LanguageIsCool @ LanguageIsCool @lemmy.world

Posts

29

Comments

760

Joined

7 mo. ago

Whatever helps you sleep at night lol

People will look at an image like this, read that 80% of deforestation in the Amazon happens for cattle, and go “I’m powerless, Exxon is bad” and continue to not only eat meat 5x a day but also actively try to convince other people that reducing their meat consumption is silly and they might as well keep eating it as much as they want because grocery stores will stock it anyway and Elon Musk rides a jet.

“That’ll be $50. Ok here it is. Thank you. You’re welcome.”

-Me

Is this metric or imperial?

Yep, it’s definitely nobody’s fault people eat so much meat that the Amazon is deforested primarily for cattle and for soy (which is for cattle). Nobody feel bad or take responsibility because Exxon is greedy. Lmao gottem.

No politician is ever gonna run on a “no meat” platform lol.

Plus it’s not just a supermarket. It’s all the little mediocre burger shops that prop up around it and other restaurants like it.

Take some responsibility. Do what’s right even if it won’t work globally.

If you think something is wrong and is fucking up the planet don’t just throw your hands up and go “meh it’s gonna be at the grocery store anyway might as well eat meat 5x a day hehe yum, guilt free.”

Emissions are just a piece of it. There's land use, consequences of this land use, etc, which involve changes in rain patterns, soil acidification, and so forth.

You're saying a study cited 6000+ times is so bad but you can't produce a single well cited article that critiques it yet it is so obviously bad that anyone -- without a degree in environmental science or statistics -- can easily go throw the cited LCA studies and go "fuck this shit stinks"? Give me a fuckin break.

I thought you were the one advocating for better methods? Pretty lazy advocate lol. I’m just challenging you and … nothing.

Surely within the 6000+ articles that cite it there must be a great study going to town on Poore and Nemecek, then.

It’s a “glib comment” you’re making to further discredit the study. I could be wrong but I don’t think you’ve posted any actual studies that talk about what’s wrong with the Poore Nemecek article. It was published in 2018 so there should be plenty.

Instead, you say you “detailed” what’s wrong with the study when you, at best, gave a short overview. Then you made exaggerations to further discredit the study. You also say the study is so bad “it doesn’t take a degree in statistics or environmental science” to understand why it’s so bad.

You could very well be right but I just see someone puffing up their chest and not actually using intellectual methods to convey their point of view while expertly pretending to be doing that.

For someone who seems so righteous and careful about saying the right thing, I think it’s funny you end with “telling 8 billion people to eat more or less of something” when that’s an obvious exaggeration on your part. Global meat consumption is highly skewed. For example, apparently, the US consumes 21% of the world’s meat (world population review, which cites FAO, 2010) yet accounts for about 4% of the world population.

I wouldn’t call this “detailing the problems.” You wrote a few paragraphs and possibly listed a few.

How much of cattle feed is cottonseed? In the US only or worldwide? What are alternatives? Would they be better or worse?

RIP

Lots of caper haters in the world. Sad!

Found the reptilian

Same. Capers are amazing. Still upvoted them though haha

Can we go back to the Jurassic era?

What a deck, betch