“You would never think of doing graduate work in philosophy, would you?"
“Oh, no.” The idea appalled me. “Never.”—Benjamin Kunkel, Indecision (a novel that goes about as you would suspect, but definitely has some cleverness)
We can’t apologize enough, nor can we thank you enough for putting up with these growing pains. We know how impossibly frustrating it is to see your work offline. But please always know that we truly care about your work as much as you do, and we have an incredibly capable team working incredibly hard to take good care of it.
Michael Pollan loves to make these comparisons as well, because they seem to provide quantitative backing to the argument for local or more sustainable food. But the comparison is fallacious. Calories are not a unit of volume, some finite natural resource we’re ripping from the earth; they’re a unit of energy.. Food calories measure the potential energy of a food when consumed by our bodies. The calories provided by burning fuel to get that food to us (or to power the sowing tractor, etc) are totally incomparable. You could just as easily count the calories expended in food delivery by horse, and I doubt you’d come up much better.
Not that I’m against local and sustainable food or finding numbers to back up their use — quite the opposite. But there are plenty of more valid quantities to be mentioned: the CO2 emitted when that fuel burns, the ozone destroyed, the number of children with asthma, the gallons of water polluted, and on and on.