7 ms·

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 solvin

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.

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.