• @PanaX@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      402 years ago

      I vehemently disagree with this statement.

      We need to compost the rich and use that as a soil amendment to grow heirloom vegetables.

      • Striker
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        Hooker spit. Lol. Imagine Jeff Bezos paying you hundreds of thousands to spit on him while trying to hide the fact that, you would gladly do it for free.

    • @r1veRRR@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 years ago

      Ok, are actively working on this? Is your work on it so horrendously demanding of all your attention of every single day, that you couldn’t ALSO go vegan, or vegetarian, or just eat less meat? Eat the rich is just a fun day dream and a lazy excuse to not do what you can (like going vegan).

      Eating the rich would also vastly reduce racism, sexism, classism, and worker exploitation. Can I therefore ignore my negligible personal impact, and keep being racist, sexist, classist, and buy only the cheapest clothes crafted by the most exploited third world toddlers?

  • @krayj@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    80
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    This crucially important caveat they snuck in there:

    “Prof Scarborough said: “Cherry-picking data on high-impact, plant-based food or low-impact meat can obscure the clear relationship between animal-based foods and the environment.”

    …which is an interesting way of saying that lines get blurry depending on the type of meat diet people had and/or the quantity vs the type of plant-based diet people had.

    Takeaway from the article shouldn’t be meat=bad and vegan=good - the takeaway should be that meat can be an environmentally responsible part of a reasonable diet if done right and that it’s also possible for vegan diets to be more environmentally irresponsible.

    • @captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      492 years ago

      That’s both absolutely true and a massive distraction from the point. An environmentally friendly diet that includes meat is going to involve sustainable hunting not factory farming. In comparison an environmentally friendly vegan diet is staples of meat replacements and not trying to get fancy with it. It’s shit like beans instead of meat, tofu and tempeh when you feel fancy. It means rejecting substitutes that are too environmentally costly such as agave nectar as a sweetener (you should probably use beet or cane based sweetener instead).

      So in short eat vegan like a poor vegan not like a rich person who thinks veganism is trendy

      • @Awesomo85@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -2
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        “So in short eat vegan like a poor vegan not like a rich person who thinks veganism is trendy”

        But in the context of this conversation, wouldn’t eating like a poor vegan rely heavily on buying products that also have a heavy impact on the environment?

        You would have to buy cheaper products which come from mass produced farms that use TONS and TONS of water! And generate TONS and TONS of carbon emissions during production of those products.

        To be vegan AND advocate for conservation(you can advocate for something no matter your own behavior. That’s the wrong word to use) to claim that your lifestyle is better for the environment than your non-vegan counterparts, you have to have money.

    • @usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      92 years ago

      If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.

      […]

      Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.

      https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

      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/htm

    • @thehatfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      82 years ago

      Yes, I think it’s vital to avoid thinking in absolutes over carbon footprints if we are to make real progress. We can argue endlessly over the “necessity” of consuming meat, but that becomes a distraction. Many things are not “necessary”, but most people are not realistically going to live in caves wearing carbon neutral hair shirts.

      We need to continue increasing transparency on the impact of different animal products, so consumers can make informed choices. While also accepting they may not always be perfect.

    • HubertManne
      link
      fedilink
      -12 years ago

      yes. when you look at charts and such. Someone who exclusively ate meat for some reason who moved to chicken would have a greater impact than someone who exclusively ate chicken and went vegan. Sheep did not show up so well either so im guessing ruminants in general are not going to be so hot. Anyway I would encourage folk to keep it in mind and do what they can. I realize go vegan results in many. Well eff it all then but man just avoiding beef is big impact.

      • FermatsLastAccount
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        Someone who exclusively ate meat for some reason who moved to chicken would have a greater impact than someone who exclusively ate chicken and went vegan.

        But that first person could have an even bigger environmental impact by becoming Vegan instead of only eating chicken.

        • HubertManne
          link
          fedilink
          -12 years ago

          yes but if you actually convince someone who eats just chicken to go vegan it will have less of an effect if you actually convince a big red meat eater to limit to chicken.

