[albertgoeswoof]

On an individual level you have two choices:

- eat meat, and accept the impact to the environment, health risks, and mass unethical treatment of livestock

- stop eating meat, and accept that some of the foods you grew up eating, you can't eat any more

[federiconafria]

I think there is a third option, factor in the externalities and treat it as a luxury. The cost we are paying for it is not currently reflected on the final price.

[sotix]

My grandparents and great grandparents in Greece used meat as a garnish a few times per week for dinner. The most meat they would have was at the end of the Lenten fast on Easter where they would have a big piece of lamb. Otherwise, it was the occasional smaller pieces of ground meat on top of vegetable-heavy dishes.

[brador]

Fourth: Find or create alternatives that taste just as good without the high environmental impact.

[franga2000]

Putting such absolute choices in front of people basically never works. Those conductive to such and argument have already become vegetarian.

But there's a much bigger percentage of people that would be willing to eat meat less, without fully stopping. Turn meat into a delicacy you indulge in, not the default base to prepare every meal on. Try some indian food, or stuff from other cuisines that rely less on meat. Make that twice a week, you'll probably enjoy it, maybe even save some money.

[aziaziazi]

Sure it's absurd to imagine that people make 0/1 choices, however it's also absurd to reject a 3-line shortened proposition because it seems absolute.

> Those conductive to such and argument have already become vegetarian

Choices are more complicated than "being conductive", for exemple

- opinion change: you're not totally against the idea but not convinced neither. If you're open minded, learning something new or being witness of a context change can make you reevaluate.

- Motivation: there's thinks in your life that occupy your brain and you don't feel free to start another change now, but you might being more disponible to self-actualisation later.

- Event-Trigger: An inspiring talk, movie, or discussion with a friend sometimes trigger you to reconsider your position. I know cold showers aren't that hard and they're great for the body and the mind. I never had to courage to start that new habits but a convincing and motivating HN post might be the trigger to a routine.

[znpy]

> Putting such absolute choices in front of people basically never works.

Indeed. Faced with that absolute choice, I'd pick eating meat and dismiss the entire line of reasoning about meat.

And quite frankly I wouldn't even feel guilty about it: I'm pretty sure I'm already doing more than the average to lower my emissions. As a trivial example: I pretty much use public transport all the time and don't have a car. This alone probably puts me above the average american vegan driving an SUV to go from their suburbs to anywhere, in terms of carbon footprint reduction.

[peterashford]

or three, just eat less meat

[prox]

A UN study showed that if everyone on earth would be going from 7 days a week meat to 6 would do wonders for the climate.

Just one day less.

[defrost]

There's a third way, at least. eg:

  But even when the authors excluded embedded emissions from sources like transport and packaging, they still found that agriculture generated 24% of GHGs. According to the World Resources Institute, a research group, cars, trains, ships and planes produce a total of 16%.

  It finds that animal-based foods account for 57% of agricultural GHGs, versus 29% for food from plants. Beef and cow’s milk alone made up 34%. Combined with the earlier study’s results, this implies that cattle produce 12% of GHG emissions.

It also implies, by the accounting practices of these papers, that clean skins running feral in Northern Australia account for zero emmisions .. particularly if traditionally mustered.

They aren't fed farmed food, they forage and run wild in the Kimberley and Kakadu, and the environment is well served by routinely rounding them up for dinner and taking pressure from the grasslands.

More or less the same story for camels and wild donkeys.

[thrance]

Or, if you're utilitarian, you can start by cutting back your meat consumption to reduce your contribution to the aforementioned issues by that much.

[nandomrumber]

And yet, if you want to produce more food: build a green house and increase it's CO2 content.

[quonn]

Wrong.

- mass unethical treatment (assuming you do not mean the fact that animals are killed) is related to the conditions which are related to price

- health risks can be minimal depending on the amount and type of meat you eat

- the CO2 impact again depends on the meat and conditions. Surely chicken in your backyard can be kept without CO2 impacts with some effort.

- your very existence has a CO2 impact. By your own logic you have two choices …

[rimunroe]

> Surely chicken in your backyard can be kept without CO2 impacts with some effort.

I’m not sure this is possible, at least not in a typical yard or urban garden. According to one study[1] community gardens in and around cities emit six times the CO2 per serving compared to industrial agriculture. I assume this is roughly applicable to backyard gardens too. I wouldn’t be surprised if this isn’t applicable to livestock—which the study appears to have excluded—but also wouldn’t be surprised if the story is similar with chickens/livestock.

I imagine that even if it is less efficient to grow your chickens in the back yard, it might be possible to approach or exceed current industrial poultry farms in CO2 efficiency. My hunch is that if those farms get incentivized by penalties on CO2 production it would be impossible though.

[1] https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/1968...

[znpy]

> - health risks can be minimal depending on the amount and type of meat you eat

Health risks from meat is an US-only issue. Here in Europe we have much stricter regulations on meat, so much so that American meat cannot be imported and cannot be sold here. IIRC (might be wrong on this) Canada doesn't allow importing US meat as well?

Meat is safe for consumption in Europe.

[thrance]

> mass unethical treatment (assuming you do not mean the fact that animals are killed) is related to the conditions which are related to price

Source? I really don't buy that more expensive meat producers kill their animals that much more "humanely". And even if the killing was painless, you're still killing tens of animals per year for the sole sake of a tastier meal.

> health risks can be minimal depending on the amount and type of meat you eat

True.

> the CO2 impact again depends on the meat and conditions. Surely chicken in your backyard can be kept without CO2 impacts with some effort.

I trust you raise all the animals you eat, and don't feed them with imported grains? Don't be ridiculous.

> your very existence has a CO2 impact. By your own logic you have two choices …

You're basically telling anyone who's self-conscious about their environmental impact to kill themselves. Great.

[burnt-resistor]

Grossly incomplete.

The larger risks to us include:

- Pandemic virus evolution of viruses from complex people<->livestock<->wildlife interactions.

- Evolving antibiotic resistant bacteria since livestock are given most of the same compounds given to humans simply for economic advantage, and in some cases, to force-feed animals with unsuitable feed like too much corn in too short of a timeframe. Some CAFO farms, their cows would die if not given antibiotics. [0]

- Water, air, and soil pollution on a large scale. Liquid shit lakes that spread manure into the air with sprayers. Runoff from pesticides and fertilizer used to grow the corn, soybeans, etc. The list goes on.

And, yes, climate change, animal cruelty, and other concerns.. but like condoning genocides, nothing will be done about it because people want their fucking Costco-sized 40 pack of cheap hamburgers, BMW SUVs, and overwatered perfectly green grass and air conditioning set to 68 F / 20 C in Phoenix AZ.

0. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/antimicrobial-stewardship/report-...

[dude250711]

Nuances destroy agendas.

[Ancapistani]

We mostly raise our own.

[Raed667]

Honestly, I don't even miss it anymore.

[zero-sharp]

"eating meat carries health risks"

"eating meat necessarily results in unethical treatment of livestock"

Sounds like a load of barnacles. Even that third one about impacting the environment is likely bogus.