Red meat has a huge carbon footprint because cattle requires a large amount of land and water.

https://sph.tulane.edu/climate-and-food-environmental-impact-beef-consumption

Demand for steaks and burgers is the primary driver of Deforestation:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-beef-industry-fueling-amazon-rainforest-destruction-deforestation/

https://e360.yale.edu/features/marcel-gomes-interview

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-06-02/almost-a-billion-trees-felled-to-feed-appetite-for-brazilian-beef

If you don't have a car and rarely eat red meat, you are doing GREAT 🙌🙌 🙌

Sure, you can drink tap water instead of plastic water. You can switch to Tea. You can travel by train. You can use Linux instead of Windows AI's crap. Those are great ideas. But, don't drive yourself crazy. If you are only an ordinary citizen, remember that perfect is the enemy of good.

top 94 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 1 year ago

I like chicken more anyway.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    So only eat beef from dairy herds? And you will half your footprint? Anyone know the rough specifics (Eli5 style) of why that is?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Does the graph include how palm farms are built on precious forest land that has since been burned down? and that the land primarily being burnt is some of the most important land for storing carbon and providing oxygen?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    why milk/cheese and beef dairy are two different charts?

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

    Here's the perspective that helped me the most with this:

    You don't have to quit meat (sorry for the pun) cold turkey.

    Even cutting your meat consumption by half can have a significant impact. Start by ordering a vegetarian option instead of meat every once in a while. Experiment and find veggie alternatives you actually like, there are tons of options now. I heard someone refer to this as "microdosing veganism", and it can really help make the change less exhausting.

    Over time, you might even notice your tastes start to shift and vegan options become actually enjoyable instead of a "sacrifice".

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    what has helped me is just pivoting heavily to chicken, i used to basically just eat beef and pork, so simply eating a different kind of meat helped ease into eating non-meat meals as well.

    meat alternatives are of course great, but i also think soybeans (or similar) are very underrated, just raw green soybeans are astoundingly meat-like for being a straight up unprocessed vegetable. Great in salads.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's meee! ✋

    I still eat meat, but quite little, and quite rarely. There's the odd salami at home, or every few months some ham for carbonara when I get guests over, or something like that. But it's such a small percentage of what I consume now, I feel like I'm effectively vegetarian, anyways.

    And yeah for most things I use alternatives because it turns out they're often easier to handle. The Barista This Isn't Milk is nice because it foams more reliably than actual milk and lasts much longer which is important as a single household.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 67 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [+] 168 points 1 year ago (49 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I enjoy red meat, but I avoid it most of the time because of trying to be healthier. Also guilt from seeing videos of happy cows looking like gigantic dogs.

    Fucking shit though I had no idea coffee was so high up the list. I probably should drink less of it anyway, but ouch, that one hurt me way more than the beef.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Same here. I only eat beef a few times a year as a treat both for health and environmental reasons. But coffee and chocolate so high up the list is more of a killer for me. I definitely enjoy a couple cups per day as well as at least one bite of dark chocolate. Probably should cut back now that I can't claim ignorance.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 50 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    The idea that we have to grow food for food is ridiculous. Cows turn grass into meat just fine, why do we need to grow corn and soybeans for them

    I bet it’s because, like with hogs, we’ve bred them to be so growth optimized they can’t get enough calories from grass anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Unfortunately grass-fed production is no solution. It both does not scale or help reduce emissions

    We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates

    […]

    If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Not scaling could be a feature and not a bug. It would raise the price of beef and thus lower demand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    To an extent, yes it would likely do that. Though on the other hand running into the maximum capacity limitations would not look pretty. Even countries that have a just bit higher grass-fed production than others have a fair number of issues (and still use plenty of supplemental grain)

    For instance, in New Zealand, they use a massive amount of synthetic fertilizer on grasslands to try to make it keep up for dairy production

    The large footprint for milk in Canterbury indicates just how far the capacity of the environment has been overshot. To maintain that level of production and have healthy water would require either 12 times more rainfall in the region or a 12-fold reduction in cows.