  • Another Llama ⓥ
    link
    fedilink
    English
    75
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    A couple of people have spoken to me before about wanting to cut back on, or completely cut meat from their diets, but didn’t know where to start. If anyone reading this feels the same way, here’s some fairly basic recipies that I usually recommend (Bosh’s tofu curry is straight up one of the best currys i’ve ever had - even my non-vegan family members love it)

    Written:

    Videos:

    Tofu is also super versatile and is pretty climate-friendly. there’s a bazillion different ways to do tofu, but simply seasoning and pan frying some extra/super firm tofu (like you do with chicken) with some peppers and onions, for fajitas, is an easy way to introduce yourself. Here’s a little guide for tofu newbies: A Guide to Cooking Tofu for Beginners - The Kitchn. If you wanna level up your tofu game with some marinades here’s six.

    Lentils and beans are also super planet friendly, super cheap, and super versatile! You’ll be able to find recipies all over that are based around lentils and beans so feel free to do a quick internet search.

    Sorry for the huge, intimidating wall of text! I do hope someone interested in cutting back on meat found this useful though :)

    • FuglyDuck
      link
      fedilink
      English
      122 years ago

      One of the things that annoys me about vegans… is they always try to convince me [this recipe] always tastes like the real thing.

      And I think any one who eats meat on a regular basis is going to know an impossible burger is not beef- it might be the closest, sure.

      Probably the best way to “convert” people- or encourage reductions- is to be less apologetic. Tofu is wonderful and delicious as it’s own thing- but as tofu-chicken or tofurky or anything of that sort, it sets expectations that can never be met.

      Forgetting to mention a dish that stands in its own happens to be meatless… well, my parents were halfway through the second bowl of a tofu stir fry before they realized it.

      • @ikornaselur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        162 years ago

        When I went vegetarian years ago I hated it for the first few weeks… Because I was trying veggie/vegan versions of all the dishes I knew how to make. When I started exploring actual just veggie/vegan recipes that weren’t trying to be a fake meat version did it feel incredibly easy.

        It’s exactly as you said, the fake version is never as good and you’ll most of the time be comparing it to the real thing… But meals that just happen to be vegetarian/vegan? They can be amazing on their own! I’ve never looked back since I started exploring new recipes instead of alternative versions of old.

      • @Thadrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        And I think any one who eats meat on a regular basis is going to know an impossible burger is not beef

        Tbh. I don’t get using burgers as an example. Burgers as I know them contain so much other stuff (salad, tomato, cucumber, cheese, sauce etc.) that I barely notice what kind of patty is in there. I do notice a difference on stuff that is unprocessed meat without much to hide the differences (best example would probably be that steak) but for anything that uses ground meat and/or adds other stuff (like in a stew) that just diminishes/hides any differences.

        I’m with you on the other stuff though, trying to imitate something perfectly often lands you in the uncanny valley where its close enough to be identifiable what it is supposed to be, but just slightly off to be distracting. Like that one recipe you remember from your parents or grand parents that you always loved as a kid but no one can get exactly like you remember it.

      • @kicksystem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        One of the things that annoys me about vegans… is they always …

        And one thing that annoys me about non-vegans is that they always tend to stereotype vegans. There are nearly 100 million vegans in the world my friend. We are not all the same.

        • FuglyDuck
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          fair enough. instead allow me to say all the vegans I’ve met. (or at least, know about.)

      • @r1veRRR@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        It really depends on the food, and just how much “into” food you are. We’re probably never going to have a perfect replacement for a medium rare steak. But how many meat eaters eat medium rare? 90% of the women I know, and 70% of men will happily eat a shoe sole steak smothered in cheap ketchup, or pink sludge pressed into chicken nugget form. Those things can definitely be made vegan, and those people (generally, more often than not) wouldn’t taste the difference.

        But yes, meat alternatives (Tofu, Tempeh, BEANS), instead of replacements (Beyond Meat) are the better long term option.

        • FuglyDuck
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          even if it’s shoe leather, you can still tell a difference in steaks just by looking at it. As for the nuggets… I knew a guy whose job was doing chemical assays and stuffs. had a mass spectrometer and some other interesting equipment in his office. Because it was usually locked under NDA’s and stuff, he would instead go out to mcdonalds and buy whatever new thing came out on the menu and run that through. YOU DO NOT WANT TO KNOW.

