Lot of things probably
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Replies
32
@sun They are literally calculating all the rain that falls in a field as "water required to proceed beef". Without the cows, the water still falls and lands on the ground.
@sun I have no idea why liberal bugmen aim to use as little resources as possible. It makes no difference with India China and Africa all waste maxing
@ned that counts for the same reason that states regulate rain barrels
@sun the problem is when people react by thinking "I dunno, that number seems pretty big, let's ban it"
@sun also, since water is a renewable resource, the real issue with data centers using water is when they move into existing communities and drive up utility prices
Does anything improve if you remove said cows from the field? The rain still falls, the water still seeps into the ground. Shitlibs are still retarded.
@BroDrillard @ned yes, a million cows affect the environment
@sun niggas act like water doesn't just fall out of the sky
@genmaicha it would be great to engage with people if they made accurate and good faith statements like this one
@sun @BroDrillard @ned both positively and (if you buy the carbon pollution frame) negatively. several billion humans also effect the environment. several trillion algae do, too.
Then go talk to the jeets about them cows.
🌿 
@sun @BroDrillard @ned Grazing is beneficial tho if done properly, but lol, who would want to hire cowboys to heard cattle in cropfield so they can be fertilized and not require synthetic fertilizer and restore soils ?
@sun @BroDrillard
The point here is that a cow does not drink 3522 liters of water per day. (calculating 15,000L, average weight and lifespan of a beef cow)
@jeremiah @BroDrillard @ned cows do not affect the environment net positive and the point is not that anyway, the point is if all you say is “it uses water” then you have to reckon with other things that use water but they don’t
@ned @BroDrillard no the point here is not the specific number, it is just further making the case that measuring by “water usage” isn’t helpful
@jeremiah @BroDrillard @ned meat production is very resource intensive, you can read about it, there is a lot to summarize but it’s not just “free” because they’re animals on land
@sun @BroDrillard The number is just to demonstrate the absurdity. I agree.
@sun @BroDrillard @jeremiah It is. But see it also produces meat. And IMO that's a good and useful use of resources.
@ned @BroDrillard yeah but it’s true the 15k number is definitely bs and I’m not sure if they were estimating high to make a point about data center usage estimates
@sun God I wish they would shut up about water already
>water
The sheer amount of fossil fuel to run the data centers and make the parts for it is staggering.
The sheer amount of fossil fuel to run the data centers and make the parts for it is staggering.
@ned @BroDrillard @jeremiah it is. So is compute by many people. Similarly people complain about the gpu resources but never explain how solving business problems is less valuable than playing Call of Duty on a gpu. They’re all things humans want to do
@sun @ned @BroDrillard @jeremiah
The business issue of adding numbers ?
The business issue of transferring information to one side of the world to another ?
Haven't we solved these already ?
The business issue of adding numbers ?
The business issue of transferring information to one side of the world to another ?
Haven't we solved these already ?
@sun @jeremiah @BroDrillard @ned not to mention wastewater runoff from CAFOs contains pathogens, hormones, and pharmaceuticals which ends up in the drinking water supply and turns the frogs gay 
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1817674/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1817674/
@jeremiah @BroDrillard @ned @sun
at the rate it is used, fresh water is a non-renewable resource. land vertebrate biomass today is at ~7 times what it was naturally before human intervention (i.e. prior to global megafaunal extinction), and, to achieve that, aquifers globally are being drained more quickly than precipitation can refill them. it's not possible to just feed cows on grass in a field. you have to pump water and dig things from the ground to feed crops (alfalfa, soy, ...) for them
using water this way, you're taking the fraction of rainfall that was already absorbed and pumping it back to the surface for another chance to evaporate or run off. and the percentage that is absorbed takes nitrates (either from fertiliser directly or from animal poops) along with it, poisoning the aquifer and killing people who drink from it
the current number of humans on the planet is unsustainable, just humans alone outmass those historical megafauna, but the problem is made far worse by feeding them inefficiently, and eating vertebrates is one of the least efficient methods there is. designating more than 3/4 of all crops grown globally to growing baby animals into adults, with them all the while radiating energy away as heat, is just stupid when humans could eat those crops directly instead
at the rate it is used, fresh water is a non-renewable resource. land vertebrate biomass today is at ~7 times what it was naturally before human intervention (i.e. prior to global megafaunal extinction), and, to achieve that, aquifers globally are being drained more quickly than precipitation can refill them. it's not possible to just feed cows on grass in a field. you have to pump water and dig things from the ground to feed crops (alfalfa, soy, ...) for them
using water this way, you're taking the fraction of rainfall that was already absorbed and pumping it back to the surface for another chance to evaporate or run off. and the percentage that is absorbed takes nitrates (either from fertiliser directly or from animal poops) along with it, poisoning the aquifer and killing people who drink from it
the current number of humans on the planet is unsustainable, just humans alone outmass those historical megafauna, but the problem is made far worse by feeding them inefficiently, and eating vertebrates is one of the least efficient methods there is. designating more than 3/4 of all crops grown globally to growing baby animals into adults, with them all the while radiating energy away as heat, is just stupid when humans could eat those crops directly instead
@sun @BroDrillard @ned @jeremiah let's do some math
1200 pound steer, you can expect a 740 – 770 pound carcass.
