trawling the internet for opinion pieces to try and back themselves up and reply within minutes.
A person with good intentions and who was genuinely interested in solving the problem would take more time and research papers that support and go against the solution and make a more balanced response to the good news they were given.
There are billions of people starving in this world. The parent comment is correct to question the motives of these people. I get the impression these people are dressing up satanism or communism as green policies. The same smell we all get when people push absurb woke policies.
We can phrase anything in a negative light. Food which fuels 100% of Denmark’s population causes only 33% of Denmark’s emissions. This is a wonderful achievement.
Wild-caught fish are likely not included in that statisic, but vegetables surely would be. Growing vegetables is the quintessential example of farming.
I'm not sure if farmed fish would be counted, since that is not traditional agriculture.
But fishing still burns a lot of diesel. If this statistics don't take in account Denmark emissions from activities in the sea or from commerce fleet out of Denmark, they are probably misleading to wrong results.
And if we take in account that Greenland acts as a buffer in this sense (they don't have probably a lot of cows, so the emissions effect should be diluted). This perfect "one third" statistical value seems just a raw assumption, or just invented for filling a report hiding the lack of data.
If we want to bet for a future, we have to be extra careful to not just repeat slogans, dogmas or cite incomplete studies, even if they say what we want to hear. This only will delay the necessary measures
Thank you for raising this valid issue. Ruminant methane output has been reduced by 98.8% with the addition of a compound from seaweed to the animals food. You are a small bit behind the science but thanks to people like you raising awareness we solved the problem!
This is a potential solution, but the problem isn't solved until the market actually adopts it.
Without a financial incentive to follow through (for example, a carbon tax on gassy animals) to offset the added cost of feed supplements, then most farms won't see the business justification (carbon footprint is largely externalized).
Sorry to double post this but you can think of it as being similar to a human taking a cheap charcoal tablet with their food to reduce flatulance.
Only a small part of the animals feed needs to be seaweed and thankfully it is one of the easiest and fastest growing organisms on the planet. So it’s extremely cheap for the industry to adopt compared to losses related to carbon taxes and loss of market share.
A little difficult to parse your argument. It is the lack of implementation of the cheap solution that you are worried about and raising as a problem.
Do not worry.
When enough pressure is applied on the farmers thanks to people like you , the solution (seaweed) we have found will be implemented. We have already done the difficult part and found a solution to the problem.
And I am sure that all of the fat people (myself included) are thrilled that a thermodynamic approach to weight loss is a proven solution, despite the fact that I have not had much success applying it.
I am also strongly reassured that XSS is a solved problem when using content security, and climate change has been solved by mass reforestation efforts.
The difficult part of a technical solution is not inventing it (although those are rightfully hard problems); the real challenge is in driving adoption of the solution.
The industry will push back on this solution for a broad range of reasons:
1. Cost - what is the cost of both the supplement and the labour required to administer it, or the differential on unfortified vs. fortified feeds.
2. Marketing - how will you communicate to folks that they should do this?
3. Customer Satisfication - does the supplement meaningfully affect any of the metrics for customer satisfaction (flavour, texture, etc of the meat).
4. Availability - retooling and spinning up the aquaculture required to produce the supplements
5. Viability - what is the ecological impact of the proposed seaweed solution, and is it a net positive.
I spent a chunk of my career as a researcher, developing protoypes and proof of concept stuff. One of the greatest things of that time in my career was developing something to 80% and throwing it over the fence, which let me ignore all of that hard work and call my project a win. One of the worst things is that out of that multi-year period of experimentation almost none of the work I did actually yielded unique products or improvements (although the tools I built did drive improvements to address issues and flaws found).
Assuming that you did the research, your work was definitely successful in finding a solution. You have not solved the problem, and the hard work is very much ahead.
You are certainly putting in a lot of effort in this discussion and I thank you for that. I would prefer a discussion done in good faith however.
I say that only as it seems you have added paragraphs in all of your previous comments to retroactively protect yourself from points I later raised in my replies and you also seem to have deleted your paragraph that enough seaweed was not being produced and so you believe the problem is not solved.
Seaweed production is in line with current demand. When the market places enough pressure on Farmers to adopt the solution then seaweed production will naturally increase. Seaweed is one of the easiest and fastest growing organisms in the world.
