Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Plant-based diet would reduce agricultural land use from 4 to 1B hectares (ourworldindata.org)
44 points by yboris on March 4, 2021 | hide | past | favorite | 128 comments



When I was a kid there were between 3 and 3.5 billion humans on earth. Population control would also help these kinds of problems, but people really dont like to talk about that.

For some reason it's ok to criticize someone's eating habits, but not their reproductive ones.


People talk about it all the time. I think there are a lot of initiative to provide Africa (one of the only fast growing areas) with birth control and education, especially of young women and girls.

It does of course get turned into "this politician want to abort poor peoples babies", but unfortunately that's where we are at as world.

I do agree this should be part of the solution.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/05/bernie_sa...

edit: while I was typing this the parent got compared to Hitler, so there you go. Simply making birth control available is not eugenics, that is what I have heard people suggest


> Population control would also help these kinds of problems, but people really dont like to talk about that

It's not a problem in the developed world. And it's not a problem in the best organized of the developing. So population control would amount to developed nations regulating poor nations' populations' reproduction, which is a difficult campaign to run on.


Genocide does tend to be a bit problematic.


birth control != murder


> For some reason it's ok to criticize someone's eating habits, but not their reproductive ones.

For some reason yes... like remember the guy with the funny looking mustache?

The problem is everyone who makes some form of this argument tends to think it's the other people there should be fewer of.


First, there's a difference between population control and genocide, but I'm sure you're aware of that.

Anyway your other point is great: the rich and socialist countries are naturally controlling the population by reduced birth rates, so when someone mentions a comment like that they specifically mean poor and / or brown people.

To get 'natural' population reduction, we need a worldwide policy of wealth, health care, and sexual education. For the last point, it's important to note that it requires deprogramming. To be very blunt, the Catholic Church has brainwashed generations to reproduce as much as they can. That damage has to be undone.


>> so when someone mentions a comment like that they specifically mean poor and / or brown people.

>> To get 'natural' population reduction, we need a worldwide policy of wealth, health care, and sexual education. For the last point, it's important to note that it requires deprogramming. To be very blunt, the Catholic Church has brainwashed generations to reproduce as much as they can. That damage has to be undone.

So I'm a racist for bringing up population as an issue, but you get to point to policy solutions and blaming religion?

Thanks.


> I'm a racist for bringing up population as an issue, but you get to point to policy solutions and blaming religion?

I don't think anyone reasonably accused you of racism.

The reality of demographics mean population control amounts to rich, predominantly white nations telling poor, predominantly brown nations to have fewer kids. The problem isn't race per se. It's the racial discrepancy making most solutions politically untenable.


Yes, absolutely.

Anyone that thinks that "population control" is a good idea is a eugenicist inviting genocide. You would have to be racist to suggest it without seeing it as violent and evil.

There's no wiggle-room here. You made a Hitler-tier suggestion on how we deal with human beings living on this Earth. Reflect upon what you said a little and reconsider how you view the third world.


There was more to the mustached madman than genocide, in fact the genocide sprung out of eugenics, or at least a common parent belief. Eugenics is most definitely about specifying whom is allowed to reproduce.


There is virtually no difference between "population control" and genocide. Nobody tries to control their own people's reproduction, they try to control other peoples' reproduction.

Nobody argues that the USA is overpopulated and needs population control, but tons of people argue that the entire continent of Africa is overpopulated and needs population control. It couldn't be more obvious that demographics play a role in who has population control enforced, and who doesn't.

You could just as easily allow people from "overpopulated Africa" to move to the USA and balance things out, but it would be easier for racists to force abortions and sterilizations on Africans than allow black-skinned immigrants to relocate into their communities.

If you're deliberately trying to prevent certain demographics of people from being born, that's genocide. This notion that genocide requires mass-murder is ignorant and dangerous. Eugenics is genocide, full stop.

And no, "population control" cannot ever be implemented equitably, don't even start.


> Nobody tries to control their own people's reproduction

China [1]. Famously. Also, contraceptives.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy


That's because overpopulation is a myth. Sure, there's a limit to how many humans the planet can support, but we're nowhere near that limit.

The USA throws away nearly as much food as it eats. Resource availability isn't the issue - resource distribution is.

And since when was it uncommon for people to criticize people's reproductive habits? Eugenicists have been trying as hard as possible to keep black and brown people from reproducing for centuries now, and ethno-nationalists view race mixing as a mortal sin.

