Martín

I guess you misunderstood my providing illustrative examples in parentheses. Replace or remove the examples, the argument is still valid.

In another subthread they’ve pointed out that processing food also changes its protein density, most obviously by water transfer.

This is not a problem with the nutrition of foods, it is the metric that is poorly designed. One more argument against the chart

Your seem to insist to twist this towards vegan wars, but this is you. It’s not the graphics, it’s not me.

What’s wrong with reducing density through absorption (of water)?

To me it seems that your interpretation completely disregards the Y-axis. On the other hand, I wouldn’t think the colour coding does a good job in separating along the carnivorous-vegetarian-vegan scale.

So much wrong about this chart. It is factually correct, but it answers the wrong question.

This chart makes it way too easy to optimise for cheap protein, which is misleading. It is not this what it takes to have a healthy organism. It takes a varied diet, with balanced quantities of liquids (see milk), vitamins (see sprouts), fatty acids (see salmon), minerals (see shrimps, eggs, walnuts), actually carbs (potatoes, rice, spaghetti), and much more…

I keeps amazing me how one could criticise capitalism and still talk exclusively in terms of capitalism.

Not a single word of the accelerating extreme deforestation of the world’s forests all over the planet. And this is just an example. The same holds about drilling and plastics, about industrial farming, construction,… I don’t care if they are profitable. They’re just aggravating the problem and there are alternatives that reduce the problem. These need to be enforced, regardless whether they are profitable (some of them are, but they still don’t overtake the problematic ones). We don’t have collective enforcement and we need it. Call it green new deal if you want, call it anarcho-communism, whatever. As long as it is just theory and no practice, it’s pointless.

Politics and growth are irrelevant if they are so detached from the problem.

Let’s say that for millions of years a healthy biosphere grew around forests and the balance worked. Now you come to tell us it doesn’t. Wouldn’t you think it’s a bit unconvincing?

I wonder why forestation is not present in this chart, as it is a low-cost carbon capture with side benefits. Sure, it is hard to scale, but reducing current deforestation rates would be a big step.

Why would the logs be emitting CO2 (rotting?) if they are alive and growing?

https://github.com/pgp/XFiles is what I’ve been using and am pretty happy about it