11 ms·

> At which point do you think humanity will start seriously thinking about radical solutions? You mean, like, switching to a vegan diet, using public transpor

by seu 3y ago

> At which point do you think humanity will start seriously thinking about radical solutions? You mean, like, switching to a vegan diet, using public transport and stop flying? Those seem radical enough for most people in the Northern Hemisphere. > Such as detonating thermonuclear weapons to throw enough dust above the troposphere to cool the planet down? Weird world, one in which people can consider drastically changing the composition of the atmosphere, affecting all forms of life over the planet at the same time, instead of purchasing less from Amazon and doing some changes in their diet and holiday plans.

jgilias 3y ago
Individual decisions like that are only good for making yourself feel good about doing something, but it’s close to meaningless when it comes to actually solving it. It’s systemic solutions that are needed. Some of those may include disincentivizing consumption. But it’s also not simple given that in many places there’s serious pushback against that. And also the economic cost. Everything is interwoven. I wish people stopped pretending that this is just a matter of going vegan.
- seu 3y ago
  Systemic solutions are also needed. And switching to public transport or flying less doesn't happen without them, nowhere in my comment did I say that. My point is about the fact that we already know and have most of the solutions: less consumption, less emissions, less destruction of our environment. Yet, most people with decision power (be it as individuals, as heads of governments or companies) refuse to accept and follow them. Instead, many prefer to propose global-scale, geo-modifications whose results are unknown and potentially more dangerous.
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  Removing subsidies on meat production and flying are the systemic variants of those individual choices. People would be vegan no-flyers in no time.
  - MandieD 3y ago
    Or we’d return to the meat/travel consumption patterns of the early 20th century: trans-Atlantic trips being a once-in-a-lifetime thing or once-every-few-years for the well-off, and the Sunday roast/chicken being the highlight meal of the week.
    - aziaziazi 3y ago
      Lol I’m probably a XIXth century time traveler regarding your scale. Not feeling unhappy, comme join me in the past guys!
  - myshpa 3y ago
    Sure ... but without a significant portion of people in the population being vegans it's a political suicide to even suggest that. It has to start in our own kitchens.
- uxcolumbo 3y ago
  This study[0] and several other studies by UN, Oxford Uni etc disagree with you. The single best thing an individual can do is immensely reduce or completely avoid meat and dairy. Imagine millions and millions of people doing this, behavioural change will trigger system’s change. It’s something we can do today, just need to decide whether having a burger is more important or not. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w
  - anonzzzies 3y ago
    > Imagine millions and millions of people doing this But they won't. Even here on HN, where some smart people roam, touching their meat (like, eating LESS of it, not quitting altogether) will make them into incoherent angry (I guess) men. And that's of course a big step, smaller steps are even not a thing for many people; not flying, no car, hell, here people even refuse to obey the law of not topping up (or filling) their swimming pools even though there is an huge water shortage. The only way will be if governments decide to step in. Problem there is; a lot of gov people and the people they support or who support them, are giving the wrong examples; big cars, slabs of meat, villas all over the place, bailing out struggling airlines, making sure the energy/oil companies can make more profits, making sure farmers have to obey nothing of these new rules because export products (so they can keep using whatever amount of water, cut ancient trees down just like that, ...) etc. People pick the govs they like, which means they hope either things will get better for themselves (not the world) or remain the same.
    - uxcolumbo 3y ago
      Yes true, but we have to keep trying to convince people in our circles. Otherwise we're effed. I would have hoped that especially this HN crowd would change their mind because it's quite clear and logical that not consuming meat and dairy will mean requiring fewer resources and producing less pollution.
      - layer8 3y ago
        Human habits, preferences, and desires rarely submit to pure logic. Humans are more emotional than rational.
junon 3y ago
These personal decisions make little difference in the grand scheme of things.
- myshpa 3y ago
  "Be the change that you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi This quote emphasizes the idea that if individuals embody and practice positive values and actions, it can lead to a significant impact on the world around them. Similarly, if everyone were to act rightly, it would undoubtedly result in a different and improved world.
  - junon 3y ago
    > if everyone were to act rightly Yes, but that's not reality. Hoping for the best whilst not actually making a dent in carbon emissions is not helping the problem at all.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      All significant changes in the past came from people loudly demanding change, be it through mass protests, civil rights movements, revolutionary actions, or the collective voice of individuals seeking justice and progress. These impassioned calls for change have driven societies to challenge existing norms, break down oppressive systems, and pave the way for a more equitable and inclusive future. People have to change themselves first (to break the walls built by others) to want to change the society. Hope is not hopium. Hope is necessary for any action to take place.
comprev 3y ago
it's the same mentality as those who feel bullet-proof safe rooms in schools is a better solution that giving up their guns.
MrVandemar 3y ago
>You mean, like, switching to a vegan diet, using public transport and stop flying? Those seem radical enough for most people in the Northern Hemisphere. One of these things is not like the other. Vegan diets — and I support them in principle — do little or nothing to reduce carbon emissions. Vegan diets just don't deliver enough calories and essential nutrients without (industrial) supplementation, and veganism depends on broadscale monoculture crops with massive fossil-fuel inputs to grow, harvest and distribute, and exist in places largely that used to be healthy ecosystems supporting animal life. Nice idea, and I'm cool with the overall philosophy and principles of veganism, but yoking it to climate activism, conflating it with strategies to "save the planet" is misguided.
- myshpa 3y ago
  Such a load of bull. I'm sick of people ignoring the science. Educate yourself before writing anything next time. It's clear as day you're wrong. It's the most impactful thing you can as an individual do. We need to stop fossil fuels asap, stop animal ag (deforestation, pollution, biodiversity loss, etc.), reform agriculture (soils, biodiversity, poisons) and start reforesting/afforesting. There are tons of studies that show it's the best way to stop the climate crisis. How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm The way we eat could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050 https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-biodiversity-species-plantbased https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi... Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-global-food-system-primary-driver-biodiversity-loss https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob... If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares. The expansion of land for agriculture is the leading driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010 https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal... Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm Without Changing Diets, Agriculture Alone Could Produce Enough Emissions to Surpass 1.5°C of Global Warming https://www.wri.org/insights/without-changing-diets-agriculture-alone-could-produce-enough-emissions-surpass-15degc https://www.wri.org/insights/without-changing-diets-agricult... Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 Livestock and climate change: what if the key actors in climate change are... cows, pigs, and chickens? https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Livestock-and-climate-change%3A-what-if-the-key-in-Goodland-Anhang/6704c7a0777c82357704d82b9ae8007c1197cb07?p2df https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Livestock-and-climate-... The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 Study finds forest protection successfully leads to reduced emissions at global scale https://phys.org/news/2023-06-forest-successfully-emissions-global-scale.html https://phys.org/news/2023-06-forest-successfully-emissions-...
johnnyworker 3y ago
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric... Speaking of flying, some billionaires have a second jet scouting ahead for air pockets. Remember Macron slyly taking off his watch under the table as he preached austerity? As much as I am frustrated by the apathy and short-sightedness of people, it's hard to blame them when those could so easily go first instead just consolidate and line their pockets where they can, to prepare for a crash they help make unavoidable that way. With private bunkers and going to Mars and freezing themselves and stuff that is so much derpier, less rational, so much more alienated, than some average person thinking they'd like to see the ocean one more time, so fuck it, they'll book a flight.
Incipient 3y ago
Even by environmentalist website estimates, eggs, milk, chicken, and pork are 4x or so more than some crops. Going vegan is just the wrong avenue to target climate change. That'll take a monumental effort, for a fairly minor impact. "eat less beef" sure. People leaving the aircon on 24/7. Horribly uninsulated homes, buying and returning hundreds of items. But ultimately, it's a shift to renewables+storage/nuclear that has to happen. Pushing for people to go vegan is essentially counter-productive.

