5 ms·

You do this through the government. Implement meat rations. Everybody is only allowed so much meat per week. So you have to make it count.

jchw 2y ago
I think this might be the first idea I've ever heard that I truly feel will backfire far worse than alcohol prohibition. I almost want to see it happen.
- VSerge 2y ago
  All families can't afford meat daily, let alone any type of meat they want. So, some families might favor chicken and certain processed meats here and there, but most cuts of beef and lamb for example might be out of the question, and so will daily meat consumption. The same applies for dairy, they might afford big blocks of tasteless cheese, but won't touch often cheese with taste, French or otherwise. There is no enforced rationing, but choice is reduced if not removed for a good fraction of the population, purely for economic reasons.
  - smcin 2y ago
    The USDA budget totals ~$200bn, of which 70% goes to SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). Table FNS-1, p58 https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-usda-budget-summary.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-usda...
  - numpad0 2y ago
    What's missing from this type of discussions is performance quantification and scientific attitude. It assumes solid food is indulgence and ultraprocessed vegan shakes paired with appropriate willpower is all it takes to do anything. Things just don't work that way. Been there, done that. Willpower does nothing. Extra calories around your berry is extra calories around your berry. It's much more worthwhile to think about reducing GHG emission from farming than deceiving yourself into self-harming and projecting your own doing onto greater society.
echelon 2y ago
> Implement meat rations. I don't think we can ever be friends.
ido 2y ago
There's less extreme government action possible: tax meat & dairy higher. There are already precedents for that, for example here in Germany cigarettes are taxed to about 70% and hard-liquor (altho it's more complicated to calculate as it depends on exact alcohol content) to about 40%. Meat is only taxed at 7% via VAT (similar to sales tax in the US).
saagarjha 2y ago
Vegetarian here. People who eat meat tend to reduce their consumption if you 1. charge them appropriately for it and 2. give them good alternatives. Telling them to not do something usually makes them angry unfortunately.
- maeil 2y ago
  > Telling them to not do something usually makes them angry unfortunately Then it's up to you to get even angrier.
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    Angry people are spiteful. I generally find it a lot more productive to get them to understand why their choices have consequences, how the can (progressively!) fix the problems, and watch things improve from there.
    - maeil 2y ago
      Environmentalists and those championing similar causes politically have taken this approach for decades. The result has been a perpetual shift to the right-wing who has no qualms about playing dirty, using fear, anger and other tribal emotions to gain support. Everywhere in the West, authoritarians are seizing power. Good luck with continuing the virtuous approach while the world goes up in flames. It hasn't worked and has gotten us to where we are right now.
      - saagarjha 2y ago
        I think people should be angry about that, yes. I’m not particularly interested in tying eating meat to racism or whatever it takes to make people fearful enough to support you.
        maeil 2y ago
        And this is why everything will keep going up in flames - you're not interested in doing what it has been shown to take to get people to support your cause. Unfortunately it doesn't matter what we think people should be angry about. FWIW I obviously completely agree with you! People should be angry about those things! Turns out they aren't. What matters is the reality we live in.
smcin 2y ago
Not by rationing, if you meant the US government: US per-capita consumption of meat is 328 lbs/year [UN FAO]. You'd try to reduce the subsidies and incentives for meat/ corn/ soybean production which are baked into the USDA budget ($200bn in 2024), since the 1930s (Great Depression), and more since the 1950s (and related stuff like the marketing tool of the "Food Pyramid"). These will be as politically hard to cancel as defense production or military bases or prisons. Here's even a 2023 editorial from the Kansas City Star pointing the blame at Big Ag "Corn drives US food policy. But big business, not Midwestern farmers, reaps the reward" [0]: > No, corn is not an evil crop, nor are farmers in the Corn Belt shady criminals. However, the devastating effect of corn owes to the industrialization of the plant by a small group of global agribusiness and food conglomerates, which acts as a kind of de facto corn cabal. These massive corporations — seed companies, crop and meat processors, commodity traders and household food and beverage brands — all survive on cheap commodity corn, which currently costs about 10 cents a pound. Corn’s versatility makes it the perfect crop to “scale” (commoditize, industrialize and financialize). A libertarian take is the Cato Institute "Farm Bill Sows Dysfunction for American Agriculture" [1]: > The Sprawling Farm Bill:... has its roots in the century-old New Deal and is revised by Congress every five years... "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), was added to the Farm Bill in 1973 to ensure support from rural and urban lawmakers, accounts for about three-quarters of the omnibus package. Some lawmakers and pundits have proposed splitting SNAP from the Farm Bill to stop the logrolling and facilitate a clearer debate on farm subsidy programs, which make up the rest of the bill." ...aslo criticizes crop insurance subsidies (which mainly go on the four big crops), Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) ("Welfare for Wealthier Farmers"), Crop insurance subsidies (" originally envisioned as a more stable and cost-efficient alternative to ad hoc disaster payments, but they have acted more as a supplement than a replacement—and may have actually increased risks along the way.") [0]: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article277597633.html https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-com... [1]: https://www.cato.org/policy-investigation/farm-bill-sows-dysfunction-american-agriculture https://www.cato.org/policy-investigation/farm-bill-sows-dys...
- hgomersall 2y ago
  That's an incredible amount of meat. That's 400g a day per person. I can't even eat that much meat in one go without feeling the meal is seriously unbalanced. Half that is a meat heavy meal for me. So that must mean a significant number people are eating huge amounts of meat for every meal. That or the waste is huge.
anonzzzies 2y ago
People, especially men, get irrationally angry by even the slightest thought of their precious meat being touched (including here on HN; there are more than a few crackpots over here who promote a meat only or even red meat only diet). If there would be a reason to violently overthrow the gov, this would probably be it; not for the things that actually matter to better or save humanity, but to save their daily meat platter.

jchw 2y ago

I think this might be the first idea I've ever heard that I truly feel will backfire far worse than alcohol prohibition. I almost want to see it happen.

