9 ms·

You stop, another hundred million in China will eat it. Too many people and too much demand. The balance has been lost for now.

riedel 5y ago
People try to show symbols of wealth by wasting resources . It should be a sign of wealth if you can avoid polluting your environment. China has one of the richest vegetarian traditions and just recently has developed this absurd craving for meat IMHO, so this is no automatism. We should start putting customs duties on all meat products. German chicken e.g. have destroyed eg. the African chicken market. Live stock is transported over high ways because it is too expensive to slaughter locally. Free trade of animal products just leads to the most absurd effects.
sweetheart 5y ago
Yes, there are many people who will continue to demand these products. That's exactly why its so important for everyone else to start now. It's not binary; we can reduce the scale of the issue as more and more people stop demanding these things, and that will have a tangible effect on the emissions.
- zepolen 5y ago
  The life time carbon footprint of an average American exceeds 20 tons, it's important that you don't have children, you could save the planet even more!
lsllc 5y ago
You make an excellent point; according to the United Nations [0], in 2021 there are 957 million people across 93 countries who do not have enough to eat. Clearly extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, while some efforts are being proposed (e.g. recent EU Climate Action [1]), it is far too too little, much too late. [0] https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/news/2021-going-be-bad-year-world-hunger https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/news/2021-going-be... [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57833807 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57833807
Ardon 5y ago
Well the real answer is large-scale political action. But the (American) political system is designed on the assumption that a tendency to do nothing is safer than a tendency towards action/change. Unfortunately doing nothing isn't the safe choice now, and even worse many of the checks and balances intended to be brakes now just act as a stick through the spokes. Not helped by how many people are blatantly propagandized into objectively false positions by Fox News & similar.
- peytn 5y ago
  > Not helped by how many people are blatantly propagandized into objectively false positions by Fox News & similar. I dunno, I think that’s confusing cause and effect. The solutions being proposed (e.g. be vegetarian) aren’t what people want. The same goes for lots of problems it seems. In my mind, somebody turning to Fox News et al. is a kind of effect of that. People aren’t going to suddenly want to become vegetarian if Fox News goes away. There will probably always be somewhere people can listen to talking heads rant about the solutions they feel are being shoved down their throats.
  - Ardon 5y ago
    I think there are, for lack of a better concept, tiers to climate change actions. Eating less meat would be something very personal, and I think you're right on there being an aversion totally unrelated to news, or propaganda of any kind. On the other hand, there are measures like increasing investment in climate research, green energy, carbon capture, etc. These have a much smaller personal effect on each individual. These two categories both, on Fox News and contemporaries, exist under the same umbrella. If the demand was really going from ground-up, then we might see segments about how eating meat doesn't really contribute to global warming next to segments about how we could create jobs with green energy investment. But we don't. Instead we see a widespread denial of climate change itself on the top level, falling back to denial of man-made climate change, then to some idea that climate change isn't worth fixing, then to climate change is real and dangerous but it's the plastic straws & personal responsibility that we need to think about. This, in my mind, strongly implies that it is not a bottom-up demand for climate change denial, but a mix of bottom-up and top-down demand, but with a heavy lean towards top-down. And much of the bottom-up demand has been created artificially (in the Manufacturing Consent style of "artificially") To be clear, I agree with the narrow point you actually made, I don't expect Fox News has some controlling factor over how many people want to be vegetarian. Vegetarianism isn't even a majority in deeply left-wing communities. Fortunately there's a lot of ground to be gained on switching to bird meats, or even just dodging the issue entirely with cultured meats. It's a shame Fox News disdains these options too.
yboris 5y ago
Horrible argument. You make it sound like you stopping is going to cause more people to start eating, when in fact you know that's not the case. Perhaps you're trying to articulate that it's futile - since "there are many people who do not care", but that's like stabbing a baby saying "well, in our culture many people do this already". Individual choices matter: buying less meat reduces supply (it's what economists call elastic) - your supermarket will buy less meat when you stop consuming it, and that propagates up the chain. If not 1-to-1, it may be 1/1000 chance of reducing the next 1000 lb order - which is basically equivalent to 1-to-1 response (especially in the long run). And finally, with all the alternatives of substitute meats (on the market now) and cultured meats (coming to market soon), you have numerous options to reduce your meat consumption. So don't hide behind panic to do something bad - that's like seeing looting in the store and saying "well, I want some of that free stuff I haven't earned - at someone else's expense, and others are doing it".
- MR4D 5y ago
  > buying less meat reduces supply (it's what economists call elastic) Uhhhh, buying less meat will reduce price, not supply.
  - yboris 5y ago
    You're just claiming things based on theory you remember. I'm going by research: > "If someone gives up 1 lb of chicken, total consumption falls by 0.76lb in expectation." https://reducing-suffering.org/comments-on-compassion-by-the-pound/#Elasticities https://reducing-suffering.org/comments-on-compassion-by-the...
    - MR4D 5y ago
      How rude - especially since you don't understand the article you just quoted. Of course consumption falls if I give something up. That's not Supply. Your original statement was "buying less meat reduces supply", while the quote you just gave as evidence talked about "consumption", which is the demand side of the equation (technically "quantity demanded", but I'm simplifying). If you don't like my knowledge, maybe this will help [0]. Please don't tell me I'm "just claiming things based on theory I remember" - or anyone else on HN - it's rude. [0] - https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/elasticity-tutorial/price-elasticity-tutorial/a/price-elasticity-of-demand-and-price-elasticity-of-supply-cnx https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microec...

riedel 5y ago

People try to show symbols of wealth by wasting resources . It should be a sign of wealth if you can avoid polluting your environment. China has one of the richest vegetarian traditions and just recently has developed this absurd craving for meat IMHO, so this is no automatism. We should start putting customs duties on all meat products. German chicken e.g. have destroyed eg. the African chicken market. Live stock is transported over high ways because it is too expensive to slaughter locally. Free trade of animal products just leads to the most absurd effects.

sweetheart 5y ago

Yes, there are many people who will continue to demand these products. That's exactly why its so important for everyone else to start now. It's not binary; we can reduce the scale of the issue as more and more people stop demanding these things, and that will have a tangible effect on the emissions.

zepolen 5y ago
The life time carbon footprint of an average American exceeds 20 tons, it's important that you don't have children, you could save the planet even more!

lsllc 5y ago

You make an excellent point; according to the United Nations [0], in 2021 there are 957 million people across 93 countries who do not have enough to eat. Clearly extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, while some efforts are being proposed (e.g. recent EU Climate Action [1]), it is far too too little, much too late. [0] https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/news/2021-going-be-bad-year-world-hunger https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/news/2021-going-be... [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57833807 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57833807

Ardon 5y ago

Well the real answer is large-scale political action. But the (American) political system is designed on the assumption that a tendency to do nothing is safer than a tendency towards action/change. Unfortunately doing nothing isn't the safe choice now, and even worse many of the checks and balances intended to be brakes now just act as a stick through the spokes. Not helped by how many people are blatantly propagandized into objectively false positions by Fox News & similar.

peytn 5y ago
> Not helped by how many people are blatantly propagandized into objectively false positions by Fox News & similar. I dunno, I think that’s confusing cause and effect. The solutions being proposed (e.g. be vegetarian) aren’t what people want. The same goes for lots of problems it seems. In my mind, somebody turning to Fox News et al. is a kind of effect of that. People aren’t going to suddenly want to become vegetarian if Fox News goes away. There will probably always be somewhere people can listen to talking heads rant about the solutions they feel are being shoved down their throats.
- Ardon 5y ago
  I think there are, for lack of a better concept, tiers to climate change actions. Eating less meat would be something very personal, and I think you're right on there being an aversion totally unrelated to news, or propaganda of any kind. On the other hand, there are measures like increasing investment in climate research, green energy, carbon capture, etc. These have a much smaller personal effect on each individual. These two categories both, on Fox News and contemporaries, exist under the same umbrella. If the demand was really going from ground-up, then we might see segments about how eating meat doesn't really contribute to global warming next to segments about how we could create jobs with green energy investment. But we don't. Instead we see a widespread denial of climate change itself on the top level, falling back to denial of man-made climate change, then to some idea that climate change isn't worth fixing, then to climate change is real and dangerous but it's the plastic straws & personal responsibility that we need to think about. This, in my mind, strongly implies that it is not a bottom-up demand for climate change denial, but a mix of bottom-up and top-down demand, but with a heavy lean towards top-down. And much of the bottom-up demand has been created artificially (in the Manufacturing Consent style of "artificially") To be clear, I agree with the narrow point you actually made, I don't expect Fox News has some controlling factor over how many people want to be vegetarian. Vegetarianism isn't even a majority in deeply left-wing communities. Fortunately there's a lot of ground to be gained on switching to bird meats, or even just dodging the issue entirely with cultured meats. It's a shame Fox News disdains these options too.

yboris 5y ago

Horrible argument. You make it sound like you stopping is going to cause more people to start eating, when in fact you know that's not the case. Perhaps you're trying to articulate that it's futile - since "there are many people who do not care", but that's like stabbing a baby saying "well, in our culture many people do this already". Individual choices matter: buying less meat reduces supply (it's what economists call elastic) - your supermarket will buy less meat when you stop consuming it, and that propagates up the chain. If not 1-to-1, it may be 1/1000 chance of reducing the next 1000 lb order - which is basically equivalent to 1-to-1 response (especially in the long run). And finally, with all the alternatives of substitute meats (on the market now) and cultured meats (coming to market soon), you have numerous options to reduce your meat consumption. So don't hide behind panic to do something bad - that's like seeing looting in the store and saying "well, I want some of that free stuff I haven't earned - at someone else's expense, and others are doing it".

MR4D 5y ago
> buying less meat reduces supply (it's what economists call elastic) Uhhhh, buying less meat will reduce price, not supply.
- yboris 5y ago
  You're just claiming things based on theory you remember. I'm going by research: > "If someone gives up 1 lb of chicken, total consumption falls by 0.76lb in expectation." https://reducing-suffering.org/comments-on-compassion-by-the-pound/#Elasticities https://reducing-suffering.org/comments-on-compassion-by-the...
  - MR4D 5y ago
    How rude - especially since you don't understand the article you just quoted. Of course consumption falls if I give something up. That's not Supply. Your original statement was "buying less meat reduces supply", while the quote you just gave as evidence talked about "consumption", which is the demand side of the equation (technically "quantity demanded", but I'm simplifying). If you don't like my knowledge, maybe this will help [0]. Please don't tell me I'm "just claiming things based on theory I remember" - or anyone else on HN - it's rude. [0] - https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/elasticity-tutorial/price-elasticity-tutorial/a/price-elasticity-of-demand-and-price-elasticity-of-supply-cnx https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microec...