by seu 3y ago

jgilias 3y ago

Individual decisions like that are only good for making yourself feel good about doing something, but it’s close to meaningless when it comes to actually solving it. It’s systemic solutions that are needed. Some of those may include disincentivizing consumption. But it’s also not simple given that in many places there’s serious pushback against that. And also the economic cost. Everything is interwoven. I wish people stopped pretending that this is just a matter of going vegan.

seu 3y ago
Systemic solutions are also needed. And switching to public transport or flying less doesn't happen without them, nowhere in my comment did I say that. My point is about the fact that we already know and have most of the solutions: less consumption, less emissions, less destruction of our environment. Yet, most people with decision power (be it as individuals, as heads of governments or companies) refuse to accept and follow them. Instead, many prefer to propose global-scale, geo-modifications whose results are unknown and potentially more dangerous.
_Algernon_ 3y ago
Removing subsidies on meat production and flying are the systemic variants of those individual choices. People would be vegan no-flyers in no time.
- MandieD 3y ago
  Or we’d return to the meat/travel consumption patterns of the early 20th century: trans-Atlantic trips being a once-in-a-lifetime thing or once-every-few-years for the well-off, and the Sunday roast/chicken being the highlight meal of the week.
  - aziaziazi 3y ago
    Lol I’m probably a XIXth century time traveler regarding your scale. Not feeling unhappy, comme join me in the past guys!
- myshpa 3y ago
  Sure ... but without a significant portion of people in the population being vegans it's a political suicide to even suggest that. It has to start in our own kitchens.
uxcolumbo 3y ago
This study[0] and several other studies by UN, Oxford Uni etc disagree with you. The single best thing an individual can do is immensely reduce or completely avoid meat and dairy. Imagine millions and millions of people doing this, behavioural change will trigger system’s change. It’s something we can do today, just need to decide whether having a burger is more important or not. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w
- anonzzzies 3y ago
  > Imagine millions and millions of people doing this But they won't. Even here on HN, where some smart people roam, touching their meat (like, eating LESS of it, not quitting altogether) will make them into incoherent angry (I guess) men. And that's of course a big step, smaller steps are even not a thing for many people; not flying, no car, hell, here people even refuse to obey the law of not topping up (or filling) their swimming pools even though there is an huge water shortage. The only way will be if governments decide to step in. Problem there is; a lot of gov people and the people they support or who support them, are giving the wrong examples; big cars, slabs of meat, villas all over the place, bailing out struggling airlines, making sure the energy/oil companies can make more profits, making sure farmers have to obey nothing of these new rules because export products (so they can keep using whatever amount of water, cut ancient trees down just like that, ...) etc. People pick the govs they like, which means they hope either things will get better for themselves (not the world) or remain the same.
  - uxcolumbo 3y ago
    Yes true, but we have to keep trying to convince people in our circles. Otherwise we're effed. I would have hoped that especially this HN crowd would change their mind because it's quite clear and logical that not consuming meat and dairy will mean requiring fewer resources and producing less pollution.
    - layer8 3y ago
      Human habits, preferences, and desires rarely submit to pure logic. Humans are more emotional than rational.

