5 ms·

I often enjoy seitan and soy, but pretending they're the same is disingenuous. Moreover, it's pointless — meat production is by itself carbon neutral, and there

I often enjoy seitan and soy, but pretending they're the same is disingenuous. Moreover, it's pointless — meat production is by itself carbon neutral, and there is no fundamental reason meat can't be enjoyed from time to time. It might need to get more expensive to better reflect its true cost, true, but it's different from "everyone needs to be vegan forever to save the planet". After all, spices are just as "unnecessary" as meat, yet we grow them because they are nice to have.

brailsafe 3y ago
When I was growing up, we had cows simply grazing wherever there was grass. We harvested wood for other reasons, because they weren't our livestock, and that provided for a few small clearings. They kept the grass short, and while they made the ground quite bumpy, they also fertilized the land which grew like crazy after my grandfather told the owner to get the cows out. Now, I don't eat meat excessively, and do enjoy it more than ever, but it's definitely more expensive and involved to even temporarily switch. $6 for two sizable frozen chicken breasts, or $6 for a few tomatoes and peppers, $6 for 2lb of carrots. Usually it's a combination of a few things that have varying levels of environmental cost, like nuts, fruits, vegetables, beef, chicken, some grains, which seems sensible to me. If that cost dramatically increases, which it probably will, I'll adapt, but I doubt it will get to the point where I'll be considering no meat at all, because of the sheer amount of other stuff I'd need to eat and how expensive it can be. I'm not terribly interested in what global averages seem to be according to some website, it's not how I make decisions about how to allocate my small amount of food budget.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > When I was growing up How many people were on this rock then? Was it anywhere near 8 billion people as it is now, or was it a fraction of the number? > it's definitely more expensive and involved to even temporarily switch The price of meat and healthy whole foods in the US is heavily distorted by lobying [0] and by subsidies ($38 billion each year to subsidize the meat and dairy industries, but only 0.04 percent of that (i.e., $17 million) each year to subsidize fruits and vegetables) [1]. [0] https://fortune.com/2023/07/21/why-healthy-food-so-expensive-in-america-blame-farm-bill-congress-always-renews-make-burgers-cheaper-salad-gene-baur/ https://fortune.com/2023/07/21/why-healthy-food-so-expensive... [1] https://scet.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/CopyofFINALSavingThePlanetSustainableMeatAlternatives.pdf https://scet.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/CopyofFINALSavi...
  - dgroshev 3y ago
    For comparison, US meat market revenue is about $125bn [0] and dairy is about $41bn [1]. Which means a rise in meat prices if subsidies are rebalanced towards veg, but not an orders of magnitude rise. [0] https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/food/meat/united-states https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/food/meat/united-states [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/196420/us-farm-income-from-dairy-products-since-2001/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/196420/us-farm-income-fr...
    - myshpa 3y ago
      > a rise in meat prices if subsidies are rebalanced towards veg Good to know ... let's do it then. But those are just the subsidies ... we're still ignoring the negative environmental and health externalities of meat production. What price should we put on that?
myshpa 3y ago
> meat production is by itself carbon neutral Not really true, see above. > more expensive to better reflect its true cost, true, but it's different from "everyone needs to be vegan forever to save the planet" Not many people would be able to purchase it if it would reflect all its negative externalities in the price. > spices are just as "unnecessary" as meat Spices are plants, efficient, sustainable and necessary. Meat is not sustainable. And you can't replace spices (what would you use instead?), but you can replace meat (many sustainable options exist).
- dgroshev 3y ago
  It is carbon neutral by definition. You don't add carbon to the biosphere by raising cows, slaughtering, and eating them, that's what "carbon neutral" is. The total amount of carbon in the cycle stays the same. It doesn't really matter, truffles are expensive, yet are still widely consumed. No one argues for complete abandonment of truffle consumption purely because they're expensive. Spices are even more unnecessary than meat as they provide zero caloric value. If you accept the need for food to be a pleasure and not just pure calories, and the resulting environmental impact (there is no free lunch, spice plantations could be reforested instead), you have to do the same for meat. "You can replace meat" is not true, there's no replacement for a steak taste wise. If you mean "you don't really need a steak" (regardless of its price), what's different about chilli peppers or vanilla beans? Surely you don't need them either, we can stop growing them and rewild the plantations instead?
  - myshpa 3y ago
