[HN Gopher] Eating one-fifth less beef could halve deforestation
___________________________________________________________________
Eating one-fifth less beef could halve deforestation
Author : dotsam
Score : 31 points
Date : 2022-05-06 15:17 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| throw82473751 wrote:
| Crazy, because actually most people could just eat one-fifth of
| their current beef consumption and still eat more beef then their
| ancestors..
| downrightmike wrote:
| Brazil is burning down rainforest to graze cattle and grow
| soybeans for that cattle, which is then sold to Mcdonalds and
| burger king among others.
| IronWolve wrote:
| No worries, eating all that plant based meat! Problem solved.
| usrn wrote:
| I might go get a stake tonight just because I'm tired of hearing
| this.
| fknorangesite wrote:
| Well, at least you're honest about your own pettiness, I
| suppose.
| qiskit wrote:
| FYI, if ribeyes are out of your price range, chuck steaks are a
| decent cost effective replacement. Everyone, poor or rich, has
| a right to a nice juicy steak.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| I think this has to be balanced with the increased meat demand
| that follows economic development and poverty reduction.
|
| IMHO, 10 billion people with 'developed country' living standards
| simply does not work.
| rantallion wrote:
| Being an inhabitant of a developed country doesn't mean you
| must eat beef. We can all eat less, no matter our location.
| jerlam wrote:
| Beef consumption doesn't appear directly tied to development.
| According to https://sentientmedia.org/beef-consumption-in-
| the-us/, beef consumption has been falling in the US since
| the 1970s. Even so, the US is only second in consumption per
| capita for all countries, behind Argentina.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| There is a correlation between economic development and
| meat consumption.
|
| Meat consumption increased in the West along with economic
| development and the same is happening worldwide.
|
| The US was developed in the 70s. You would need to look at
| trends from poor and undeveloped to developed. In the US
| you would need to rewind to early 20th or 19th century to
| post-WWII golden age to see the increase.
|
| https://www.oecd-
| ilibrary.org/sites/cf68bf79-en/index.html?i....
| jka wrote:
| Within the U.S. today, do you feel that the most
| economically-advantaged social groups are increasing or
| decreasing their meat and beef consumption? And any
| reasons why if so? (diet, health, politics, ...)
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| If we eat less beef but twice as many people, or more, eat
| beef then the net effect is still not sustainable and may
| even be worse than now.
|
| The crux of the issue is that we are too many. So either
| population drops and we can all enjoy life or we survive with
| a lower quality of life because we have to watch everything
| we consume.
| sjtindell wrote:
| These aren't hard and fast rules. A civilization growing
| doesn't mean they automatically eat more meat. And having
| more population doesn't mean we automatically eat more
| meat. It's cultural and can be changed completely at any
| stage of development. And you even make another assumption
| that feels off, that less meat means less quality of life.
| Come on! None of these are a rule.
| [deleted]
| raarts wrote:
| 'Could' being the operative word here.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-06 23:02 UTC)