this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
36 points (70.9% liked)

World News

38506 readers
2835 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] VariousWorldViews@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Eating the rich is by far the most eco-friendly approach as it can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[–] PanaX@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I vehemently disagree with this statement.

We need to compost the rich and use that as a soil amendment to grow heirloom vegetables.

[–] r1veRRR@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Ok, are actively working on this? Is your work on it so horrendously demanding of all your attention of every single day, that you couldn't ALSO go vegan, or vegetarian, or just eat less meat? Eat the rich is just a fun day dream and a lazy excuse to not do what you can (like going vegan).

Eating the rich would also vastly reduce racism, sexism, classism, and worker exploitation. Can I therefore ignore my negligible personal impact, and keep being racist, sexist, classist, and buy only the cheapest clothes crafted by the most exploited third world toddlers?

[–] NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Jeff bezos probably tastes like drywall and hooker spit.

[–] Uphillbothways@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Compost them first then you can eat the rich while also being vegan = Billions and billions of carbons.

[–] STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Hooker spit. Lol. Imagine Jeff Bezos paying you hundreds of thousands to spit on him while trying to hide the fact that, you would gladly do it for free.

[–] AnotherLlama@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A couple of people have spoken to me before about wanting to cut back on, or completely cut meat from their diets, but didn't know where to start. If anyone reading this feels the same way, here's some fairly basic recipies that I usually recommend (Bosh's tofu curry is straight up one of the best currys i've ever had - even my non-vegan family members love it)

Written:

Videos:

Tofu is also super versatile and is pretty climate-friendly. there's a bazillion different ways to do tofu, but simply seasoning and pan frying some extra/super firm tofu (like you do with chicken) with some peppers and onions, for fajitas, is an easy way to introduce yourself. Here's a little guide for tofu newbies: A Guide to Cooking Tofu for Beginners - The Kitchn. If you wanna level up your tofu game with some marinades here's six.

Lentils and beans are also super planet friendly, super cheap, and super versatile! You'll be able to find recipies all over that are based around lentils and beans so feel free to do a quick internet search.

Sorry for the huge, intimidating wall of text! I do hope someone interested in cutting back on meat found this useful though :)

[–] GroteStreet@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks for taking the time. This is wonderful.

I'm no veg(etari)an by any measure, but I have this to say to people who are exclusively meat-eaters: you're missing out on a world of interesting flavours and textures.

Next time you make chicken curry, replace half the chicken with tofu. Bolognese - do half lentils & kidney beans. Beans and legumes are cheap as, great for the current economic climate (and the real climate, I guess..)

PS: mushrooms are the food of gods. There's just so many varieties, you can use them for nearly anything.

[–] krayj@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

This crucially important caveat they snuck in there:

"Prof Scarborough said: “Cherry-picking data on high-impact, plant-based food or low-impact meat can obscure the clear relationship between animal-based foods and the environment."

...which is an interesting way of saying that lines get blurry depending on the type of meat diet people had and/or the quantity vs the type of plant-based diet people had.

Takeaway from the article shouldn't be meat=bad and vegan=good - the takeaway should be that meat can be an environmentally responsible part of a reasonable diet if done right and that it's also possible for vegan diets to be more environmentally irresponsible.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That’s both absolutely true and a massive distraction from the point. An environmentally friendly diet that includes meat is going to involve sustainable hunting not factory farming. In comparison an environmentally friendly vegan diet is staples of meat replacements and not trying to get fancy with it. It’s shit like beans instead of meat, tofu and tempeh when you feel fancy. It means rejecting substitutes that are too environmentally costly such as agave nectar as a sweetener (you should probably use beet or cane based sweetener instead).

So in short eat vegan like a poor vegan not like a rich person who thinks veganism is trendy

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.

[…]

Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.

https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MelonTheMan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Tax meat, subsidize healthy meat alternatives.

[–] Anemia@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Could start by removing subsidies.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] StaySquared@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Thank God for trees. Amirite?

[–] FRAnkly@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

That is a lie.

[–] darcy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

"study finds eating meat is bad"

no sh*t

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago

I was just talking about this idea with a friend. We decided it would be political suicide in the US for anyone to suggest eating less meat.

People would literally rather see the world burn than give up their chicken nuggets.

I'm not even hardcore vegetarian. I looked at the situation and agreed it's hard to ethically justify eating meat. So I started eating less. I'm down to pretty much just "sometimes I get a pizza slice with a meat topping if there's nothing good without meat". Maybe I'll cut that out too one day.

People can't think critically over why they prefer meat over vegetables. They just think they do it because hurr durr meat tastes better or you need protines.

If they actually think about the fact that they have been eating meat for every meal since they were a child they might understand that it is just a habit they have formed.

I strongly suggest to those people to try to have 1 dinner a week without meat or fish. It has nothing todo about taste and all about habits and what you are used to.

Try to challenge yourself a little bit and you might get a better perspective over these things.

[–] Ignacio@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can anyone explain to me why being vegan is the new cool, while being vegetarian is equal to eating meat without eating meat? Like, when I'm looking for vegetarian recipes, I only see vegan recipes, no vegetarian ones anywhere.

