Surely column 4 is supposed to be column 2 divided by column 3? That would be 23.9 for eggs, not 27.7.
I ran through the whole equation and I got 63.2, which is worse than what the table has. It’s 37% worse for eggs. I am surprised by the discrepancy though. The guy who wrote that is on LessWrong, so I’ll PM him about it.
Second, kilograms of food is a silly metric. Maybe it’s OK as a first pass when comparing meat to meat, but eggs and milk are not meat (and if you care about a 20% difference, a first pass is not sufficient).
It might not be enough to conclude that eggs are worse than meat, but it’s enough to show that substituting eggs for meat isn’t going to do a whole lot to help.
It claims 1 calorie per gram of raw chicken breast… It claims 1.5 C/g for egg
Using those numbers, along with recalculating the rows on the table, I got chicken as being 10% worse.
What “whole equation”? Meaning taking into account the claims about the relative suffering of eggs and chicken? It seems like it should be possible for people to agree on the relative suffering of different chickens, but after looking at the other numbers, I am utterly uninterested in what Brian has to say about it.
it’s enough to show that substituting eggs for meat isn’t going to do a whole lot to help.
Sure, but you are moving the goalposts. You should have brought that up at the very beginning, rather than claiming that a 20% difference was cause for action.
Meaning taking into account the claims about the relative suffering of eggs and chicken?
Meaning taking into account the claims about the relative suffering of egg-laying chickens and meat chickens.
You should have brought that up at the very beginning, rather than claiming that a 20% difference was cause for action.
What I originally said was:
If anything, you should be replacing eggs with meat.
I was saying that replacing meat with eggs would not work, and doing the reverse would be slightly helpful. Apparently, replacing meat with eggs would be slightly helpful, but it still won’t do much.
My goal was to keep Metus from wasting effort on doing something pointless. I most likely succeeded. My goal of the continued conversation was to correct any misconceptions I had, to which I also seem to have succeeded.
I ran through the whole equation and I got 63.2, which is worse than what the table has. It’s 37% worse for eggs. I am surprised by the discrepancy though. The guy who wrote that is on LessWrong, so I’ll PM him about it.
It might not be enough to conclude that eggs are worse than meat, but it’s enough to show that substituting eggs for meat isn’t going to do a whole lot to help.
Using those numbers, along with recalculating the rows on the table, I got chicken as being 10% worse.
What “whole equation”? Meaning taking into account the claims about the relative suffering of eggs and chicken? It seems like it should be possible for people to agree on the relative suffering of different chickens, but after looking at the other numbers, I am utterly uninterested in what Brian has to say about it.
Sure, but you are moving the goalposts. You should have brought that up at the very beginning, rather than claiming that a 20% difference was cause for action.
Meaning taking into account the claims about the relative suffering of egg-laying chickens and meat chickens.
What I originally said was:
I was saying that replacing meat with eggs would not work, and doing the reverse would be slightly helpful. Apparently, replacing meat with eggs would be slightly helpful, but it still won’t do much.
My goal was to keep Metus from wasting effort on doing something pointless. I most likely succeeded. My goal of the continued conversation was to correct any misconceptions I had, to which I also seem to have succeeded.