a steer drinks ~75 liters a day, and oldest at slaughter is going to be 2 years / 24 months
365 * 2 = 730 days
730 * 75 liters = 54,750
54,750 / 750 pounds = 73 liters for drinking water only
now let's do their feed
20 pounds grain mix per day is max, this is made of 30% oats 30% barley 40% corn
based on available data:
21 gallons / pound of corn = ~79 liters
290 gallons / pound of oats = 1,097 liters
~346 gallons / pound of barley = 1,310 liters
(1310 / 100) * 30 = 393 liters
(1097 / 100) * 30 = 329 liters
(79 / 100) * 40 = 31 liters
~ 753 liters / pound of grain mix
20 pounds per day * 753 liters = 15060 liters of water for feed inputs
15060 * 730 days of steer age = 10,993,800 liters
10,993,800 liters for all feed inputs / 750 pounds of beef = 14658 liters per pound
14658 feed + 73 liters of drinking water = 14731 liters per pound
seems pretty fucking close to 15,000 liters per pound of beef to me
1200 pound steer, you can expect a 740 – 770 pound carcass.
a steer drinks ~75 liters a day, and oldest at slaughter is going to be 2 years / 24 months
365 * 2 = 730 days
730 * 75 liters = 54,750
54,750 / 750 pounds = 73 liters for drinking water only
now let's do their feed
20 pounds grain mix per day is max, this is made of 30% oats 30% barley 40% corn
based on available data:
21 gallons / pound of corn = ~79 liters
290 gallons / pound of oats = 1,097 liters
~346 gallons / pound of barley = 1,310 liters
(1310 / 100) * 30 = 393 liters
(1097 / 100) * 30 = 329 liters
(79 / 100) * 40 = 31 liters
~ 753 liters / pound of grain mix
20 pounds per day * 753 liters = 15060 liters of water for feed inputs
15060 * 730 days of steer age = 10,993,800 liters
10,993,800 liters for all feed inputs / 750 pounds of beef = 14658 liters per pound
14658 feed + 73 liters of drinking water = 14731 liters per pound
seems pretty fucking close to 15,000 liters per pound of beef to me
@sun @BroDrillard @ned it's a fair statement, but it applies to literally all agriculture. The impact depends very much on the farming technique -- intense chemical-source corn feed vs. low-impact pasture grazing, and where -- sparse land with pumped water vs. pastureland with bodies of water. That's before we get to things like processing, mileage, refrigeration, distribution.
@mangeurdenuage @sun @BroDrillard @ned apparently there's a business case for LLMs in the same way that any stupid trend creates a business case, but human survival doesn't depend on it the way it depends on food.
@feld @BroDrillard @jeremiah @sun 99.5% of which is the growing of crops. Tell me, what is the negative environmental impact of using water to grow crops if sufficient water is already available?
@jeremiah @BroDrillard @ned @sun
>but human survival doesn't depend on it the way it depends on food.
>human survival doesn't depend on it
>but human survival doesn't depend on it the way it depends on food.
>human survival doesn't depend on it