      • @Hyperi0n@lemmy.film
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        I love meat.

        Tried these Yves Mild Italian veggie sausages and I am hooked.

        They have a nice dense texture but it’s not like the fake sausages you get with other brands that try to mimic the ground meat texture. More like a very firm a larger Hotdog wiener.

        I like them on the BBQ with all the sides. They are fantastic sliced and put into a pasta dish. You could even throw them on a Hotdog bun.

        I feel there needs to be some fake meat types to bring favorites over to and that brand nailed it with those sausages.

        • @PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 years ago

          I hear you. I started buying lots of beyond burger patties from whole foods and I actually find them pretty delicious so I’ve typically buy them instead of ground beef. Unfortunately my wife keeps buying ground beef so I end up eating that occasionally but it’s nothing to get worked up over.

    • XiELEd
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13 months ago

      I recommend tofu sisig and sweet & sour tofu!

  • Move to lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    55
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    In this thread: Shit loads of people who will say they care about the climate crisis on one day, then say they don’t care about the 18.5% of global carbon emissions that the meat industry causes the next day because they can’t get over the decade worth of anti-veganism jokes and memes that they’ve constantly repeated uncritically.

    Individual habits MUST be changed to solve this part of the problem, there is literally no way around that. Getting triggered and writing screeds because you’ve spent decades getting caught up in hate over food choices won’t stop the planet burning.

  • @SmolSweetBean@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    312 years ago

    OK, but what if instead of going vegan, I just don’t have kids. Because adding more people to the world also creates more greenhouse gasses.

    • @Djennik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      72 years ago

      The problem is not the amount of people but how much each individual consumes. Getting meat out of your diet is a simple and a small sacrifice. Besides the health benefits there is also the fact that you don’t contribute to the culling of 70 billion animals per year (of which 40% is probably not eaten and thrown in the trash). Not only that but you don’t contribute to the greatest cause of deforestation, antibiotics resistance, decline of biodiversity, water waste, …

      Besides the global population is steadily stagnating (Africa is still booming) as a lot of countries see population decline (less than 2 children per woman).

      • @Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        Couldn’t we just stop food waste? Most food is discarded before even making it to the store. Seems to me being more efficient with how we distribute food is more realistic that trying to convince everyone to go vegan.

        Because I’m not going to stop eating meat and the amount of ppl like me is larger than you think

        • @r1veRRR@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 years ago

          Many people will also not reduce food waste, for exactly same reasons you won’t stop eating meat. Convenience, habit, cost, time investment.

          • @Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            Except those two things are not the same. We already have regulatory organizations that determine how food is handled and distributed. We can’t regulate veganism, we can regulate food waste

            • @r1veRRR@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 years ago

              We could absolutely regulate veganism. Hell, it’s the other way around at the moment. For pretty much every animal rights law, there’s an exception specifically for farm animals. Just removing those exceptions would make factory farming (and therefore like 90% of meat production) illegal.

              And in a more general sense, we absolutely can regulate carnism (aka the opposite of veganism), exactly how we regulate a million other moral questions.

              • @Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                If only we had other examples of bans on certain goods and substances based on minority groups crys about morality. Im sure none of them resulted in billions of wasted dollars, mass incarceration, and the creation of a new black market

        • @Djennik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Both are true: reducing waste and adopting a plant based diet are great ways of reducing your footprint.

          The number of vegetarians/vegans is growing quickly. I’m not convincing you of going vegan. You are convincing yourself to keep on eating meat despite the scientific facts and moral consequences.

    • @r1veRRR@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 years ago

      Were you totally going to have children before you found out how bad they are for the climate? If not, you’re resting on literally fictional laurels. For example, maybe you planned a genocide of all black people, but then chose not to do it when you heard racism is bad. Therefore, by your logic, you prevented millions of deaths. You’re basically an anti-racist hero!

