People Don't Get the Link Between Meat Consumption and Climate Change (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: People Don't Get the Link Between Meat Consumption and Climate Change (2016)

#111

Post by newscracker » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 3:36 AM UTC

DiabloD3 wrote: post #65

This is a useless article with a serious vegan bent. Humans cannot survive as vegans, and suggesting so is a pretty backwards thing given that these are basic scientific facts; so called "healthy vegans" often are taking supplements that they believe are vegan when they are in fact animal-sourced, or they are using algae-based products that are often highly contaminated as a nature of their production. Literally, the…

Your comment is filled with hyperbole, ad hominems and misinformation, making it seem like you’re angry with vegans for some reason. That has resulted in putting forth claims and beliefs without good enough backing - statements like “vegans can’t be healthy” and like vegan researchers will use meat eating to explain some other totally unrelated phenomena. It would help look at better sources of information. On that front, though not the best, I’d recommend watching this documentary called “Cowspiracy”.

Re: People Don't Get the Link Between Meat Consumption and Climate Change (2016)

#112

Post by newscracker » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 3:43 AM UTC

fileeditview wrote: post #77

erispoe wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolution doesn't have a purpose. Just because you can eat meat doesn't mean you have to, or that you should. You can have a meat-free, protein-heavy diet. Most of meat products are so processed that they are indistinguishable from plant-based substitutes anyway. If you try an Impossible Burger without knowing it's plant-based, you wouldn't notice it's not meat. Beside, are you seriously denying anthropic climate cha…

Even if evolution doesn't have a purpose it's pretty clear that meat consumption has been a boost to human evolution. Also I wonder what kind of meat products you are eating?! If I buy and prepare a steak or some other raw meat it's pretty clearly meat. I also tried vegan sausages and stuff multiple times because of some friends. I NEVER could confuse it for meat.. so forgive me but this argument is totally invalid f…

Just because something happened in the past and resulted in some benefits doesn’t necessarily mean we have to continue it. For example, the two world wars and their impacts also helped accelerate technological progress to a great degree, but I’m sure nobody would argue that we need more of them. In our current times, and in this century, we’ll have better alternatives that help humankind (if people accept them). Meat will not be a necessity for those living in a globalized world.

Re: People Don't Get the Link Between Meat Consumption and Climate Change (2016)

#113

Post by newscracker » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 3:51 AM UTC

Yusho wrote: post #19

eastendguy wrote: post #6

People Still Don't Get the Link Between the Number of People on this Planet and Climate Change (I hardly eat meat these days, but nothing will help if the population continues to grow at the same rate)

That's exactly why the rule of 72 should be thought more often. Just seeing how quickly the population can double at the current growth rate is an eye opener. 72 / 1.1 = 65 Years Meat isn't the problem, endless growth is.

Population growth doesn’t remain static. It’s not going to double in the time frame you’ve projected. In fact, it’s not going to reach that figure for much longer, if at all.

Hans Rosling’s talks (on TED and YouTube) throw a lot of light on the peak population we’d likely reach, the reasons for those and also what we can do to control it (the key is educating girls). He died some months ago, but his talks and work are engaging and illuminating.

Re: People Don't Get the Link Between Meat Consumption and Climate Change (2016)

#114

Post by tfolbrecht » Sun, Dec 17, 2017, 3:41 AM UTC

reustle wrote: post #105

falcolas wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rural north-west here, same issue. I get it, there are some cattle ranches which would turn my stomach, but the average ranch around here is hundreds of acres of unfarmable (or unprofitable to farm) land dedicated to a few hundred head of cattle (i.e. you don't see the cattle most of the time). They're oddly beautiful spaces to look upon, compared to the mechanical oddity (circular fields in a square plots) that is t…

I'm not educated on the statistics, but how much of the total meat consumed (let's say beef in the US) comes from the big bad farms? Is it possible to convert over to only healthier grass pastures? I'm a meat eater who is happy to pay more and cut down, just wondering how feasible it is.

Feasibility for the individual is a matter of being able to afford meat that is currently 50 - 100% more expensive per comparable cuts.

Feasibility for society is complex. Where I live, grass fed cattle is mostly grown on short term leased land. Sellers and long term speculators of farmable land make cash on its interim usage for cattle. Non-feasible.

In Australia and NZ, there are huge chunks of the country suitable for raising livestock, not suitable for land development or plant farming. There's more livestock than people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50MbPACZF-4 Australian outback cattle farmers mustering with helicopters

Re: People Don't Get the Link Between Meat Consumption and Climate Change (2016)

#115

Post by alex_duf » Mon, Dec 18, 2017, 1:33 PM UTC

peg_leg wrote: post #36

alex_duf wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like saying recycling is useless because no one recycles. You have to start somewhere

If policy dictated through incentives or exise taxes on not recycling then people will recycle.

If people were recycling and asking for change then the policies would be implemented.

I guess it's a matter of taking our own responsibilities or not