    I don't really have time to discuss this any longer, so I'll use some shortcuts (and you'll surely know what helpers I'm using), before I leave this discussion, sorry. Your argument overlooks several important factors: - Methane Emissions: Cows and other ruminant animals produce methane (CH4) as a byproduct of their digestion. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, about 28-36 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2 over a 100-year period. This means that the methane cows produce significantly contributes to global warming. - Land Use Change: Livestock farming often involves deforestation to create pasture or grow feed crops. This process involves burning or decomposing trees, which releases stored carbon into the atmosphere. It also removes forests that would otherwise absorb CO2, reducing the Earth's capacity for carbon sequestration. This isn't a factor in the carbon cycle of individual animals, but it's a significant part of the carbon footprint of meat production. - Fossil Fuels: Modern livestock farming uses significant amounts of fossil fuels, for example in the manufacture and transport of feed. Burning these fuels releases additional CO2 into the atmosphere. When these factors are taken into account, it's clear that while livestock farming is part of the carbon cycle, it is not carbon neutral. Livestock Farming: - Carbon Storage: In livestock farming, carbon is stored primarily in the bodies of the animals themselves. This is a temporary storage, as the carbon is released back into the atmosphere when the animals respire or decompose after death. - Carbon Sequestration: Livestock farming does not contribute significantly to carbon sequestration. In fact, it often results in a net release of carbon, as forests are often cleared to make way for pasture or to grow feed crops, releasing stored carbon. - Other Emissions: Livestock farming, particularly cattle rearing, produces a significant amount of methane (CH4), a potent greenhouse gas. This contributes to climate change much more effectively per unit than CO2. Reforestation: - Carbon Storage: Forests store carbon in the biomass of the trees and other plants, as well as in the soil. This storage is long-term, as trees can live for many years and the carbon they store is not released until they die and decompose. - Carbon Sequestration: Forests are effective at sequestering carbon. They absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it into biomass via photosynthesis, effectively removing it from the atmosphere for as long as the forest remains intact. - Other Benefits: In addition to sequestering carbon, forests provide other environmental benefits. They support biodiversity, regulate local climates, protect water resources, and can help to improve soil health. > It doesn't really matter, truffles are expensive, yet are still widely consumed. No one argues for complete abandonment of truffle consumption purely because they're expensive. Hm ... that's strange argument. I was talking about "expensive" in the sense of us being unable to properly value the destruction of the environment, biodiversity with extinction of milions of species and pollution. How would you put into the price of meat extinction of a specific animal, which we could study in the future and from its genetic information learn how to cure widespread diseases or an recipe for an eternal life (for example). > Spices are even more unnecessary than meat as they provide zero caloric value While it's true that neither spices nor meat are strictly necessary for a nutritionally adequate diet, it's important to look at the broader impacts of each. In terms of environmental footprint, the land use, water, and emissions associated with livestock farming far outweigh those related to spice cultivation. In fact, the World Bank estimates that livestock farming uses 80% of all agricultural land, and the FAO states that it contributes to about 14.5% of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, the land area and emissions associated with spice cultivation are relatively minor. Furthermore, spices, while low in calories, are packed with antioxidants and other phytochemicals that contribute to our health in ways that calories alone do not. Meat, on the other hand, while rich in protein and certain vitamins and minerals, is also high in saturated fats and, in some cases, contributes to health issues such as heart disease and certain types of cancer. You're correct that there's no exact plant-based substitute for the taste of a steak, just as there's no substitute for the taste of chili or vanilla. But the aim of a plant-based diet isn't necessarily to replicate animal-based foods exactly; it's to find satisfying and nutritious alternatives. There are plenty of plant-based foods that provide ample protein and a range of flavors that many people find just as satisfying as meat. Lastly, it's worth noting that pleasure in food doesn't solely come from individual ingredients like meat or spices. It's about the combination of flavors, textures, and even the experience of sharing food with others. There are many ways to find pleasure in food that are compatible with a sustainable and health-promoting diet. So, while we could technically live without spices or meat, a varied diet that includes some spices and plant-based proteins can be both enjoyable and environmentally responsible.

