Red meat has a huge carbon footprint because cattle requires a large amount of land and water.
https://sph.tulane.edu/climate-and-food-environmental-impact-beef-consumption
Demand for steaks and burgers is the primary driver of Deforestation:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/marcel-gomes-interview
If you don’t have a car and rarely eat red meat, you are doing GREAT 🙌🙌 🙌
Sure, you can drink tap water instead of plastic water. You can switch to Tea. You can travel by train. You can use Linux instead of Windows AI’s crap. Those are great ideas. But, don’t drive yourself crazy. If you are only an ordinary citizen, remember that perfect is the enemy of good.
Billionaires have the carbon footprint of 30k families and this bitch here is saying I have to give up my car and my burgers.
What a stupid post to get blocked over.
I thought it was overthrowing oppressive world governments and holding environmentally-damaging businesses accountable for their actions, hm.
When populations are starving to death in 2044, pat yourself on the back for not eating red meat.
People will look at an image like this, read that 80% of deforestation in the Amazon happens for cattle, and go “I’m powerless, Exxon is bad” and continue to not only eat meat 5x a day but also actively try to convince other people that reducing their meat consumption is silly and they might as well keep eating it as much as they want because grocery stores will stock it anyway and Elon Musk rides a jet.
I wish I could afford red meat…
All you fuckers act like your individual choice to not eat meat or have kids won’t just have another eat up the same resources or have kids in your stead. We need smart people to have ethical kids and we need extreme systematic political change for any real affect whatsoever. Even if the ENTIRE WORLD dropped red meat, while still a good chunk, it’s only 6% of our global annual emissions that we’d save. The top 3 sectors for emissions are energy transportation and general industry which makes up about 75% of global emissions, at about 25% each. The individual choices not mattering as much as political systematic change is huge, and that won’t happen if the Trumpers are having most of the kids and we’re having stupid divisive arguments about what our individual food choices should be.
Not having a kid eclipses all of these by orders of magnitude.
As a middle aged dude who is unlikely to have kids at this point, I’m curious about the numbers if you have some some suggested sources to peruse
I haven’t had hundreds of kids. I’m a climate savior.
i regard all antinatalism as ecofascism. i’m not asking you to change my mind, i’m letting you know you might be participating in a eugenics campaign.
- Only a small subset of people who don’t have kids are antinatalists.
- Antinatalism is not eugenics.
- Environmentalism is the opposite of fascism, actually. When you stick up for the environment, you’re with the good guys.
Antinatalism is not eugenics.
maybe not in and of itself, but any advocacy for it or policies enforcing endorsing or causing it surely are.
- Antinatalism is mental illness
2 truths and a lie…the deep ecology movement and the Unabomber would seem to undermine your third claim
Only a small subset of people who don’t have kids are antinatalists.
i’m not talking about people who don’t have kids. i’m talking about people who advocate for people not to have kids.
How is it eugenics if it has nothing to do with a parent’s genetic make up? Like if they said “meat eaters shouldn’t have kids” you could try and make an argument for eugenics but for nobody to have a kid or for everyone equally to have less children how is that eugenics?
you are saying this in english, to a (self-)selected demographic subset of english speakers. you are encouraging a particular set of people not to have children. that’s eugenics. unless you can find a way to convey this message to everyone, at once, in an identical message given cultural and other contexts, you will be biasing the message to be more effective among some segment of the populous.
We’ve done it. We’ve finally found the Olympic Gold Medalist for Mental Gymnastics.
Congratulations.
this is a thought-terminating cliche. what i said is true.
Stating something is true with no supporting argument other than “I said so” followed by some shaky(at best) logic doesn’t leave much in the way of conversation points.
But lets give it a go.
Firstly there was no demand or proposal for any demographic to partake in the activity mentioned.
Secondly, assuming the first point wasn’t true, by your rationale there would be no way to mention any activity without it being a suggestion that all current recipients must immediately perform said activity, which it patently ridiculous.
Thirdly, the suggestion that you are a best in class mental gymnast isn’t a thought terminating cliche, perhaps you could claim ad hominem but as I said before ,“I’m right, because reasons” doesn’t leave many conversational avenues open.
the suggestion that you are a best in class mental gymnast isn’t a thought terminating cliche
it is, and saying it isn’t doesn’t change that.
