7 ms·

> Fix what you have when you need to. Not possible to do myself, and it's not feasible to pay someone to do it. I don't have the tools, the electronics, nor th

> Fix what you have when you need to. Not possible to do myself, and it's not feasible to pay someone to do it. I don't have the tools, the electronics, nor the replacement parts (not to mention knowledge or time) to keep a modern car going for the remaining 30-50 years of my lifetime. Attempting to fix it at the point where everything is falling apart becomes impractical (as I keep trying to tell my dad when he's spending even more money to make a '79 truck run). Not to mention that getting those parts custom made or shipped to you from across the country incurs its own environmental penalty. > Eat less meat. I've found that, to keep a balanced diet without meat, it's quite a bit more expensive, and exceptionally more time consuming. Then there's the health issues (like those outlined in the scar study featured on HN a week or so ago). I absolutely could compromise my health and lifespan for the sake of the world, but I'm not going to. > Consuming less, buying less. There's a lower limit to how much less you can do and still remain as a healthy, productive adult, but I agree that it's a good thing to do for many reasons; it's something I try and do. Even if I took every step outlined, it would have, effectively, no impact on the environment.

titzer 6y ago
Wanna do something for the environment? Don't have kids. One kid absolutely dwarfs all things suggested so far, combined. By far.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  In exchange for sacrificing what many people feel is a vital component of life you could have a completely insignificant impact on the environment! Also, compare the birth rate per woman in the US (1.73) to somewhere like Niger (7). Getting Western populations to decline faster will not have any meaningful effect on total human population.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    The average American's carbon footprint is 190x that of the average Niger citizen. Until that changes, population growth in Niger isn't a worry from a climate change perspective. Though it could still cause geopolitical instability in that country and its neighbors.
    - ALittleLight 6y ago
      Unless you think that Niger will persist in poverty forever, or that people born in Niger never move to the US or Europe, then yes, it's still a worry.
      - triceratops 6y ago
        It's pretty well-established that a nation's fertility reduces as it grows richer. So Niger will either remain poor but irrelevant to climate change. Or it'll leave poverty behind, but also cut its birth rate. Either way, only what developed countries (and China, India, Brazil, maybe Nigeria and Indonesia) do today matters in the fight against climate change. There's no one else to point fingers at, unless you're looking for an excuse to do nothing. As a percentage of total population, the number of people who emigrate from a poor country like Niger to a developed country is quite small. And they'd likely be poor there too, and consume fewer resources on average.
        ALittleLight 6y ago
        By the time the developing world develops and slows their birth rate they'll have a massive population. They have a big population now and are growing fast. If we don't actually solve global warming the addition of billions more wealthy people will be a huge environmental burden. I think "doing nothing" is what people who advocate reduction of consumption and having fewer kids are doing. Those plans won't be implemented and they won't work. What I'm advocating is technological development to solve the problems related to global warming.
        triceratops 6y ago
        We need both - reduction of consumption and technological development. People who think just one or the other will be enough are deluded. (Voluntary) reduction of consumption has the side-effect that the electorate becomes more agreeable to measures such as carbon taxes. An SUV and burger-loving electorate will never vote for them, because they would make SUVs and burgers more expensive. Without carbon taxes, there's no market mechanism to control emissions. And there's less funding for technological development or subsidies to green tech.
  - barbazoo 6y ago
    While I don't agree on the premise here. There's never gonna be the one thing solving the whole problem. It's gonna be the sum of a million little things. Don't let good be the enemy of perfect.
  - bildung 6y ago
    Niger is actually a great example for illustrating that better health (e.g. infant mortality rate) and economic outlook results in dramatically falling birth rates. Current birth rate is 6.7, but it was 7.5 only ten years ago: https://knoema.de/atlas/Niger/Fertilit%c3%a4tsrate https://knoema.de/atlas/Niger/Fertilit%c3%a4tsrate
    - ALittleLight 6y ago
      In my view the people of the developing world have their challenge - figuring out how to make their people wealthy, healthy, educated, and safe. People in the developed world have the challenge of figuring out how to scale. The answer to scaling cannot be "Maybe we'll just have fewer people or be poor."
- lovecg 6y ago
  That’s a weird argument to make. When people care about “the environment” they usually mean something like “keep the planet pleasant for humans”. Sure the humanity can commit collective sacrificial suicide to “preserve the environment”, but to what end? The cockroaches will do just fine either way.
  - ubertoop 6y ago
