Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

shift.newco.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#41

Post by rusk »

roel_v wrote: post #25
lukasben wrote: post #16

I don't eat meat not to solve any sustainability problems. I don't eat meat because of how the meat industry is treating the animals and the nature (By the way, most soy and grain is produced to feat our animals). I can give you a lot of examples for the planned economized genocide on other races than humans. But people, like the author of this text, don't want to hear arguments or examples like that. They don't buy…

That's not what this post is about (why people shouldn't eat meat). It's about the claim that vegetarian diets are better for the environment, which they are, but not to the extent that they'll solve our sustainable agriculture challenges. Please take your soapboxing to a place where it's on topic.

Please there is no call for being mean like this. I personally found this comment to be interesting and relevant. I also think it is relevant to the larger discussion of which this article is a part.

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#42

Post by forgetsusername »

cies wrote: post #11

TL;DR: Terrible article, I suggest not waste your time on it. Why? * Author writes """it’s more accurate to say that vegetarian diets are “less awful,” not “better,” than omnivorous diets""". He gives no hard numbers to back it up. Less awful IS OBVIOUSLY the same as better. According to many sources, that are well presented in the Cowspiracy documentary (among others) it is shown that a vegetarian diet, and speciall…

>I suggest not waste your time on it.

I don't understand this. Why not?

You recommend a documentary with opposing views instead; should we only read and watch things that we agree with?

>Whoever lives in a cosmopolitan city knows this is not true, or not anymore.

Vegetarians compose about 3% of the population. I'd say that's a "margin group". If you live in a coastal city in the US, vegetarians may be over-represented.

>It is that supermarkets choose to put the "high price" on produce all year long, except for a discount crop maybe. This is because produce does not pull customers.

Blatantly false where I live. Produce is substantially cheaper all summer and into the fall than it is in the winter when we have to import vegetables from around the world.

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#43

Post by talldan »

stupidcar wrote: post #17
hannob wrote: post #3

I'm not sure what to make out of such a text. Basically what the text says is that plant-based food usually is less resource intense and thus better for the environment, but there are also other factors and plant-based food production isn't perfect. (Independent of the question whether all the other things he says are true.) So the headline is obviously strictly true, but highly misleading. A more accurate one would…

Uh, no. That is not what the article says at all . The text explicitly says that vegetarian diets are not part of the solution. Either now, or under the system he proposes. He's very clear that eating a fully vegetarian diet now is worse, footprint-wise, that eating a mildly omnivorous one. He's also very clear that while eating a vegetarian diet under his proposed system would be just about possible, it is built aro…

"He's very clear that eating a fully vegetarian diet now is worse, footprint-wise, that eating a mildly omnivorous one."

I don't think the article ever mentions that point of view. This is the only time a similar argument is mentioned:

"Given the way we grow food today, it’s more accurate to say that vegetarian diets are “less awful,” not “better,” than omnivorous diets"

The only time a mention of an omnivorous diet being an improvement is under the constraint that produce is bought locally, perhaps at a farmer's market:

"A vegetarian who consumes whatever’s in the produce aisle of Wegmann’s is going to have a much larger eco-footprint than the plant-centric, meat-occasional omnivore who purchases exclusively from the local farmer’s market"

Frankly, that kind of consumer has to be in the extreme minority.

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#44

Post by cies »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #18
cies wrote: post #11

TL;DR: Terrible article, I suggest not waste your time on it. Why? * Author writes """it’s more accurate to say that vegetarian diets are “less awful,” not “better,” than omnivorous diets""". He gives no hard numbers to back it up. Less awful IS OBVIOUSLY the same as better. According to many sources, that are well presented in the Cowspiracy documentary (among others) it is shown that a vegetarian diet, and speciall…

The author is also playing the false dichotomy vegetarian omnivorous, while people in the "omnivorous" category can eat varying amount of meat, and from 21 times a week down to one.

Good point!

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#45

Post by forgetsusername »

rusk wrote: post #41
roel_v wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what this post is about (why people shouldn't eat meat). It's about the claim that vegetarian diets are better for the environment, which they are, but not to the extent that they'll solve our sustainable agriculture challenges. Please take your soapboxing to a place where it's on topic.

Please there is no call for being mean like this. I personally found this comment to be interesting and relevant. I also think it is relevant to the larger discussion of which this article is a part.

>I personally found this comment to be interesting and relevant.

You find off-topic strawman arguments constructed against "people like the author" interesting and relevant?

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#46

Post by latch »

Arnt wrote: post #35
cies wrote: post #11

TL;DR: Terrible article, I suggest not waste your time on it. Why? * Author writes """it’s more accurate to say that vegetarian diets are “less awful,” not “better,” than omnivorous diets""". He gives no hard numbers to back it up. Less awful IS OBVIOUSLY the same as better. According to many sources, that are well presented in the Cowspiracy documentary (among others) it is shown that a vegetarian diet, and speciall…

No quibbles with most of it. But meat eating is sustainable in a limited way: Some land is well suited as pasture but not usable for much else. Ie. a 200g steak per day isn't sustainable, but pasta sauces with a few slivers of pancetta are.

I'm not sure I buy this oft-repeated non-arable land claim. First, aren't GMOs and other technological advances redefining "non-arable". Secondly, doesn't land used for pasture generate more methane and waste and take more energy and water, than if it was just left unused?

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#47

Post by kagamine »

lngnmn wrote: post #22

The vegan nonsensealists perhaps should consider the role of hunting and animal husbandry in the ability of humans to inhabit northern and semidesert regions of the planet and to sustain a population. It is also good idea to read about the causes of malnutrition in poor communities.

With 54% [1] of the world's population in urban areas already (rising to over 70% in the developed world) [1] that "role of hunting and animal husbandry in ... regions of the planet" is becoming an ever increasing rarity. By 2050 the 54% is expected to rise to 66% [2] so I doubt there will be many hunter gatherers left anywhere.

Here in 'the North' at longitude ‎10.757933 people only hunt for sport. Although they make the claim of culling for environmental reasons I have yet to see any elk or red deer without venturing deep into the forest on foot (so I'm calling BS).

>the causes of malnutrition in poor communities.

Obvious response would be to eradicate yet more rain-forest and open a McDonalds in all those poor countries. /s Malnutrition in poor communities (and I'm not sure to where you refer with that vague choice of phrase) is likely caused by factors that control diet, and not by diet in and of itself. In other words, it's the poverty itself causing malnutrition, not a lack of meat or forced vegetarianism.

1. http://www.prb.org/Publications/Lesson-Plans/HumanPopulation...

2. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-...

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#48

Post by alex_duf »

botexpert wrote: post #27
hannob wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to many sources, that are well presented in the Cowspiracy documentary (among others) it is shown that a vegetarian diet, and specially a vegan diet, is A LOT less awful then an omni diet both environmentally, ethically and considering health impact. Just a quick note: The "Cowspiracy" movie unfortunately presents its case by cherry picking scientific evidence and presenting much higher numbers than what…

51% of CO2 emissions is just a number that was repeated. there's also dead oceans by 2048 which is the most pessimistic estimate. but some numbers are fine. the amount of land that is used for livestock is incomparable. water pollution, dead ocean zones, all caused by animal agriculture. the amount of environmental destruction and pollution is incomparable. more than 90% of destroyed Amazon rainforest was for the sol…

I believe it's 51% of the greenhouse effect, that include 20ish percent of co2 emission resulting from cattle + the effect of methane which is a much more powerfull green house gas than co2.

(now whether this number is 51% or something else is another debate)

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#49

Post by bryanlarsen »

latch wrote: post #46
Arnt wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No quibbles with most of it. But meat eating is sustainable in a limited way: Some land is well suited as pasture but not usable for much else. Ie. a 200g steak per day isn't sustainable, but pasta sauces with a few slivers of pancetta are.

I'm not sure I buy this oft-repeated non-arable land claim. First, aren't GMOs and other technological advances redefining "non-arable". Secondly, doesn't land used for pasture generate more methane and waste and take more energy and water, than if it was just left unused?

Left unused it would be populated by other grass eaters like Bison which have very similar environmental impacts.

Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet

#50

Post by Kliment »

schlowmo wrote: post #36

Besides some flimsy claims about who consumes the most staples the article just basically says: - buy local - eat with the seasons - many small local farms are better than few big (remote) - there's need for a better market for those small farms Is it just me not getting what this has to do with the cons of "vegetarian diets"? At least where I live eating meat isn't a sign for any of those points. Although I'm a sarc…

As another person living in that region, rutabaga is not the only locally available crop - cauliflower, a whole variety of cabbages, corn lettuce (feldsalat), parsnips, and a bunch of other related plants are in season now, as are cultivated mushrooms. We mostly eat fresh stuff from the local farmer's market and it certainly doesn't feel hippie-like at all - it's just normal winter food.

As an aside, rutabaga has an awful reputation, which I feel is very much unjustified. It's by no means my favorite vegetable, but it certainly has its uses, and is lovely combined with say sweet potato in a mash. I understand it was the food of last resort for many in times of famine, but it's been two generations since the last time that was the case, and I think it's high time it was restored to the table as something more than a poor substitute.

Post reply on HN