      But finally, as a childfree, carfree vegan myself, I don’t understand why you can’t just do your best

      Here’s a list of things I didn’t do, just to save the planet:

      • Have 200 children
      • Eat an entire cow every day
      • Drive 10 gas-guzzling, coal-rolling cars SIMULTANIOUSLY via remote control 24/7, 365 days a year
      • Invent the Globarzinator, a device that produces 5 BAJILLION MEGATONNES of CO2 every Planck time unit
      • arthurpizza
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        The environmental impact was not the ONLY reason I’m child free but it was definitely a factor in that decision. Same with being carfree. In fact I do a lot of things for not than one reason.

        • @r1veRRR@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          The point is that even without that reason you wouldn’t have any kids. It’s not the cornerstone of your childfree-ness. Neither is it for me, which is why I recognize that it’s morally lazy to rest on the imaginary laurels of not birthing children.

          By that logic, every parent could ALSO claim they are doing their part for the earth. Simply by not having EVEN MORE children. Hell, maybe they are better than you because you only didn’t have 2 kids, but they didn’t have 4 additional kids. Thats twice the savings, twice the reason to not make the world a better place and blame everyone else!

          • arthurpizza
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            The average family has 1.6 to 2.4 children depending on the region. The “even more” argument doesn’t really hold up because that’s not the societal norm.

            I also don’t own a car and cycle/bus everywhere. My girlfriend and I made the choice not to have kids, and we try not to be wasteful. It’s not about sacrifice, it’s about being aware of what you do.

    • jsveiga
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 years ago

      Instead of going vegan or not having kids, I died when I was 5. Because living also creates more greenhouse gasses.

      In fact, having a small footprint is just a matter of choosing how miserable you’re willing to make your life.

      Unfortunately the Earth cannot sustainably support so many people living COMFORTABLY, and eating WHATEVER WE LIKE. The more people, the more miserable is the globally sustainable way of life.

      Curbing population growth - not Thanos-like, but through education and availability of contraceptive methods - is the only way we can all have the cake (and the meat) and eat it.

      Many wealthy countries have their population declining. Maybe if we get to the same level of wealthiness everywhere, less people would engage in procreation.

      In any case, if we just do nothing and the doomsday evangelists are even nearly right, extreme weather, plage and famine caused by climate change will indeed curb the population. Eventually it reaches equilibrium.

      In this case, the faster we get to the edge of the abyss, the quicker the situation will solve itself.

      • Spzi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        having a small footprint is just a matter of choosing how miserable you’re willing to make your life.

        In many areas yes, but not when it comes to food. A plant based diet is in no way miserable. There are still too many places with bad kitchens making it seem that way, but that’s just a lack of skill on their part.

        I’d say my food experience rather became less miserable when I stopped eating meat, and my footprint decreased by a lot.

        Eventually it reaches equilibrium.

        In this case, the faster we get to the edge of the abyss, the quicker the situation will solve itself.

        If you open the window to ventilate for 20 minutes that’s different from replacing the air in your room in 2 nanoseconds. The violent shockwave of the latter will probably damage your stuff and harm your health.

        Similarly, the speed of climate change matters a lot. It is required for plants and animals to migrate and adapt, for people to migrate and adapt, for infrastructure to be built. It makes all the difference between a devastating blow and adaptation, while the reached equilibrium is the same in both cases.

    • Bipta
      link
      fedilink
      02 years ago

      What if you don’t have kids and just make an effort to reduce intake of animal products knowing it contributes to global collapse and also represents a modern holocaust.

      Animal products don’t have to be as all or nothing as having kids.

      • @kartonrealista@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        That moment when your veganism goes so hard you commit a hate crime on the internet implicitly comparing Jews to cattle

        Edit: I’m from Poland, the country where most of the Holocaust happened - this is where the Jewish population was the highest and where Germans build their death camps. We read about it extensively at school, including eyewitness accounts describing the atrocities involved in this horrific campaign of human extermination, from the home of the Jew, to the ghetto, to the transport train, to the camp, to the gas chamber and to the furnace. Many of us heard those stories from our grandparents, of their neighbors being humiliated and taken away, ghettos liquidated, and public executions. I don’t know what kind of deplorable scumbag one has to be to equate factory farming with the Holocaust.

