5 ms·
I think you're asking the rich to stop being so excessive. Anyone who is both intelligent and poor is not spending 500 dollars for meat in any given month. Myse
by not_a_cop75 7y ago
I think you're asking the rich to stop being so excessive. Anyone who is both intelligent and poor is not spending 500 dollars for meat in any given month. Myself, I think maybe I eat 2 cheeseburgers a year.
- magashna 7y agoIndividually, even most of the rich don't directly pollute so much as entire industries. On the HN front page there's an article stating that shipping companies have collectively spent $12 billion to cheat and instead of polluting the air, they pollute directly into the sea while technically adhering to standards.
- refurb 7y agoWho do you think directly benefits from that industrial pollution? Consumers.
- lonelappde 7y agoBut the solution for consumers is for the industry to be tighter regulated and pay more for goods, not for consumers to become ascetics. Consumers can't simply make industry change how they serve other consumers. You can't stop murder simply by waiting for anti-murder people to stop murdering.
- refurb 7y agoMy point is more around who benefits. It’s not industry alone. And I would argue consumers have a very big impact on how industry acts. There are a number of environmentally friend products offered that are regulatory requirements at all.
- 8note 7y agoI would have said share holders
- refurb 7y agoWhen consumers get cheap products because environmental regulations are being ignored, they certainly benefit.
- kdmccormick 7y agoI'd daresay that middle lower-middle and income Americans eat quite a lot of meat, probably largely in the form of ground beef and chicken.
- lonelappde 7y agoAnd those people are rich, on a global scale.
- not_a_cop75 7y agoWe could always try to convince the US middle class to convert over to consuming roaches. It's a much more eco-friendly approach. Also, roaches are a super food. So besides being able to survive nuclear holocoast they are actually good for you. https://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/a20950388/cockroach-milk-superfood-trend/ https://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/a20950388/cockroach-mil... Oddly though, ground beef and chicken are the two substances that are the easiest to replace. There's almost nothing that doesn't taste a little like chicken once properly prepared. Similarly, there are plenty of ground up things that can substitute for ground beef. Then you can go into cost and life cycle. The cost of chicken is lower because of cycle cycle. The cost of ground beef is lower because it's low quality. I'm fairly certain it's not the ground beef and chicken industry that are holding up the meat industry on the whole.
- undersuit 7y agoI believe you are conflating some arguments. You don't have to spend a large amount of money to have an outsized effect on the climate. I'd wager that a Burger King Whopper for $4.19 contributes more to climate change than a 8oz ribeye from locally raised cattle at a high-end restaurant for $39. In this case you should spend more money on less meat. Just saying 'spend less money' continues to ignore the enternatilies that make meat production such a driver of climate change.
- not_a_cop75 7y agoYou're saying meat production is bad, but then blaming those that are actually eating less of the meat. I don't think the viewpoints you have presented are consistent with each other.
- undersuit 7y agoI didn't say meat production was bad, I said meat production contributes to climate change.