Your most recent arguments regarding Marketing etc being a problem. You are scraping the barrel now looking for problems.
I haven't added or edited anything but spelling errors. It was another commenter who raised concern about scaling production, my point was that the viability of this as method for methane reduction also needed to determine if the aquaculture needed to produce the seaweed would be a net benefit from a climate change perspective.
The aquaculture needed to produce seaweed has to be a net benefit now?
Net zero is not satanic enough?
It is odd that you are so
hellbent on finding additional problems and moving the goalposts on this. When billions of people in the world are starving.
Seaweed is one of the the easiest and fastest growing organisms in the world and there have been many threads here pushing for it to even be used as food for humans.
> The aquaculture needed to produce seaweed has to be a net benefit now?
No. The concern is about the overall impact of the aquaculture required to scale this seaweed feed supplements production to have a meaningful impact on the methane production from livestock. If you ramp up seaweed production, and reduce methane, but the overall process (aquaculture, processing, distribution) produces anything but than a net negative in GHG emissions, then the only value of the process is greenwashing cattle ranching.
I am not hellbent on finding additional problems, the point is that a lab based solution doesn't solve the problem, and most of your comments have ignored the very real market realities. I would also wager that your opinions are not necessarily grounded in reality - I chatted with my brother, who was a pig farmer for nearly two decades and is still involved in agriculture in both farming and ranching, and my cousin who runs a very large ranch in Manitoba. Some of the concerns I brought up in my previous point about market pushback are summaries of the questions and concerns they raised, although they both thought it was really interesting because they are both especially interested in sustainable farming practices.
Switching gears because you moved the goalposts, nothing I have said has anything to do with starvation or hunger. Since you brought it up, it is almost absolutely certain that building technology that mitigates, partially or wholly, the environmental impact of cattle farms actually exacerbates world hunger. The simple reason that is that the labour and resources that go into producing meat for human consumption would produce significantly more human consumable calories if we shifted those to plant based alternatives (up to and including feeding people seaweed).
Ok but a “plants only” diet is not a sustainable or natural diet for humans. Humans are not currently enmasse eating a carnivore diet either.
So you are putting forward the argument and problem - that we are currently omnivores and we should not be eating meat , due to environmental concerns and because it lowers the quantity of food we can produce overall.
You are saying it would be better if we all became vegans, so that higher quantities of food could be produced.
You think this is the solution.
The problem with going to an extreme position like you have done is that people will overall get sick from this unnatural diet.
We see thousands of people on Reddit have cured their “incurable auto immune” diseases by going carnivore and not ingesting any plants. After they previously ate too much plants and damaging their intestinal lining resulting in natural plant toxins created by plants to stop insects eating them , pesticides , fungicides, herbicides , glysophate etc leaking from the gut into their blood causing the cykotine response by the immune system and a build up of these toxins around the body (joints mostly with specifically it being the knees for rheumatoid arthritis and such).
Meat is clean of toxins as like in our own body , the animals bodies keep the blood clean of it , any toxins in the blood would cause the animal itself to get sick.
This is not the case at all regarding plants which are full of an assortment of toxins.
We have proof from thousands of individual case reports and published medical papers now that plants are making people sick. The medical establishment simply has not yet put all the findings together or discussed it properly.
Have some common sense. Vegans are sickly, weak and over time they turn into cucks (our personality
Is just a manifestation of our physical state). Carnivores are strong, fit predators.
You’re talking about marketing problems , that’s a real marketing problem for you. Try selling this vegan and bugs diet to the masses. These are secondary problems (marketing) that don’t really have a place in our discussion.
Wow, you kind of went off the deep end there. I am not a vegetarian, nor do I promote a meat free lifestyle. You made an assumption because I said something you didn't like - a simple fact about the food production.
You see thousands of people on Reddit carrying on about being carnivores, I'll raise you 9% of India's population being vegan (that would be more than 125 million people), and another 40% of the population of India being some type of vegetarian. Find better data for your claims about the health impacts of not eating meat.
One other thing -
> Meat is clean of toxins as like in our own body
Uh huh. That's why farms routinely send meat to labs routinely to test for parasites and diseases, and mercury is a huge problem when consuming fish.
> Carnivores are strong, fit predators.