Generally we stick away from these kinds of arguments, due to how morally reprehensible they are. If you think the world was better or easier to manage when there were only 3 billion people on it, that's purely a matter of opinion, but there's literally only one way we ever go back to that population size, and that's through genocide, so no, we don't entertain these ideas.


>> That's because overpopulation is a myth. Sure, there's a limit to how many humans the planet can support, but we're nowhere near that limit.

Exponential grow will overtake any and all efforts that reduce a problem by a constant factor like the 4x proposed by changing eating habits.


Excerpt from the article:

> This is an important insight from this research: cutting out beef and dairy (by substituting chicken, eggs, fish or plant-based food) has a much larger impact than eliminating chicken or fish.

My intuition is that this harm reduction is surprisingly doable for most omnivores, because it doesn't require going full vegan. Or going on a harm reduction meal plan on, say, all weekdays would make 80% of the difference.


Actually this is a good path to becoming vegan/vegetarian for some people.

Eliminating all the meats as options for core components of dishes all at once is a radical and major change.

Eliminating just a couple of them, ie beef or red meat, getting used to it and probably learning a couple veggie main dishes to replace the variety makes the next step easier.

Then cut back on a next meat or dairy item once the first step became normal. Repeat.

This worked for me, and at the start I didn’t even think I’d go all the way. I just wanted to stop eating red meat since it seemed the least efficient.


note: "habitable land" (as described in the summary) is not the same as "arable land" that can readily be used for agriculture. A lot of land currently used for rearing animals is pretty poor soil.

It seems to imply that right now we CAN'T grow enough vegetables because the animals take up all the space. This is not true. It's a matter of supply and demand; there is enough supply for vegetables on the market at the moment, so instead land is used for soy and animals / animal feed, because that's what the market wants.

Similarly, if demand for meat lowers, less soil will be used for that kind of thing.

Anyway thank you for coming to my TED talk, usual disclaimers apply such as: Armchair wisdom, not a farmer, not a global economist, not an ecologist, etc.


A lot of farmland is dedicated to growing feed for livestock, however. If you can grow corn on a section of land, you can probably grow other crops.


True, I did mention soy, which (iirc) is the reason why big parts of the Amazon are being flattened and burnt (it was soy or palm oil, probably both?).

I live in NL, where traditionally we held cows (for milk and meat) because the ground would occasionally be flooded with salty seawater; grasses would be the only thing that grew. We had regular farms, built within a sea wall. It was only in the past few hundred years that we built said sea wall around the whole country, making things more viable for 'regular' farming.


It would be nice if the market is the only force creating demand for production. The amount of subsidies is massive for soy/corn <-> cows/poultry production.

Removing the subsidies would make burgers and meat in general much more expensive.


I think the implication is that we have a tremendous amount of deforestation (to get more land to grow more stuff to feed the animals!) and a runaway problem with pollution (air, land, water) that can be significantly ameliorated with a reduction of meat consumption.


Personally, I always find this stuff upsetting. I'm not sure I'm even capable of a plant based diet if I wanted to. I've always been an very picky eater. Many vegetables have never agreed with me, I gag and vomit when I try to force them down. I've tried many times in my life and I do have a sort of core list of veggies I don't mind, but most are absolutely revolting in my mouth.

I'm envious of people who can just eat whatever they want. They will never understand the anxiety a simple dinner invitation gives me.


That sounds horrible :(. I do want to mention that a plant based diet without veggies is not really any less healthy than a meat based diet without veggies. Hopefully you are taking a multivitamin either way. Even without grains there are nuts, fruit, and starchy roots, as well as different ways of processing food like hominy or fermentation. If you like banannas, do ok with some kind of oil, and haven't tried fried plantain, I recommend giving that a try next time you are feeling adventurous. I had a very limited diet for years at one point due to digestive issues so I have a better idea than most how difficult it can be when you are in a situation where you know a few foods work and almost nothing else does (of course in my case it was a delayed reaction so it was at least partly pleasant to try occasionally).


"They will never understand the anxiety a simple dinner invitation gives me."

That's kind of normal, isn't it? A lot of people don't cook well.

Every ingredient can be turned into a bland, revolting mush. That doesn't mean it's a bad ingredient.


Thank you for illustrating exactly what I mean when I say you will never understand. You're not in the ballpark here, you're not even in the same universe.

It has nothing to do with the skill of the chef

It has everything to do with the ingredient.

