this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
578 points (89.7% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

7963 readers
149 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago (41 children)

Under literally any ethical system you choose.

Forget harm to the animal for a moment.

Breeding animals to slaughter is more water, land and time intensive than growing crops, and produces substantially fewer calories for even more land area. Breeding animals to slaughter also generates far more CO2 then crops, either from the animal directly or from transport and butchering processes.

[–] LufyCZ 2 points 2 years ago (9 children)

If it's pure calories you're after, might I suggest Uranium? It's pretty cheap considering what you can theoretically get out of it.

^/s

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I don't think that you Uranium contains any calories.

[–] LufyCZ 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Food calories and scientific measurement calories are different. It's literally in the first paragraph of the article.

The small calorie or gram calorie was defined as the amount of heat needed to cause the same increase in one gram of water.

[–] LufyCZ 2 points 2 years ago

My comment specifically says "pure calories".

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (37 replies)