7 ms·

The best reason for exactly these individual changes you are describing is that - and this is a really funny and convenient coincidence - you are benefiting of

by rv-de 7y ago

The best reason for exactly these individual changes you are describing is that - and this is a really funny and convenient coincidence - you are benefiting of them first and foremost yourself! > - Stop flying to conferences. Go to a local meetup. It's fun. And cheaper. If you really need to get out of town, take a train. No unnecessary hassle and stress from flying to far away places or getting stuck in traffic jams. > - Start working part time, and part of that part time remotely. Not sure why this is beneficial to those species or climate or anything but working less gives you time to focus on family, friends and hobbies. > - Reduce your meat consumption as much as you can. Don't go all the way vegan, but make meat a special treat not a commodity. Meat is unhealthy - period. It's a nice to have but it is at the end of the day just not good for you. > - Don't upgrade your phone. Seriously. Applied shift of focus away from materialism and unimportant fuss like whatever new feature and gadget just come out. You are the one gaining happiness and satisfaction of those steps right now! And on top of that - you're reducing your footprint :)

mfatica 7y ago
> meat is unhealthy - period. It's a nice to have but it is at the end of the day just not good for you. [citation needed]
- rv-de 7y ago
  I just invested 17 seconds into your health, buddy :) Here you go: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26780279 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26780279
  - cbnotfromthere 7y ago
    "red meat and particularly of processed meat" Long story short: the findings are NOT about meat consumption.
  - whiskers08xmt 7y ago
    Important note here is that it's primarily red and processed meat. I think fish and poultry are still considered healthy in moderate amounts.
  - khalilravanna 7y ago
    Not to be a pedant but the study states "increasing amounts of red meat and particularly of processed meat" and even says the negative association "has been absent with white meat". I imagine the [citation needed] comment was more calling all out the blanket-ness of "meat is unhealthy - period". I think it'd be more accurate to say "large amounts of meat, especially red meat, are unhealthy - period".
  - mfatica 7y ago
    Not sure how that proves "meat is unhealthy - period." This study specifically calls out red meat and processed meat. It says nothing about poultry or fish. Did you read the entire abstract? > The association has not always been noted with red meat, and it has been absent with white meat. So white meat is fine. Furthermore, the protein need is so great that for those over 70, restrictive recommendations should not be applied: > Restrictive recommendations should not be applied to subjects above about 70 years of age, as the studies quoted herein did not examine this age group, and the inclusion of sufficient protein supply (e. g. in the form of meat) is particularly important in the elderly. So, pretty obviously shown from your own source that "meat is unhealthy - period" is a false claim.
  - slm_HN 7y ago
    As others have already pointed out that paper doesn't say meat is bad, it says that the culprit is processed red meat. It's not the meat that's bad, it's the vat of carcinogenic chemicals that processes the meat that's the problem. Just think about it a little bit, man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years eating meat, there's no way that it's bad for you.
perfunctory 7y ago
> Not sure why this is beneficial to those species or climate or anything "...A number of studies (e.g. Knight et al. 2012, Rosnick and Weisbrot 2006) have found that shorter work hours are associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions and therefore less global climate change. The relationship between these two variables is complex and not clearly understood, but it is understandable that lowering levels of consumption, holding everything else constant, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This paper estimates the impact on climate change of reducing work hours over the rest of the century by an annual average of 0.5 percent. It finds that such a change in work hours would eliminate about one-quarter to one-half of the global warming that is not already locked in" -- Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change. http://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-workshare-2013-02.pdf http://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-worksh...
komali2 7y ago
Chicken, fish, and turkey are some of the healthiest delivery mechanisms for protein on the planet. They can be grown sustainably, as well, so again, veganism isn't required. At the supermarket, just get the expensive chicken breasts - I'm guessing the vast majority of us on this website can afford it.
- jniedrauer 7y ago
  > Chicken, fish, and turkey are some of the healthiest delivery mechanisms for protein on the planet. Observing the diets of blue zone populations, it definitely seems like meat should be consumed rarely. Although they consume different forms of meat, they seem to share in common meat consumption of roughly 1-2 servings per month. This is far rarer than the average American diet.
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  If you're going to be pedantic about the parent's "meat" generalization, you should probably be more precise than "fish". Many commonly eaten fish are considered too dangerous to eat frequently thanks to pollution levels.
- andbberger 7y ago
  Nah man, just eat the plants those animals are eating. You can't get away from the 10x energetic penalty.
  - komali2 7y ago
    But the animals strip out the fiber/carbs and over time convert it into efficient stores of protein/fat. I need ~140g protein a day to perform in the gym, I don't really want to get that from beans and be chew through 3,500 calories of carbohydrates to get to that protein.
    - lm28469 7y ago
      "Hey guys I'm all for saving the world and stuff but I have to beat my squat PR so it doesn't apply to me because chewing beans is annoying compared to eating chicken" This is exactly why we're doomed. Everybody wants to "save the world", everybody knows what to do, nobody does it because it's incompatible with our current self destructing life style. No you don't >need< 140g of prot a day, you can hit all the macro/micro nutrients your body needs easily even with very low amount of meat. Who cares about gym performances, we're talking about the future of an entire planet/eco system. > At the heart of capitalism is a vast and scarcely examined assumption: you are entitled to as great a share of the world’s resources as your money can buy. You can purchase as much land, as much atmospheric space, as many minerals, as much meat and fish as you can afford, regardless of who might be deprived. If you can pay for them, you can own entire mountain ranges and fertile plains. You can burn as much fuel as you like. Every pound or dollar secures a certain right over the world’s natural wealth. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/15/capitalism-destroying-earth-human-right-climate-strike-children https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr...

