5 ms·

this is a half-baked ‘solution‘ that just makes eating meat a luxury. a thing only for the rich. it’ll be like crimes that are punished by a fine - they just b

this is a half-baked ‘solution‘ that just makes eating meat a luxury. a thing only for the rich. it’ll be like crimes that are punished by a fine - they just become the ‘fee’ that allows the propertied class to do whatever they want. beef is deadly for humanity because of destructive water and land usage (Vice had a great video showing the Amazon deforestation due to beef production). edit: my point is that the propertied class will lower wages and raise commodity prices to be able to pay to keep eating an unsustainable amount of beef. instead we should restrict or ban industrial animal agriculture, while investing in educational material to help society transition away from beef. that and regenerative agriculture, agro-forestry, etc. Ernst Gotsch: https://youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE https://youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE

smt88 5y ago
That's true of literally anything where the price reflects the externalities. If it bothers you that the rich can afford to pay for the externalities, that's an argument against wealth inequality, not against pricing things correctly.
hellbannedguy 5y ago
It's time to tie all societal fees/fines to income. Start with using 1040's. Yes--their will be guys whom try to game the system, but many will eventually get caught. For example, a a patent fee to a poor man is nothing. A wealthy man pays current rates. A poor man drives through a red light; the fine might get the last straw, or rent. A wealthy guy drives through a red light, he casually mentions it over dinner to Clair. I have never felt it was fair, even when I had money.
colordrops 5y ago
If only allowing the rich to eat beef will help save the planet then I'm for it.
- beckman466 5y ago
  the point is that the propertied class will lower wages and raise commodity prices to pay to keep eating an unsustainable amount of beef. instead we should restrict or ban industrial animal agriculture, while investing in educational material to help society transition away from beef. that and regenerative agriculture, agro-forestry, etc. Ernst Gotsch: https://youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE https://youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE i don’t want to give my children a dead planet either.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    Don't get me wrong, my children and I are vegan - I absolutely believe the best case scenario would be to eradicate animal agriculture altogether.
- mbg721 5y ago
  As long as you're aware that you're trading wealth-inequality for perceived ecological gains, at least be honest and sell it that way.
- hjek 5y ago
  If only eating the rich will help save the planet then I'm in.
  - swader999 5y ago
    It would save humanity. Maybe that's a start?
- swader999 5y ago
  Edgar: What does steak taste like again? I had it once, but I can't remember. Curtis: If you can't remember then it's better to forget. Edgar: What does it smell like when it's cooked? It must emanate around the place.”
GhettoComputers 5y ago
>beef is deadly for humanity because of destructive water and land usage How is it more deadly than transportation in terms of emissions or deaths caused by it? https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
- wumpus 5y ago
  Your source doesn't support your point, it doesn't break out transportation related to beef or the stuff feed to cows to make beef.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    What is my point? I question the focus on a beef, a percentage of 10% rather than 29% of the total, which is transportation, or 25% which is electricty.
    - wumpus 5y ago
      Your point appears to be to claim that everything that is not most important is irrelevant. Which is a bad idea, because "we" can do more than one thing at a time.
fidesomnes 5y ago
> beef is deadly for the planet because of destructive water and land usage (Vice had a great video showing the deforestation due to beef production). Thanks, for a second I thought you might have to be serious but now I can be certain you can be laughed at in perpetuity.
mattnewton 5y ago
If everyone had a private jet with jet fuel subsidized by the government it would also be bad for humanity. It’s currently tolerated as a luxury only for the rich. As an argument for subsidizing something, that doesn’t resonate with me by itself. We subsidize the meat industry directly, and indirectly by not pricing in negative externalities like it’s carbon expenditure.
- paganel 5y ago
  Equating eating meat to owning a private jet won't get the point pretty well to the masses.
  - mattnewton 5y ago
    That’s true but I don’t know of any pitch that would convince “the masses”. It’s easier to argue why someone should not do more of something they aren’t already doing, rather than stop doing something they like and have been doing for generations. But maybe we can still make a dent by increasing the price to include negative externalities like carbon emissions, or at least ending subsidies for meat so substitutes might be able to compete better.
goldforever 5y ago
Dumb.

smt88 5y ago

That's true of literally anything where the price reflects the externalities. If it bothers you that the rich can afford to pay for the externalities, that's an argument against wealth inequality, not against pricing things correctly.

hellbannedguy 5y ago

It's time to tie all societal fees/fines to income. Start with using 1040's. Yes--their will be guys whom try to game the system, but many will eventually get caught. For example, a a patent fee to a poor man is nothing. A wealthy man pays current rates. A poor man drives through a red light; the fine might get the last straw, or rent. A wealthy guy drives through a red light, he casually mentions it over dinner to Clair. I have never felt it was fair, even when I had money.

colordrops 5y ago

If only allowing the rich to eat beef will help save the planet then I'm for it.

beckman466 5y ago
the point is that the propertied class will lower wages and raise commodity prices to pay to keep eating an unsustainable amount of beef. instead we should restrict or ban industrial animal agriculture, while investing in educational material to help society transition away from beef. that and regenerative agriculture, agro-forestry, etc. Ernst Gotsch: https://youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE https://youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE i don’t want to give my children a dead planet either.
- colordrops 5y ago
  Don't get me wrong, my children and I are vegan - I absolutely believe the best case scenario would be to eradicate animal agriculture altogether.
mbg721 5y ago
As long as you're aware that you're trading wealth-inequality for perceived ecological gains, at least be honest and sell it that way.
hjek 5y ago
If only eating the rich will help save the planet then I'm in.
- swader999 5y ago
  It would save humanity. Maybe that's a start?
swader999 5y ago
Edgar: What does steak taste like again? I had it once, but I can't remember. Curtis: If you can't remember then it's better to forget. Edgar: What does it smell like when it's cooked? It must emanate around the place.”

GhettoComputers 5y ago

>beef is deadly for humanity because of destructive water and land usage How is it more deadly than transportation in terms of emissions or deaths caused by it? https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

wumpus 5y ago
Your source doesn't support your point, it doesn't break out transportation related to beef or the stuff feed to cows to make beef.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  What is my point? I question the focus on a beef, a percentage of 10% rather than 29% of the total, which is transportation, or 25% which is electricty.
  - wumpus 5y ago
    Your point appears to be to claim that everything that is not most important is irrelevant. Which is a bad idea, because "we" can do more than one thing at a time.

fidesomnes 5y ago

> beef is deadly for the planet because of destructive water and land usage (Vice had a great video showing the deforestation due to beef production). Thanks, for a second I thought you might have to be serious but now I can be certain you can be laughed at in perpetuity.

mattnewton 5y ago

If everyone had a private jet with jet fuel subsidized by the government it would also be bad for humanity. It’s currently tolerated as a luxury only for the rich. As an argument for subsidizing something, that doesn’t resonate with me by itself. We subsidize the meat industry directly, and indirectly by not pricing in negative externalities like it’s carbon expenditure.

paganel 5y ago
Equating eating meat to owning a private jet won't get the point pretty well to the masses.
- mattnewton 5y ago
  That’s true but I don’t know of any pitch that would convince “the masses”. It’s easier to argue why someone should not do more of something they aren’t already doing, rather than stop doing something they like and have been doing for generations. But maybe we can still make a dent by increasing the price to include negative externalities like carbon emissions, or at least ending subsidies for meat so substitutes might be able to compete better.

goldforever 5y ago

Dumb.