3 ms·

It does seem like several major organizations are trying to push people towards alternative protein sources. There might be something good about that, but hone

It does seem like several major organizations are trying to push people towards alternative protein sources. There might be something good about that, but honestly, it's going to lead in a decline of quality of life. The reality is simply that the quality of life the average person has come to expect in the West is not sustainable to be achieved for the entire global population while meeting the realities of climate change. So only one of two outcomes is possible if we don't want to make our species extinct: 1. reduce quality of life or 2. further segment society and increase exploitation. A whole lot of people think #2 is bad, so are choosing #1 as the only viable option. A more cynical take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_8LTUmHWP0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_8LTUmHWP0

kiba 4y ago
I don't see the idea of 'alternative protein sources' as necessarily a decline in the quality of life.
- nine_k 4y ago
  It's not adding an alternative source that feels bad. It's the removal (by becoming too expensive) of the customary source, that is, cows (and sheep, and even pigs).
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
I sometimes compare Climate Change to the US Civil War, in terms of a few rich people owning the slaves/fossil fuels and not being ready to give that up, and while I'm less worried about it now than I have been in the past, I did think a really big war was a real possibility and I still wouldn't totally rule it out. This kind of thinking, is exactly the propaganda you'd use if you personally had a big incentive for an inefficient system to continue, but needed a lot of other people to fight and die in order to have any slim chance of coming out ahead of the future changes. To get less melodramatic and more boringly factual: a carbon tax would increase our quality of life, spur economic growth and generally be good for everyone who hasn't put their life savings into fossil fuels. The fact that people are so worried about quality of life, but refuse to absorb that simple fact is a worry.
- tristor 4y ago
  > To get less melodramatic and more boringly factual: a carbon tax would increase our quality of life, spur economic growth and generally be good for everyone who hasn't put their life savings into fossil fuels. Sure, but there's a difference between a carbon tax and food policies that restrict naturally produced meats from being available to the average person. I think a carbon tax is a great path forward, personally, and I'd like to see us figure out national laws that allow for rooftop solar to be viable without allowing utilities and municipalities to ruin it. Point solar, EVs/Ebikes, and other ways to reduce or offset the needs to use fossil fuels for energy are huge boons that people are already economically incentivized to pursue (and would be even more incentivized by a carbon tax), but other policies often prevent them.

kiba 4y ago

I don't see the idea of 'alternative protein sources' as necessarily a decline in the quality of life.

nine_k 4y ago
It's not adding an alternative source that feels bad. It's the removal (by becoming too expensive) of the customary source, that is, cows (and sheep, and even pigs).

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

I sometimes compare Climate Change to the US Civil War, in terms of a few rich people owning the slaves/fossil fuels and not being ready to give that up, and while I'm less worried about it now than I have been in the past, I did think a really big war was a real possibility and I still wouldn't totally rule it out. This kind of thinking, is exactly the propaganda you'd use if you personally had a big incentive for an inefficient system to continue, but needed a lot of other people to fight and die in order to have any slim chance of coming out ahead of the future changes. To get less melodramatic and more boringly factual: a carbon tax would increase our quality of life, spur economic growth and generally be good for everyone who hasn't put their life savings into fossil fuels. The fact that people are so worried about quality of life, but refuse to absorb that simple fact is a worry.

tristor 4y ago
> To get less melodramatic and more boringly factual: a carbon tax would increase our quality of life, spur economic growth and generally be good for everyone who hasn't put their life savings into fossil fuels. Sure, but there's a difference between a carbon tax and food policies that restrict naturally produced meats from being available to the average person. I think a carbon tax is a great path forward, personally, and I'd like to see us figure out national laws that allow for rooftop solar to be viable without allowing utilities and municipalities to ruin it. Point solar, EVs/Ebikes, and other ways to reduce or offset the needs to use fossil fuels for energy are huge boons that people are already economically incentivized to pursue (and would be even more incentivized by a carbon tax), but other policies often prevent them.