    I just find it amusing that the very source of the problem (humans) are themselves positing that they are also part of the solution. Why kid ourselves? 8+ billion humans are going to consume, and keep consuming, endlessly. The ONLY actual solution that involves humans is expansion. We either expand to another planet / galaxy, or we ride this one out to its (and our) death. That's why we should prioritize science more as a collective. We need more Elon Musks with giant aspirations to really move the needle.
    - JackFr 6y ago
      The so-called problem is only a problem because humans deem it such. Does the earth differentiate between malaria and kelp forests? No. Humans differentiate between them, actively trying to eliminate one and wringing our hands and trying to prevent the destruction of the other. To call it “a problem” is to implicitly assert dominion over the land, sky and sea while pretending that you are not.
      - ubertoop 6y ago
        A very good point indeed.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      That's quite deluded. Elon Musk has done less than nothing to make moving to another planet feasible, despite all his grandomania dreams. We are thousands of years away from any notion of expansion beyond Earth. Even if he were to magically get a handful of people living on Mars (he won't) that is not going to bring us even an inch closer to something like a sustainable Mars colony. And no, human beings do not naturally "consume and consume endlessly". In fact, the vast majority of those 8 billion people (say, 7.9 billion of them, or maybe 7.5 billion if you want) are consuming a fraction of the total resources. The vast majority of climate change is due to the richest ~10-20% in the richest countries on Earth. One way or another, this state of affairs will end in the next 50 years at most. Hopefully it will end in a more egalitarian society that respects the environment.
- mrfusion 6y ago
  What if that kid was going to grow up to be Al Gore?
  - Can_Not 6y ago
    What if that kid was going to grow up to be funded by Big Oil to spread misinformation?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- refurb 6y ago
  Does a healthy ecosystem on planet earth have any value of there aren’t any humans here to see it?
  - titzer 6y ago
    Does anything have value besides your feelings? Then yes.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      I think it's a fair philosophical question. Does nature and beauty matter if there are no sentient beings to observe it? When many (most?) people talk about mitigating or reversing climate change, their main goal is the benefit to humanity. Sure, there is some level of empathy and caring for the species going extinct every year, but even part of that is only as far as how a healthy, diverse biosphere better supports human life.
      - titzer 6y ago
        Global civilization has a long history of emptying pristine environments of sentient beings and not realizing what it has done...we have no monopoly on sentience or beauty. We are just a small part of nature.
        refurb 6y ago
        Beauty is purely a human construct. No humans, no beauty.
        titzer 6y ago
        So nothing has value besides your feelings, then.
- avereveard 6y ago
  We tried in Europe and it just ended up with politician encouraging third world immigration to sustain industry, so now we have two problems.
- aisengard 6y ago
  This kind of response is pretty monstrous. The logical next step would be to tell people to, well, stop living. Complete and total nihilism.
  - titzer 6y ago
    But that's not what I said.
  - Can_Not 6y ago
    > The logical next step The completely illogical application of the slippery slow fallacy* The actual logical next step would be to address the large corporations that are polluting.
- spicyramen 6y ago
  Sacrificing the miracle of life, for the environment sounds naive
- imtringued 6y ago
  This is commonly done under the assumption that your kid is an average polluter and that you cannot teach your kid to cause less pollution. For many people that is true. I kind of doubt that it is true for me.
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
Didn't say to not eat meat- but most people eat more than necessary. I was a little facetious when suggesting to keep your car forever. Just don't ditch it merely for being "old". That really goes for anything. You can also accept the fact that you are but one human among billions. Tend your garden.
- lovecg 6y ago
  Frankly all of this advice sounds a lot like “don’t water your lawn in a drought” while the almond farmers down the road continue to guzzle it up. One tends to throw their arms up in exasperation and drown their lawn in water out of sheer hopelessness.
nitrogen 6y ago
Forget all the pessimism and misanthropy. It's never going to solve our problems. Instead, focus on making things that make people more efficient. We won't ever be able to guilt-trip and shame our way out of climate change, but we just might be able to engineer our way out instead. And, if you have ample means, have as many kids as you can support in your chosen lifestyle, so they will grow up to invent more and better policies and technologies to make the future a place we actually want to live in again.
- ubertoop 6y ago
  > have as many kids as you can support How ironic considering that the very source of earths problems are because of humans. Somehow, the solution is more. Never a better response from, a human.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    Yeah, that struck me as odd too. The biggest thing anyone can do to reduce their future carbon footprint is usually to have fewer or no children. That's a pretty big thing to ask, though, as children are pretty central to most people's lives. It's an interesting point, though: is it better long term for environmentally-conscious people to have fewer or more children? If they have fewer, then most of the children born will be to parents who are not environmentally-conscious, and will likely grow up without an ethos of reducing their consumption, which will negatively affect public policy. But if environmentally-conscious people have more children, they will add to the drain on the planet, but raise kids who hopefully will grow up to influence public policy in the direction of less consumption. Not sure which choice will be a net benefit, but I suspect the kind of person who would make their child-bearing choices primarily on the basis of environmental impact is uncommon enough that it wouldn't make much of a difference either way.
    - Baeocystin 6y ago
      >It's an interesting point, though: is it better long term for environmentally-conscious people to have fewer or more children? Earth has produced a grand total of one species that even has the potential to be effective stewards. That's us. Earth is already on the far backside of how much longer it will be habitable due to the Sun. And I see no reason to think that any other intelligence that did evolve here wouldn't be beset by the same problems we have now. So (IMO) intelligent, conscientious people having fewer children helps nothing. We (humans) are the best thing our biosphere has got, by a long shot, in terms of long-term preservation of life, which is something that I personally think is of great importance.
bumby 6y ago
>I've found that, to keep a balanced diet without meat, it's quite a bit more expensive, and exceptionally more time consuming. I’d be interested in what you consider “balanced”. I’ve found that when my diet is almost exclusively plants my grocery bill was nearly halved. I’ve even found it’s cheaper to by from higher end organic grocery stores than Walmart supercenters when I exclude meat. The scales tip the other way when I buy processed or boxed vegetarian/vegan food.
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  Community sourced agriculture boxes are often quite economical as well.
- fogihujy 6y ago
  The GP stated that they live in "the North". Depending on which country that is, that may very well indicate that quite a few foodstuffs are more expensive (and environmentally damaging) due to transport from areas where it can grow, or it may simply not be available. I couldn't have a balanced and nutritionally complete diet without mean, if I stuck to what I can obtain from local sources or what's available at the same or lower price than meat. Also, most of the stuff that is available seems to be based on Soy produced abroad, and then shipped here. With that taken into account, I'll stick to having some meat in my diet and keeping both costs and the CO2 footprint down. After all, simply reducing the meat consumption would probably have a large effect on it's own.
  - bumby 6y ago
    >most of the stuff that is available seems to be based on Soy produced abroad This makes me think you may have been falling into the mindset that you either need to eat equivalent protein as a meat diet or were biasing towards processed foods which tend to rely heavily on soy. Personally, I don’t like the taste of those and I found they tend to be more expensive. Trying to make a facsimile of one diet with another is difficult. I can’t speak more to the OPs geography without specifics but for the vast amount of the “north” in the US, it’s not much of a problem. Of course, it’s all relative to personal goals. Regardless, I think you’re right in just reducing meat consumption is a more pragmatic approach for most. I think both issues speak to the need to adjust what the “norm” is, both for health and environmental reasons.
barbazoo 6y ago
Do what you want others to do as well. Yes you can't change everything yourself, but as a community you can. This is a problem of individualism. You can't fix that with more individualism.
lm28469 6y ago
> I've found that, to keep a balanced diet without meat, it's quite a bit more expensive, and exceptionally more time consuming. Mass produced meat is cheap because you don't pay it in $ but in pollution and animal suffering. I was a "ah whatever they're just animals" guy for a long time, but once you do your research it's basically impossible to eat cheap meat again. It's jot even a question of polluting less, it repulses me now Nsfl, this is a video from one of the supposedly "best" slaughterhouse in France: https://youtu.be/KWbgZQxd6J4 https://youtu.be/KWbgZQxd6J4
sedachv 6y ago
> I've found that, to keep a balanced diet without meat, it's quite a bit more expensive, and exceptionally more time consuming. Do you just gnaw on raw steak from the dumpster? I have been a vegetarian since 2009 mostly because it is so quick and convenient. Other than fruit and shelled nuts, I cannot think of anything faster and simpler than opening a can of beans. Frozen vegetables come pre-chopped, you just put them in a frying pan. If you are concerned about your health and lifespan, you should become vegan, like I did in 2017. It is the fastest, easiest way to lower your cholesterol and improve your cardiovascular function. I did not expect my exercise performance or subjective feeling to improve as much as it did. Anyway, here is a good source for ideas: https://nutritionfacts.org/ https://nutritionfacts.org/

