[anonymoushermit]

> Have you stopped eating meat?

No.

> Or are you saying "my contribution is just a drop in the bucket, so I may as well continue eating meat?"

Compared to, say, global shipping, meat itself is a drop in the bucket.

> Of course government action is better than individual action.

I wish this were sarcasm.

> But why not both?

Because the promoted alternative (soy) makes people docile and easier to control. No, thank you.

[ben_w]

> Compared to, say, global shipping, meat itself is a drop in the bucket.

According to this, livestock & manure are 5.8% of the total, while shipping is 1.7% of the total: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

IIRC the actual level of change we need to achieve long-term stability is something like 99%-99.9% reduction (depending on the gas, CH4 != CO2). If so, we’d have to eliminate about half of shipping emissions even if we eliminated 100% of the emissions in every other sector, but that’s even worse for your argument as it also means we have to eliminate 5/6ths of all livestock & manure emissions if we eliminated 100% of everything else.

[Zababa]

> IIRC the actual level of change we need to achieve long-term stability is something like 99%-99.9% reduction

This is impossible to attain though.

[ben_w]

Perhaps, perhaps not. I’m optimistic.

Also: while I wasn’t thinking of this when I wrote the previous post, if carbon capture powered by non-fossil sources turned out to be useful (but not so useful to give us the exact opposite problem), that’s still a success.

[convolvatron]

not impossible at all. we just have to wait for the oncoming economic collapse, famine and mass migration. the great part of this whole thing is that the more we double down on the systems that brought us here, the more they will be undermined.

I wish people would stop pretending we have a choice to do nothing because the whole thing is just going to be too inconvenient.

[Zababa]

> I wish people would stop pretending we have a choice to do nothing because the whole thing is just going to be too inconvenient.

But we do? There's no pretension here, no action is always a choice. That doesn't mean that we will be free from the consequences of course. I think many people are betting, consciously or not, on the fact that we can keep going like this until the day they die and then they won't have to care about the consequences.

[EvilEy3]

> we just have to wait for the oncoming economic collapse, famine and mass migration. the great part of this whole thing is that the more we double down on the systems that brought us here, the more they will be undermined

Uhuh, we just need to wait until you stop reading dystopian books and will leave your basement.

[dang]

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Not cool.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [e-mail] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

[yboris]

> Because the promoted alternative (soy) makes people docile and easier to control.

This is a bold empirical claim. Do you have any credible reasons to believe this that you could share?

[anonymoushermit]

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/foods-that-lower-testos...

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/17/science/aggression-in-men...

[yboris]

How do you conclude that people consuming soy are "easier to control"? Are women "easier to control"? Are you also saying that becoming more woman-like is problematic?