by rv-de 7y ago

mfatica 7y ago

> meat is unhealthy - period. It's a nice to have but it is at the end of the day just not good for you. [citation needed]

rv-de 7y ago
I just invested 17 seconds into your health, buddy :) Here you go: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26780279 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26780279
- cbnotfromthere 7y ago
  "red meat and particularly of processed meat" Long story short: the findings are NOT about meat consumption.
- whiskers08xmt 7y ago
  Important note here is that it's primarily red and processed meat. I think fish and poultry are still considered healthy in moderate amounts.
- khalilravanna 7y ago
  Not to be a pedant but the study states "increasing amounts of red meat and particularly of processed meat" and even says the negative association "has been absent with white meat". I imagine the [citation needed] comment was more calling all out the blanket-ness of "meat is unhealthy - period". I think it'd be more accurate to say "large amounts of meat, especially red meat, are unhealthy - period".
- mfatica 7y ago
  Not sure how that proves "meat is unhealthy - period." This study specifically calls out red meat and processed meat. It says nothing about poultry or fish. Did you read the entire abstract? > The association has not always been noted with red meat, and it has been absent with white meat. So white meat is fine. Furthermore, the protein need is so great that for those over 70, restrictive recommendations should not be applied: > Restrictive recommendations should not be applied to subjects above about 70 years of age, as the studies quoted herein did not examine this age group, and the inclusion of sufficient protein supply (e. g. in the form of meat) is particularly important in the elderly. So, pretty obviously shown from your own source that "meat is unhealthy - period" is a false claim.
- slm_HN 7y ago
  As others have already pointed out that paper doesn't say meat is bad, it says that the culprit is processed red meat. It's not the meat that's bad, it's the vat of carcinogenic chemicals that processes the meat that's the problem. Just think about it a little bit, man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years eating meat, there's no way that it's bad for you.

perfunctory 7y ago

> Not sure why this is beneficial to those species or climate or anything "...A number of studies (e.g. Knight et al. 2012, Rosnick and Weisbrot 2006) have found that shorter work hours are associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions and therefore less global climate change. The relationship between these two variables is complex and not clearly understood, but it is understandable that lowering levels of consumption, holding everything else constant, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This paper estimates the impact on climate change of reducing work hours over the rest of the century by an annual average of 0.5 percent. It finds that such a change in work hours would eliminate about one-quarter to one-half of the global warming that is not already locked in" -- Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change. http://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-workshare-2013-02.pdf http://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-worksh...

komali2 7y ago

Chicken, fish, and turkey are some of the healthiest delivery mechanisms for protein on the planet. They can be grown sustainably, as well, so again, veganism isn't required. At the supermarket, just get the expensive chicken breasts - I'm guessing the vast majority of us on this website can afford it.

jniedrauer 7y ago
> Chicken, fish, and turkey are some of the healthiest delivery mechanisms for protein on the planet. Observing the diets of blue zone populations, it definitely seems like meat should be consumed rarely. Although they consume different forms of meat, they seem to share in common meat consumption of roughly 1-2 servings per month. This is far rarer than the average American diet.
newnewpdro 7y ago
If you're going to be pedantic about the parent's "meat" generalization, you should probably be more precise than "fish". Many commonly eaten fish are considered too dangerous to eat frequently thanks to pollution levels.
andbberger 7y ago
Nah man, just eat the plants those animals are eating. You can't get away from the 10x energetic penalty.
- komali2 7y ago
  But the animals strip out the fiber/carbs and over time convert it into efficient stores of protein/fat. I need ~140g protein a day to perform in the gym, I don't really want to get that from beans and be chew through 3,500 calories of carbohydrates to get to that protein.
  - lm28469 7y ago
    "Hey guys I'm all for saving the world and stuff but I have to beat my squat PR so it doesn't apply to me because chewing beans is annoying compared to eating chicken" This is exactly why we're doomed. Everybody wants to "save the world", everybody knows what to do, nobody does it because it's incompatible with our current self destructing life style. No you don't >need< 140g of prot a day, you can hit all the macro/micro nutrients your body needs easily even with very low amount of meat. Who cares about gym performances, we're talking about the future of an entire planet/eco system. > At the heart of capitalism is a vast and scarcely examined assumption: you are entitled to as great a share of the world’s resources as your money can buy. You can purchase as much land, as much atmospheric space, as many minerals, as much meat and fish as you can afford, regardless of who might be deprived. If you can pay for them, you can own entire mountain ranges and fertile plains. You can burn as much fuel as you like. Every pound or dollar secures a certain right over the world’s natural wealth. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/15/capitalism-destroying-earth-human-right-climate-strike-children https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr...