Hacker News Reader

Comment by hexbinencoded | Hacker News Reader

How is this any different from hybrid vehicles still burning FF? Yes, it makes it slightly better, but eating certain protein sources is a choice, whereas transportation infrastructure is an economically-limited choice.

Animal ag still causes:

- climate change

- inefficient allocation of calories and fresh water

- water, air, and ground pollution (lakes of poo, runoff into rivers)

- pandemic and other zoonotic disease accelerated evolution (many animals in close proximity, including humans and occasionally wild animals)

- increased food prices

- usual also including animal welfare and cruelty

It seems like putting a happy face on coal, smoking, asbestos, or DDT

View on HN

If given two choices them being "stuck in discussions 'cause major perfect changes on a global scale are really hard and complicated to implement" and "anything that helps even if just a bit is welcome, incrementally we go further" I would pick the latter any day. The software patch culture in modern society should work better than unreal expectations with the type of education the average human being gets around the world.

Australia is not going to ban meat consumption any time soon. It is a positive step that they are at least bothering to try and mitigate huge potential sources of GHG emissions.

No one is asking to ban these things. Just tax them a lot, so that people will be encouraged to eat something other than steak/burgers every day. Instead, taxpayers subsidise beef and dairy farming, making the end product cheaper and more likely to be consumed.

All or nothing thinking has obviously not worked for addressing climate issues. Thus - you see all these more pragmatic solutions popping up.

You're not going to convince even 10% of the global population to convert to veganism in the next 10 years. I agree it would be great but the real world needs to be dealt with.

> - climate change

This is the only relevant element, and it's largely contingent on Methane emissions. Therefore, drastically reducing emissions is not just "slightly better", particularly considering their impact on climate change.

By which definition of "relevant" are animal cruelty[0] and pandemic-level diseases not included? COVID-19 is very "tame" compared to what's possible. There's a sense in which we're lucky that we got this pandemic as a practice round for something which we know has the potential to be much, much worse. This isn't controversial at all.

[0] If you think it's not that bad, watch Dominion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko

We eat meat as part of our diet.

So saying 'animals are the problem' is like saying 'human existence' is part of the problem.

We ate meat before, we can continue to eat meat.

What we need to do is fix the carbon problem, and possibly the 'too many people' problem.

> 'human existence' is part of the problem.

That's where I'd place it in the long-run. More people means more destruction of land and environment, regardless of increases in efficiency.

“All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people and harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.” "I support Population Matters because I think if we keep on growing, we’re not only going to damage nature, but we’re likely to see more and more inequality and human suffering." “One thing you can say is that in places where women are in charge of their bodies, where they have the vote, where they are allowed to dictate what they do and what they want, whether it’s proper medical facilities for birth control, the birth rate falls.” “The human population can no longer be allowed to grow in the same old uncontrolled way. If we do not take charge of our population size, then nature will do it for us.” “As I see it, humanity needs to reduce its impact on the Earth urgently and there are three ways to achieve this: we can stop consuming so many resources, we can change our technology and we can reduce the growth of our population.” "Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it's time we controlled the population to allow the survival of the environment."

- Sir David Attenborough, naturalist and broadcaster, Population Matters Patron (born 1926)

From https://populationmatters.org/quotes

Yep yep and yep. But people these days “but mah bacon!”

I love bacon, burgers, hot dogs, fillet mignon, and porterhouse too, but I don't eat them because they're suicidal and omnicidal choices, like slurping down 256 oz. of HFCS, smoking 6 packs a day, or weighing 200 kg.

If there were really good Impossible Bacon, I would go for it.

We need alternatives that don't create more externalities than they solve, whether that means cultured means or substitutes.

Furthermore, I think you're right in the underlying sentiment in that we need leadership to make tough, "austerity-like" choices to outlaw certain things that are leading us towards certain doom because most people won't change unless they're dragged kicking-and-screaming. Easter Island had trees, North America had megafauna, the ancient world has slyphium and those are all gone now because of humans.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com