Eating meat does not make a predator; in the context of diet, if you are not hunting for your prey, you are a scavenger, consuming the remains of others kills (unless you think those Redditors you cited stalking the aisles of your local supermarket for the best deals counts as hunting).
The only reason I responded to this was because someone else might accidentally read your garbage post and be swayed by it.
It’s not a solved problem. This is a hyperbole less accurate than saying vehicle emissions are a solved problem because EV’s exist. Seaweed is not a widespread additive in cattle feed and global production of seaweed would need to drastically increase to handle demand. There is also a plethora of other factors to consider with the increased farming of seaweed and the dietary changes that make adding seaweed to a cows diet anything but a “solved problem”
You can think of it as similar to a human taking a cheap charcoal tablet with their food to reduce flatulance. They will not take such a tablet until they are aware they have gastritis. When enough pressure is applied the solution will be implemented.
Only a small part of the animals feed needs to be seaweed and thankfully it is one of the easiest and fastest growing organisms on the planet. So it’s extremely cheap for the industry to adopt the solution when compared to facing losses related to carbon taxes and loss of market share.
Your underestimating the amount of food cows need to eat a day and likely overestimating global seaweed production in relation to even supply only 1% of cattle feed.
89 millions cows in the US alone eating eating 20+ pounds of food a day is 890,000 tons or nearly 325 million tons per year. That’s per day. Global production of seaweed was 358,200 tons in 2019. Only about 11% of what would be needed to be included in 1% of feed of every cow in America. And that wouldn’t leave any seaweed to be used for any of its other uses or the millions of other cows around the world.
Seaweed grows very quickly. The historical production was much higher a hundred years ago, but there's been relatively little need for seaweed in recent decades. It would not be hard to farm more of it, if there were demand.
"Seaweed" means thousands of different species. When we see a cluster of seaweeds in a rock some of them are not even in the same kingdom than their neighbors. Its life cycles and chemical properties are totally different.
The truth is that some species are really picky and some take decades to regrow after harvested. Just because brown seaweeds are fast growers does not mean that red seaweeds are.
> there's been relatively little need for seaweed in recent decades
You may not be aware of how much of our everyday stuff includes algae. The demand of toothpaste has not fell. I would dare to speculate that the demand of laboratory stuff is probably higher than ever since Covid.
> This is like saying that trees grow quickly. [...] The truth is that some species are really picky and some take decades to regrow after harvested.
It's more like saying weeds grow quickly. If it were slow-growing, I would probably just call it macroalgae. In any case, I was under the impression from previous discussions that the particular variety needed for the supplement grew quickly.
> You may not be aware of how much of our everyday stuff includes algae. The demand of toothpaste has not fell.
The demand for alternative sources of potash in Allied nations, however, has declined dramatically since the end of WW1. They required a tremendous amount of kelp for manufacturing explosives.
You sound like a shill from snopes.com with your “debunk” argument. If you have already proved this to be “debunked” (please use the correct word - false) then copy and paste your findings here and provide citations
It’s impossible to produce cellulose and amylose in this way from barley and claim it was done safely in a protective atmosphere.
They already do this in many sweets by using sugar from wheat because it’s cheaper to produce but it makes many people with gluten allergy extremely ill.
They separate out the sugar but it’s contaminated.
A single molecule of gluten or nuts from cross contamination can make people with these allergies very ill.
Wrapping all food in our society with this stuff will lead to great suffering and danger for many. At least initially until the problem is acknowledged and fixed like in the cases of asbestos, tobacco etc
Privacy, long term access being two reasons. I’d hate to see you and your sloppy way of doing things running an IT dept, you would probably just upload all your data to torrent sites and archive.org as it’s easier
The same reason most people are a bit “thick” , stuff just won’t go into their brains or register with them. They have the mind of children but are in adult bodies with adult voices
Generally one or two contributors are breaking their balls doing all the work and due to a schooling created desire to inpress others are just being taken advantage of.
Then thousands of freeloaders and cheerleaders riding on their back who are not even willing to donate $2 to the project demand more and more shit
Eventually the contributors eventually burning out and seeing how stupid the entire thing is (I.e no longer caring what these people say or think of the project) and the project suddenly gets abandoned
Two dudes creating something from a place of ego satisfaction and thousands of cheerleaders taking advantage of them is not a community
reply