Green - An environmentalist community

5313 readers

1 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!

RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith

Related communities:

Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

196

The Comforting Lie of "Climate-Friendly Meat" (newrepublic.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

80 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The thing I can never get behind is that this is always used as an argument for new technologies instead of returning to lower tech, pre-industrial solutions that are already well established and known to be safer.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The problem with this is lifestyle inflation.

Pre-industrial technologies will only get us pre-industrial amounts of meat, which has to be split between the current population.

There's a lot of people who probably won't be very happy with only being able to afford meat once or twice a week. That seems like a surefire way to trigger a backlash.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

this is always used as an argument for new technologies instead of returning to lower tech, pre-industrial solutions that are already well established and known to be safer

Maybe because it's about economical efficiency. The old ways were abandoned in favor of new methods, because the new approach was cheaper / yielded higher profits.

Yes, we could produce meat like we did in pre-industrial times, but that would mean higher prices or lower volume. Either way, it would mean less people could afford to eat meat. Like in pre-industrial times.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Maybe because it’s about economical efficiency

Exactly. It's not about "saving the planet" at all. It is, once again, about making more money.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Oh, that's not what I meant to describe. There are differences in ecological impact of various foods and production methods, obviously. Choosing the smaller options helps to do less harm, to "save the planet".

I meant to point out that we moved from pre-industrial methods to modern methods because they make more sense in economic terms, in capitalism. And that just going back might lead to unwanted consequences like lots of people with much less access to meat.