151–160 of 304 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just one such trip dominates the impact of eating meat. impact of eating meat for how long? one year? I know that going vegan for a year is better than getting an electric car.
You could do both though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree the future is built on small businesses. But to have the most impact on the environment we could all just stop eating so much meat.
Why would we do that when are bodies are specifically evolved for eating both vegetables and meat? I, for one at least, consider along the millions of years that evolution tried a version of homo sapiens that couldn't eat meat, and it was selected against...why would we now attempt to overturn the apparent wisdom of that selection?
Also it's probably a mistake to attribute something like wisdom to what is essentially a statistical crap-shoot. The great temptation of religion is of course the idea that there is an Intelligence at work. But just to pick a silly example, does the dodo bird or the passenger pigeon think it was "wise" and "intelligent" for the forces of nature to select for meat-eating humans? Dodo philosophers and theologians in the last days - did they question why God would unleash such a fury on them?
Anyway I can tell you human ones will. Natural selection will most likely start killing off humans as soon as our technology can't keep up with all our baby-birthin'. It will manifest in forms you're already seeing in today's headlines. Voluntarily consuming less is an attempt to deal with it before the wisdom of natural selection deals with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, that's the exact business model of Whole Foods, now amazon. Basically "only the rich shall eat healthy" And to be totally honest, I want to tackle this issue through a startup called "standard pantry" which is the idea that one should have access to a standard pantry of goods and recipes (in place of a standard min income) and they should be able to sustain only and healthily feed themselves.
Replace > only the rich shall eat healthy With > only the rich shall eat fancy It's easy to eat healthy if you're not rich. Buy non-processed ingredients and cook them yourself.
That's the problem.
We need to educate on a basic standard pantry that allows healthy to be so easy that it doesn't even cross our minds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would we do that when are bodies are specifically evolved for eating both vegetables and meat? I, for one at least, consider along the millions of years that evolution tried a version of homo sapiens that couldn't eat meat, and it was selected against...why would we now attempt to overturn the apparent wisdom of that selection?
> Why would we do that when are bodies are specifically evolved for eating both vegetables and meat? Our bodies specifically evolved for reproduction, but that doesn't stop us from using contraception when we have sex. Evolution also designed us to have wisdom teeth, but that doesn't stop people removing them. Your argument assumes that natural selection has some kind of innate "wisdom", and that's just not true. Nat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would we do that when are bodies are specifically evolved for eating both vegetables and meat? I, for one at least, consider along the millions of years that evolution tried a version of homo sapiens that couldn't eat meat, and it was selected against...why would we now attempt to overturn the apparent wisdom of that selection?
Quoting from the collective wisdom of HN here: Because it doesn't scale.
"I've been disrupted by a leaner competitor!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would we do that when are bodies are specifically evolved for eating both vegetables and meat? I, for one at least, consider along the millions of years that evolution tried a version of homo sapiens that couldn't eat meat, and it was selected against...why would we now attempt to overturn the apparent wisdom of that selection?
This is the classic "appeal to nature" fallacy. On top of that, we don't know much about the diet of ancient humans, including how often they actually got to eat meat. Natural selection isn't wise, it's just an uncaring response to the environment. The environment has changed dramatically.
As a teenager I got enamoured by the idea of the future of the tech being driven by small fast-moving hacker friendly companies rather than big corp, as portrayed in PG's writings and this site.
I remember how I increasingly became disillusioned as I gradually realized that many (most?) startups were optimizing for the acquisition by the same big corp (investors gotta cash out, right?) instead of building long-term sustainable businesses.
This seems to have attracted the kind of personality that just wants to play the game, cash out and get rich.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer figuring out how to incorporate the externalities instead of banning/quitting things. Meat at twice the price would probably solve the problem.
> Meat at twice the price would probably solve the problem. While true, it basically sends the message of "If you have enough money you are free to do what you please to the detriment of the planet."
But it wouldn't be a detriment, the extra cost would be derived from the expenses associated with offsetting the negative externalities (by cleaning pollution, planting trees, recycling, water purification, whatever).