titzer 6y ago

Wanna do something for the environment? Don't have kids. One kid absolutely dwarfs all things suggested so far, combined. By far.

ALittleLight 6y ago
In exchange for sacrificing what many people feel is a vital component of life you could have a completely insignificant impact on the environment! Also, compare the birth rate per woman in the US (1.73) to somewhere like Niger (7). Getting Western populations to decline faster will not have any meaningful effect on total human population.
- triceratops 6y ago
  The average American's carbon footprint is 190x that of the average Niger citizen. Until that changes, population growth in Niger isn't a worry from a climate change perspective. Though it could still cause geopolitical instability in that country and its neighbors.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    Unless you think that Niger will persist in poverty forever, or that people born in Niger never move to the US or Europe, then yes, it's still a worry.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      It's pretty well-established that a nation's fertility reduces as it grows richer. So Niger will either remain poor but irrelevant to climate change. Or it'll leave poverty behind, but also cut its birth rate. Either way, only what developed countries (and China, India, Brazil, maybe Nigeria and Indonesia) do today matters in the fight against climate change. There's no one else to point fingers at, unless you're looking for an excuse to do nothing. As a percentage of total population, the number of people who emigrate from a poor country like Niger to a developed country is quite small. And they'd likely be poor there too, and consume fewer resources on average.
      - ALittleLight 6y ago
        By the time the developing world develops and slows their birth rate they'll have a massive population. They have a big population now and are growing fast. If we don't actually solve global warming the addition of billions more wealthy people will be a huge environmental burden. I think "doing nothing" is what people who advocate reduction of consumption and having fewer kids are doing. Those plans won't be implemented and they won't work. What I'm advocating is technological development to solve the problems related to global warming.
        triceratops 6y ago
        We need both - reduction of consumption and technological development. People who think just one or the other will be enough are deluded. (Voluntary) reduction of consumption has the side-effect that the electorate becomes more agreeable to measures such as carbon taxes. An SUV and burger-loving electorate will never vote for them, because they would make SUVs and burgers more expensive. Without carbon taxes, there's no market mechanism to control emissions. And there's less funding for technological development or subsidies to green tech.
- barbazoo 6y ago
  While I don't agree on the premise here. There's never gonna be the one thing solving the whole problem. It's gonna be the sum of a million little things. Don't let good be the enemy of perfect.
- bildung 6y ago
  Niger is actually a great example for illustrating that better health (e.g. infant mortality rate) and economic outlook results in dramatically falling birth rates. Current birth rate is 6.7, but it was 7.5 only ten years ago: https://knoema.de/atlas/Niger/Fertilit%c3%a4tsrate https://knoema.de/atlas/Niger/Fertilit%c3%a4tsrate
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    In my view the people of the developing world have their challenge - figuring out how to make their people wealthy, healthy, educated, and safe. People in the developed world have the challenge of figuring out how to scale. The answer to scaling cannot be "Maybe we'll just have fewer people or be poor."
lovecg 6y ago
That’s a weird argument to make. When people care about “the environment” they usually mean something like “keep the planet pleasant for humans”. Sure the humanity can commit collective sacrificial suicide to “preserve the environment”, but to what end? The cockroaches will do just fine either way.
- ubertoop 6y ago
