7 ms·

On an individual level you have two choices: - eat meat, and accept the impact to the environment, health risks, and mass unethical treatment of livestock - s

On an individual level you have two choices: - eat meat, and accept the impact to the environment, health risks, and mass unethical treatment of livestock - stop eating meat, and accept that some of the foods you grew up eating, you can't eat any more

federiconafria 1y ago
I think there is a third option, factor in the externalities and treat it as a luxury. The cost we are paying for it is not currently reflected on the final price.
- brador 1y ago
  Fourth: Find or create alternatives that taste just as good without the high environmental impact.
- sotix 1y ago
  My grandparents and great grandparents in Greece used meat as a garnish a few times per week for dinner. The most meat they would have was at the end of the Lenten fast on Easter where they would have a big piece of lamb. Otherwise, it was the occasional smaller pieces of ground meat on top of vegetable-heavy dishes.
Raed667 1y ago
Honestly, I don't even miss it anymore.
peterashford 1y ago
or three, just eat less meat
- prox 1y ago
  A UN study showed that if everyone on earth would be going from 7 days a week meat to 6 would do wonders for the climate. Just one day less.
  - peterashford 1y ago
    I'm also holding out hope for vat meat. I like meat but I'd really be happier eating it without an animal having to die
  - BobaFloutist 1y ago
    Try "Meatless Monday" is a much more effective message than animal welfare, since it offers a reasonable path that doesn't require changing everything all at once, and doesn't tie your past actions to guilt. People are highly motivated to push back against animal welfare arguments because it makes them feel like bad people. "You can easily make things better by just abstaining once a week" doesn't challenge their identities nearly as much.
quonn 1y ago
Wrong. - mass unethical treatment (assuming you do not mean the fact that animals are killed) is related to the conditions which are related to price - health risks can be minimal depending on the amount and type of meat you eat - the CO2 impact again depends on the meat and conditions. Surely chicken in your backyard can be kept without CO2 impacts with some effort. - your very existence has a CO2 impact. By your own logic you have two choices …
- dude250711 1y ago
  Nuances destroy agendas.
  - znpy 1y ago
    Nuances destroy absolutisms, yes, and it's a good thing because real life has a lot of nuances.
  - GeoAtreides 1y ago
    And bikeshedding (or nitpicking while ignoring the main thrust of the argument) destroys interesting discussions.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    This comment is the opposite of nuance. They literally argued that everything you do has a CO2 impact, therefore you either shouldn't try at all or should just kill yourself. That's, like, the least nuanced and most caveman-brained take on climate change you could possibly develop. Also: appealing to edge-cases as a distraction isn't nuance, it's derailing. I can find fucking exceptions to anything. ANYTHING. How many people in the West are growing their own chickens? Give me a fucking break man.
    - quonn 1y ago
      I‘m trying to find something resembling a reasoned argument in your comment, but there‘s nothing except profanity. I did not point out exceptions and the chicken example is merely an illustration of one of my points. And who says we are talking about the west? Plenty of comments in this thread are talking about pandemics, something that is not known to originate from western agriculture. You know what‘s a caveman take? Thinking that there is any chance to convince a meaningful number of people to reduce meat consumption globally in the required time window (20-50 years) in a way that has any bearing on climate change (as opposed to the many steps being taken that actually work). That‘s a caveman take. But now some facts: https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impact-of-eating-meat-and-dairy/img/1.png https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impa... As you can see, the type of meat matters a lot. Cheese is doing worse than pork in this example (not sure I even believe this without more evidence yet). Non-meat sources of protein don‘t do very well: Tofu is just 2x better than poultry. Compare this to the giant bar for beef. Better chart, apparently same source: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/0477/production/_121534110_0d88cbbb-c0ea-4ce7-99bd-f0b154892b33.jpg.webp https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/0477/production... In short, yes, it would be theoretically possible to eliminate about 10% of global emissions if everyone everywhere stopped eating meat and replaced it with a balanced non-meat diet. But such an outcome is not realistic. This is my last comment on HN. It is sad what this corner of the internet has become.
thrance 1y ago
Or, if you're utilitarian, you can start by cutting back your meat consumption to reduce your contribution to the aforementioned issues by that much.
- nandomrumber 1y ago
  And yet, if you want to produce more food: build a green house and increase it's CO2 content.
franga2000 1y ago
Putting such absolute choices in front of people basically never works. Those conductive to such and argument have already become vegetarian. But there's a much bigger percentage of people that would be willing to eat meat less, without fully stopping. Turn meat into a delicacy you indulge in, not the default base to prepare every meal on. Try some indian food, or stuff from other cuisines that rely less on meat. Make that twice a week, you'll probably enjoy it, maybe even save some money.
- znpy 1y ago
  > Putting such absolute choices in front of people basically never works. Indeed. Faced with that absolute choice, I'd pick eating meat and dismiss the entire line of reasoning about meat. And quite frankly I wouldn't even feel guilty about it: I'm pretty sure I'm already doing more than the average to lower my emissions. As a trivial example: I pretty much use public transport all the time and don't have a car. This alone probably puts me above the average american vegan driving an SUV to go from their suburbs to anywhere, in terms of carbon footprint reduction.
- aziaziazi 1y ago
  Sure it's absurd to imagine that people make 0/1 choices, however it's also absurd to reject a 3-line shortened proposition because it seems absolute. > Those conductive to such and argument have already become vegetarian Choices are more complicated than "being conductive", for exemple - opinion change: you're not totally against the idea but not convinced neither. If you're open minded, learning something new or being witness of a context change can make you reevaluate. - Motivation: there's thinks in your life that occupy your brain and you don't feel free to start another change now, but you might being more disponible to self-actualisation later. - Event-Trigger: An inspiring talk, movie, or discussion with a friend sometimes trigger you to reconsider your position. I know cold showers aren't that hard and they're great for the body and the mind. I never had to courage to start that new habits but a convincing and motivating HN post might be the trigger to a routine.
defrost 1y ago
There's a third way, at least. eg: But even when the authors excluded embedded emissions from sources like transport and packaging, they still found that agriculture generated 24% of GHGs. According to the World Resources Institute, a research group, cars, trains, ships and planes produce a total of 16%. It finds that animal-based foods account for 57% of agricultural GHGs, versus 29% for food from plants. Beef and cow’s milk alone made up 34%. Combined with the earlier study’s results, this implies that cattle produce 12% of GHG emissions. It also implies, by the accounting practices of these papers, that clean skins running feral in Northern Australia account for zero emmisions .. particularly if traditionally mustered. They aren't fed farmed food, they forage and run wild in the Kimberley and Kakadu, and the environment is well served by routinely rounding them up for dinner and taking pressure from the grasslands. More or less the same story for camels and wild donkeys.
zero-sharp 1y ago
"eating meat carries health risks" "eating meat necessarily results in unethical treatment of livestock" Sounds like a load of barnacles. Even that third one about impacting the environment is likely bogus.
Ancapistani 1y ago
We mostly raise our own.