Stating something is true with no supporting argument other than “I said so” followed by some shaky(at best) logic doesn’t leave much in the way of conversation points.
that’s not what happened. what i said were all truth claims. you can decide whether i was wrong about any of them (i’m not), but no argument at all is needed.
by your rationale there would be no way to mention any activity without it being a suggestion that all current recipients must immediately perform said activity,
they are advocating for a set of actions. not simply mentioning them.
Sorry buddy, that isn’t how this works. Great try tho. Go back to the whiteboard and come back when you have valuable input to share.
So are you interpreting the comment as only people who speak English should not have kids?
only people who speak english can read that comment. they are only talking to english-literate people.
edit: … english-literate people who are on lemmy.
That was not my question. Do you think the OP meant that only people who speak English should not have kids?
no. i don’t think that. but i think the propaganda they’ve produced can only have that effect.
That’s one pair of philosophies that creep me out both ways. Both the anti natalists and pro natalists.
Deciding for yourself is one thing, imposing your choice on others is maddening.
I don’t know if the comment quite raises to the level of anti natalist though. Maybe it’s grading on a curve of reading some more hard core anti natalists, but that comment felt tame and felt like they wouldn’t necessarily object to a couple having one child or even two, being somewhat below the replacement level…
What a fantastically apt username
in, as much as possible, a non-confrontational way, i’d love to hear why you think that.
Suuuuure buddy red-meat is the problem here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMErlqYmgsE
I’ve been the bane of chickens all my life…
Let me stop eating meat and cheese so that regime whores and their owners can fly on their private jet.
I don’t even disagree with the premise tbh. I reduced the intake due to mostly health concerns but shilling this as direct action to the peasants is tone deaf at best.
60% of the us plebs are living hand to mouth. Their priorities are gonna be in that. Beef prices are outrageous, they should be doing some basic substitutions but telling an American pleb to cut back on beef, you might as well called his mum a whore lol
So if economics ain’t gonna change their idiot consumption habits I highly doubt the “climate” will
I haven’t eaten red meat in years due to not reacting well to it, glad to see it’s also helping the environment 😄
You might have Lyme disease…
Fortunately it’s not an allergic reaction, mostly just an intolerance but I appreciate your concern :) /gen
Voting is guilt. If you vote for fake ass liberals and their posturing ecology you’re no better than a rich guy with a yacht
No thanks.
Reading this I should live like a medieval peasant and only eat potatoes, onions, and root vegetables and drink nothing but beer. I’m kinda down with that.
True. Though maybe also activism until manufacturers are held accountable for their production methods and clean up costs. I do my share but I’m tired of being told it’s on me. It’s on corporate greed. Instead of spending on lobbying to avoid any changes to the status quo, they could spend much less coming up with different cleaner methods of production.
It’s fundamentally inefficient. The claims of “green” meat production are greenwashing from the industry. The industry would love for you to believe there is a way that they could clean it up. It takes growing tons of crops just for most of that energy to be lost by the creatures moving around, digesting, etc.
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/html
Nor is something like grass-fed production a solution when that has even higher emissions due to higher rates of methane production from cows. It also is even higher land demand
We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates
[…]
If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.
This is a poor argument which will be repeated through out this thread because it doesn’t take into account the product… Meat consumption can not be ‘cleaned up’ or ‘held accountable’ unless you are growing or purchasing meat from a direct source. You can change your habit in that sense. But when you purchase a fast food meal or even a Sysco steak at a fine dinning establishment you are supporting the established CAFOs that make the statistics in the post. Not corporate greed.
No shade on people trying to make sustainable choices, but if the solution to the climate crisis is us trusting everyone to “get with the program” and pick the right choice; while unsustainable alternatives sit right there beside them at lower prices, then we are truly doomed.
What the companies behind these foods and products don’t want to talk about is that to get anywhere we have to target them. It shouldn’t be a controversial standpoint that: (i) all products need to cover their true full environmental and sustainability costs, with the money going back into investments into the environment counteracting the negative impacts; (ii) we need to regulate, regulate, and regulate how companies are allowed to interact with the environment and society, and these limits must apply world-wide. There needs to be careful follow-up on that these rules are followed: with consequences for individuals that take the decisions to break them AND “death sentences” (i.e. complete disbandment) for whole companies that repeatedly oversteps.