But you don't understand and you never will. You will think I am exaggerating or being dramatic because you've never experienced it.


have you tried okra, mushroom stems, and Brussels sprouts? Okay that was a joke, but how about diced vegetables mixed in something else and then slowly increasing from there? Optimal world being slowly as in over years.


Biting into something I don't like that is "hidden" in something else that I do like triggers the same reflex in me that most people get when biting into gristle.

It's not a great sensation.


Lamb also produces wool, used as clothing, insulation, etc. -; lanolin, used in a lot of skincare products; and so on. Beef & pig skin is used as leather products.

If you add these needs into the plant-based idea, how does it look?

EDIT: the beef energy need is ridiculous though, and that should definitely be reduced. My main issue is lamb, because wool is an incredible and useful material, which should get a lot more attention.

EDIT: re "replacement" materials - if you mean plastics, we know how well that is going.


To what extent do those needs have no replacements, and what percentage of livestock raised for food are used also for other products?


If you are avoiding synthetic fibers (e.g. due to concerns about microplastics or outgassing) then I am not aware of an alternative to wool. The big feature of wool is that, unlike plant fibers, it still insulates you when it gets wet. It also has anti-bacterial properties (so it tends not to get body odor as quickly) and is naturally flame retardant (which also separates it from most synthetic fibers).

The faux-leather that I'm aware of seeks to replicate leather's look more than its performance. In particular leather tends to last much longer, develop a patina as it gets worn, doesn't melt when burnt, provides protection, etc. On the other hand, fabrics like kevlar and ballistic nylon can replicate some of leather's performance but not its look. Most of these also have the issues associated with synthetic fibers.

Finally, there are semi-niche applications for vegetable tanned leather (which is the more traditional approach to tanning). Vegetable tanned leather becomes flexible when wet and holds its shape when it dries. That allows leather to be formed into shapes (e.g. armour for martial arts or cosplay, holsters and sheaths) and allows it to be tooled. I'm not aware of a faux-leather that acts that way.


those are from a minuscule portion of the animals. plant and polymer substitutes are readily available for most use cases, and where the real thing matters, a few animals may of course still be raised for that dedicated purpose. this is about reducing meat consumption.


There are definitely issues where plant and polymers can be good substitutes but they often aren't as good.

Plant based fabrics tend to have much worse performance than the animal derived alternatives. Granted, that doesn't apply to clothing being worn purely for fashion.

Polymer based fabrics often do not wear well and may have issues with micro-plastics and outgassing.


> polymer substitutes

Which eventually adds to the mountains of non-bio-degradable plastic waste.


definitely a concern, but that problem has solutions too


Care to share it with the world, that currently tries to deal with plastic pollution?


what is a comparable substitute to wool for textiles, especially for outdoorsing? genuine question as I'm not vegan but have been working to move away from animal products where feasible for me


There are also problems with meat production: immense pollution of air, land, and water.

And there are a multitude of negative health impacts with high meat consumption as well.

And there's also the catastrophic moral failing: a staggering amount of inevitable abuse of sentient creatures when we look across the modern practices of growing animals for human consumption.


Lamb is a very young sheep, so I guess those will not have much wool before being slaughtered?

Anecdotally, I have Dutch family that kept sheep for a long time. They said the cost of shaving off the wool is often higher than the value of the wool.


I wonder how many people are allergic to petrolatum and not lanolin.


Aren’t meat sheep and wool sheep different?


Its not the 17th century anymore, we can make those things from non-animal components. Leather and lanolin are a wholly unneeded vanity and for the vain they can just do with alternatives.


There is no all-in-one replacement for wool: it's insulating even when wet, it's fire-retardant, lightweight, has antibacterial and anti-mould properties, and it's bio-degradable.

Regarding leather: if one cares for it, it last decades. No plastic replacement I ever had lasted as long as leather that was occasionally cleaned and greased.


Nearly everyone wears cotton or synthetics, no one "needs" wool the same way you don't need the unique light a whale oil lamp gives. These are, again, vanities for the vain at the cost of animal suffering. Wool is also very expensive and the environmental cost of raising all these animals outweighs the biodegradable benefits.

Except in reality, leather is more or less a fast fashion item that comes and goes. People buy them and toss them as their fashion tastes dictate, again, its not the 17th century. Its very rare to have a leather coat you wear daily for decades. Even in poorer countries is expensive to get and treated mostly like a vanity item. Alternative fabrics and materials work just as well and they both end up in a landfill after a few years anyway. Also the leather industry is abusive and exploitative towards workers and exposes some of the most vulnerable people to carcinogens and poisons needed to "work" leather. Is your vanity item worth all this suffering?