  I just find it amusing that the very source of the problem (humans) are themselves positing that they are also part of the solution. Why kid ourselves? 8+ billion humans are going to consume, and keep consuming, endlessly. The ONLY actual solution that involves humans is expansion. We either expand to another planet / galaxy, or we ride this one out to its (and our) death. That's why we should prioritize science more as a collective. We need more Elon Musks with giant aspirations to really move the needle.
  - JackFr 6y ago
    The so-called problem is only a problem because humans deem it such. Does the earth differentiate between malaria and kelp forests? No. Humans differentiate between them, actively trying to eliminate one and wringing our hands and trying to prevent the destruction of the other. To call it “a problem” is to implicitly assert dominion over the land, sky and sea while pretending that you are not.
    - ubertoop 6y ago
      A very good point indeed.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    That's quite deluded. Elon Musk has done less than nothing to make moving to another planet feasible, despite all his grandomania dreams. We are thousands of years away from any notion of expansion beyond Earth. Even if he were to magically get a handful of people living on Mars (he won't) that is not going to bring us even an inch closer to something like a sustainable Mars colony. And no, human beings do not naturally "consume and consume endlessly". In fact, the vast majority of those 8 billion people (say, 7.9 billion of them, or maybe 7.5 billion if you want) are consuming a fraction of the total resources. The vast majority of climate change is due to the richest ~10-20% in the richest countries on Earth. One way or another, this state of affairs will end in the next 50 years at most. Hopefully it will end in a more egalitarian society that respects the environment.
mrfusion 6y ago
What if that kid was going to grow up to be Al Gore?
- Can_Not 6y ago
  What if that kid was going to grow up to be funded by Big Oil to spread misinformation?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
refurb 6y ago
Does a healthy ecosystem on planet earth have any value of there aren’t any humans here to see it?
- titzer 6y ago
  Does anything have value besides your feelings? Then yes.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    I think it's a fair philosophical question. Does nature and beauty matter if there are no sentient beings to observe it? When many (most?) people talk about mitigating or reversing climate change, their main goal is the benefit to humanity. Sure, there is some level of empathy and caring for the species going extinct every year, but even part of that is only as far as how a healthy, diverse biosphere better supports human life.
    - titzer 6y ago
      Global civilization has a long history of emptying pristine environments of sentient beings and not realizing what it has done...we have no monopoly on sentience or beauty. We are just a small part of nature.
      - refurb 6y ago
        Beauty is purely a human construct. No humans, no beauty.
        titzer 6y ago
        So nothing has value besides your feelings, then.
avereveard 6y ago
We tried in Europe and it just ended up with politician encouraging third world immigration to sustain industry, so now we have two problems.
aisengard 6y ago
This kind of response is pretty monstrous. The logical next step would be to tell people to, well, stop living. Complete and total nihilism.
- titzer 6y ago
  But that's not what I said.
- Can_Not 6y ago
  > The logical next step The completely illogical application of the slippery slow fallacy* The actual logical next step would be to address the large corporations that are polluting.
spicyramen 6y ago
Sacrificing the miracle of life, for the environment sounds naive
imtringued 6y ago
This is commonly done under the assumption that your kid is an average polluter and that you cannot teach your kid to cause less pollution. For many people that is true. I kind of doubt that it is true for me.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