federiconafria 1y ago

I think there is a third option, factor in the externalities and treat it as a luxury. The cost we are paying for it is not currently reflected on the final price.

brador 1y ago
Fourth: Find or create alternatives that taste just as good without the high environmental impact.
sotix 1y ago
My grandparents and great grandparents in Greece used meat as a garnish a few times per week for dinner. The most meat they would have was at the end of the Lenten fast on Easter where they would have a big piece of lamb. Otherwise, it was the occasional smaller pieces of ground meat on top of vegetable-heavy dishes.

Raed667 1y ago

Honestly, I don't even miss it anymore.

peterashford 1y ago

or three, just eat less meat

prox 1y ago
A UN study showed that if everyone on earth would be going from 7 days a week meat to 6 would do wonders for the climate. Just one day less.
- peterashford 1y ago
  I'm also holding out hope for vat meat. I like meat but I'd really be happier eating it without an animal having to die
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  Try "Meatless Monday" is a much more effective message than animal welfare, since it offers a reasonable path that doesn't require changing everything all at once, and doesn't tie your past actions to guilt. People are highly motivated to push back against animal welfare arguments because it makes them feel like bad people. "You can easily make things better by just abstaining once a week" doesn't challenge their identities nearly as much.

quonn 1y ago

Wrong. - mass unethical treatment (assuming you do not mean the fact that animals are killed) is related to the conditions which are related to price - health risks can be minimal depending on the amount and type of meat you eat - the CO2 impact again depends on the meat and conditions. Surely chicken in your backyard can be kept without CO2 impacts with some effort. - your very existence has a CO2 impact. By your own logic you have two choices …