That may be true for you but it's not true for everyone. There is literally a saying in the hiking community "cotton kills" due to the danger of getting hypothermia from getting wet while wearing cotton.

Not everyone who wears a leather jacket it looking for fast fashion junk that will be thrown away in a few years. There are a lot of people who take a "buy it for life" approach to their clothing.


Cotton and synthetics are part of people's wardrobe (a big part), but for specific, specialized purposes and items the animal based things are still the best option.

My mum knitted me a hat and scarf out of wool (mixed with synthetics because 100% sheep wool is not ideal), it's great.

My hiking boots are made mainly out of leather, synthetics are no alternative. My day to day ones are synthetic though.

Good quality leather products are expensive; your statement on them being "fast fashion" is only relevant if you're rich, or if it's shit fake leather.

Also, good quality synthetics as a replacement for animal products, the 'outdoor' stuff, is prohibitively expensive - moreso than an equivalent animal product.


> at the cost of animal suffering

Go to a sheep farm, and watch the sheering. That PETA campaign was complete bs; most sheep actually await and enjoy being free from their fluff.

EDIT: too many replacements are plastic, which is adding to the accumulation of plastic garbage.


https://www.peta.org/living/personal-care-fashion/whats-wron...

This?

You could also watch Dominion where the sheep section at 1 hour 11 minutes does not show happy sheep waiting to be sheered.


The alternatives of which are largely plastic-based.


I can think of something else that would reduce agricultural land-use, as well as mining, lumber, waste, etc. Lower demand by virtue of a lower population, or even just stagnant growth.

Gaining efficiencies in one respect is nice. Can't disparage that. But you can't do so across the board if demand for goods and therefore resources will keep climbing. Think of consumer choices as a mere multiplier for their carbon footprint, because we all have one. Even almonds are suspect now because of the obscene level of water they require in California.

Gains in efficiency like this slow down land encroachment, but they don't stop it. I'm not going to participate in a race to the bottom of being the most efficient cog possible with minimalist consumption (I mean, I consider myself relatively minimalist) when it's plain that my contribution is not ultimately what matters.


I don’t think this will be an issue in 25 years. Artificial meats like impossible meat, and lab grown meats are going to become better tasting than the real thing within our lifetimes. People will change from eating animals to plants/lab grown meat because it tastes better.


I really dislike this focus on 'artificial' meats, instead of diversifying diets. For some reason there's still a trope that vegetarian meal options are depressing salads.

Try something that isn't a hamburger. I can recommend curries, they have more flavor than any burger you've had.

(also re: flavor, most flavor in meat comes from seasoning anyway, it's the textures and fat content that the meat replacements can't get quite right yet)


My main point is, before the invention of the steam engine, land transit speeds were basically governed by laws of animal husbandry. After the steam engine, we went from slow rail roads to rocket ships in 100 years. Right now, the quality of the meats/proteins we consume is governed by the laws of animal husbandry. We have already developed the first lab grown meats for human consumption (first steam engine), and things are going to accelerate rather quickly from here until artificial meats are clearly superior in taste and quality as they are not governed by animal husbandry but rather human ingenuity and biochemistry.


Just removing the first 2, Beef and lamb, would almost solve the problem of land use.

Has anyone seen this movie? No idea how scientifically accurate it is, but I enjoyed it

https://gamechangersmovie.com/


I am a vegetarian but I have started to strongly dislike this kind of "documentary". They are essentially stylish propaganda pieces whose purpose is to enforce a viewpoint but don't really help with a balanced discussion. Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe the world would be much better off if we at least reduced meat consumption but I just don't like these movies.

Lately anti-vaccine "documentaries" like "Plandemic" are following the same outline. Nice production, a few random "experts" and a foregone conclusion from the start.


Lamb is not only food, it's also clothing, soap components (lanolin), etc.

This is my main problem with the opening argument: most animals are multi-use, unlike most plants.


Most plants have an incredible array of uses, look at palms, corn, soy, and wheat as examples among a wide array of others. You can use them as food, but corn is used as a plastic and fuel alternative, soy is commonly used as an emulsifier, and different varieties of palms are being used in soaps and detergents. We are capable of really incredible things with modern science.


Its not the 17th century anymore, we can make those things from non-animal components.


There is only one way that will happen and that's lab grown meat.

We also should be looking at growing fruit in labs as well.

Lab grown food probably would allow growing and harvesting from the oceans in unused areas.