brailsafe 3y ago

When I was growing up, we had cows simply grazing wherever there was grass. We harvested wood for other reasons, because they weren't our livestock, and that provided for a few small clearings. They kept the grass short, and while they made the ground quite bumpy, they also fertilized the land which grew like crazy after my grandfather told the owner to get the cows out. Now, I don't eat meat excessively, and do enjoy it more than ever, but it's definitely more expensive and involved to even temporarily switch. $6 for two sizable frozen chicken breasts, or $6 for a few tomatoes and peppers, $6 for 2lb of carrots. Usually it's a combination of a few things that have varying levels of environmental cost, like nuts, fruits, vegetables, beef, chicken, some grains, which seems sensible to me. If that cost dramatically increases, which it probably will, I'll adapt, but I doubt it will get to the point where I'll be considering no meat at all, because of the sheer amount of other stuff I'd need to eat and how expensive it can be. I'm not terribly interested in what global averages seem to be according to some website, it's not how I make decisions about how to allocate my small amount of food budget.

myshpa 3y ago
> When I was growing up How many people were on this rock then? Was it anywhere near 8 billion people as it is now, or was it a fraction of the number? > it's definitely more expensive and involved to even temporarily switch The price of meat and healthy whole foods in the US is heavily distorted by lobying [0] and by subsidies ($38 billion each year to subsidize the meat and dairy industries, but only 0.04 percent of that (i.e., $17 million) each year to subsidize fruits and vegetables) [1]. [0] https://fortune.com/2023/07/21/why-healthy-food-so-expensive-in-america-blame-farm-bill-congress-always-renews-make-burgers-cheaper-salad-gene-baur/ https://fortune.com/2023/07/21/why-healthy-food-so-expensive... [1] https://scet.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/CopyofFINALSavingThePlanetSustainableMeatAlternatives.pdf https://scet.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/CopyofFINALSavi...
- dgroshev 3y ago
  For comparison, US meat market revenue is about $125bn [0] and dairy is about $41bn [1]. Which means a rise in meat prices if subsidies are rebalanced towards veg, but not an orders of magnitude rise. [0] https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/food/meat/united-states https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/food/meat/united-states [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/196420/us-farm-income-from-dairy-products-since-2001/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/196420/us-farm-income-fr...
  - myshpa 3y ago
    > a rise in meat prices if subsidies are rebalanced towards veg Good to know ... let's do it then. But those are just the subsidies ... we're still ignoring the negative environmental and health externalities of meat production. What price should we put on that?

myshpa 3y ago

> meat production is by itself carbon neutral Not really true, see above. > more expensive to better reflect its true cost, true, but it's different from "everyone needs to be vegan forever to save the planet" Not many people would be able to purchase it if it would reflect all its negative externalities in the price. > spices are just as "unnecessary" as meat Spices are plants, efficient, sustainable and necessary. Meat is not sustainable. And you can't replace spices (what would you use instead?), but you can replace meat (many sustainable options exist).

