8 ms·

He's certainly right about the fact that people are not going to quit all at once -- it's an example of the tragedy of the commons. If someone can figure out ho

by mojoe 10y ago

He's certainly right about the fact that people are not going to quit all at once -- it's an example of the tragedy of the commons. If someone can figure out how to grow a meat analog in a lab cheaply and efficiently it will probably be one of the most positively impactful technologies ever created.

AlexeyBrin 10y ago
As a member of the commons I'm not sure if I should feel insulted or amused by your condescending tone. I eat meat because I like it and I don't try to impose my view of the world to other people.
- Infinitesimus 10y ago
  Perhaps English isn't your first language? This is what your parent comment is referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons Your statement also further solidifies his/her point.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  >"I don't try to impose my view of the world to other people." Everyone does, just not necessarily directly. Meat eating has consequences that extend beyond those that choose to eat meat. If our choices existed in isolation to the rest of the world, then we could say we didn't impose our view of the world on other people. I'm not saying you have to stop eating meat, but at least do so with awareness of what happened before the meat arrived on your plate.
  - detritus 10y ago
    I live in a city, rarely drive and have been consciously limiting my air travel for over a decade (tricky when my family and friends live abroad) — May i enjoy a steak once a month, please? Who dictates what spread of consumption and therefore environmental impact I am allowed? - ed Apologies, I responded here instead of generally..
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      You've clearly misunderstood me. I'm asking for greater awareness. How are you getting that mixed up with permission?
    - Frondo 10y ago
      As far as I know, no one's trying to pass a law banning your consumption of steaks. So this might be what's considered a strawman argument. As for what dictates the consumption and environmental impact, in theory it should be your ability to afford that steak. The price of beef, however, from calf to cow to transport to butchering to your plate, is so heavily subsidized all along the way--and the externalities like environmental impact mostly unaddressed--that that steak you're getting is the deal of the millenium. I'd like to see how much that steak would cost if it weren't subsidized, and its pollutant side-effects were properly assessed and taxed. Maybe once a month is all you'd be able to afford.
- r0muald 10y ago
  The whole point of Schwarzenegger's advice this is that, while you like meat and find it insulting to have someone else's views imposed on you, for many purposes you are the one imposing his own view onto others by eating meat, since that means keeping alive the industry that contributes to 20% or 25% of all carbon emissions in the world. Others may not like that, and will try to convince you and other meat-eaters like myself to stop or reduce meat consumption.
  - nappy-doo 10y ago
    NIT: not carbon, but greenhouse gases. Specifically methane, which is 30x more potent a greenhouse gas. (Note, I realize that methane contains a carbon, I'm just clarifying that many people thing CO2 when the word carbon is used.)
- eropple 10y ago
  > I don't try to impose my view of the world to other people The amount of resources necessary to grow meat necessitates the imposition of your view of the world on other people. I eat meat, too. But it's important to own the consequences of your decisions.
  - kybernetikos 10y ago
    While there is an argument that economic coercion is true coercion, most people think that if you freely choose to provide a service (like farming animals), and freely enter into commercial arrangements concerning the fruits of your labour (selling meat) to others who freely choose to swap money for the things you're selling them, then no imposition has occurred. The main way to make your argument work I think is by looking at the externalities imposed on everyone, but things become less clear cut then, because nothing we do is entirely free of side effects, and choosing which to restrict legally is not simple and ideally should be done impartially when it is done.
    - eropple 10y ago
      Those externalities are the imposition I was referring to, yes. The costs borne by people who are not getting that delicious ribeye cannot be ignored. And nothing is free of side effects, of course. Every activity is political activity, every activity is economic activity. You might have noted that I said nothing about "restrict[ing] legally"; your choices (and mine!) have consequences that we must own, and that is a completely separate topic from what should be legislated about.
- isaac_is_goat 10y ago
  You impose your view of the world on the sentient beings that that you pay for other people kill for you to eat.
- mhurron 10y ago
  Suggesting a 'Meatless Monday' (which is the campaign) or that one or two days without meat to reduce your consumption is not imposing your view. It's actually quite the opposite, it is a compromise that understands that you and many other people do enjoy meat and do not want to give it up completely while still reducing the total consumption across the whole population.
tsunamifury 10y ago
It is somewhat self-righteous to claim that since everyone in the world isn't doing what you deem correct, that it is a tragedy of the commons. Any sort of immediate mass change on that level would be likely catastrophic.
greenhatman 10y ago
As someone slowly converting to vegetarianism, I can say that I won't miss meat much. I actually prefer vegetarian by a long stretch already. I only eat meat now when there aren't good vegetarian options, which is slowly becoming less of a problem as more restaurants become aware of the increasing demand for vegetarian dishes.
Pxtl 10y ago
"Grow meat in a lab" is missing a whole lot of middle steps, technologically. Fakemeat is getting better every year, and synthetic heme and lab-grown protein promise meaty liquids that can be mixed into the veg-based solids to make even more convincing fakemeat in the future. We may never get to the true "rib eye steak grown in lab" but there's a lot of middle-ground we can still cover.
- falcolas 10y ago
  Forget replacing rib eye steaks; simply replacing hamburger would probably be a good 80% solution.
  - Pxtl 10y ago
    Right, but that might be doable with textured vegetable protein with synthetic heme or lab-grown synthetic beef juices to give it that juicy umami flavour. Just the next step beyond what we have today.

by mojoe 10y ago

AlexeyBrin 10y ago

As a member of the commons I'm not sure if I should feel insulted or amused by your condescending tone. I eat meat because I like it and I don't try to impose my view of the world to other people.

Infinitesimus 10y ago
Perhaps English isn't your first language? This is what your parent comment is referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons Your statement also further solidifies his/her point.
ZenoArrow 10y ago
>"I don't try to impose my view of the world to other people." Everyone does, just not necessarily directly. Meat eating has consequences that extend beyond those that choose to eat meat. If our choices existed in isolation to the rest of the world, then we could say we didn't impose our view of the world on other people. I'm not saying you have to stop eating meat, but at least do so with awareness of what happened before the meat arrived on your plate.
- detritus 10y ago
  I live in a city, rarely drive and have been consciously limiting my air travel for over a decade (tricky when my family and friends live abroad) — May i enjoy a steak once a month, please? Who dictates what spread of consumption and therefore environmental impact I am allowed? - ed Apologies, I responded here instead of generally..
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    You've clearly misunderstood me. I'm asking for greater awareness. How are you getting that mixed up with permission?
  - Frondo 10y ago
    As far as I know, no one's trying to pass a law banning your consumption of steaks. So this might be what's considered a strawman argument. As for what dictates the consumption and environmental impact, in theory it should be your ability to afford that steak. The price of beef, however, from calf to cow to transport to butchering to your plate, is so heavily subsidized all along the way--and the externalities like environmental impact mostly unaddressed--that that steak you're getting is the deal of the millenium. I'd like to see how much that steak would cost if it weren't subsidized, and its pollutant side-effects were properly assessed and taxed. Maybe once a month is all you'd be able to afford.
r0muald 10y ago
The whole point of Schwarzenegger's advice this is that, while you like meat and find it insulting to have someone else's views imposed on you, for many purposes you are the one imposing his own view onto others by eating meat, since that means keeping alive the industry that contributes to 20% or 25% of all carbon emissions in the world. Others may not like that, and will try to convince you and other meat-eaters like myself to stop or reduce meat consumption.
- nappy-doo 10y ago
  NIT: not carbon, but greenhouse gases. Specifically methane, which is 30x more potent a greenhouse gas. (Note, I realize that methane contains a carbon, I'm just clarifying that many people thing CO2 when the word carbon is used.)
eropple 10y ago
> I don't try to impose my view of the world to other people The amount of resources necessary to grow meat necessitates the imposition of your view of the world on other people. I eat meat, too. But it's important to own the consequences of your decisions.
- kybernetikos 10y ago
  While there is an argument that economic coercion is true coercion, most people think that if you freely choose to provide a service (like farming animals), and freely enter into commercial arrangements concerning the fruits of your labour (selling meat) to others who freely choose to swap money for the things you're selling them, then no imposition has occurred. The main way to make your argument work I think is by looking at the externalities imposed on everyone, but things become less clear cut then, because nothing we do is entirely free of side effects, and choosing which to restrict legally is not simple and ideally should be done impartially when it is done.
  - eropple 10y ago
    Those externalities are the imposition I was referring to, yes. The costs borne by people who are not getting that delicious ribeye cannot be ignored. And nothing is free of side effects, of course. Every activity is political activity, every activity is economic activity. You might have noted that I said nothing about "restrict[ing] legally"; your choices (and mine!) have consequences that we must own, and that is a completely separate topic from what should be legislated about.
isaac_is_goat 10y ago
You impose your view of the world on the sentient beings that that you pay for other people kill for you to eat.
mhurron 10y ago
Suggesting a 'Meatless Monday' (which is the campaign) or that one or two days without meat to reduce your consumption is not imposing your view. It's actually quite the opposite, it is a compromise that understands that you and many other people do enjoy meat and do not want to give it up completely while still reducing the total consumption across the whole population.

tsunamifury 10y ago

It is somewhat self-righteous to claim that since everyone in the world isn't doing what you deem correct, that it is a tragedy of the commons. Any sort of immediate mass change on that level would be likely catastrophic.

greenhatman 10y ago

As someone slowly converting to vegetarianism, I can say that I won't miss meat much. I actually prefer vegetarian by a long stretch already. I only eat meat now when there aren't good vegetarian options, which is slowly becoming less of a problem as more restaurants become aware of the increasing demand for vegetarian dishes.

Pxtl 10y ago

"Grow meat in a lab" is missing a whole lot of middle steps, technologically. Fakemeat is getting better every year, and synthetic heme and lab-grown protein promise meaty liquids that can be mixed into the veg-based solids to make even more convincing fakemeat in the future. We may never get to the true "rib eye steak grown in lab" but there's a lot of middle-ground we can still cover.

falcolas 10y ago
Forget replacing rib eye steaks; simply replacing hamburger would probably be a good 80% solution.
- Pxtl 10y ago
  Right, but that might be doable with textured vegetable protein with synthetic heme or lab-grown synthetic beef juices to give it that juicy umami flavour. Just the next step beyond what we have today.