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

61–70 of 79 posts

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

#61

Post by ben_w »

dotsam wrote: post #49
nicbou wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering we could not get people to wear masks to curb far more immediate problems, I find it difficult to take the initiative.

It does feel like an overwhelming task, but individuals can come together and our own actions do matter. We ended slavery: we can create huge positive change.

> We ended slavery

With at least one famous and bloody civil war in what is now a nuclear power. I’d rather not have one of those again, even though I’m increasingly of the suspicion that {the poorly specified concept named variously “sentience”, “ability to suffer”, or “consciousness”} is likely found in many more species than just humans.

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

#62

Post by ben_w »

NicoJuicy wrote: post #59
jschveibinz wrote: post #3

We eat way more than we used to, and there are more people doing it. Per capita meat consumption in the US (poultry, beef, pork) in 1960 was about 170 lbs per year. Now it’s closer to 220 lbs per person per year. Cheese consumption has almost tripled since 1970. https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/st... Let’s all be heroes: Eat less (including meat and cheese), buy less, save money, improve your…

People also grow more since then and diets change. I'd love for the industry to remove sugar and therefore unnecessary cravings for a lot of people. In theory: smaller humans would be the ultimate solution. But that's not going to happen anytime soon. Perhaps a way more efficient digestion system? The fallacy of the op is to exercise more ( = use human energy for transportation) and eat/drink less. That's not how the…

Given the obesity crisis, I doubt a more efficient digestion is going to actually help.

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

#63

Post by ben_w »

kuratkull wrote: post #56
Robotbeat wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’d be nice if a citation was provided more than just a link to Google.

People seem to have varying opinions on what (scientific) sources to trust, I hope anyone surprised by/interested in this topic will dig deeper by themselves.

Google shows different results to different people, showing us what we’re most likely to click on — a path to sycophancy rather than truth.

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

#64

Post by NicoJuicy »

ben_w wrote: post #62
NicoJuicy wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People also grow more since then and diets change. I'd love for the industry to remove sugar and therefore unnecessary cravings for a lot of people. In theory: smaller humans would be the ultimate solution. But that's not going to happen anytime soon. Perhaps a way more efficient digestion system? The fallacy of the op is to exercise more ( = use human energy for transportation) and eat/drink less. That's not how the…

Given the obesity crisis, I doubt a more efficient digestion is going to actually help.

I'd love for the industry to reduce sugar would be appropriate then

( It was mentioned)

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

#65

Post by kuratkull »

ben_w wrote: post #63
kuratkull wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People seem to have varying opinions on what (scientific) sources to trust, I hope anyone surprised by/interested in this topic will dig deeper by themselves.

Google shows different results to different people, showing us what we’re most likely to click on — a path to sycophancy rather than truth.

My link was to DuckDuckGo - it doesn't generate personalized search results

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

#66

Post by igetspam »

choeger wrote: post #16
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.

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 consumption.

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

#67

Post by deepnotderp »

Jiejeing wrote: post #27
deepnotderp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No we don’t. We eat less than most Hunter gatherers did, even accounting for variability iirc

Do you have the same nutritional needs as a hunter gatherer?

We should encourage people to eat healthier diets, this will not only lead to more fulfilling lives, but also save enormous amounts of healthcare spending. Iirc Hadza life expectancy is 70 years vs 75 for modern humans (excluding child mortality). That's with NO access to modern healthcare!

As for me personally, I run 8 mi/day and lift 6 days a week so yes.

EDIT: source on hunter gatherers living almost as long as us: https://theconversation.com/hunter-gatherers-live-nearly-as-...

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

#68

Post by deepnotderp »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #22
deepnotderp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No we don’t. We eat less than most Hunter gatherers did, even accounting for variability iirc

I don’t think we can generalize that, because it depends on where the hunter-gatherer lived. https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/05/health/hunter-gatherer-diet-t... It’s a three day sampling, but fruit and honey make-up a non-trivial portion of their caloric intake. Inuit diet, of course, was mostly fat and protein out of necessity

I'm well aware of diet variability, but overall we ate lots of meat.

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

#69

Post by atian »

seanwilson wrote: post #45
atian wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We are far from ready from centrally advocating for plant-based diets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_nutrition#Positions_of_d... "Positions of dietetic and government associations - The American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and Dietitians of Canada state that properly planned vegan diets are appropriate for all life stages, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.[5][6] They…

> properly planned

> well-planned

For these reasons requiring proper planning on the individual level is why the US require certain foods to be fortified.

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

#70

Post by medvezhenok »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #50
watwut wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You literally picked exactly one disease and used it as argument why we are less healthy. And obesity is not even disease on itself. To can be obese and healtht. It just happen to have to do with the exact same disease you picked.

OK, don't take it from me, then: When we look at this year’s report, we see that we are living longer, but with an increasing burden of preventable chronic illness. In particular, our nation’s health is persistently compromised by risk factors such as sedentary behavior, obesity, and diabetes. http://cdnfiles.americashealthrankings.org/SiteFiles/Reports... So again: how do you define "healthier then average in 1960"?

Well, look at workplace accident rates, injury rates, lead poisoning in the house & at the pump (before petrol was de-leaded), smoking normalized across the board, cities filled with smog (pre-EPA).

If you want numbers, there was a 3x decrease in mortality from heart/cardiovascular disease, 5x decrease in mortality from cerebrovascular disease (1960s were actually one of the most unhealthy decades to be alive in):

https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/25/morta...

Sedentary behavior, obesity and diabetes are more signals of stress rather than our current environment - look at the top 10% by income - those risk factors are nowhere to be found in that subgroup.

Post reply on HN