Didn't say to not eat meat- but most people eat more than necessary. I was a little facetious when suggesting to keep your car forever. Just don't ditch it merely for being "old". That really goes for anything. You can also accept the fact that you are but one human among billions. Tend your garden.

lovecg 6y ago
Frankly all of this advice sounds a lot like “don’t water your lawn in a drought” while the almond farmers down the road continue to guzzle it up. One tends to throw their arms up in exasperation and drown their lawn in water out of sheer hopelessness.

nitrogen 6y ago

Forget all the pessimism and misanthropy. It's never going to solve our problems. Instead, focus on making things that make people more efficient. We won't ever be able to guilt-trip and shame our way out of climate change, but we just might be able to engineer our way out instead. And, if you have ample means, have as many kids as you can support in your chosen lifestyle, so they will grow up to invent more and better policies and technologies to make the future a place we actually want to live in again.

ubertoop 6y ago
> have as many kids as you can support How ironic considering that the very source of earths problems are because of humans. Somehow, the solution is more. Never a better response from, a human.
- kelnos 6y ago
  Yeah, that struck me as odd too. The biggest thing anyone can do to reduce their future carbon footprint is usually to have fewer or no children. That's a pretty big thing to ask, though, as children are pretty central to most people's lives. It's an interesting point, though: is it better long term for environmentally-conscious people to have fewer or more children? If they have fewer, then most of the children born will be to parents who are not environmentally-conscious, and will likely grow up without an ethos of reducing their consumption, which will negatively affect public policy. But if environmentally-conscious people have more children, they will add to the drain on the planet, but raise kids who hopefully will grow up to influence public policy in the direction of less consumption. Not sure which choice will be a net benefit, but I suspect the kind of person who would make their child-bearing choices primarily on the basis of environmental impact is uncommon enough that it wouldn't make much of a difference either way.
  - Baeocystin 6y ago
    >It's an interesting point, though: is it better long term for environmentally-conscious people to have fewer or more children? Earth has produced a grand total of one species that even has the potential to be effective stewards. That's us. Earth is already on the far backside of how much longer it will be habitable due to the Sun. And I see no reason to think that any other intelligence that did evolve here wouldn't be beset by the same problems we have now. So (IMO) intelligent, conscientious people having fewer children helps nothing. We (humans) are the best thing our biosphere has got, by a long shot, in terms of long-term preservation of life, which is something that I personally think is of great importance.

bumby 6y ago

>I've found that, to keep a balanced diet without meat, it's quite a bit more expensive, and exceptionally more time consuming. I’d be interested in what you consider “balanced”. I’ve found that when my diet is almost exclusively plants my grocery bill was nearly halved. I’ve even found it’s cheaper to by from higher end organic grocery stores than Walmart supercenters when I exclude meat. The scales tip the other way when I buy processed or boxed vegetarian/vegan food.

CameronNemo 6y ago
Community sourced agriculture boxes are often quite economical as well.
fogihujy 6y ago
The GP stated that they live in "the North". Depending on which country that is, that may very well indicate that quite a few foodstuffs are more expensive (and environmentally damaging) due to transport from areas where it can grow, or it may simply not be available. I couldn't have a balanced and nutritionally complete diet without mean, if I stuck to what I can obtain from local sources or what's available at the same or lower price than meat. Also, most of the stuff that is available seems to be based on Soy produced abroad, and then shipped here. With that taken into account, I'll stick to having some meat in my diet and keeping both costs and the CO2 footprint down. After all, simply reducing the meat consumption would probably have a large effect on it's own.
- bumby 6y ago
  >most of the stuff that is available seems to be based on Soy produced abroad This makes me think you may have been falling into the mindset that you either need to eat equivalent protein as a meat diet or were biasing towards processed foods which tend to rely heavily on soy. Personally, I don’t like the taste of those and I found they tend to be more expensive. Trying to make a facsimile of one diet with another is difficult. I can’t speak more to the OPs geography without specifics but for the vast amount of the “north” in the US, it’s not much of a problem. Of course, it’s all relative to personal goals. Regardless, I think you’re right in just reducing meat consumption is a more pragmatic approach for most. I think both issues speak to the need to adjust what the “norm” is, both for health and environmental reasons.

barbazoo 6y ago

Do what you want others to do as well. Yes you can't change everything yourself, but as a community you can. This is a problem of individualism. You can't fix that with more individualism.

lm28469 6y ago

> I've found that, to keep a balanced diet without meat, it's quite a bit more expensive, and exceptionally more time consuming. Mass produced meat is cheap because you don't pay it in $ but in pollution and animal suffering. I was a "ah whatever they're just animals" guy for a long time, but once you do your research it's basically impossible to eat cheap meat again. It's jot even a question of polluting less, it repulses me now Nsfl, this is a video from one of the supposedly "best" slaughterhouse in France: https://youtu.be/KWbgZQxd6J4 https://youtu.be/KWbgZQxd6J4

sedachv 6y ago

> I've found that, to keep a balanced diet without meat, it's quite a bit more expensive, and exceptionally more time consuming. Do you just gnaw on raw steak from the dumpster? I have been a vegetarian since 2009 mostly because it is so quick and convenient. Other than fruit and shelled nuts, I cannot think of anything faster and simpler than opening a can of beans. Frozen vegetables come pre-chopped, you just put them in a frying pan. If you are concerned about your health and lifespan, you should become vegan, like I did in 2017. It is the fastest, easiest way to lower your cholesterol and improve your cardiovascular function. I did not expect my exercise performance or subjective feeling to improve as much as it did. Anyway, here is a good source for ideas: https://nutritionfacts.org/ https://nutritionfacts.org/