        • Primarily0617
          link
          fedilink
          02 years ago

          *implicitly comparing the treatment of Jews during the holocaust to the treatment of cattle today

          also, you can compare two things without equating them

          I think if you actually cared about the words you wrote, you wouldn’t have used them as the basis of a lazy strawman to win an argument on the internet against veganism

          • @kartonrealista@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            0
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            I don’t care about arguing about veganism. Just stop bringing up stuff like this. Also, do you think calling something a “modern holocaust” is not a comparison in terms of scale of harm? As opposed to every other time those words are used?

            Edit: If you want to argue for veganism, stop bringing up Shoah. It’s disgusting, downplaying the severity of the genocide, and earns you no favors with the general population. It has negative convincing power.

            • @r1veRRR@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              It’s 90 billion every year. If their suffering is 15000 less significant, that’s one holocaust a year, every year, since many years. Why are you using Shoah, if holocaust is so obviously only one thing? And why are the voices of holocaust victims/survivors/relatives totally fine to silence? Many have made that comparison, shouldn’t they know best whether it’s comparable???

              You are correct however that this argument is utterly stupid and useless to make, esp. online, where there is zero context.

        • Spzi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 years ago

          implicitly comparing Jews to cattle

          Yes, it’s a tasteless comparison. I’m a German. Hello neighbor, nice to live in peace.

          The comparison also falls flat because while the Holocaust was a genocide, meant to eradicate, factory farming is the polar opposite.

          The population size of factory farmed animals is usually way above natural levels, because we farm them. A philosopher even called it an evolutionary win for the farmed species (which does not justify any harm done to individuals).

          There are more ways to express ‘very bad’ than comparing to the Holocaust, and many reasons not to, if you understand it.

      • @Screwthehole@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -12 years ago

        100 corporations contribute 71% of all emissions, and I’m supposed to stop eating the pork I bought from a local farmer? Fuck that noise!

    • @derf82@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      02 years ago

      Exactly. Not having kids covers my any excess from meat and driving easily.

      We’ve been eating meat for millennia, while climate change has only been an issue for a century, yet somehow meat eating is the problem, not the billions of people we have added.

          • @kicksystem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 years ago

            For sure it contributes, but meat was considered a luxury item before humans industrialized farms and slaughter houses. The main reason we are eating so much meat today, is because it was made dirt cheap and omni-available. And in fact, it is still kept artificially cheap with subsidies in most places today. Don’t forget that half the world is living in what we would consider poverty. The world bank reported in 2019 that “half of the global population lives on less than US$6.85 per person per day”.

            I am not saying over-population is not a problem, but it is also not the problem. Yes, 8 billion people is too much, but only because of the way we’re using our resources. It is like having a cake for 8 people and then 4 taking 7/8th of the cake and then throwing up their hands and saying: “Sorry guys, we’re with too many people! Better not have children anymore!”

            It’s not like we don’t have the know-how or technology to live with 8 billion humans on this planet. It is that we’re unwilling to use it, because it would require some sacrifices.

            Perhaps that’s why you find yourself arguing on the internet against veganism. You don’t want to change. Perhaps you’d like there to be a single root cause to a complex situation that is unlikely to have a single solution. Over-population is a problem, but so is meat consumption and so are coal power plants, etc. Sorry, life isn’t that simple.

            • @derf82@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 years ago

              Lots of food is subsidized. And I am certainly not arguing in favor of subsidizing meat.

              Earth produces fine resources. We cannot just keep increasing the denominator and then wine that people just trying to live are consuming too much.

              Tell me, how many resources can each person use (or pay a corporation to use for them) and not overshoot our resources?

              I am not saying overconsumption is not a problem. It is among the super rich. But I’m tired of the wealthy flying private jets to board their yachts, while people are saying people eating meat or driving cars is the problem. You need a reasonable degree of comfort. If we have to live the life of an acetic, what is the point of living at all?

              • @kicksystem@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                02 years ago

                I am not saying that each person should stay within the boundaries of what the planet can currently afford while keeping everything the same. The pie is clearly not big enough. That would surely put a lot of us back in the stone age and therefore is simply not a realistic option. I am saying that we should make more efficient use of our resources using the best of our knowledge (grow the pie). And yes, we should make some sacrifices too (be less greedy). The ones we can reasonably make without losing anything of moral significance. The Paris agreement is proof that there are plenty of people who have looked at these issues in depth and belief that this is doable.