The path forward is very simple. There is no convincing/shaming people. Food is at a base level importance for most people and you can't beat meat. Plus the other 4 billion people will start eating more meat.

Every environmental group, every ethical group should be putting it all into lab meat. The reason they don't is quite telling.


Probably one of my own more controversial opinions is an extreme tax on red meat, not unlike the Australian tax on tobaco. This seems entirely possible in particular because tobaco is fraught with the issues around addiction which isn't an issue with meat.

I would aim for a tax that makes red meat 7 times more expensive over time. This is based on the idea that most peopple eat meat 7 times a week and by making it 7 times more expensive it would force most people to move to a healthier once a week diet.

The money could be earmarked towards efforts to help people eat a healthy and balanced diet that is mostly plant based. Or it could be used towards investment into lab grown meat.

Of course I don't expect anyone would ever get elected in a decomracy on this platform so I suppose it'll have to remain only a thought experiment.

EDIT: I don't think I expressed myself as clearly as I should've so I'd like to offer two clarifications:

1. I wouldn't propose a 7x increase over night. Instead, much like the Australian tobaco tax, it would be gradual increase(e.g. yearly).

2. I suspect that this tax existing and some of it being invested in lab grown meat research would accelerate how quickly we could have widely available lab grown meat.


An easier starting point would simply be shifting meat subsidies to fruit and vegetables:

> According to recent studies, the U.S. government spends up to $38 billion each year to subsidize the meat and dairy industries, with less than one percent of that sum allocated to aiding the production of fruits and vegetables.

https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/removing-meat-subsidy-our-cogn...

Broadly it would keep food prices stable and encourage healthier alternatives.

Edit: Sorry, I assumed this is a US conversation which may be incorrect. I understand UK is similar, but don't know about the rest of the world.


That 38b claim is unfounded.

The source in that article goes to the writer of Meatonmics. On their site, they just claim that number without pointing to where or how they get that number.

In 2019 the gov pumped out 22b in subsidies to all farmers across the board. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/12/31/790261705/fa...

So where's this 38b data coming from? Since the meatonmics agenda is to get rid of meat production, sourcing from them is the same as the health benefits claimed by the The Tobacco Institute.


I'm not OP and I think you're right, but subsidies are not often direct cash injection. It can be bailing farmers out of debt, stripping taxes for slaughterhouse, or even workers compensation for incident on meat plants.


BLM land access is one area that could be a large subsidy not counted as a direct subsidy. That can't really be shifted to fruits and vegetables (I don't think the land is suitable). There are grazing fees (though not everyone pays and they have trouble enforcing them), but it sound like they could be considerably lower than market rate. See "State and Private Grazing Rates" in:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf

It is a huge political issue going back hundreds of years as ranching was arguably the largest driving factor behind the European colonization of the Americas.


An easier starting point would simply be shifting meat subsidies to fruit and vegetables:

Assuming your goal is to raise meat prices, the problem is if the US for example stops subsidizing meat it will just mean that people will buy more non-US meat, unless you at the same time slap on an import tariff (which is tricky to do). Taxing meat at the point of sale solves all those problems.

That being said, you should probably also look at shifting subsidies towards making fruits and veg cheaper.


Do you have any kind of sense of the deeply dangerous and toxic tyrannical intent behind your proposal of an "extreme tax on red meat". You are literally also describing the slippery slope of "just this time because tobacco is so damaging" leading to "extreme tax on food because they don't eat what I want them to eat and I want to control it and make it painful for them so only the ruling class can afford it".

This kind of mentality is very much what is going to lead us all down a path of calamity, if we aren't already irreversibly on that slippery path already.

How about a more reasonable approach like making industrial farming practices illegal or just tax those to prevent the abhorrent practices that I also do not like, instead of trying to command and control what people can eat because you don't like it.

Again, I implore you to reexamine what you are espousing and your clearly authoritarian mentality and approach to things because no matter how it manifests itself, it simply will not end well, no matter how it ends.


Animal agriculture is already very heavily subsidized. Moving said subsidies from animal to plant based food production would greatly increase the cost of animal proteins, while allowing plant farming the opportunity to embrace regenerative practices.

https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/removing-meat-subsidy-our-cogn...


OMG or we could somehow figure out how to get the federal government to "just"stop subsidizing corn.

Same effect as the tax (it would allow the actual price of meat to rise closer to what it should be), and VASTLY less coercive and prone to being gamed by well-lawyered insiders.

