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

We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#71

Post by dazag »

Well, I came to this news feed, because I thought there were some standards, that where higher than in other places. If you just go to the end of the article you can read "Dan Blaustein-Rejto is director of food and agriculture at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research center in Oakland, California. Alex Smith is a food and agriculture research analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, where he studies agricultural innovation, the future of meat production and consumption, and alternative proteins. He owns stock in Beyond Meat."

PFfffffffffffffffF!! BULLSHIT! this is fucking propagando and news advertisement. I am looking for the first person who want to shoot his own foot?!?! so sad and lame...

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#72

Post by choeger »

igetspam wrote: post #66
choeger wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a big fan of this "external cost" talking point. For instance, the health cost do not scale linearly with sales. Why should someone who eats a healthy amount of meat subsidize the health cost of someone who eats an unhealthy amount? I see a different problem with climate emissions: If cattle produces a large quantity of green house gases, should the US meat eater outbid the Indian gasoline buyer? Because I t…

Why should subsidies be based on quantity? If anything, we should subsidize income for the less fortunate and let the market dictate costs. We can all pay the fair market value for goods and then those that need actual assistance can have it. If you want to eat a "healthy amount" of meat, pay for it just the same as a glutton. Giving subsidies to the producers of goods makes little sense because you're directing cons…

Where in my comment did you read the word subsidies? I was talking about the idea of internalizing "external costs" which I think is impractical and also somewhat impossible because at least some external costs do not occur at the point of production but at the point of consumption.

edit: Now I get it. You must have misunderstood my point. Let me reiterate. Health care cost are part of the external costs of food. But they occur non-linearly, based on the amount of consumption. But they can only be priced linearly. So someone who eats a little meat would effectively pay the external costs of someone who eats a lot of meat.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#73

Post by choeger »

mediascreen wrote: post #42
BelenusMordred wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 275g per day is a huge average Including food waste it's fairly reasonable. Commercial restaurants waste an amazing amount of food everyday.

Can a restaurant really afford to waste huge amounts of expensive meat every day? I thought their entire margin was based on minimizing expensive waste.

Chains like McDonald's do in fact waste large quantities of food (in absolute terms). I think this is largely caused by the even larger quantities they sell. But to a certain degree it is down to completely artificial and arguably pointless metrics:

1. They produce (or used to, this practice has been removed in Germany, I think) a large amount of food on stock and kept it warm. If it isn't sold after a few minutes (15?) it gets trashed. This is to optimize the speed of sales.

2. They hand out bizarrely large quantities (especially soft drinks, but also cheap stuff like fries) that often the customer won't eat completely. This is for a reason that I don't understand. Might be a US thing, though.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#74

Post by watwut »

baybal2 wrote: post #58
watwut wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about where you lived in Russia specifically, but eastern block was eating meat every day during communism itself. Twice every day, for dinner and lunch.

No it wasn't, whomever told you that told you a blatant lie. Meat twice a day was a luxury even for Moscow, and that with CPSU keeping Moscow well fed at any cost. In regions, it was a norm for meat shortages in excess of 1 month. In class 4 cities, and ethnic republics, it was even worse, some form of mild scurvy was a norm there.

Well, I personally lived there and personally eate all that meat. And we were not particularly rich, most of people we knew could afford more.

School lunches had meat them 4 days a week, as a rule. All the kids ate school lunches except those with too much allergies.

Scurcy was not norm, that is not true. You also don't get scurvy from not eating meat.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#75

Post by igetspam »

choeger wrote: post #72
igetspam wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should subsidies be based on quantity? If anything, we should subsidize income for the less fortunate and let the market dictate costs. We can all pay the fair market value for goods and then those that need actual assistance can have it. If you want to eat a "healthy amount" of meat, pay for it just the same as a glutton. Giving subsidies to the producers of goods makes little sense because you're directing cons…

Where in my comment did you read the word subsidies? I was talking about the idea of internalizing "external costs" which I think is impractical and also somewhat impossible because at least some external costs do not occur at the point of production but at the point of consumption. edit: Now I get it. You must have misunderstood my point. Let me reiterate. Health care cost are part of the external costs of food. But…

You're right, I mistook your external costs to mean the subsidized price of meat and dairy. My apologies.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#76

Post by fmajid »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #47
fmajid wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We only started eating vegetables 85,000 years ago. For the 2M years before that it was all meat diet: https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-2-million-years-humans-ate...

In fact, one of the conclusions was off: https://news.ncsu.edu/2015/07/beasley-acid-2015/ If anything, high acidity shows humans as scavengers rather than hunters.

Yes. That would also explain why we prefer dry-aged rather than fresh beef.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#77

Post by meristohm »

atian wrote: post #4
meristohm wrote: post #2

This article is tough to read on mobile without sending to Pocket or something like that. Chimpanzees eat some meat, maybe 2-3% of their diet? We can do that, too. The long-term costs need to be included in meat production. Regulation that affects everyone seems important, so that we don’t get stuck appealing to and hoping for individual responsibility.

Chimpanzees brains also don't have the same energy demands. We also still don't understand the mechanisms behind rare diseases that are associated with vegetarian diets but also not considered from being overt malnourishment. We are far from ready from centrally advocating for plant-based diets. Seems like the best thing we can do and are doing is introducing more plant-based options on the market.

My argument is for eating less meat because it costs so much in resources to make. A moratorium can be easier (especially when trying to avoid something unhealthy for me and which I feel compelled to consume), but rather than urge everyone to be vegetarian (consistently 5% of USA population[0]) it makes more sense to set limits for everyone, along with introducing options to help the shift.

[0] podcast: How to Save a Planet, 2021-03-25, The Beef With Beef

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#78

Post by thisCtx »

chillwaves wrote: post #13
thisCtx wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market compensates the future for real consumption? Or are you thinking in purely abstract models? I’m more of a physical sciences type. I feel no obligation to coddle completely made up, self re-enforcing garbage. How is the market compensating for the real impact facing the future of the species? Hint: it’s not. Everyone in power will simply be dead by the time the bill comes due. “Trickle down economics” is a…

I don't see you proposing a solution. Individual action isn't it. It is a red herring. Government policy is the only way forward.

I did not see you propose a solution so much as regurgitate one.
Post reply on HN