                For example, only a small percentage of our energy consumption is powered by solar, wind and nuclear, while the vast majority still comes from coal, gas and oil. It is not like we simply don’t know how to change that. We just don’t want to. It is uncomfortable to change, but we could theoretically make that change a lot faster than we’re doing it now without cutting back much on consumption or sacrificing anything of moral significance.

                Likewise, and admittedly on a much smaller scale, you don’t want to change to veganism, which could reduce your carbon footprint from food by up to 73 per cent. And just like switching to clean power sources would not put us back in the stone ages, you’d not end up living like an ascetic if you’d switch to a vegan diet.

                But you’re not off the hook just because you’re not the major cause of the problem. We’re all in this together and we’ve all got to act responsibly within our means. How can you expect others to change if you won’t? Should all small countries only change when the big countries change? Should all small cities only change when the big cities change? Should the rich only change when the super rich change? Etc.

                And are you even aware where you sit in terms of your income/wealth compared to the rest of the world though? I’m betting that the majority of the world thinks you’re rich. The majority of the world points at people like you and me, you’re pointing to the super rich, the super rich point to the politicians, the politicians point at industry, industry points at the share holders, the share holders point at the consumers, etc.

                • @derf82@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 years ago

                  The largest thing you can do is have fewer kids: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

                  At least you get it, though. There is no path forward to be resource neutral. Few want to acknowledge that. Even the most resource-conscious person in a wealthy country uses too much one way or another.

                  And to me, a vegan diet is asceticism. That’s just my tastes. You are free to like vegan food, I don’t. I’m sorry I’m not you.

                  I never asked to be born. Not a day goes by I don’t wish I wasn’t. My parents wanted a play toy, so here I am, forced to pay bills on a collapsing planet. But now that existence has been thrust upon my, I want to enjoy what I can. Sorry that apparently makes me an awful person.

      • Spzi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        Fossil fuels are the problem, but not eating meat is a juicy, very low hanging fruit.

        There is no other way to prevent that much emissions for basically not changing anything. You will still eat 3 meals a day for a similar price.

        • @derf82@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 years ago

          It’s not nothing to me. Eating isn’t a mere chore, I eat because it is enjoyable. Vegan entrees just are not consistently palatable to me. Take away meat and I’m sorry, but my list of reasons to live will dwindle.

          And besides, I’d argue not having kids is an even lower hanging fruit by your reasoning. That even saves money. A lot of money.

          • Spzi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            Take away meat and I’m sorry, but my list of reasons to live will dwindle.

            Seems you haven’t had a good veggie dish yet. I totally get how enjoyable food is central for a happy life, but you don’t enjoy it because it was killed instead of harvested. I’m pretty sure you have a few veggie foods you enjoy, maybe without realizing they don’t contain meat.

            And besides, I’d argue not having kids is an even lower hanging fruit by your reasoning. That even saves money. A lot of money.

            As said in a nearby comment: Only if you didn’t want to have kids anyways. In which case it should not be counted as a saving.

            If you want to have kids but don’t because of climate, that’s probably tougher to stomach than a slight composition change on your plate.

            • @derf82@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -12 years ago

              Seems you haven’t had a good veggie dish yet. I totally get how enjoyable food is central for a happy life, but you don’t enjoy it because it was killed instead of harvested. I’m pretty sure you have a few veggie foods you enjoy, maybe without realizing they don’t contain meat.

              Or maybe I have different tastes than you.

              I really hate that attitude that because it isn’t much of a sacrifice for you, it isn’t for anyone else. People are different.

              Heck, even if I found your one magical dish, I’m not going to eat it for the rest of my life. Even with meat, I choose variety.

              As said in a nearby comment: Only if you didn’t want to have kids anyways. In which case it should not be counted as a saving.

              If you want to have kids but don’t because of climate, that’s probably tougher to stomach than a slight composition change on your plate.

              Oh, so personal preference suddenly matters? Seems you haven’t found the right hobby yet. I totally get how kids are central for a happy life, but you don’t enjoy them because they are your kids instead of pets. I’m pretty sure you have a few activities you enjoy, maybe without realizing they don’t contain kids.

              See how you sound?

              How about this, you don’t eat meat, I’ll not have kids? We’ll see in 100 years who had a more meaningful impact on climate change.

    • @ClockworkOtter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -12 years ago

      Because if we don’t have children then who are we saving the planet for? There are very clear and achievable ways to massively reduce our individual and collective emissions which we can pass onto our descendents for a sustainable future.

      • @Oderus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years ago

        Because if we don’t have children then who are we saving the planet for?

        Because someone else will have children. Not every human needs to procreate to keep our species alive. We’re at 8 Billion and going strong.

  • The Picard Maneuver
    link
    fedilink
    English
    272 years ago

    Well that’s no surprise. Raising animals for meat is horribly inefficient compared to plants.

  • @De_Narm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    222 years ago

    It’s not really suprising, is it? Just take two people and give them the same basics, but swap everything non vegan with the stuff those animals got to eat for one of them. Not only did he save the middle man to save on emissions, he also ended up with way more food. So you could save a lot more emissions by cutting down the vegan pile to the same amount of calories.

    Replacement products bring down the comparison, but making stuff out of soy will always be more efficient than feeding soy to animals and then eating those. So with otherwise equal lifestyles a vegan will always produce less emissions.

    • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 years ago

      As you’ve presented it, the vegan has poorer nutrition than the other person. We also need to consider the vitamin supplements to get amino acids we only get otherwise from meat.

      • @De_Narm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        Soy is a complete protein, meaning it has all essential amino acids. Seitan has 8 out of 9 essential amino acids, is made from wheat and has about the protein density of beef or chicken (~25% according to a quick search).

        You get a ton of soy and wheat which would otherwise be feed to animals. Just make tofu and seitan.

        However, you’re right, you need to supplement some things - at the very least B12. Which a non vegan diet mostly gets from fortified products, meaning its supplemented anyways.

  • @zephyreks@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    212 years ago

    And the type of meat changes the math significantly. Beef is notoriously inefficient and produces an insane amount of GHG emissions compared to more efficient meats like chicken, pork, and farmed fish.

      • Baron Von J
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -32 years ago

        And it’s not uncommon for breast cancer survivors to be told to avoid soy to reduce the risk of recurrence.

          • Baron Von J
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            Indeed, but some people will ignore articles if it is counter to what their doctor told them. Some will if ore their doctor if they have an article to back their preferred answer. Some will discuss the article with their doctor, or find a doctor who agrees with the article.

            • @kicksystem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 years ago

              Yep. Doctors aren’t infallible. That’s why you ideally want people to understand how science works, the hierarchy of evidence and able to deep dive into papers when need be.

    • @r1veRRR@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 years ago

      Not significantly enough to make the general statement untrue for 99% of meat eaters. Just for reference, “high meat diet” starts at 100g of meat a day. And farmed fish is fed wild caught fish and a fuckton of antibiotica.

      • @zephyreks@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        That can’t be true if the GHG multiple between meat and vegan is 4x and the multiple between beef and chicken is already more than 4x…

  • Chris
    link
    fedilink
    English
    212 years ago

    Haven’t we known this for a long time? With good peer reviewed studies?

  • @BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    202 years ago

    It amazes me how people can wail about the record breaking heat on one hand and the effects of climate change, and sit in these comments and rationalize that eating meat isn’t contributing. Of course it is.

    Going vegan was the best decision I ever made for myself.

    • @iamdisillusioned@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      02 years ago

      It’s because everything about my existence in a modern first world society contributes to it. Humans obviously can’t maintain stasis, so maybe we as a whole are the problem. I am very proudly and staunchly childfree for that reason but I’m not going to go live in the forest in a tent to save the planet for a species that obviously doesn’t deserve it.

      • @r1veRRR@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        NOT A SINGLE PERSON asked you to live in the forest in a tent. Taking the bus, being vegan, buying second hand, and eating the rich are all things we can do, AND STILL LIVE A MODERN, COMFORTABLE LIVE.

        I’m childfree, carfree, and vegan. Still manage to love live inside my non-tent in my non-forest city.

      • @renownedballoonthief@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        It’s almost like going vegan basically only requires shopping in different aisles at the grocery store, and you’re using a reductio ad absurdum fallacy to justify your shitty, easily-changed behavior.

  • @bossito@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    182 years ago

    I upvoted because this message still didn’t reach everyone, but I guess it’s just that people are in denial… like, isn’t this obvious? And weren’t there already dozens of studies proving it?

      • @bossito@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        102 years ago

        Well, if everyone thinks like that nobody does anything ever… even the richest of the rich can say “it’s not because of me”, because it really isn’t. This is a man made disaster, but not by any single man. Some contribute more, others less, but the idea that only the rich polute is complete bonkers.

        • @kicksystem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 years ago

          I think that’s the point. People don’t want to change, so they say: “I’ll change when they’ll change.” Knowing full well that it is a deadlocked situation.

      • NotAPenguin
        link
        fedilink
        02 years ago

        Other people doing bad things doesn’t justify you doing bad things.

    • @marmo7ade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -42 years ago

      I got the message and I don’t care. Humans evolved to eat animals. B12 is an essential vitamin whose primary source is meat and dairy. The entire country of India is B12 deficient because of their diet:

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6540890/

      For humans to live, other organisms must die. We are part of the cycle. You want to preserve the biosphere that allows humans to survive? Reduce the number of humans. I am child free.

      • @bossito@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        I eat meat myself. But I reduced a lot my consumption, most people in Western countries consume far too much, even for their own health. We should consume less and better, chosing meat from sustainable farming instead of cheap meat from pastures where there should be the Amazon…

      • NotAPenguin
        link
        fedilink
        -12 years ago

        We’re omnivores which means we can thrive with or without meat, B12 is simple to supplement.

    • ██████████
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -192 years ago

      people ate meat for MILLIONS OF YEARS with negligible global warming effect from the animals

      vegans going start blaming the Assyrianz for inventing husbandry before blaming Exxon Mobile BP

      like dude pick your battles

  • harold
    link
    fedilink
    English
    15
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Nah Corporations and industries creates 1000x more greenhouse gases than meat and agriculture.

  • @RagingRobot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    152 years ago

    It’s not the eating it really. It’s the farming and processing. I think it’s important to be clear so consumers aren’t stuck with all the blame.we buy what’s cheap and available and their pursuit of that has lead us here.

      • Carighan Maconar
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -32 years ago

        Yes and no. If its just got survival, sure. But if someone is eating grazing meat, they’re already in luxury eating territory.

        So we have to then consider foods such as “fancy” vegan burger patties and stuff. Which are all crazy expensive, at least over here.

        • @Vegoon@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          72 years ago

          If you choose to compare “fancy plant based capitalism” to reconstructed chicken sludge yes. But then I could compare beans to kobe beef?

          Most of the plant based meat-like products are aimed towards meat eaters but a normal plant based diet is cheaper in every part of the world. The poorest people eat way more plants not by choice but because they are economical forced to.

    • @Saneless@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      That’s a silly statement. Then let’s say driving our cars doesn’t either. It’s the combustion engine processing the gasoline, but turning the wheel and pressing the pedal does nothing

  • Sagrotan
    link
    fedilink
    English
    142 years ago

    IMO people should’ve dialed down their meat consume for years, everybody knows what it’s doing. I’m not a vegetarian by any means (I love many veggy recipes though & I adore good (!) tofu), we (my family) are getting meat from organic farms or from hunters for years, that’s more expensive but 2 times a week is absolutely sufficient. Same price as before, roughly. Even my meat devouring daughter thinks like that, but she gets real cranky after 5 days of lentils, bulgur wheat and paprika ;)

    • @bumblebrainbee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 years ago

      I dont understand how people who eat meat every single day don’t feel disgusting. I feel horrible eating meat every day. I have more energy and feel lighter when I limit my meat eating to maybe once or twice a week. Plus my farts don’t smell as awful when I’m eating mostly plant based things. It’s cheaper too! Especially when I end up growing my own garden.