5 ms·
If it wasn't as economical to do it because you couldn't sell the meat produced that way, less of it would be cut down because they couldn't make money that way
by enkid 5y ago
If it wasn't as economical to do it because you couldn't sell the meat produced that way, less of it would be cut down because they couldn't make money that way. In other words, it's their only resource, but it's only valuable to destroy if there is something they can sell, i.e., meat. (Or palm oil)
- beerandt 5y agoNo- this isn't US economics where there's a cost below which land use doesn't make sense for them. These people were cutting and burning these forests just for timber and firewood, and have been for decades. Even in places where it's banned to do so, and they risk jail. A smaller profit margin isn't going to prevent them from utilizing the one resource at their disposal.
- Spooky23 5y agoThat’s kind of a wacky argument. It’s like saying that they wouldn’t need money if only these people wouldn’t eat. The fake meat story is a fraud - if you care about pollution, like every other industry yu can regulate how they handle waste products and other operational practices. Fake meat is just a consolidation play, which happens to be the factor that made meat production a horror show in the first place. Instead of cutting down rain forests for pasture, we’ll cut them down for more protein sources to manufacture fake meat. Ditto with palm oil, which will drive some apes to extinction because there is a marketing problem with selling lard and a health problem associated with selling hydrogenated oils.