Comment by tommit | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tommit | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That's really well put, and I think is exactly what strikes me as off about these threads as opposed to what I'm used to on HN. It really seems like these conspiracy theories are way more indulged here than they would in any other thread.

I'm with you, also from Germany and very rarely eat meat (my rule of thumb is that if it's already dead and in front of me, I'm not going to save anyone by throwing it away -- think BBQs and the likes. Or when I visit my grandparents). Also, I'm firm in the camp that everyone can make their own choices, and don't shame anybody for eating meat. I just don't think it's viable going forward and I've made the choice a few years back to limit myself, because to me it seems only logical. Also like you said, it simply shouldn't be subsidized as it is. If someone wants to eat meat badly enough that they're willing to pay large prices -- great. If not, there are numerous protein sources out there that take less toll on the environment.

> if it's already dead and in front of me, I'm not going to save anyone by throwing it away

That's a sane and reflected reasoning that many of us could take as an example from time to time.

I myself have heavily reduced meat consumption, too, though probably not as much as you have. The best thing to do as a starter IMHO is to reduce the "unnecessary" things: Cold cuts can easily replaced by other - vegetarian - alternatives, skillet dishes mostly work with mushrooms only too, and diced ham is pretty much nothing more than glorified salt (of course this is hyperbolic, but you get the idea). By doing without this "hidden" meat you can drastically reduce your consumption without having to forgo the places where meat is the best: steaks, rips, pickled knuckle (!) and so on.

I've combined this principle with buying the remaining meat at a local eco butcher (which reduces your consumption even further due to prices) and am morally calmed, at least for now.

> Also like you said, it simply shouldn't be subsidized as it is. If someone wants to eat meat badly enough that they're willing to pay large prices -- great. If not, there are numerous protein sources out there that take less toll on the environment.

The only problem I see with this is that then meat becomes the food of the rich, which is unfair. I don't say that meat shouldn't be more expensive or that I have a better solution, it's just a thing to keep in mind, IMHO.

> The only problem I see with this is that then meat becomes the food of the rich, which is unfair.

Truffles have become the food of the rich. Too bad because I like truffles, unfairness is a moot point. I have no "right" to truffles. You should be much more concerned that decent housing or access to housing are becoming privileges than any particular food product.

> The only problem I see with this is that then meat becomes the food of the rich

It already is, poor people in poor countries eat very little meat even though they would like to eat more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com