Ending the corn subsidy ends the indirect meat subsidy. It would allow so many problems to start self-correcting.

I agree with others - a tax to make food more expensive is inhumane and immoral. Please update your view on red meat.

Taxes ("sin taxes") disproportionately hurt the poor and financially constrained.

That you're even suggesting making meat 7x more expensive shows that you're not remotely concerned about your ability to provide food for yourself.


Nobody concerned about the ability to feed themselves should rely on or even have to consider red meat; red meat has historically always been a luxury product, not a staple food. That industrial farming, externalized impacts en perverse subsidies has made you consider red meat to be a staple food available cheaply and unlimited to all is what is really worrying.


I would personally rather see much stricter rules and regulations on animal welfare and industrial farming, combined with an import ban on countries that don't have similar rules (perhaps with a mechanism where individual producers in those countries can apply foe exception to the ban if they can prove that they are up to standard). And then let producers compete freely under these new rules without additional taxation or subsidy.

Of course the big downside is that this would effect the poor to a much greater extent, since they are primary purchasers of this cheaper meat that would disappear from the market.


Even just removing the meat subsidy in the US (or replacing it with one subsidizing plant-based alternatives) would go a long way.

I found this to be a well-written article about the topic: https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/removing-meat-subsidy-our-cogn...


A tax is only a tax for poor people.

Meat is an important part of a balanced diet, and by raising the price via taxes it becomes unobtainable to those for who meat already is an expensive luxury.

Also your math is weird.


Comments like this are why people hate vegans.


I'm neither a vegan nor a vegetarian


Making food prohibitively expensive is not cool. Leave what other people eat alone. >:-|


Red meat is a luxury item, isn't it? What the parent poster is suggesting is similar to a soda tax or cigarette tax.


It's food and food should never be a luxury. Historically it has often been a luxury unfortunately.


Are all food items necessities? I don't know, maybe? Are ice cream, trans fats, soda, candy, filet mignon, alcohol, etc. not luxuries?

I empathize with the position that any tax on a food item will disproportionally impact the poor. And I agree, everyone should have a baseline level of housing and food accessible to them regardless of their circumstances. But if a food item has huge negative externalities, surely we should do something to limit its appeal and consumption, right?


Another excellent use of the tax money from this could be subsidising non-meat foods which makes more food cheaper.

Anecdotally my own experience switching to a diet with less meat is that food costs have gone down.


Yeah, this is what the environmentalists don't really get.

Cheap meat available to the masses isn't going away. Pandora's Box has been opened, we have to deal with that. The only thing accomplished with making meat prohibitively expensive is pissing meat-eaters off (thus them resenting any environmental reforms even more), and most importantly, making it accessible only to the wealthy.

It's fine to offer healthier alternatives, but don't expect to be moving mountains. Focus more money and effort on lab-grown meat.


I think that if this was done slowly with a tax that increases year by year(like the Australian tabaco tax) and with some of the money being invested in lab grown meat reasearch we'd get to the lab grown meat future much faster. I suppose I should have been clearer on the fact that I didn't meant a jump to 7x the price over night.

There are still health concerns around a diet heavy in red meats, but at least it would address the environmental issue.


Are you healthy ? Can you post a picture of your body or training regimen ?


I don't see why my health in particular matters when there are olympian athletes who are entirely vegan and additionally many who are vegetarians. You seem to be implying that a plant based diet would not support a an active and healthy lifestyle, but the fact that all those people exists refutes that.

As for me, I could probably stand to gain a few kg of weight and exercise more but yes I am generally healthy. My health hasn't changed significantly since I started eating less meat for what it's worth.


> I don't see why my health in particular matters

There are a lot of people who have no idea about a profession or field and still have opinions (strong ones at that).

> when there are olympian athletes who are entirely vegan and additionally many who are vegetarians.

The point is I don't care that "there are some people that do x without y", you have that in every field in medics system.

"My grandpa smoked till 90 and didn't die." I don't care about your grandpa.


I was never a regular meat eater and have quit completely for over 3 years. I can do 110kg deadlifts. I am 42 with a sedentary job.


You are not the author I was replying to.


The trouble with plant based diet is that you kinda need to get involved into actual planning of your diet and large part of population is simply not equipped to do this (currently).

Meat is kinda safe choice because it contains almost everything that human needs. As long as you mix in meat into at least one meal a day you are mostly covered and you don't need to think a lot about what kind of plants you are consuming.

