4 ms·

> I don't understand people freaking out over this Personally I'm not a fan of any diet that recommends high meat consumption and I say that as someone who eat

> I don't understand people freaking out over this Personally I'm not a fan of any diet that recommends high meat consumption and I say that as someone who eats everything. Cattle outweighs the total livestock on this planet by a 10 to 1 factor. While governments pretend to do stuff for the environment, they seem to always ignore the extreme cost on the environment and pollution caused by cattle. Even focusing on CO2 emissions by industry avoids the elephant of the room of the insane levels of methane produced by cows, a gas that's 200 times more harmful. There is little evidence that a meat heavy diet is good for people, but there's plenty of evidence of the contrary. So, to be honest, while I don't freak out and I'm all for freedom, there has to be also some kind of consciousness into how do we use the resources on this planet, and diet is by far more impactful than the transport of choice.

rascul 10mo ago
> Cattle outweighs the total livestock on this planet by a 10 to 1 factor. It seems odd not to include cattle in total livestock.
- epolanski 10mo ago
  The point is to emphasize that there's more cows on this planet using more resources than all of the other animals combined (excluding fish and water mammals). You could add all the squirrels, elephants, lions, cats, birds, all of those, and you're not even at a fraction of mass of the cows we grow.
- collinmanderson 10mo ago
  Yeah that seems phrased wrong, but here's xkcd visual: https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/
Playboi_Carti 10mo ago
Very reasonable but it could not be more unpopular right now to tell people to stop eating meat
- ruszki 10mo ago
  It’s maybe unpopular, but people should feel bad about it, especially they should feel shame. I don’t feel it either, who knows this for decades, and even tried a few times. But I should. There is exactly zero pressure regarding this.
  - epolanski 10mo ago
    I don't think people should feel bad about it, but at least informed. A better thing would he to have a carbon tax, so you have higher vat on beef than poultry and higher for poultry than eggs.
    - DangitBobby 10mo ago
      Why don't you think people should feel bad about it? My moral system generally dictates that I don't economically support immoral behavior, or at least seek alternatives where practical. Don't expect a carbon tax to save us, a carbon tax is not coming.
      - crat3r 10mo ago
        Because it is not even a remote exaggeration to say that in order to truly make the morally "correct" choices everyday, you would need to not participate in any part of society. Telling people to feel bad about eating animal protein but to keep driving their cars that destroy the environment, shopping at stores that underpay their employees, purchasing items that are made with diminishing resources in countries that pay close to nothing to their labor force is picking an arbitrary battle in a war of existence. Promoting making better choices will always be more effective than asking people to feel guilty over existing at all. Source your food locally if you can, cook and eat only what you need, etc.
        hombre_fatal 10mo ago
        It's a natural response to feel bad about your behavior not aligning with your values. So much so that we prefer to not think about it to prop up cognitive dissonance. I think "wanting people to feel bad" is more an urge that people at least acknowledge the dissonance. Many people don't even get that far because it's so uncomfortable.
hmry 10mo ago
> While governments pretend to do stuff for the environment, Not the one that put out that statement
itsyonas 10mo ago
The livestock industry is an ecological disaster of unimaginable proportions. 50% of all habitable land is used for agriculture. Of that land, 83% is used for livestock, despite the fact that it only provides 18% of the calories consumed worldwide. > While governments pretend to do stuff for the environment, they seem to always ignore the extreme cost on the environment and pollution caused by cattle. While governments and politicians generally like to portray themselves as being driven by morals, they are actually driven almost entirely by economic interests. > So, to be honest, while I don't freak out and I'm all for freedom, [...] Well, I would like the freedom to live on a planet with an intact ecosystem. I also think that animals would like the freedom to live a life free from unnecessary exploitation. > [...] and diet is by far more impactful than the transport of choice. Both are high-impact areas, but changing your diet is much easier than changing your choice of transport - in some countries. Transport emissions account for about 25% of all emissions, 60% of which are caused by individuals' use of cars. And after all of this, we haven't even touched on what fishing is doing to our oceans.
spydr 10mo ago
“If the entirety of the US were to go vegan for a year, the reduction in GHG emissons would be 2.6%” https://youtu.be/sGG-A80Tl5g?si=yFnHO9cX3apu1yBh https://youtu.be/sGG-A80Tl5g?si=yFnHO9cX3apu1yBh I think cows get to much blame
- shlant 10mo ago
  > I think cows get to much blame I think that incredibly biased channel and extensively criticized video gets too much credit

rascul 10mo ago

> Cattle outweighs the total livestock on this planet by a 10 to 1 factor. It seems odd not to include cattle in total livestock.

