top | item 28517346

(no title)

mattmiller | 4 years ago

Parent just suggested a realistic and actionable solution and you replied a snarky totally unrealistic counter offer.

discuss

order

albertgoeswoof|4 years ago

You think it’s more realistic (and better for the environment) to farm seaweed at global beef production scale? You’d have to dredge up so much seaweed and ship it all the way to the cows, it would be insanely bad for marine environments and so expensive to do at that scale. Meanwhile growing feed from the ground can be done right beside the cows at rock bottom prices.

There are millions (billions?) of people that don’t eat cows, it is not unrealistic for people to stop eating them, culture changes very quickly

tw04|4 years ago

“I don’t know why we need birth control, people can just stop having sex until they’re ready to reproduce”

When you start your response from a place that is unreasonable, nobody is going to give you the time of day. Telling people to just stop eating beef is both unreasonable and just flat out not going to happen in at least several generations with many steps in between - if it ever happens.

slothtrop|4 years ago

I don't think you understand the scale and flexibility of seaweed farming. But the feed itself is already poised to be adopted by large producers - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-09/world-s-t....

> it is not unrealistic for people to stop eating them

It's unrealistic to force them unless necessary.

Beef industry in some places is subsidized, demand can easily be curbed by removing subsidies or taxing. That isn't even on the table yet.

jedimastert|4 years ago

I'm gonna invoke Poe's law here, but respond genuinely.

The only reason beef is so popular is because it's available. It's pretty inefficient in terms of energy input to calorie output and produces even more carbon as a byproduct of it's production. Carbon-cost wise, it should be seen as a luxury.

I also really don't think it would be an issue health-wise and diverting the market to other forms of food wouldn't really put too much strain on people's ability to provide enough food, calories- and protein-wise

tw04|4 years ago

> The only reason beef is so popular is because it's available.

Wait, what? Beef is popular because it tastes good. You don’t pay $50+ for a chicken breast, salmon filet, or pork chop. People consume beef because it tastes good. It’s “available” because people like it. If deer or bison sold for more than the price per lbs of beef, the cattle industry would collapse and be replaced overnight. But it doesn't, because people don't like the taste as much.

robocat|4 years ago

> Carbon-cost wise, it should be seen as a luxury.

Virtually every meaningful part of our lives is a luxury.

Your profile mentions you are a musician and artist: many many people in the world would consider your choices as unnecessary luxuries. In some parts of the world you would be deprived of your choices for the good of others. Surely we could even find people that would judge your art and music as a negative worth to the world.

A world where we only work for the minimum needs necessary to survive (food, shelter, etcetera) would not be worth aspiring for.

lolsal|4 years ago

> The only reason beef is so popular is because it's available.

You don't think cultures eating meat and integrating meat into their traditions has anything to do with it?

It's difficult to separate the chicken and the egg here because farming meat was super cheap, accessible and beneficial (nutritionally, environmentally and financially) for a lot longer than the last 100 years.

It's "good" to transition to a meatless diet for the sake of the environment. The world is going to have to massively change in order to do that, and the cultures and traditions of a lot of people are going to be casualties along the way. Please don't be so dismissive of that.

jedimastert|4 years ago

Can't edit, but "luxury" doesn't mean "eliminate" and "divert" doesn't mean "abolish"

awesomeusername|4 years ago

Bullshit.

A large portion of the population have been vegetarian for a long time. How is something alive and well and growing be unrealistic

skeaker|4 years ago

Because it relies on the majority of the population to unanimously change their mind and diets. Between economic reasons (alternative diets can be more expensive to a family that has no time to cook every meal), health reasons, traditional reasons, societal conceptions, and downright stubborn people, it's essentially not possible without multiple generations worth of effort. That's much less realistic than changing mandated farming practices which could be done in a matter of years.