you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 17 points 1 year ago* (13 children)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    This is, in my opinion, a high burden placed on an individual to to always research how every company they interacts with operates.

    Unfortunately, as a consumer many ecological decisions are forced on me because corporations aren't regulated properly. Blaming the consumer to make better choices is asking someone to become intimately familiar with something that they shouldn't be concerned about, and to stay up to date since corporations change their business practices frequently.

    This is something ultimately that needs to end up on governments to regulate businesses, and trying to shift the blame to consumers is quite frankly unfair. And even worse, it's ineffective and disheartening to them. People can make better choices for themselves and their local environment. But don't saddle Bob and Sally with saving the planet. It's an untenable ask.

    It's not simply changing a behavior of an individual, it's a dramatic shift to their lifestyle. Not in choosing the more ecological option, but asking them to remain interested and vigilant on every decision they make. Picking what fish to buy at the supermarket shouldn't involve figuring out who caught the fish, googling the company, researching what their fishing practices are, and then figuring out if that is a sustainable practice. It's not simple or quick, and most people just really want to figure out what everyone in their family will all eat for dinner that night. We can't expect someone to do a half hour or more of research for every purchase.

    This is why government needs to regulate these industries for us. They have the time and knowledge to assess all of that and the power to enforce companies adhere to those practices. We need to help educate people that regulating a business is not the same as regulating their choices or their behavior as an individual. That these sorts of regulations and legislation simply do not, and will not, ever apply to them so that they will encourage their legislators to push for regulation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)
  • Market forces are there, sure. There is no denying that having a demand leads to these practices. But regulators who are compromising between sustainability and corporate interests, aren't truly regulating. Regulators need to have hard stances on these things and it should be up to the corporations to deal with the limits. Consumers are going to have to deal with products having seasons again, limited availability, or higher prices. The system will stabilize, but it's going to end up there anyway as the climate changes or resources get depleted.

    And I apologize. I didn't mean to misrepresent your opinion. I ended up on a bit of a rant there that was only sparked by a notion in your opinion.

    People only need to do the best they can, for them, in whatever situation they are in. I get frustrated with the messaging that corporations push that it's up to us as individuals to be responsible and prevent climate change or save the planet when it's our collective responsibility as a society through government regulation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    How about just asking them to make the obvious choices they don't have to think about or research as much? As an example, switching to plant based meat alternatives like impossible meat or quorn. Not only are they a 1-to-1 drop in replacement, they also haven't skyrocketed in price like real meat has, so they might even save money.

    Or at least cutting out red meat and replacing it with impossible. That requires very little thought for both environmental, ethical, and health gains.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I doubt you'll get much traction on that. Meat is delicious. We've been eating meat as long as the human race existed and I don't think there is anything you can say or do that would get the majority of the population to give it up.

    While you may consider it a 1 to 1 replacement, and while I've no doubt it's gotten closer to real meat than it was when impossible burgers first came out, I don't think it's an identical product and am unlikely to switch. I also may be wrong in this, but as far as I know, it only replaces ground meats and processed meats like burgers and chicken nuggets. It isn't a product that can replace steaks, roasts, shanks, or ribs. There is nothing I enjoy eating more than a prime rib, and there just isn't going to be a plant based replacement for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    As a fellow life long heavy meat eater with a picky palate, I can attest that impossible ground meat is genuinely indistinguishable from animal ground beef. If you were served a dish containing it without being told it wasn't animal meat, I think you would be hard pressed to pick up on it.

    I have tried many, many alternatives, including TVP, Soy curls, beyond beef, etc. They all had an off flavor that I found unappealing unless heavily masked. Impossible's current formulation has none of those drawbacks, and requires no recipe modifications to obtain perfect results. They do have a steak-bite now, which is also extremely good, but they do not make a full sized steak product. For that, you could try Meati, which is made from mushroom, and is also very good in my experience.

    Meat is delicious. We’ve been eating meat as long as the human race existed and I don’t think there is anything you can say or do that would get the majority of the population to give it up. I don’t think it’s an identical product and am unlikely to switch. There is nothing I enjoy eating more than a prime rib, and there just isn’t going to be a plant based replacement for that.

    I'm probably not saying anything here you don't already know, but I still want to emphasize that unless the earth becomes rapidly depopulated by an insane amount on a timescale that would require genocide to achieve, the reality is that the quantity of meat we farm to make it affordable for average people is simply incompatible with a live-able biosphere.

    The meat of it is, we realistically cannot prioritize the pleasurable minute flavor or texture of a particular foodstuff if doing so results in the destruction of organized human civilization as we know it, along with the extinction of tens of thousands of species and plants.

    If we as a species reject a low-emission plant based alternative that is 95% similar to the the planet destroying and horrifically unethical animal based product purely to get that last 5% of the experience, then... Those people are choosing death in the same way a smoker chooses to smoke, but instead of just killing themselves, they doom their children and the rest of humanity with them.

    We have to be willing to make concessions to survive the future we have made for ourselves. Animal meat unfortunately must be one of the concessions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    There is a big difference between abolition/outlawing and regulation. Regulation would be putting into place standards for raising them to minimize impact and restrict the quantity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Most research I've seen regarding minimizing the impact of cattle production were funded by meat producers themselves, and thus have a conflict of interest. Their behavior is not dissimilar to big oil trying to greenwash fossil fuels with 'clean coal' or 'clean natural gas'.

    So far, there is no way to continue the current scale of meat production, especially red meat, while keeping global warming from getting worse at the expense of billions of impoverished in areas where global warming will hit hardest. Even ignoring the green house gas emissions it requires, it also has an unchangeable requirement for extreme water usage, which is incompatible with a world rapidly approaching peak water.

    The only viable option would be to reduce the production of meat to such a degree that only the rich would be able to afford it at all (as demand will not decrease with lowered production). It is genuinely impossible to legislate that reality, as the voter base does not want meat to become like caviar, a spice for the rich, even if it means saving civilization.

    That legislation would only be possible under an authoritarian dictatorship, and even then, that dictatorship would be risking an open rebellion, but with enough willing guns, they could force it through.

    The problem is, living under a dictatorship is absolute hell in itself, and it would be far more preferable for the population to willingly reduce their meat consumption on their own. That is why ultimately consumers making the choice themselves at the supermarket would be the most ideal scenario.

    I desperately hope people eventually make that choice, as I can't help but feel like the dude in the Newsroom, or Don't look up, where people will perhaps even acknowledge things are bad, but be unwilling to sacrifice any aspect of their current luxuries or lifestyle whatsoever (which is somewhat ironic, considering our media for over a century glorifies self sacrifice to save others).

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    All my food comes in plastic. My potatoes come in plastic bags. My lettuce has a plastic label and twist-tie on it. My shredded wheat cereal is in plastic. Even my eggs, which are in cardboard cartons, are put in disposable plastic bins for shipments. As a consumer in my area, the only choice I have that isn't plastic, is nothing. Consumers cannot make this change. The only people in the market who can change it are the suppliers who decided to put everything in plastic to begin with. This not something we can consume our way out of. It takes either personal accountability on the part of the suppliers, or it takes a government mandate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)