epolanski 10mo ago
The point is to emphasize that there's more cows on this planet using more resources than all of the other animals combined (excluding fish and water mammals). You could add all the squirrels, elephants, lions, cats, birds, all of those, and you're not even at a fraction of mass of the cows we grow.
collinmanderson 10mo ago
Yeah that seems phrased wrong, but here's xkcd visual: https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/

Playboi_Carti 10mo ago

Very reasonable but it could not be more unpopular right now to tell people to stop eating meat

ruszki 10mo ago
It’s maybe unpopular, but people should feel bad about it, especially they should feel shame. I don’t feel it either, who knows this for decades, and even tried a few times. But I should. There is exactly zero pressure regarding this.
- epolanski 10mo ago
  I don't think people should feel bad about it, but at least informed. A better thing would he to have a carbon tax, so you have higher vat on beef than poultry and higher for poultry than eggs.
  - DangitBobby 10mo ago
    Why don't you think people should feel bad about it? My moral system generally dictates that I don't economically support immoral behavior, or at least seek alternatives where practical. Don't expect a carbon tax to save us, a carbon tax is not coming.
    - crat3r 10mo ago
      Because it is not even a remote exaggeration to say that in order to truly make the morally "correct" choices everyday, you would need to not participate in any part of society. Telling people to feel bad about eating animal protein but to keep driving their cars that destroy the environment, shopping at stores that underpay their employees, purchasing items that are made with diminishing resources in countries that pay close to nothing to their labor force is picking an arbitrary battle in a war of existence. Promoting making better choices will always be more effective than asking people to feel guilty over existing at all. Source your food locally if you can, cook and eat only what you need, etc.
      - hombre_fatal 10mo ago
        It's a natural response to feel bad about your behavior not aligning with your values. So much so that we prefer to not think about it to prop up cognitive dissonance. I think "wanting people to feel bad" is more an urge that people at least acknowledge the dissonance. Many people don't even get that far because it's so uncomfortable.

hmry 10mo ago

> While governments pretend to do stuff for the environment, Not the one that put out that statement

itsyonas 10mo ago

The livestock industry is an ecological disaster of unimaginable proportions. 50% of all habitable land is used for agriculture. Of that land, 83% is used for livestock, despite the fact that it only provides 18% of the calories consumed worldwide. > While governments pretend to do stuff for the environment, they seem to always ignore the extreme cost on the environment and pollution caused by cattle. While governments and politicians generally like to portray themselves as being driven by morals, they are actually driven almost entirely by economic interests. > So, to be honest, while I don't freak out and I'm all for freedom, [...] Well, I would like the freedom to live on a planet with an intact ecosystem. I also think that animals would like the freedom to live a life free from unnecessary exploitation. > [...] and diet is by far more impactful than the transport of choice. Both are high-impact areas, but changing your diet is much easier than changing your choice of transport - in some countries. Transport emissions account for about 25% of all emissions, 60% of which are caused by individuals' use of cars. And after all of this, we haven't even touched on what fishing is doing to our oceans.

spydr 10mo ago

“If the entirety of the US were to go vegan for a year, the reduction in GHG emissons would be 2.6%” https://youtu.be/sGG-A80Tl5g?si=yFnHO9cX3apu1yBh https://youtu.be/sGG-A80Tl5g?si=yFnHO9cX3apu1yBh I think cows get to much blame

shlant 10mo ago
> I think cows get to much blame I think that incredibly biased channel and extensively criticized video gets too much credit