Hacker News Reader

Comment by beckman466 | Hacker News Reader

this is a half-baked ‘solution‘ that just makes eating meat a luxury. a thing only for the rich.

it’ll be like crimes that are punished by a fine - they just become the ‘fee’ that allows the propertied class to do whatever they want.

beef is deadly for humanity because of destructive water and land usage (Vice had a great video showing the Amazon deforestation due to beef production).

edit: my point is that the propertied class will lower wages and raise commodity prices to be able to pay to keep eating an unsustainable amount of beef. instead we should restrict or ban industrial animal agriculture, while investing in educational material to help society transition away from beef. that and regenerative agriculture, agro-forestry, etc.

Ernst Gotsch: https://youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE

View on HN

That's true of literally anything where the price reflects the externalities.

If it bothers you that the rich can afford to pay for the externalities, that's an argument against wealth inequality, not against pricing things correctly.

If everyone had a private jet with jet fuel subsidized by the government it would also be bad for humanity. It’s currently tolerated as a luxury only for the rich. As an argument for subsidizing something, that doesn’t resonate with me by itself.

We subsidize the meat industry directly, and indirectly by not pricing in negative externalities like it’s carbon expenditure.

Equating eating meat to owning a private jet won't get the point pretty well to the masses.

That’s true but I don’t know of any pitch that would convince “the masses”. It’s easier to argue why someone should not do more of something they aren’t already doing, rather than stop doing something they like and have been doing for generations.

But maybe we can still make a dent by increasing the price to include negative externalities like carbon emissions, or at least ending subsidies for meat so substitutes might be able to compete better.

If only allowing the rich to eat beef will help save the planet then I'm for it.

the point is that the propertied class will lower wages and raise commodity prices to pay to keep eating an unsustainable amount of beef. instead we should restrict or ban industrial animal agriculture, while investing in educational material to help society transition away from beef. that and regenerative agriculture, agro-forestry, etc.

Ernst Gotsch: https://youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE

i don’t want to give my children a dead planet either.

Don't get me wrong, my children and I are vegan - I absolutely believe the best case scenario would be to eradicate animal agriculture altogether.

As long as you're aware that you're trading wealth-inequality for perceived ecological gains, at least be honest and sell it that way.

If only eating the rich will help save the planet then I'm in.

It would save humanity. Maybe that's a start?

Edgar: What does steak taste like again? I had it once, but I can't remember. Curtis: If you can't remember then it's better to forget. Edgar: What does it smell like when it's cooked? It must emanate around the place.”

>beef is deadly for humanity because of destructive water and land usage

How is it more deadly than transportation in terms of emissions or deaths caused by it? https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

Your source doesn't support your point, it doesn't break out transportation related to beef or the stuff feed to cows to make beef.

What is my point?

I question the focus on a beef, a percentage of 10% rather than 29% of the total, which is transportation, or 25% which is electricty.

Your point appears to be to claim that everything that is not most important is irrelevant. Which is a bad idea, because "we" can do more than one thing at a time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com