this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
170 points (88.3% liked)

Science

13332 readers
5 users here now

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree, but it is important to note that is not the only source and cattle also consumes a lot of horizontal space where forests could be, so that also plays a role. It is never just one thing, but a plethora of intertwined problems.

[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Realistically, the world's not going to go vegan. Animal based protein and fats are here to stay. The only way to combat the land usage and emissions associated with cattle and pigs are to develop a viable commercial source for the proteins and fats they provide. Not just plant-based burgers, but lab-grown meat and alternatives to eggs/butter/milk/milk fat/etc.

And until they can compete with the current method of procurement in price, it won't change.

[–] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which I never said it would. It is nevertheless important to at the bare minimum create some degrowth in that area, and replace as much as possible with alternatives, primarily my point was that you cannot say there is a unique contributor to the climate crisis, and while I agree with the first comment that (paraphrasing them) the most important thing to realise here is that the bourgeoisie class is the main contributor to Co2 emissions, the working class people need to agree to certain changes. Cars need to go, animal based meat needs to be gradually diminished, consumerism must stop, etc. It is not one single issue that causes it.

[–] Bozicus@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

It’s only partly about the fact that most climate change is caused by the wealthy and corporations, it’s that the wealthy and corporations are trying to control the narrative, to hide their culpability and make sure the changes made won’t affect them. Like coffee shops pushing customers to bring reusable straws instead of giving out free plastic ones (boosting their “green” image while also saving money on straws) instead of putting their to-go beverages in materials that are sustainably produced or recyclable (which probably cost more than the cheap plastic cups and non-recyclable cardboard ones). Individuals can make useful changes, but usually the ones we hear about most often are not the ones that are most productive, they’re the ones that are most convenient for corporations.

In this case, I think it’s more than blame-shifting by corporations, though there’s a hell of a lot of money in designer vegan foods.

[–] terath@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, I do think it's realistic to get people to eat less meat. Going one or two days without meat, or on days you do have meat just having less, would make a substantial impact. A lot of cultures eat a lot less meat than north american where people seem to expect a whole steak for each meal. Both Asian and Indian food has a lot less meat in each dish, for example.

The mostly meat and potatoes diet is something we can change realistically, I think.

[–] buwho@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I mean propaganda is a helluva drug. Remember "Got Milk" or "Beef, its whats for dinner" What about the "food pyramid" they teach you in elementary school. all of it is propaganda for industrial producers. so we know it is possible to influence the masses to consume in a certain direction. it just needs to be going in the correct direction. which will take alot of time because how much is already so heavily invested into getting their industry to where it is today.