Hacker News Reader

> Hamburger? Maybe eat some pulled pork. Pulled pork? You can replace it with lamb.

I don't understand this. Is this based on CO2? Because I feel worse about pigs being killed, they are smarter than cows, and so subject to even more psychological horror in the factory farm. And lamb is horrible because a lamb is just a baby sheep. Sheep naturally live something like 8 years, but a lamb is a sheep that was killed at less than one year old.

Seriously, vegetables, soy beans, and lentils are suuuper tasty.

It's based on an overall environmental impact per pound of meat.

Cattle produce a lot of methane while digesting, which is 200 times worse for the environment than CO2.

Beef also requires way more food and water.

Pigs produce much less methane and require less resources thus they are greener overall.

>less methane and require less ressources thus they are greener

The relation between CO2E and « greener » is not so straightforward:

- pigs defections are (very) bad for ecosystems downstream the nearby river.

- pigs are supplemented with fish oil and/or floor, not cows. The fishing methods impacts the marine populations and ecosystems

I can't do full vegan either, but that's ok, we don't need western people to eat 0 meat, just less.

Veganism in the form of religion that thou must not deviate from is entirely counterproductive, IMO

> Veganism in the form of religion that thou must not deviate from is entirely counterproductive, IMO

Do whatever you want but what’s actually counterproductive is attempting to the blame the small percentage of the world’s population that are vegan or follow a vegan diet.

I don't think he's blaming anyone, merely stating that you don't need to go into extremes and that fanatism often pushes people away entirely.

Telling people, "you should never eat meat", is the best way to put them in defensive mode and shut down the message entirely.

> Telling people, "you should never eat meat"

That was not in their comment though, there wasn’t any mention of people telling others what they can eat. The comment just states that the existence of vegans is counterproductive somehow.

No, the critic was only that "Veganism in the form of religion that thou must not deviate from" is counterproductive in getting people to eat less meat.

To me it reads veganism in the form that the individual practicing it does not deviate from it, nothing about telling others how to eat. How is the existence of those people counterproductive to people eating less meat?

"Veganism in the form of religion that thou must not deviate from" is entirely counterproductive because it tries to get people to completely stop eating meat. Large majority of the population doesn't want that so they continue with the same meat consumption, while we could eat less meat that we currently do without giving up on some BBQ/steaks here and there. It creates a false dichotomy, putting people on the defensive because they don't want to give up meat.

This is such a braindead take.

I agree with this.

If most of us just limit our meat intake, that will have a huge impact. Going from 7 days meat per week to 3 or 4, and maybe reducing the portions can easily halve your impact.

My wife is vegan and we eat a lot of plant-based food. The kids and I still have some meat, and some milk and eggs. As a whole, we've probably halved our animal based food intake without giving up a lot.

There's plenty of great tasting vegetarian/vegan dishes out there.

I actually made some veggie burgers instead of using meat recently, they turned out fine: https://imgur.com/a/9KA78TQ (a bit dry, but that's what the sauce was for)

I don't think I could do a fully vegan diet easily, but I lean more heavily into plant based food, I still think that Michael Pollan's advice holds true:

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

That said, it feels like the governments around the world are subsidizing the production of meat perhaps a bit too much, which is why people don't have to deal with the true cost of meat production and therefore opt for it disproportionately often, alongside cultural habits.

Meat is tasty, yes, but to me feels like something that should be enjoyed maybe once or twice a week, instead of every day. I say that as someone who has helped my dad hunt wild animals, remove the guts from the carcasses, bring them home, skin them, de-bone the meat and perhaps has a bit more understanding of what it takes to get to a tasty meat meal than the average person. Very humbling experience, presumably a little bit similar to working on a farm.

That said, chicken meat feels way better than something like beef when it comes to the environmental effect and is both versatile in what you can put it in, as well as is really tasty, so for many that would be a workable option too, for more frequent consumption!

it's worth noting: meat production is only resource-intensive because of the amount that we produce. In smaller quantities, cows / sheep / goats can graze on land that isn't useful for anything else. Pigs and chickens can eat garbage.

Pigs especially were a significant urban technological advance, good at turning most kinds of organic matter into usable food. They played a big role in the rise of many civilizations.

If we ate less meat overall, we could absolutely produce it in ways that were environmentally friendly.

> I always get severely downvoted on social medias when I say...

There's some irony that the proud meat eater that often replies to such comments feels more prevalent these days the pushy vegan/vegetarian straw man they'll often rant about.

> Maybe by eating less of it you can also afford to also raise the quality.

Economics makes that easy, Here in Australia "cheap" beef in particular just leaves me feeling so cheated I avoid it out of that principle alone, why bother when it actively detracts from the meal. Would much rather get the good cut occasionally and actually enjoy it.

Also worth checking for sustainable local sources; I often eat Kangaroo instead which hits the same itch and dramatically better for the environment (in fact it's a net positive removing them).

Near me is a conservation area where agriculture is not allowed, but cattle grazes there all year round. It is sold locally. Plant-based food is often farmed on an industrial scale which pollutes the environment with glyphosate for example.

It is not about food type, it is about how it's produced.

> And if you really want that hamburger, enjoy it without any guilt!

That's very gracious of you, to allow this.

> It is not about food type, it is about how it's produced.

It absolutely is!

A single cow produces around 220 pounds of methane and around 200 pounds of ammonia per year. That's equivalent to 5ish gigatons of CO2, again per cow per year, so this really makes no sense.

Why not compare to how much food you can produce on the same land with some sustainable cereal?

I bet you, there's no less than 30 times more food at a fraction of the emissions.

> That's very gracious of you, to allow this.

I am not vegan myself and I don't feel guilty eating meat at all, but I'm aware enough to limit the intake and spread this to my family which is the point I'm trying to make.

> A single cow produces around 220 pounds of methane and around 200 pounds of ammonia per year. That's equivalent to 5ish gigatons of CO2, again per cow per year, so this really makes no sense.

Ignoring the myth of harmful CO2 for a moment - Ammonia is an important nutrient, maybe one of the most important chemicals that make it possible to feed humanity. Another example of environmentalist ideology trying to destroy the foundation of modern civilization. Ammonia is so important that it's produced synthetically in large amounts.

Your ammonia calculation is also merely copy-pasted and comes from factory farming and can't even be used to judge freely grazing cattle. Additionally, the naturally present ammonia goes right back into the soil as fertilizer for the gras. There is no "CO2 equivalency", this is another naive fallacy of the environmentalists. It's just theoretical statistics used for political propaganda purposes.

> I always get severely downvoted on social medias

Why? Yours is not a fanatical take. You’re just explaining how we can contribute in a more positive way by putting the planet before our taste buds.

Because of very basic human nature: we don't like to be told something we do is "wrong", and nobody likes the idea of eating a steak with some sense of guilt.

Can't go vegan? Why not

For most people, I think it comes down to habits/practical stuff/availability.

Everyone most certainly COULD do it, but don't underestimate how our bodies and brains react to different foods/diets etc.

I like meat. I'm fine promoting eating way less of it, but I will just never give up on it entirely.