Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway314155 | Hacker News Reader

Right just a little bit of restraint. On an unprecedented scale of coordination by hundreds of millions to billions of people - a scale of cooperation that has probably never occurred in human history (and there's no reason to believe it will any time soon).

But sure, if people "just" did a "little", it would go a long way. Just a _little_ restraint from the entire population all at once in perpetuity. No big deal.

View on HN

- Ozone

- Efficient Lighting (LEDs now, but others before)

- Santa Claus

There are certainly examples of a large portion of the population of the planet working together towards common goals. A lot of people putting in a little bit of effort _does_ happen, and it _does_ produce results.

Smoking, drinking - both on the decline for the last decades.

There was a profit motive in all of those except Santa. For instance until the main players in CFCs (which were the main cause of ozone depletion) were able to invent, patent, and market an alternative to CFCs they successfully lobbied against any change. Then they got a new patent, turned 180 degrees, claiming CFCs were the worst thing to ever exist - and made a ton of money after they were banned. Same thing with stuff like asthma inhalers.

When people want to do something, we're unstoppable. But unfortunately that means the good and the bad, and right now polluting actions are incredibly beneficial, and the alternatives are mediocre and not only unprofitable, but generally incur a substantial cost. There's a reason places like the US/Canada/Australia talk a mean game about climate change, yet remain some of the biggest polluters per capita, by far.

Uh, Santa is the biggest advertising campaign for consumerism the world has ever known

I agree with you and that’s why I’m believe soy will conquer the humans nutrition sooner or later. It already is the undisputed king of world-scale animal nutrition because it’s cheap and super nutritious. The drawbacks in Brasil happens because of its success, replace by another crop and the problems will be even worse.

Replace animals proteins for humans by soy for human and you can divide world soy production by ~5.

Improvement of the ozone hole wasn't from millions of consumers making different choices, it was from government regulation and choices of the few leading corporations in particular industries.

Efficient lighting is a mix of regulation against worse lighting and individual consumer economic self-interest, lowering their electrical bill (and sometimes longer-lasting bulbs).

Neither of these are examples of large numbers of people choosing to sacrifice something for a common goal.

There are mechanisms for such coordination. Diets have shifted around the world to more McD's, more western cuisine. Wild catch changes all the time as we overfish stocks to endangerment.

Always driven by money. McD's is cheaper and easier to mass produce. Wild catch changes when it is no longer economical to fish one kind of fish. There's never an "enlightenment" of people.

Internationally in markets undistorted by meat subsidies, plant-based food is cheaper and easier to mass produce...

Yes, a big multi government marketing campaign "Just don't eat meat 1 or 2 days a week" can definitely work. E.g. friday is "Fish day" in a lot of places (education/public) due to Catholic church influences.

Just need a catchy word and campaign for "Veggie Wednesday".

Meatless Mondays are a thing.

Technically most hindus don't eat meat / maybe eats eggs rarely , So its definitely possible but it would probably have to be ingrained in the religion itself.

Another reason is that we had plenty of land and rice and wheat etc. just made more sense than eating meat I suppose.

I have never tasted meat , eggs sometimes but I am stopping that as well , not for hinduism but because I am so close to this ideal , might as well do it 100% lol

I am majorly convinced that there is no god but if I wish there was a god , I wish for Hindu deities (though I am obviously biased and this explains why people have such biases even being half atheists)

You do this through the government. Implement meat rations. Everybody is only allowed so much meat per week. So you have to make it count.

I think this might be the first idea I've ever heard that I truly feel will backfire far worse than alcohol prohibition. I almost want to see it happen.

All families can't afford meat daily, let alone any type of meat they want. So, some families might favor chicken and certain processed meats here and there, but most cuts of beef and lamb for example might be out of the question, and so will daily meat consumption. The same applies for dairy, they might afford big blocks of tasteless cheese, but won't touch often cheese with taste, French or otherwise. There is no enforced rationing, but choice is reduced if not removed for a good fraction of the population, purely for economic reasons.

The USDA budget totals ~$200bn, of which 70% goes to SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

Table FNS-1, p58 https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-usda...

What's missing from this type of discussions is performance quantification and scientific attitude. It assumes solid food is indulgence and ultraprocessed vegan shakes paired with appropriate willpower is all it takes to do anything.

Things just don't work that way. Been there, done that. Willpower does nothing. Extra calories around your berry is extra calories around your berry. It's much more worthwhile to think about reducing GHG emission from farming than deceiving yourself into self-harming and projecting your own doing onto greater society.

> Implement meat rations.

I don't think we can ever be friends.

There's less extreme government action possible: tax meat & dairy higher.

There are already precedents for that, for example here in Germany cigarettes are taxed to about 70% and hard-liquor (altho it's more complicated to calculate as it depends on exact alcohol content) to about 40%.

Meat is only taxed at 7% via VAT (similar to sales tax in the US).

Vegetarian here. People who eat meat tend to reduce their consumption if you 1. charge them appropriately for it and 2. give them good alternatives. Telling them to not do something usually makes them angry unfortunately.

> Telling them to not do something usually makes them angry unfortunately

Then it's up to you to get even angrier.

Angry people are spiteful. I generally find it a lot more productive to get them to understand why their choices have consequences, how the can (progressively!) fix the problems, and watch things improve from there.

Environmentalists and those championing similar causes politically have taken this approach for decades. The result has been a perpetual shift to the right-wing who has no qualms about playing dirty, using fear, anger and other tribal emotions to gain support. Everywhere in the West, authoritarians are seizing power.

Good luck with continuing the virtuous approach while the world goes up in flames. It hasn't worked and has gotten us to where we are right now.

I think people should be angry about that, yes. I’m not particularly interested in tying eating meat to racism or whatever it takes to make people fearful enough to support you.

And this is why everything will keep going up in flames - you're not interested in doing what it has been shown to take to get people to support your cause.

Unfortunately it doesn't matter what we think people should be angry about. FWIW I obviously completely agree with you! People should be angry about those things! Turns out they aren't. What matters is the reality we live in.

I'd say accusing people of random stuff(racism,sexism and other isms) have been so overplayed in recent years, not only it doesn't work anymore, it works against you.

In the US, what Trump is doing is working. In the EU, what the authoritarian far-right parties are doing is working. Their tactics have been working incredibly well for them, use them, the inane pacifist take of "being above that" by environmentalists and progressives in general is what has caused them to be completely irrelevant and the rise of authoritarianism across the West.

I mean Hitler clearly did something right in getting elected. I'm not sure we want to emulate his policies, though.

How effective IYO was Morgan Spurlock (RIP) the activist filmmaker ("Supersize Me", [0]) at trying to educate the general (meat-eating) US public on US meat production, the restaurant industry, nutrition, marketing?

(PS:it's not a dichotomy between strict vegetarianism vs meat 4+ days/wk. Can encourage people to eat healthier and more sustainable.)

[0]: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1041597/

I mean I’m not an expert but I think the general sentiment among Americans about meat is “yeah I hear meat production is gross/polluting/inhumane but I like meat and don’t want to think about that”. Charitably I think we have a lot of things we can care about and most people want to ignore this, plus there’s a lot of cultural baggage tied to diet people don’t want to leave. I think actual solutions will mostly involve the idea that reduction is good instead of throwing up your hands because you’re unable to commit to being vegan, and adding options to people’s diet that they actually enjoy. I think we have a very hard time solving “I can’t completely solve this and also it requires changes I don’t like so doing nothing at all is fine”.

He didn't try to educate. He sensationalized for profit. Supersize Me was a grift. He drank himself fat and fabricated his numbers.

Can't just dismiss his 17 films as a grift. Even accepting all the valid criticisms where he misled audiences, his shockumentaries did try to educate, somewhat, but also stretched facts and went for a personalized narrative, Michael-Moore-style. He did leave a legacy of nearly single-handedly reviving documentary as a film genre relevant to nutrition, one that mainstream audiences would watch.

His sequel "Super Size Me 2: Holy Chicken!" (2017) had fewer distortions and was pretty watchable and educational. Here's a review from https://www.agdaily.com/livestock/poultry/super-size-me-2-mo... which among other things covered in depth: "Many food labels, such as organic, natural, non-GMO, gluten-free, no added hormones, free range, green, artisan, antibiotic-free, are indeed quite misleading" and how those branding terms are misused in marketing to restaurant customers. I haven't seen any industry criticism of the segment with the two branding consultants.

As to the legacy of "Super Size Me", here's a review by an ag evangelist: https://www.eater.com/24173039/morgan-spurlock-legacy-super-...

Not by rationing, if you meant the US government: US per-capita consumption of meat is 328 lbs/year [UN FAO]. You'd try to reduce the subsidies and incentives for meat/ corn/ soybean production which are baked into the USDA budget ($200bn in 2024), since the 1930s (Great Depression), and more since the 1950s (and related stuff like the marketing tool of the "Food Pyramid"). These will be as politically hard to cancel as defense production or military bases or prisons.

Here's even a 2023 editorial from the Kansas City Star pointing the blame at Big Ag "Corn drives US food policy. But big business, not Midwestern farmers, reaps the reward" [0]:

> No, corn is not an evil crop, nor are farmers in the Corn Belt shady criminals. However, the devastating effect of corn owes to the industrialization of the plant by a small group of global agribusiness and food conglomerates, which acts as a kind of de facto corn cabal. These massive corporations — seed companies, crop and meat processors, commodity traders and household food and beverage brands — all survive on cheap commodity corn, which currently costs about 10 cents a pound. Corn’s versatility makes it the perfect crop to “scale” (commoditize, industrialize and financialize).

A libertarian take is the Cato Institute "Farm Bill Sows Dysfunction for American Agriculture" [1]:

> The Sprawling Farm Bill:... has its roots in the century-old New Deal and is revised by Congress every five years... "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), was added to the Farm Bill in 1973 to ensure support from rural and urban lawmakers, accounts for about three-quarters of the omnibus package. Some lawmakers and pundits have proposed splitting SNAP from the Farm Bill to stop the logrolling and facilitate a clearer debate on farm subsidy programs, which make up the rest of the bill." ...aslo criticizes crop insurance subsidies (which mainly go on the four big crops), Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) ("Welfare for Wealthier Farmers"), Crop insurance subsidies (" originally envisioned as a more stable and cost-efficient alternative to ad hoc disaster payments, but they have acted more as a supplement than a replacement—and may have actually increased risks along the way.")

[0]: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-com...

[1]: https://www.cato.org/policy-investigation/farm-bill-sows-dys...

That's an incredible amount of meat. That's 400g a day per person. I can't even eat that much meat in one go without feeling the meal is seriously unbalanced. Half that is a meat heavy meal for me. So that must mean a significant number people are eating huge amounts of meat for every meal. That or the waste is huge.

Yes that stat does make me wonder. Even if 21% of meat is wasted [0]. (Possibly they count "reaches a supermarket shelf" as = "not wasted", even if it isn't ultimately cooked or eaten?). But even then.

([1], the 2023 study by Tulane University supposedly finding "12% Of Americans 1/2 Of The Nation's Beef: How a mere 12% of Americans eat half the nation's beef, creating significant health and environmental impacts" is a red herring, all it says is that on any given day, some fraction of meat-eaters exceed portion sizes ("Those 12%—most likely to be men or people between the ages of 50 and 65—eat what researchers called a disproportionate amount of beef on a given day").

[0]: https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/food-waste-in-the-...

> "Wasted food ranks as the number one material in US landfills, accounting for 24.1% of all municipal solid waste. Americans waste 21% of meat, 46% of fruit and veg, 35% of seafood, and 17% of dairy products. Altogether, Americans waste between 30% and 40% of the total US food supply."... "Poor packaging techniques causes 10% of grain products, 5% of seafood, and 4% of meat to be lost."

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditForGrownups/comments/16cpmni/...

People, especially men, get irrationally angry by even the slightest thought of their precious meat being touched (including here on HN; there are more than a few crackpots over here who promote a meat only or even red meat only diet). If there would be a reason to violently overthrow the gov, this would probably be it; not for the things that actually matter to better or save humanity, but to save their daily meat platter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com