    […]

    The “grass-fed” marketing line overlooks the huge amounts of fossil-fuel-derived fertiliser used to make the extra grass that supports New Zealand’s very high animal stock rates.

    https://theconversation.com/11-000-litres-of-water-to-make-one-litre-of-milk-new-questions-about-the-freshwater-impact-of-nz-dairy-farming-183806

    Or in the UK and Ireland where grass-fed production leads to deforestation and they still need additional grain on top of it

    Most of the UK and Ireland’s grass-fed cows and sheep are on land that might otherwise be temperate rainforest – arable crops tend to prefer drier conditions. However, even if there were no livestock grazing in the rainforest zone – and these areas were threatened by other crops instead – livestock would still pose an indirect threat due to their huge land footprint

    […]

    Furthermore, most British grass-fed cows are still fed crops on top of their staple grass

    https://theconversation.com/livestock-grazing-is-preventing-the-return-of-rainforests-to-the-uk-and-ireland-198014

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    A huge aspect of this is ranchers not cycling their land and allowing it to regrow native grasses properly, which does end up running into the land use problem again. But right now we're very unoptimized with land regrowth and there's a huge difference that can be made with just properly handling the land and to stop ranching in literal deserts.

  • source
  • parent
  • Nope it because politicians need votes from farmers so they continue to give farmers corn subsidies cos they lose votes if they take away the subsidies they where given decades ago.

    In Australia most of our beef is grass fed. Not only is it cheaper (when u don't account for the reduced price of subsidised corn) but because much of Australia is so desert like it can only support grass and cattle are the only way to convert that grass to food and profit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    we need to feed them corn and soybeans because people want lots and lots of meat, and that's the best way to get lots and lots of meat.

    that's.. kinda why people advocate for eating less meat, so that there won't be such a powerful incentive to turbomaximize meat yields to meet the huge demand..

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    My big problem is not with individuals ethically trying to do the right thing, or about people trying to convince individuals to be ethical and to do the right thing.

    My big problem is the amount of effort in this when it will have only small gains. In today's society, meaningful gains come from changes in government regulations and policies.

    If you want people to stop eating as much red meat, get the government to stop providing subsidies to cattle owners. I have a money-focused relative who owns cattle only because of the subsidies. At least let the price of beef go up to its actual market value. You'd think that would be an easy sell for Republicans who believe in the free market, but they're the ones who want the subsidy the most.

    Of course, then, you can add additional regulations and encourage environmental responsibility.

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

    We should push for large institutional change, but don't ignore individual change either. Problem is how will you get said governments to act if people aren't also stepping up and they expect backlash to acting? The more people expect it to be cheap and highly consumed, the harder it will be for them to act. Moving people away from meat individually makes it easier. Movements that succeed usually have both individual and institutional change

    Institutional change that is achievable at the current moment is smaller. There's been some success with things like changing the defaults to be plant-based (which is good and we should continuing to push for that), but cutting subsides is going to be an uphill battle until a larger number of people change their consumption patterns

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I agree that individual change is important, but you have to go about it a certain way. Actually the way OP is phrasing it is pretty good. Let people understand that just eating less red meat is always better.

    Because if the messaging is at all confusing, you'll get the kind of result you got during the start of Covid with the masks. It was always true that any amount of masking helped, but when you started to make it complicated, you got a lot of backlash and people completely stopped masking. And of course, with both Covid and red meat, there are people out there incentivized to make things complicated so that people give up. I think it really needs to be dead simple to work.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Hence the bumper sticker that has been around since the 70s

    REAL ENVIRONMENTALIST DONT EAT MEAT

    Homesteaders and locally grown meat is a necessary way of life for those living in the country. CAFOs and suburban grillers can burn in hell.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • I think it’s also a bit of a thing where most people treat it like a binary.

    They either think you have to go full on vegetarian or you eat meat.

    When what we should really be encouraging most people to do is cut down on meat. (You’re gonna have a lot less sucess if you ask them to straight up stop).

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    people saying that their habits are irrelevant because companies pollute much more

    What people are saying is that their habits are negligible because companies pollute much more.
    But sure, try to shame the little guy who might be doing their negligible effort instead of going after the big polluters, that'll help a lot.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    if you think about the energetic demand of growing food only to feed an animal that then will become food, rather than skipping this step and eating the original food instead.

    most people don't want to eat grass or soy cake. letting cows graze, and feeding soycake (the byproduct of soybean oil production) to pigs and poultry is a conservation of resources.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 15 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    not all land is suitable for crops. letting cattle graze it is fine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You can't counter "raising enough cows to supply our current meat demand takes a lot of resources we could be eating instead" with "its okay for them to eat grass :D"

    this conversation didn't happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Good news is that overall arable farmland usage goes down the less meat you eat. Don't need to use all the same land, you have flexibility to move around production

    we show that plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss.

    https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1713820115

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It's worth noting that soybean meal is not a byproduct. When we look at the most common extraction method for soybean oil (using hexane solvents), soybean meal is still the driver of demand

    However, soybean meal is the main driving force for soybean oil production due to its significant amount of productivity and revenues

    [...]

    soybean meal and hulls contribute to over 60% of total revenues, with meal taking the largest portion of over 59% of total revenue

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926669017305010

    This is even more true of other methods like expelling which is still somewhat commonly used

    Moreover, soybean meal is the driving force for the whole process [expelling oil from soy] because it provides over 70% of the total revenue for soy processing by expelling

    https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/9/5/87

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    some studies show soybean oils being as much as half the value of the crop, despite being just 20% of the weight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    If we assume that's the case, half of revenue is still not a byproduct, it's a coproduct. The other half is still pretty relevant to its value and usage. If 50% of your revenue disappears from something, you're going to be making a lot less of it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    i think at this point we've devolved into arguing semantics. you're not going to convince me soybean is a viable crop unless you can press it for oil, and i don't think i can convince you it's a viable product unless the meal is fed to livestock. but i hope you have a good night!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'm one of those people, and I've brought the critical thinking required to prove it.

    U see the issue with those studies is that they are calculating methane output from the animals themselves and that's it. It demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of thermodynamics and chemistry. Methane is CH4 and is a product of fermentation (which takes place in the gut of said animals). We know that matter cannot be created or destroyed so this carbon and hydrogen must come from somewhere in the animals diet (in this case grass). Now the grass must get those elements from somewhere and if u did heigh school chemistry u would know that the answer is photosynthesis (6CO2 + 6H2O + Light Energy -> C6H12O6 + 6O2).

    So what's happening is grass gets eaten by an animal. Most of that grass passes through unprocessed and is excreted as shit (a carbon sink contributing to the biomatter of the soil). A small fraction of that grass undergoes fermentation and a small fraction of that fermented carbon is byproduct methane. All that carbon originally came form the atmosphere due to photosynthesis. A majority of that atmospheric CO2 is sequestered in the cow shit by contributing to the soil biomatter. That's not even accounting for the additional plants that the cow shit helps to grow which are also carbon sinks.

    Now as an Aussie where 99% of our red meat is grass fed that's actually a net carbon negative activity. As for the dumbass yanks feeding livestock corn (due to politicians buying votes with corn subsidies) then u have a problem. But nobody is gonna acknowledge any of this they just gonna spend all day shouting at each other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    The problem is not just the farts, the problem is the absolutely humongous amount of feed and space cattle needs. Most crops grown around the world are used to feed cattle, just like most farmland is used to grow cattle. That's what's polluting, producing so much green house gases, deforesting, etc.

    No matter how you turn it, red meat is an environmental catastrophe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    We are talking about carbon here not other environmental impacts. If u wanna talk about other environmental impacts I'm happy to discuss how bad monocrop agriculture is especially the ridiculous amount of pesticides getting into the water and fucking everything up.