dude250711 1y ago
Nuances destroy agendas.
- znpy 1y ago
  Nuances destroy absolutisms, yes, and it's a good thing because real life has a lot of nuances.
- GeoAtreides 1y ago
  And bikeshedding (or nitpicking while ignoring the main thrust of the argument) destroys interesting discussions.
- const_cast 1y ago
  This comment is the opposite of nuance. They literally argued that everything you do has a CO2 impact, therefore you either shouldn't try at all or should just kill yourself. That's, like, the least nuanced and most caveman-brained take on climate change you could possibly develop. Also: appealing to edge-cases as a distraction isn't nuance, it's derailing. I can find fucking exceptions to anything. ANYTHING. How many people in the West are growing their own chickens? Give me a fucking break man.
  - quonn 1y ago
    I‘m trying to find something resembling a reasoned argument in your comment, but there‘s nothing except profanity. I did not point out exceptions and the chicken example is merely an illustration of one of my points. And who says we are talking about the west? Plenty of comments in this thread are talking about pandemics, something that is not known to originate from western agriculture. You know what‘s a caveman take? Thinking that there is any chance to convince a meaningful number of people to reduce meat consumption globally in the required time window (20-50 years) in a way that has any bearing on climate change (as opposed to the many steps being taken that actually work). That‘s a caveman take. But now some facts: https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impact-of-eating-meat-and-dairy/img/1.png https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impa... As you can see, the type of meat matters a lot. Cheese is doing worse than pork in this example (not sure I even believe this without more evidence yet). Non-meat sources of protein don‘t do very well: Tofu is just 2x better than poultry. Compare this to the giant bar for beef. Better chart, apparently same source: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/0477/production/_121534110_0d88cbbb-c0ea-4ce7-99bd-f0b154892b33.jpg.webp https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/0477/production... In short, yes, it would be theoretically possible to eliminate about 10% of global emissions if everyone everywhere stopped eating meat and replaced it with a balanced non-meat diet. But such an outcome is not realistic. This is my last comment on HN. It is sad what this corner of the internet has become.

thrance 1y ago

Or, if you're utilitarian, you can start by cutting back your meat consumption to reduce your contribution to the aforementioned issues by that much.

nandomrumber 1y ago
And yet, if you want to produce more food: build a green house and increase it's CO2 content.

franga2000 1y ago

Putting such absolute choices in front of people basically never works. Those conductive to such and argument have already become vegetarian. But there's a much bigger percentage of people that would be willing to eat meat less, without fully stopping. Turn meat into a delicacy you indulge in, not the default base to prepare every meal on. Try some indian food, or stuff from other cuisines that rely less on meat. Make that twice a week, you'll probably enjoy it, maybe even save some money.

znpy 1y ago
> Putting such absolute choices in front of people basically never works. Indeed. Faced with that absolute choice, I'd pick eating meat and dismiss the entire line of reasoning about meat. And quite frankly I wouldn't even feel guilty about it: I'm pretty sure I'm already doing more than the average to lower my emissions. As a trivial example: I pretty much use public transport all the time and don't have a car. This alone probably puts me above the average american vegan driving an SUV to go from their suburbs to anywhere, in terms of carbon footprint reduction.
aziaziazi 1y ago
Sure it's absurd to imagine that people make 0/1 choices, however it's also absurd to reject a 3-line shortened proposition because it seems absolute. > Those conductive to such and argument have already become vegetarian Choices are more complicated than "being conductive", for exemple - opinion change: you're not totally against the idea but not convinced neither. If you're open minded, learning something new or being witness of a context change can make you reevaluate. - Motivation: there's thinks in your life that occupy your brain and you don't feel free to start another change now, but you might being more disponible to self-actualisation later. - Event-Trigger: An inspiring talk, movie, or discussion with a friend sometimes trigger you to reconsider your position. I know cold showers aren't that hard and they're great for the body and the mind. I never had to courage to start that new habits but a convincing and motivating HN post might be the trigger to a routine.

defrost 1y ago

There's a third way, at least. eg: But even when the authors excluded embedded emissions from sources like transport and packaging, they still found that agriculture generated 24% of GHGs. According to the World Resources Institute, a research group, cars, trains, ships and planes produce a total of 16%. It finds that animal-based foods account for 57% of agricultural GHGs, versus 29% for food from plants. Beef and cow’s milk alone made up 34%. Combined with the earlier study’s results, this implies that cattle produce 12% of GHG emissions. It also implies, by the accounting practices of these papers, that clean skins running feral in Northern Australia account for zero emmisions .. particularly if traditionally mustered. They aren't fed farmed food, they forage and run wild in the Kimberley and Kakadu, and the environment is well served by routinely rounding them up for dinner and taking pressure from the grasslands. More or less the same story for camels and wild donkeys.

zero-sharp 1y ago

"eating meat carries health risks" "eating meat necessarily results in unethical treatment of livestock" Sounds like a load of barnacles. Even that third one about impacting the environment is likely bogus.

Ancapistani 1y ago

We mostly raise our own.