junon 3y ago

These personal decisions make little difference in the grand scheme of things.

myshpa 3y ago
"Be the change that you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi This quote emphasizes the idea that if individuals embody and practice positive values and actions, it can lead to a significant impact on the world around them. Similarly, if everyone were to act rightly, it would undoubtedly result in a different and improved world.
- junon 3y ago
  > if everyone were to act rightly Yes, but that's not reality. Hoping for the best whilst not actually making a dent in carbon emissions is not helping the problem at all.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    All significant changes in the past came from people loudly demanding change, be it through mass protests, civil rights movements, revolutionary actions, or the collective voice of individuals seeking justice and progress. These impassioned calls for change have driven societies to challenge existing norms, break down oppressive systems, and pave the way for a more equitable and inclusive future. People have to change themselves first (to break the walls built by others) to want to change the society. Hope is not hopium. Hope is necessary for any action to take place.

comprev 3y ago

it's the same mentality as those who feel bullet-proof safe rooms in schools is a better solution that giving up their guns.

MrVandemar 3y ago

>You mean, like, switching to a vegan diet, using public transport and stop flying? Those seem radical enough for most people in the Northern Hemisphere. One of these things is not like the other. Vegan diets — and I support them in principle — do little or nothing to reduce carbon emissions. Vegan diets just don't deliver enough calories and essential nutrients without (industrial) supplementation, and veganism depends on broadscale monoculture crops with massive fossil-fuel inputs to grow, harvest and distribute, and exist in places largely that used to be healthy ecosystems supporting animal life. Nice idea, and I'm cool with the overall philosophy and principles of veganism, but yoking it to climate activism, conflating it with strategies to "save the planet" is misguided.

myshpa 3y ago
Such a load of bull. I'm sick of people ignoring the science. Educate yourself before writing anything next time. It's clear as day you're wrong. It's the most impactful thing you can as an individual do. We need to stop fossil fuels asap, stop animal ag (deforestation, pollution, biodiversity loss, etc.), reform agriculture (soils, biodiversity, poisons) and start reforesting/afforesting. There are tons of studies that show it's the best way to stop the climate crisis. How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm The way we eat could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050 https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-biodiversity-species-plantbased https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi... Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-global-food-system-primary-driver-biodiversity-loss https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob... If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares. The expansion of land for agriculture is the leading driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010 https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal... Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm Without Changing Diets, Agriculture Alone Could Produce Enough Emissions to Surpass 1.5°C of Global Warming https://www.wri.org/insights/without-changing-diets-agriculture-alone-could-produce-enough-emissions-surpass-15degc https://www.wri.org/insights/without-changing-diets-agricult... Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 Livestock and climate change: what if the key actors in climate change are... cows, pigs, and chickens? https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Livestock-and-climate-change%3A-what-if-the-key-in-Goodland-Anhang/6704c7a0777c82357704d82b9ae8007c1197cb07?p2df https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Livestock-and-climate-... The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 Study finds forest protection successfully leads to reduced emissions at global scale https://phys.org/news/2023-06-forest-successfully-emissions-global-scale.html https://phys.org/news/2023-06-forest-successfully-emissions-...

johnnyworker 3y ago

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric... Speaking of flying, some billionaires have a second jet scouting ahead for air pockets. Remember Macron slyly taking off his watch under the table as he preached austerity? As much as I am frustrated by the apathy and short-sightedness of people, it's hard to blame them when those could so easily go first instead just consolidate and line their pockets where they can, to prepare for a crash they help make unavoidable that way. With private bunkers and going to Mars and freezing themselves and stuff that is so much derpier, less rational, so much more alienated, than some average person thinking they'd like to see the ocean one more time, so fuck it, they'll book a flight.

Incipient 3y ago

Even by environmentalist website estimates, eggs, milk, chicken, and pork are 4x or so more than some crops. Going vegan is just the wrong avenue to target climate change. That'll take a monumental effort, for a fairly minor impact. "eat less beef" sure. People leaving the aircon on 24/7. Horribly uninsulated homes, buying and returning hundreds of items. But ultimately, it's a shift to renewables+storage/nuclear that has to happen. Pushing for people to go vegan is essentially counter-productive.