VSerge 2y ago
All families can't afford meat daily, let alone any type of meat they want. So, some families might favor chicken and certain processed meats here and there, but most cuts of beef and lamb for example might be out of the question, and so will daily meat consumption. The same applies for dairy, they might afford big blocks of tasteless cheese, but won't touch often cheese with taste, French or otherwise. There is no enforced rationing, but choice is reduced if not removed for a good fraction of the population, purely for economic reasons.
- smcin 2y ago
  The USDA budget totals ~$200bn, of which 70% goes to SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). Table FNS-1, p58 https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-usda-budget-summary.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-usda...
- numpad0 2y ago
  What's missing from this type of discussions is performance quantification and scientific attitude. It assumes solid food is indulgence and ultraprocessed vegan shakes paired with appropriate willpower is all it takes to do anything. Things just don't work that way. Been there, done that. Willpower does nothing. Extra calories around your berry is extra calories around your berry. It's much more worthwhile to think about reducing GHG emission from farming than deceiving yourself into self-harming and projecting your own doing onto greater society.

echelon 2y ago

> Implement meat rations. I don't think we can ever be friends.

ido 2y ago

There's less extreme government action possible: tax meat & dairy higher. There are already precedents for that, for example here in Germany cigarettes are taxed to about 70% and hard-liquor (altho it's more complicated to calculate as it depends on exact alcohol content) to about 40%. Meat is only taxed at 7% via VAT (similar to sales tax in the US).

saagarjha 2y ago

Vegetarian here. People who eat meat tend to reduce their consumption if you 1. charge them appropriately for it and 2. give them good alternatives. Telling them to not do something usually makes them angry unfortunately.

maeil 2y ago
> Telling them to not do something usually makes them angry unfortunately Then it's up to you to get even angrier.
- saagarjha 2y ago
  Angry people are spiteful. I generally find it a lot more productive to get them to understand why their choices have consequences, how the can (progressively!) fix the problems, and watch things improve from there.
  - maeil 2y ago
    Environmentalists and those championing similar causes politically have taken this approach for decades. The result has been a perpetual shift to the right-wing who has no qualms about playing dirty, using fear, anger and other tribal emotions to gain support. Everywhere in the West, authoritarians are seizing power. Good luck with continuing the virtuous approach while the world goes up in flames. It hasn't worked and has gotten us to where we are right now.
    - saagarjha 2y ago
      I think people should be angry about that, yes. I’m not particularly interested in tying eating meat to racism or whatever it takes to make people fearful enough to support you.
      - maeil 2y ago
        And this is why everything will keep going up in flames - you're not interested in doing what it has been shown to take to get people to support your cause. Unfortunately it doesn't matter what we think people should be angry about. FWIW I obviously completely agree with you! People should be angry about those things! Turns out they aren't. What matters is the reality we live in.

smcin 2y ago

Not by rationing, if you meant the US government: US per-capita consumption of meat is 328 lbs/year [UN FAO]. You'd try to reduce the subsidies and incentives for meat/ corn/ soybean production which are baked into the USDA budget ($200bn in 2024), since the 1930s (Great Depression), and more since the 1950s (and related stuff like the marketing tool of the "Food Pyramid"). These will be as politically hard to cancel as defense production or military bases or prisons. Here's even a 2023 editorial from the Kansas City Star pointing the blame at Big Ag "Corn drives US food policy. But big business, not Midwestern farmers, reaps the reward" [0]: > No, corn is not an evil crop, nor are farmers in the Corn Belt shady criminals. However, the devastating effect of corn owes to the industrialization of the plant by a small group of global agribusiness and food conglomerates, which acts as a kind of de facto corn cabal. These massive corporations — seed companies, crop and meat processors, commodity traders and household food and beverage brands — all survive on cheap commodity corn, which currently costs about 10 cents a pound. Corn’s versatility makes it the perfect crop to “scale” (commoditize, industrialize and financialize). A libertarian take is the Cato Institute "Farm Bill Sows Dysfunction for American Agriculture" [1]: > The Sprawling Farm Bill:... has its roots in the century-old New Deal and is revised by Congress every five years... "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), was added to the Farm Bill in 1973 to ensure support from rural and urban lawmakers, accounts for about three-quarters of the omnibus package. Some lawmakers and pundits have proposed splitting SNAP from the Farm Bill to stop the logrolling and facilitate a clearer debate on farm subsidy programs, which make up the rest of the bill." ...aslo criticizes crop insurance subsidies (which mainly go on the four big crops), Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) ("Welfare for Wealthier Farmers"), Crop insurance subsidies (" originally envisioned as a more stable and cost-efficient alternative to ad hoc disaster payments, but they have acted more as a supplement than a replacement—and may have actually increased risks along the way.") [0]: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article277597633.html https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-com... [1]: https://www.cato.org/policy-investigation/farm-bill-sows-dysfunction-american-agriculture https://www.cato.org/policy-investigation/farm-bill-sows-dys...

hgomersall 2y ago
That's an incredible amount of meat. That's 400g a day per person. I can't even eat that much meat in one go without feeling the meal is seriously unbalanced. Half that is a meat heavy meal for me. So that must mean a significant number people are eating huge amounts of meat for every meal. That or the waste is huge.

anonzzzies 2y ago

People, especially men, get irrationally angry by even the slightest thought of their precious meat being touched (including here on HN; there are more than a few crackpots over here who promote a meat only or even red meat only diet). If there would be a reason to violently overthrow the gov, this would probably be it; not for the things that actually matter to better or save humanity, but to save their daily meat platter.