dgroshev 3y ago
It is carbon neutral by definition. You don't add carbon to the biosphere by raising cows, slaughtering, and eating them, that's what "carbon neutral" is. The total amount of carbon in the cycle stays the same. It doesn't really matter, truffles are expensive, yet are still widely consumed. No one argues for complete abandonment of truffle consumption purely because they're expensive. Spices are even more unnecessary than meat as they provide zero caloric value. If you accept the need for food to be a pleasure and not just pure calories, and the resulting environmental impact (there is no free lunch, spice plantations could be reforested instead), you have to do the same for meat. "You can replace meat" is not true, there's no replacement for a steak taste wise. If you mean "you don't really need a steak" (regardless of its price), what's different about chilli peppers or vanilla beans? Surely you don't need them either, we can stop growing them and rewild the plantations instead?
- myshpa 3y ago
  I don't really have time to discuss this any longer, so I'll use some shortcuts (and you'll surely know what helpers I'm using), before I leave this discussion, sorry. Your argument overlooks several important factors: - Methane Emissions: Cows and other ruminant animals produce methane (CH4) as a byproduct of their digestion. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, about 28-36 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2 over a 100-year period. This means that the methane cows produce significantly contributes to global warming. - Land Use Change: Livestock farming often involves deforestation to create pasture or grow feed crops. This process involves burning or decomposing trees, which releases stored carbon into the atmosphere. It also removes forests that would otherwise absorb CO2, reducing the Earth's capacity for carbon sequestration. This isn't a factor in the carbon cycle of individual animals, but it's a significant part of the carbon footprint of meat production. - Fossil Fuels: Modern livestock farming uses significant amounts of fossil fuels, for example in the manufacture and transport of feed. Burning these fuels releases additional CO2 into the atmosphere. When these factors are taken into account, it's clear that while livestock farming is part of the carbon cycle, it is not carbon neutral. Livestock Farming: - Carbon Storage: In livestock farming, carbon is stored primarily in the bodies of the animals themselves. This is a temporary storage, as the carbon is released back into the atmosphere when the animals respire or decompose after death. - Carbon Sequestration: Livestock farming does not contribute significantly to carbon sequestration. In fact, it often results in a net release of carbon, as forests are often cleared to make way for pasture or to grow feed crops, releasing stored carbon. - Other Emissions: Livestock farming, particularly cattle rearing, produces a significant amount of methane (CH4), a potent greenhouse gas. This contributes to climate change much more effectively per unit than CO2. Reforestation: - Carbon Storage: Forests store carbon in the biomass of the trees and other plants, as well as in the soil. This storage is long-term, as trees can live for many years and the carbon they store is not released until they die and decompose. - Carbon Sequestration: Forests are effective at sequestering carbon. They absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it into biomass via photosynthesis, effectively removing it from the atmosphere for as long as the forest remains intact. - Other Benefits: In addition to sequestering carbon, forests provide other environmental benefits. They support biodiversity, regulate local climates, protect water resources, and can help to improve soil health. > It doesn't really matter, truffles are expensive, yet are still widely consumed. No one argues for complete abandonment of truffle consumption purely because they're expensive. Hm ... that's strange argument. I was talking about "expensive" in the sense of us being unable to properly value the destruction of the environment, biodiversity with extinction of milions of species and pollution. How would you put into the price of meat extinction of a specific animal, which we could study in the future and from its genetic information learn how to cure widespread diseases or an recipe for an eternal life (for example). > Spices are even more unnecessary than meat as they provide zero caloric value While it's true that neither spices nor meat are strictly necessary for a nutritionally adequate diet, it's important to look at the broader impacts of each. In terms of environmental footprint, the land use, water, and emissions associated with livestock farming far outweigh those related to spice cultivation. In fact, the World Bank estimates that livestock farming uses 80% of all agricultural land, and the FAO states that it contributes to about 14.5% of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, the land area and emissions associated with spice cultivation are relatively minor. Furthermore, spices, while low in calories, are packed with antioxidants and other phytochemicals that contribute to our health in ways that calories alone do not. Meat, on the other hand, while rich in protein and certain vitamins and minerals, is also high in saturated fats and, in some cases, contributes to health issues such as heart disease and certain types of cancer. You're correct that there's no exact plant-based substitute for the taste of a steak, just as there's no substitute for the taste of chili or vanilla. But the aim of a plant-based diet isn't necessarily to replicate animal-based foods exactly; it's to find satisfying and nutritious alternatives. There are plenty of plant-based foods that provide ample protein and a range of flavors that many people find just as satisfying as meat. Lastly, it's worth noting that pleasure in food doesn't solely come from individual ingredients like meat or spices. It's about the combination of flavors, textures, and even the experience of sharing food with others. There are many ways to find pleasure in food that are compatible with a sustainable and health-promoting diet. So, while we could technically live without spices or meat, a varied diet that includes some spices and plant-based proteins can be both enjoyable and environmentally responsible.