    Producing feed doesn't make GHG producing feed is the systematised mass application of photosynthesis (turning atmospheric CO2 into sugar). Using more land isn't an environmental problem unless ur doing mass deforestation which is happening in 3rd world nations not the west. So what ur actually saying is that 3rd world nations shouldn't eat red meat cos its causing deforestation but ours is ok because it's not.

    Their is the feed and livestock transportation emissions cost and that's about the only good argument u got. Except that problem is an electric vehicle problem not a red meat problem. And if ur gonna use the argument of its an additional carbon cost that u don't pay for just eating plants then why don't u go live in a grass hut cos the additional carbon cost of concrete is unnecessary.

    Not to mention that grass fed cattle don't have this problem. So eating grass fed or going hunting also solves the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago*

    Where do you think most of the world's red meat is coming from? Brazil is one of the top producers and exporters of red meat, deforestation is ravaging the Amazon.
    3rd world countries are not eating red meat, we are. The link between rich countries and meat consumption has been established for a long time now.

    Most cattle eat soy, not grass, that's also a myth. Simply because soy is a whole lot cheaper, and a lot more abundant and easier to grow than grass. Also, grass is only slightly better than feed, but it generates more GEG overall because of digestion.

    We need soy, so we need monocultures of soy, and that's catastrophic, just like you said.

    Transport is actually not that big of a problem with red meat. Land usage and the actual cattle are. They're the top source of GEG emissions from agriculture.

    You were talking about thermodynamics earlier. Red meat is incredibly inefficient converting resources to usable calories. 1kg of beef requires 25kg of feed.

    You're also using a lot of straw men in your arguments, living in a grass hut instead of a concrete building, or electric vehicles for cattle transportation?

    You can enjoy red meat but you can't argue in good faith that it's not completely awful for the environment at pretty much every level.

    A few sources to support my claims:

    https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production

    https://bonpote.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Emissions-de-GES-a-travers-la-chaine-dapprovisionnement-1-scaled.png

    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/23/americas/brazil-beef-amazon-rainforest-fire-intl/

    https://e360.yale.edu/digest/grass-fed-beef-climate-change

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Just a note before my comment: my reference is the Netherlands, which is struggling with too much cattle and too little land. I can imagine circumstances being different in Australia.

    Methane is a worse greenhous gas than CO2 though (28 times more) and just growing more grass, which gets eaten pretty much immediately again, does not necessarily compensate for it. Tackling methane emissions is also a pretty effective short term improvement for global warming, due to it not being nearly as long in the atmosphere as CO2.

    But methane is not the only problem with large amounts of cattle. The shit can actually become problematic in for the soil and water due to ammonia. This is a large problem in The Netherlands right now (and sadly we don't have politicians in power willing to make actual changes here). Biodiversity and water quality are going down significantly and a very big contributor is cattle farming.

    And let's also not forget that the grass used is for optimizing growing cattle and producing milk (because the farmers get paid like shit). It's not a grass field full of flowers, herbs and other kinds of plants that are good for insect life. They're more or less green deserts.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Ontop of that, factory farming is a lovecraftian horror that floods the universe with terrible agony. And there's very good reason to believe that the suffering of animals is as real and awful as yours or mine.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    One thing I never see brought up about the factory farm systems, maybe cause it is a bit of a distraction from animal rights, is that hypothetically these systems are turnkey human genocide infrastructure. It is infrastructure for a sort of perpetual animal, uh... regenocide? afterall.

    Seems outlandish and unthinkable, maybe. But then again, all bets are off with the current administration in the US.

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

    Given the amount of perpetual torture these very-likely-to-be-sentient creatures go through, it's certainly worse than any genocide in history has ever been. Even if you only think that animals are capable of 5% of the suffering of humans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Agreed. It's depressing that everyone who continues relying on animal products and exploitation have so many psychological barriers put up to even facing and contemplating the other animal atrocities openly. It becomes more heart-wrenching the more you think about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Okay so I must be in the minority, but I don't feel any particular pathos for these billions of slaughtered animals. Seeing myriads of baby chicks ground into dust doesn't really move me in the slightest. Just understanding that the farm industry causes intense, agonizing, slow deaths for billions if not trillions of creatures every year is enough for me to understand its morally imperative to not consume the vast majority of animal products. Bentham's Bulldog has been quite moving for me.

    Yesterday I decided to stop buying honey after reading his article about how honey plausibly causes orders of magnitude more suffering than everything else. I'm also vegetarian, and I have replaced most of the dairy in my diet with plant-based alternatives. I still haven't eliminated cheese and eggs from my diet though. For cheese it's because I don't think there's good evidence the cheese I buy causes any agony in particular, but eggs is the next step for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 113 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    My single greatest contribution for the climate is not having children.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Probably the antinatalist sub

    Edit: apparently we don't have one

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You know what would help even more? Eating other people's kids.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That’s entire lives of (likely) red meat consumption! I also am never having kids, so I can have my occasional steak without feeling guilt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    You forgot number one: By far, the best thing you can do for the climate is not have children.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Increasing the bag limit on "billionaire" to something greater than "0" would have a much more appreciable effect on the climate than a thousand families forgoing children.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Remove the bag limit, put a bounty on them. Anyone that murks a billionaire wins a 2000 ft^2 home (or condo, whatever) in the location of their choice, with all taxes, fees, and utilities paid for as long as they live there.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I am so confused by this comment.

    What's a bag limit? Why would you apply it to the word "billionaire", and why would increasing the limit help the climate?

    Are you saying billionaires should use less bags? Because I doubt that would help more than having 1000+ less humans on this planet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Kill all the billionaires -> another crop step in to fill the power vacuum - likely more likely to hire excellent security teams.

    Revolution, overthrow capitalism -> the power hungry psychopaths who wanted to be billionaires pivot and seek positions in seats of government power. They continue living lives of opulant luxury on the public largess, and propagate fossil fuel and factory farming industries since this is one of the ways they skim their wealth from the public coffers.

    Reform, throw out all the opulant bureaucrats. Maybe murder them. Introduce a new level of transparency in government. Install leaders who follow the public will, even to their own detriment. But the public will likes things mostly the way they are, and doesn't want to give up their cars because they are used to them and see them as a symbol of their success in achieving whatever socioeconomic status, and doesn't want to give up meat because meat is delicious. Because everyone likes getting things for free and the elected representatives do exactly what the public demands, entitlement programs grow rapidly while taxes stay the same or get lower. No one does work, because perfect communist utopia provides people with all their needs, so people just spend all their time driving cars and eating meat. A few do-gooders talk about how we are destroying the environment and going bankrupt. Everyone tells them to shut up and stop being nerds.

    Economy collapses due to no incentive to work. Everyone admits that capitalism was pretty flawed, but was still pretty good at getting people to build houses and shit even when they would rather be driving cars and eating meat. Start capitalism again, but with better rules about lobbying and regulatory capture and all that jazz. Also, better education and support for children so the next generation grows up less fucking stupid. Elect good politicians who are good at spinning necessary hardships to their constituents. Apply a carbon tax to meat and gas and give people the tax money directly, because most people feel like they come out ahead when they get free money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Government performs services, and acceptd payment for those services in the form of taxation. The thing that is missing is the recognition that the powers exercised by government are possessed by We The People. We own those powers. We "invest" those powers in the government, who uses those powers to provide paid services to its customers.

    We are each owed a return on our "investment" of political authority. Our political authority should not be given to the government freely. We should be individually compensated for it.

    We are shareholders.

    Universal Basic Income is one possible method of compensating the citizenry for the use of our political authority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Literally the opposite, more people -> faster growth -> new technology that saves people (as it happened past many times in the past already)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    this is about protecting the climate, not protecting people

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago

    Yeah votes just show how dumb people are, we are already screwed."about protecting the climate" man, nature and climate will exist regardless of people, and if we want to live it is OUR problem to fix the cimate, not anyone else. You people are so arrogant that you don't even want to look into history how many times new technolofy saved our civilization.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›