[–] BlackRose@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] Ignacio@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In my country, supermarkets aren't allowed to sell eggs from caged hens. Only eggs from hens raised outdoors. There are four categories of eggs marked with numbers:

  • 0: eggs from caged hens, not sold anywhere legally.
  • 1: eggs from uncaged hens but raised indoors, very difficult to find.
  • 2: eggs from uncaged hens and raised outdoors, easy to find.
  • 3: eggs from uncaged hens, raised outdoors and feed with natural food, without pesticides and shit, easy to find.

By the way, US is neither the center of the world nor the only country in the world. Sorry to say that, but I think it's necessary to say it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SmolSweetBean@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (14 children)

OK, but what if instead of going vegan, I just don't have kids. Because adding more people to the world also creates more greenhouse gasses.

[–] NotAPenguin@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

How bout both? :)

[–] jsveiga@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Instead of going vegan or not having kids, I died when I was 5. Because living also creates more greenhouse gasses.

In fact, having a small footprint is just a matter of choosing how miserable you're willing to make your life.

Unfortunately the Earth cannot sustainably support so many people living COMFORTABLY, and eating WHATEVER WE LIKE. The more people, the more miserable is the globally sustainable way of life.

Curbing population growth - not Thanos-like, but through education and availability of contraceptive methods - is the only way we can all have the cake (and the meat) and eat it.

Many wealthy countries have their population declining. Maybe if we get to the same level of wealthiness everywhere, less people would engage in procreation.

In any case, if we just do nothing and the doomsday evangelists are even nearly right, extreme weather, plage and famine caused by climate change will indeed curb the population. Eventually it reaches equilibrium.

In this case, the faster we get to the edge of the abyss, the quicker the situation will solve itself.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

having a small footprint is just a matter of choosing how miserable you’re willing to make your life.

In many areas yes, but not when it comes to food. A plant based diet is in no way miserable. There are still too many places with bad kitchens making it seem that way, but that's just a lack of skill on their part.

I'd say my food experience rather became less miserable when I stopped eating meat, and my footprint decreased by a lot.

Eventually it reaches equilibrium.

In this case, the faster we get to the edge of the abyss, the quicker the situation will solve itself.

If you open the window to ventilate for 20 minutes that's different from replacing the air in your room in 2 nanoseconds. The violent shockwave of the latter will probably damage your stuff and harm your health.

Similarly, the speed of climate change matters a lot. It is required for plants and animals to migrate and adapt, for people to migrate and adapt, for infrastructure to be built. It makes all the difference between a devastating blow and adaptation, while the reached equilibrium is the same in both cases.

[–] Bipta@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What if you don't have kids and just make an effort to reduce intake of animal products knowing it contributes to global collapse and also represents a modern holocaust.

Animal products don't have to be as all or nothing as having kids.

[–] kartonrealista@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That moment when your veganism goes so hard you commit a hate crime on the internet implicitly comparing Jews to cattle

Edit: I'm from Poland, the country where most of the Holocaust happened - this is where the Jewish population was the highest and where Germans build their death camps. We read about it extensively at school, including eyewitness accounts describing the atrocities involved in this horrific campaign of human extermination, from the home of the Jew, to the ghetto, to the transport train, to the camp, to the gas chamber and to the furnace. Many of us heard those stories from our grandparents, of their neighbors being humiliated and taken away, ghettos liquidated, and public executions. I don't know what kind of deplorable scumbag one has to be to equate factory farming with the Holocaust.

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

*implicitly comparing the treatment of Jews during the holocaust to the treatment of cattle today

also, you can compare two things without equating them

I think if you actually cared about the words you wrote, you wouldn't have used them as the basis of a lazy strawman to win an argument on the internet against veganism

[–] kartonrealista@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't care about arguing about veganism. Just stop bringing up stuff like this. Also, do you think calling something a "modern holocaust" is not a comparison in terms of scale of harm? As opposed to every other time those words are used?

Edit: If you want to argue for veganism, stop bringing up Shoah. It's disgusting, downplaying the severity of the genocide, and earns you no favors with the general population. It has negative convincing power.

[–] r1veRRR@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's 90 billion every year. If their suffering is 15000 less significant, that's one holocaust a year, every year, since many years. Why are you using Shoah, if holocaust is so obviously only one thing? And why are the voices of holocaust victims/survivors/relatives totally fine to silence? Many have made that comparison, shouldn't they know best whether it's comparable???

You are correct however that this argument is utterly stupid and useless to make, esp. online, where there is zero context.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Having fewer children is the number one thing you can do. And it's not even close.

I mean, do the other things anyway if you like. They can't hurt. They may even save you money. But they won't save an overpopulated planet.

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's not "one thing" option, you can do most of those, even all of them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jsveiga@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The vegan agenda shows when they crumple everything animal under "meat" and everything vegetable under "vegan", when there are some vegan foods that have higher cost to the environment to be produced than some animal products, when comparing nutrition to nutrition values.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›