On the other hand if you go vegetarian, there is no plant that would give you everything you need for your healthy diet. You need to mix and match various plants and you need to keep the balance yourself either through some knowledge or through tradition.

I think really only in India there is healthy large scale tradition of having large part of your diet to be plant based (but supplemented with diary).

So what this means is that if you wanted to convert say Poland to vegetarian diet, most people are just not knowledgeable or intelligent enough to plan their diet and believe me, there is absolutely no tradition of anything close to vegetarian diet here.

Just to make sure, I don't want to say meat is better for you. What I mean is that it is better for you if you have no idea how to choose and prepare stuff to put on your plate.

Deficiencies are real problem and sometimes things like depression or various other hard to "debug" illnesses are caused by lack of a particular nutrient in your diet.

For example, depression can be caused by lack of 5 HTP / tryptophan which has complex additional requirements to be successfully converted to serotonin. If you go cold turkey on meat, it is very easy to overlook this and run into problems without even knowing all this is due to lack of understanding of how to compose your diet correctly.


Our society used to suffer because of folic acid and iodine deficiencies. Regulations required supplementation of those compounds into commonly eaten foods like grains and salt, and those deficiencies are now a tiny fraction of what they once were. What would keep us from doing the same with vitamin B12?


If we are at the point where we don't have enough land to support raising livestock for meat, this means our population is too high, not that we're eating the wrong thing.


It's really sad to see such misanthropic opinions here.


I didn't read anything anti-humankind there. Arguably, it's an important point because if we do nothing, famine might kick in to correct for it. Better availability of contraception, for example, isn't a rash measure.


What would population control look like?

Preventing people from having children?

Sounds pretty misanthropic to me.


I gave one "non-misanthropic" example in the message you're replying to. There are others.


So I’ve seen this negativity towards reducing global population but I don’t entirely understand it. Based on the fact that richer countries tend to have lower rates of reproduction than poorer countries. So why not reduce global inequality and then let people have as many kids as they want (which tends not to be enough to increase the global population). It seems like a win win.


Wanting to insure that we have an appropriate amount of resources to support humans isn’t misanthropic, it is good planning.

You can’t have endless population growth forever, it literally violates the laws of physics at some point.


I don't know if prohibiting people from having kids so you can keep eating burgers is the optimal solution.


Well eventually the population gets to 4x what it is today, and then you are going to be using all of the available land to grow plant based food for everyone. So now your choice is limit reproduction or starve, so obviously you're going to choose to limit reproduction. It's inevitable, so might as well do it at a point where everyone doesn't have to eat nothing but rice and beans.


I am also sad to see sentient beings being referred to as things.


Yeah let's continue to cram more and more people onto Earth to the point that we have to continuously lower our standard of living just to fit them all. But I'm the one who's misanthropic?


I know what you’re saying, but at some point you could argue we “ARE eating the wrong thing”, considering our population size.

Said differently, I hypothesize that it would be more practicable to create policies that influence what we eat and how that food is produced, compared to creating policies that try to reduce population size. If anything, it appears that more advanced countries are competing to gain population so that the machinery of their societies can keep chugging along in the name of growth.

EDIT: elsewhere in the thread I see people comment on multi-use of animals vs plants, and the consequent implication of increased use of undesirable synthetics/plastics if we raise fewer animals. Systems get complex, and their behavior can change drastically in surprising ways if you start fiddling. But fiddling we must.


Population is not really the problem. The problem is the western way of living. I guarantee you that the average American trashes this world thousands of times more than the average Congolese.

How about we set the example for those that want to live like us and change our ways. Is it really worth to live for overconsumption and overfeeding ourselves to death? What kind of life are we leading?


You think it would be better if all lived like the Congolese? Since that is easily attainable, I'm sure you have already bought your plane ticket. When are you heading over?


Except that's not what I said and you know it.


We raise and kill multiples of human population of animals a year, and already produce enough food for our entire population without raising livestock.

This means people care more about their tastebuds than ethics.


What did people eat 50_000 years ago?

Probably not steak and eggs in cheese sauce washed down with a glass of milk.


They had all sorts of deficiencies and ate anything they came across. Literally anything. As in, practically every culture has had cannibalism, for instance.


I'm gonna disagree!


So basically your solution to this problem would be eugenics rather than just eating less meat?


Our population is too high for our resource consumption, which leaves two dials to adjust. It sure seems a whole hell of a lot less genocidal to just raise fewer cows than to eliminate people, and yet you rule out that option up front?


