5 ms·

>It seems like a much better solution to this 'problem' is let cows live outdoors and graze on grass. With the number of cattle on this planet, this would requ

by vlan0 8y ago

>It seems like a much better solution to this 'problem' is let cows live outdoors and graze on grass. With the number of cattle on this planet, this would require an insane amount of land. >FDA should mandate that all cows raised in confinement conditions get labeled as "prison beef'. I'm sure people would consume less if the simply put slaughter pictures on each piece of meat they buy. Rather than outsource the killing to a third party, which keeps people emotionally detached from the killing of billions of animals every year.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
> this would require an insane amount of land Which would constrain consumption, and cause prices to rise. Eventually we might end up at a sustainable amount. If that means most of us can't afford nearly as much, then that is probably great for our future and the planet. > if the simply put slaughter pictures on each piece of meat they buy Hmm. Sounds reasonable, except pictures alone didn't do that much to smoking rates. Pricing and eliminating marketing did.
- nightski 8y ago
  Except smoking is actively harmful to your body. Meat is much more controversial. Actually, it's not a controversy at all to many practitioners and doctors promoting a low carb lifestyle. There is a lot of scientific evidence to support eating meat of all kinds being incredibly healthy! So comparing eating meat to smoking seems pretty ridiculous. Also if you look at government reports on greenhouse gas emissions animal agriculture only accounts for < 3% of U.S. emissions. It's a factor for sure, but not worth our primary focus imho.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Except I am only comparing the effect dramatic pictures had on sales. (Not that much). I'm not equating the two in terms of health or legislation that should be brought forth. Implying I am seems pretty ridiculous. :p Rising meat prices, for whatever reason, would tend to reduce consumption.
    - nightski 8y ago
      It depends on the type of marketing those pictures were. Pictures used in anti-smoking campaigns were of the humans consuming them and the related health issues that ensued. They weren't of manufacturing cigarettes. If you showed a bunch of in shape healthy people on low carb diets I'm not sure that would cause meat sales to decline. If you mean slaughter, well maybe it would have an effect on sales, maybe it wouldn't. But it's not comparable to the anti-smoking ads.
  - vlan0 8y ago
    >Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat – an analysis of data from 10 studies, cited in the IARC report showed an 18 percent increased risk in colorectal cancer per 50g processed meat increase per day. To put this in perspective, according to the Global Disease Burden Project 2012, over 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to high processed meat intake vs. 1 million deaths per year attributable to tobacco smoke.[1][2] It's not as cut and try and you may think. [1]https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/repo... [2]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2900444-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2...
    - notduncansmith 8y ago
      Off-topic but I believe you meant "cut and dried" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cut-and-dried https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cut-and-dried).
      - vlan0 8y ago
        Hah, yes! It seems my brain stopped working today.
  - jniedrauer 8y ago
    Low carb is... maybe possible without meat, but it's very challenging. I'm actually in the middle of trying to figure out how to make it work myself.
  - mrpopo 8y ago
    It's not 3 but 9%. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
- tomatotomato37 8y ago
  Not to disparage the environmental argument, but for a movement in which a majority of its members also lean socialist I see a lot of arguments that in practice boil down to "Only the 1% should be able to enjoy meat/own personal transport/fly on vacation/etc." I mean, I don't care if you aim for either "Luxury for all" or "Luxury isn't sustainable" but at least be consistent.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Well the only alternative route to reducing consumption, if you don't want it via pricing is legislation bringing forth rationing, or outlawing marketing. I'd imagine both those would be more difficult. It pretty clearly isn't sustainable. So what would you do?
    - tomatotomato37 8y ago
      I'm of the opinion that trying to politically solve any humanitarian issue while the socialeconomic situation is still a clusterfuck would only result in yellow vests burning down your capital while a Trump expy gets elected. Better start investing into sea walls and squirreling away endangered species DNA because it's going be years before we untangle this clusterfuck enough to start slowing the train down
    - clarkmoody 8y ago
      We can start by eliminating agricultural subsidies and import tariffs, so that market pricing can work to allocate resources to their best use.
  - retsibsi 8y ago
    Where's the inconsistency? Presumably the socialist environmentalists you refer to want both reduced consumption of products that harm the environment and a massive decrease in inequality. So they don't want 'only the 1%' to be able to afford those things; they want everyone to be able to afford to use them very sparingly.
MrZongle2 8y ago
I'm sure people would consume less if the simply put slaughter pictures on each piece of meat they buy. Certainly if the picture of the cow itself were on the package, and a randomly-generated name printed below the photo.
- DonHopkins 8y ago
  Kill two birds with one stone: Put picture and names of missing children on packages of meat, and some people might think they were buying human flesh.
pantalaimon 8y ago
> I'm sure people would consume less if the simply put slaughter pictures on each piece of meat they buy. To be honest the slaughtering didn't put me off as much as learning under which conditions those animals have to spend their lives. They should put pictures of that on the meat products, or show Dominion in schools.
- pvaldes 8y ago
  > I'm sure people would consume less Most probably such blatant attempt on "psychological manipulation for toddlers" would backfire loudly. Adult omnivorous people know yet how a skinned cow corpse looks, keep enjoying meat, and couldn't care less. Other people would slowly desensitize by the continuous exposure and could even increase the consumption.
  - pantalaimon 8y ago
    It's not about how the animals look when they are dead. It's about what they have to endure while they are alive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko

by vlan0 8y ago

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

> this would require an insane amount of land Which would constrain consumption, and cause prices to rise. Eventually we might end up at a sustainable amount. If that means most of us can't afford nearly as much, then that is probably great for our future and the planet. > if the simply put slaughter pictures on each piece of meat they buy Hmm. Sounds reasonable, except pictures alone didn't do that much to smoking rates. Pricing and eliminating marketing did.

nightski 8y ago
Except smoking is actively harmful to your body. Meat is much more controversial. Actually, it's not a controversy at all to many practitioners and doctors promoting a low carb lifestyle. There is a lot of scientific evidence to support eating meat of all kinds being incredibly healthy! So comparing eating meat to smoking seems pretty ridiculous. Also if you look at government reports on greenhouse gas emissions animal agriculture only accounts for < 3% of U.S. emissions. It's a factor for sure, but not worth our primary focus imho.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Except I am only comparing the effect dramatic pictures had on sales. (Not that much). I'm not equating the two in terms of health or legislation that should be brought forth. Implying I am seems pretty ridiculous. :p Rising meat prices, for whatever reason, would tend to reduce consumption.
  - nightski 8y ago
    It depends on the type of marketing those pictures were. Pictures used in anti-smoking campaigns were of the humans consuming them and the related health issues that ensued. They weren't of manufacturing cigarettes. If you showed a bunch of in shape healthy people on low carb diets I'm not sure that would cause meat sales to decline. If you mean slaughter, well maybe it would have an effect on sales, maybe it wouldn't. But it's not comparable to the anti-smoking ads.
- vlan0 8y ago
  >Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat – an analysis of data from 10 studies, cited in the IARC report showed an 18 percent increased risk in colorectal cancer per 50g processed meat increase per day. To put this in perspective, according to the Global Disease Burden Project 2012, over 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to high processed meat intake vs. 1 million deaths per year attributable to tobacco smoke.[1][2] It's not as cut and try and you may think. [1]https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/repo... [2]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2900444-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2...
  - notduncansmith 8y ago
    Off-topic but I believe you meant "cut and dried" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cut-and-dried https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cut-and-dried).
    - vlan0 8y ago
      Hah, yes! It seems my brain stopped working today.
- jniedrauer 8y ago
  Low carb is... maybe possible without meat, but it's very challenging. I'm actually in the middle of trying to figure out how to make it work myself.
- mrpopo 8y ago
  It's not 3 but 9%. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
tomatotomato37 8y ago
Not to disparage the environmental argument, but for a movement in which a majority of its members also lean socialist I see a lot of arguments that in practice boil down to "Only the 1% should be able to enjoy meat/own personal transport/fly on vacation/etc." I mean, I don't care if you aim for either "Luxury for all" or "Luxury isn't sustainable" but at least be consistent.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Well the only alternative route to reducing consumption, if you don't want it via pricing is legislation bringing forth rationing, or outlawing marketing. I'd imagine both those would be more difficult. It pretty clearly isn't sustainable. So what would you do?
  - tomatotomato37 8y ago
    I'm of the opinion that trying to politically solve any humanitarian issue while the socialeconomic situation is still a clusterfuck would only result in yellow vests burning down your capital while a Trump expy gets elected. Better start investing into sea walls and squirreling away endangered species DNA because it's going be years before we untangle this clusterfuck enough to start slowing the train down
  - clarkmoody 8y ago
    We can start by eliminating agricultural subsidies and import tariffs, so that market pricing can work to allocate resources to their best use.
- retsibsi 8y ago
  Where's the inconsistency? Presumably the socialist environmentalists you refer to want both reduced consumption of products that harm the environment and a massive decrease in inequality. So they don't want 'only the 1%' to be able to afford those things; they want everyone to be able to afford to use them very sparingly.

MrZongle2 8y ago

I'm sure people would consume less if the simply put slaughter pictures on each piece of meat they buy. Certainly if the picture of the cow itself were on the package, and a randomly-generated name printed below the photo.

DonHopkins 8y ago
Kill two birds with one stone: Put picture and names of missing children on packages of meat, and some people might think they were buying human flesh.

pantalaimon 8y ago

> I'm sure people would consume less if the simply put slaughter pictures on each piece of meat they buy. To be honest the slaughtering didn't put me off as much as learning under which conditions those animals have to spend their lives. They should put pictures of that on the meat products, or show Dominion in schools.

pvaldes 8y ago
> I'm sure people would consume less Most probably such blatant attempt on "psychological manipulation for toddlers" would backfire loudly. Adult omnivorous people know yet how a skinned cow corpse looks, keep enjoying meat, and couldn't care less. Other people would slowly desensitize by the continuous exposure and could even increase the consumption.
- pantalaimon 8y ago
  It's not about how the animals look when they are dead. It's about what they have to endure while they are alive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko