5 ms·

> the demand will always be there. Humans like to eat meat. I doubt very many will give up the privilege, esp. when others are not. I guess that's why we're al

> the demand will always be there. Humans like to eat meat. I doubt very many will give up the privilege, esp. when others are not. I guess that's why we're all doomed to a broken planet. As long as we keep using "well, no one else is going to change" as an excuse we'll inherit the world we deserve.

zucked 6y ago
You at least see how hypocritical that is, right? The Western world got to fulfill our gluttonous desires -- now, when it comes time for the developing world to get their turn at the table, we wag our fingers and say "Sorry, that's bad for the planet!"
- bluntfang 6y ago
  I don't see the hypocrisy. We did stuff one way. then we learned new stuff about how we do stuff, so we decided that we should change. It's fairly normal for an individual to grow and learn from their mistakes, why do you have to call "hypocrite" when it's time for the society to grow?
  - chii 6y ago
    The OP is lamenting that western countries got to enjoy the fruits of their emissions. The cost, however, is externalized. Now that developing nations have started to get richer, western nations cannot say that they ought to now make a sacrifice and stop consuming meat, because doing so _is_ hypocrisy.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  On the one hand yeah, I do get it. On the other hand there's a very real possibility that not changing our ways now will result in a significantly worse future for literally everybody.
iratewizard 6y ago
There will always be someone telling us we're "doomed to a broken planet." Some people aren't going to subscribe to your brand of Catastrophism or your solution to the problem.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  Well, maybe I'm wrong and technology will outpace our looming problems. I hope that's the case but it would be foolish to depend on it, don't you think? It seems to me that your brand of thinking is one that comes to down to a simple mater of believing what it is convenient for you to believe.
lxmorj 6y ago
Any plan that relies on self-imposed austerity measures of billions of people from disparate groups is doomed to failure. We need to quietly change the math behind the scenes by internalizing externalities legally - long enough for green tech to get enough investment dollars to be cheaper than dirty tech even if those rules change later. This is mostly already happened with solar / wind power, though we need some improvements on battery tech to get grid-scale adoption. The levelized cost of wind is lower than any alternative, and solar is getting close. I’m sure the situation has improved in the last two years, but here is a report from 2018: https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-o...
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > Any plan that relies on self-imposed austerity measures of billions of people from disparate groups is doomed to failure True, but if people who otherwise realize the necessity of the change are unwilling to subject themselves to any inconvenience, what hope do we have of ever making the kinds of organized societal changes that are necessary? If you are unwilling to make a tiny change like reducing your meat consumption, you're probably the kind of person who would never vote for a government that forces you to. The argument is simply way to excuse your own behavior.
  - lxmorj 6y ago
    I completely disagree. Individual restraint will not do the trick. Your limited time and energy is better spent working on creating mandatory, systemic behavior change. It is not hypocritical to, for example, vote for closing tax loopholes while using the very same.
- MiroF 6y ago
  > self-imposed austerity measures of billions of people from disparate groups We don't need self-imposed austerity measures. Just end the meat & dairy subsidies.
  - 6y ago
slothtrop 6y ago
Placing the onus for all these problems squarely on the consumer is misguided and ineffective. Even if a large percentage of the population gave up meat, it would not be nearly sufficient to curb C02 emissions and prevent further climate change. Such that, both innovation and policy changes targeting the private sector are needed. Reducing methane from cattle is important, finger wagging at consumers is a red herring that will deepen partisan divides.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  There's nothing partisan in choosing to eat meat, unless you choose to make a partisan issue. As it stands, livestock are a significant contributor towards global CO₂ emissions, and going in with the mindset that "this isn't useful unless innovation and policy changes come about" is the same as saying that it's not worth worrying about a car purchase because you have loans already that are difficult to pay off.
  - slothtrop 6y ago
    > As it stands, livestock are a significant contributor towards global CO₂ emissions Correct. > going in with the mindset that "this isn't useful unless innovation and policy changes come about" Curbing methane emissions by including seaweed in the feed is useful and proactive. Blaming consumers is not.

zucked 6y ago

You at least see how hypocritical that is, right? The Western world got to fulfill our gluttonous desires -- now, when it comes time for the developing world to get their turn at the table, we wag our fingers and say "Sorry, that's bad for the planet!"

bluntfang 6y ago
I don't see the hypocrisy. We did stuff one way. then we learned new stuff about how we do stuff, so we decided that we should change. It's fairly normal for an individual to grow and learn from their mistakes, why do you have to call "hypocrite" when it's time for the society to grow?
- chii 6y ago
  The OP is lamenting that western countries got to enjoy the fruits of their emissions. The cost, however, is externalized. Now that developing nations have started to get richer, western nations cannot say that they ought to now make a sacrifice and stop consuming meat, because doing so _is_ hypocrisy.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
On the one hand yeah, I do get it. On the other hand there's a very real possibility that not changing our ways now will result in a significantly worse future for literally everybody.

iratewizard 6y ago

There will always be someone telling us we're "doomed to a broken planet." Some people aren't going to subscribe to your brand of Catastrophism or your solution to the problem.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
Well, maybe I'm wrong and technology will outpace our looming problems. I hope that's the case but it would be foolish to depend on it, don't you think? It seems to me that your brand of thinking is one that comes to down to a simple mater of believing what it is convenient for you to believe.

lxmorj 6y ago

Any plan that relies on self-imposed austerity measures of billions of people from disparate groups is doomed to failure. We need to quietly change the math behind the scenes by internalizing externalities legally - long enough for green tech to get enough investment dollars to be cheaper than dirty tech even if those rules change later. This is mostly already happened with solar / wind power, though we need some improvements on battery tech to get grid-scale adoption. The levelized cost of wind is lower than any alternative, and solar is getting close. I’m sure the situation has improved in the last two years, but here is a report from 2018: https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-o...

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> Any plan that relies on self-imposed austerity measures of billions of people from disparate groups is doomed to failure True, but if people who otherwise realize the necessity of the change are unwilling to subject themselves to any inconvenience, what hope do we have of ever making the kinds of organized societal changes that are necessary? If you are unwilling to make a tiny change like reducing your meat consumption, you're probably the kind of person who would never vote for a government that forces you to. The argument is simply way to excuse your own behavior.
- lxmorj 6y ago
  I completely disagree. Individual restraint will not do the trick. Your limited time and energy is better spent working on creating mandatory, systemic behavior change. It is not hypocritical to, for example, vote for closing tax loopholes while using the very same.
MiroF 6y ago
> self-imposed austerity measures of billions of people from disparate groups We don't need self-imposed austerity measures. Just end the meat & dairy subsidies.
- 6y ago

slothtrop 6y ago

Placing the onus for all these problems squarely on the consumer is misguided and ineffective. Even if a large percentage of the population gave up meat, it would not be nearly sufficient to curb C02 emissions and prevent further climate change. Such that, both innovation and policy changes targeting the private sector are needed. Reducing methane from cattle is important, finger wagging at consumers is a red herring that will deepen partisan divides.

saagarjha 6y ago
There's nothing partisan in choosing to eat meat, unless you choose to make a partisan issue. As it stands, livestock are a significant contributor towards global CO₂ emissions, and going in with the mindset that "this isn't useful unless innovation and policy changes come about" is the same as saying that it's not worth worrying about a car purchase because you have loans already that are difficult to pay off.
- slothtrop 6y ago
  > As it stands, livestock are a significant contributor towards global CO₂ emissions Correct. > going in with the mindset that "this isn't useful unless innovation and policy changes come about" Curbing methane emissions by including seaweed in the feed is useful and proactive. Blaming consumers is not.