I’m really sold on the premise that reducing agricultural farmland use is a good thing. It seems one of the best arguments is that it’s a cause of deforestation/bio diversity loss, but it would seem that is primarily driven by urban sprawl, pushing farmland into new areas, rather than a problem specific to agricultural land


Lol meant to say I’m NOT really sold...


But that needs changes that are much harder to achieve: cultural and behavioral change.


I think how hard those things are depends on the timespan. Our current massive meat consumption is a relatively recent phenomenon, which is only made possible by factory farming.


But not impossible! Just look at the COVID response. Massive and sudden cultural/behavioral change is actually more achievable than I would have thought last year, as long as the sense of urgency is sufficient.


Not very hard actually—those who eat lots of meat and dairy have plenty of health issues. A change brought to you in part by natural selection.

EDIT: For the downvoters: https://nutritionstudies.org/the-china-study/

Just one example...


I find these critiques effective:

https://deniseminger.com/the-china-study/

Natural selection seems to have selected us from ancestors that mostly followed herds of ruminants around and ate them in place of vegetation that we can't digest.


Absolutely—but they didn't factory farm and the herds of animals were healthy and in their natural habitat. The grand scope of agricultural waste is pretty disgusting. Just look at North Carolina: https://www.ehn.org/hurricane-florence-floods-north-carolina...

Now imagine there was no hog farms and it was all regular plant crops and/or vegetation.


Before your edit, I assumed you were not being serious. Regardless of the claim that meat and dairy cause health issues...

Bad diets generally do not make people die during the period where they are able to have children. Natural selection has very little effect. Even if it did, the time period it would take for these effects to matter is significantly longer than most people care about when confronting the climate crisis that requires immediate action.


Great article!


Husbanding the land typically increases its fertility, because animals and nature have evolved simultaneously into a symbiotic relationship.

Modern agricultural practices is extremely rough to the land (but getting better). But then again so is modern factory animal raising.


Coincidentally I saw an interesting tweet thread yesterday

"Currently reading about the military logistics of Genghis Khan and the Mongol empire. It’s fascinating that back then they understood that meat&dairy diets is what made them stronger than their foes who were on primarily grain based diets. "

https://twitter.com/DanTalks1/status/1367004587203256321


In horseback riding combat, the horse needs to be strong, not the rider. The idea that diet played a role in this and not geo-politics and military tactics is a bit out there.

Red meat being tied to masculinity is big right now (Rogan, Alex Jones, alt-right, etc) and its sad that shoddy arguments are being made like this to keep people from mindfully considering what exactly it means to raise and slaughter all these animals, some of whom are empathic and social mammals just like us. Worse, meat consumption is tied directly to cancer and heart disease. You're not going to be "strong" on chemo and its not "strong" to be dead a decade or two or three before you should because of your poor diet. Not to mention the link to obesity, that often starts in childhood, so a lifetime of being obese also isn't "strong."


Sure, growing crops specifically to feed cattle that could be fed to humans instead makes farming cattle seem wasteful but only if You take a very narrow view of the situation instead of looking at the entire system.

Cattle provide more than just food products, From 1 cow hide you can get 12 basketballs OR 144 baseballs OR 20 footballs OR 18 volleyballs OR 18 soccer balls OR 12 baseball gloves. Yes all of those could be made of synthetic materials but I appreciate the natural biodegradable quality of leather products. Belts, shoes, jackets, furniture, steering wheels and on and on...it would add up to lots more plastics in our environment.

Most cattle are currently being fed annual cereal crops to fatten them up quickly, which I agree is a terrible way to go but unfortunately also profitable, but farming cattle on perennial grassland if managed properly actually regenerates the land, increases biodiversity, builds soil,stops desertification and is profitable too.

I think there is truth in the article but it also lacks perspective in some ways.


An argument that cattle could be farmed differently for less impact doesn't really contradict what the article is saying since, rather obviously, cattle aren't farmed that way.


It is changing, A&W Canada has committed to using only grass fed beef. Though that may be a marketing play on words IDK.

These guys have lots of examples of where regenarative systems are currently implemented.

https://savory.global/


So for every thing we "gain" here, what do we lose? Seems like we could forego frivolous products to save the planet, no?


Sportsball toys can be made from alternative substances the same way we don't have whale oil lamps in our homes.


Yep and they are, just visit one of our landfills and You can find lots of products made from "alternative substances".

I doubt there is much Whale oil to be found unlike the tons of led and cfl bulbs we will see in 150 years from now.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: