• dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    How about everyone who says it’s the job of the little guy to fix the climate problem kicks a rock and governments, shipping companies, cruise lines, airlines, industrial farmers, etc PUT DOWN THE FORK.

    Every individual in every country is not responsible for allowing year over year profits in industries that ignore the writing on the wall.

    • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Beef consumption at current levels is unsustainable, I agree with your general principle but you’re saying this as if everyone can continue to consume tons of beef every year. Whether industry, regulation, or individual action: you’re not going to eat as much beef.

      This isn’t like recycling

      • shastaxc@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        So if that’s the problem, government should step in and limit beef production. Why rely on everyone to “do the right thing” to solve societal problems? That’s why government exists.

        • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          I don’t disagree, and in fact it is a huge part of the problem and we actively subsidize its production let alone limiting it. However the end result will be the same, so it’s not like saying “why should I have to recycle/deal with waste because companies are making single use products” because unlike in that case the alternative still has you eating less meat.

          Consider checking out this entertaining and informative video about how wild things get https://youtu.be/XusyNT_k-1c?si=K_gxkl0X60kFmvw0.

          Overseas nations grow animal feed in the US and ship it halfway across the world to feed their cattle. It’s absurd.

          • shastaxc@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 days ago

            While I think it’s a good ideal, I have met a lot of people in my life and have no confidence that any progress will be made by leaving the solution up to them

  • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 days ago

    Imagine thinking toxic masculinity is a bigger problem for this issue than beef/dairy subsidies and entrenched market forces. Nice distraction piece, NPR.

    • 5C5C5C@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      I honestly believe the two are related. I think big meat agro business is paying influencers to promote toxic masculinity and push nonsense like “plants emit toxic hormones” on social media.

      • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Maybe, but that’s just to keep demand anywhere near high enough to consume the products that subsidies ensure they will be producing anyways, so they can argue that the current subsidies are necessary.

      • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Yes, you’re missing that subsidies ensure the same amount of beef gets produced no matter the demand. In fact, that amount is set higher than demand. Demand is artificially increased due to the high availability and low prices resulting from these policies. Removing the subsidies would lower both Availability and Demand, as the lowered availability would increase prices.

        TL;DR: Consumption gender ratios have NOTHING to do with the amount of beef that is being produced, nor, therefore, its impacts on the environment.

        I can only restate the obvious so many times, and I HAVE already restated the facts on this at least twice prior to your question. Are you dense, or just insincere?

  • I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    tl;dr because of toxic masculinity

    It’s macho to eat lots of red meat, get high cholesterol, and die early from heart disease.

    • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Nah, how about “fish is expensive and chicken is unethical”? Meanwhile, beef is subsidized all to hell, and NPR is focused on the wrong issue. We’re long past the point where it looks like they are just running interference for industries that don’t want to change.

      Men who refuse to acknowlege there is a problem with beef aren’t the ones having a problem with attempting to eat less of it. Its market forces all the way down; Less available and/or more expensive beef is what it will take to wean the die-hards.

  • Taleya@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 days ago

    The more obsessed you are with the trappings of manhood the more everyone knows you’re faking it

  • memfree@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 days ago

    Not all Americans eat beef equally, data shows. Last year, Rose and his colleagues published a study looking at U.S. government data of the diets of more than 10,000 Americans. They found that on a given day, 12% of Americans account for half of all beef consumption. That 12% was disproportionately men.

    I’m confused by this because I want it to mean the same 12% all the time, but I suspect they mean that it is a different 12% from one day to the next.

    “Many men do reduce their meat consumption or are willing to,” says Joel Ginn, food and psychology researcher at Boston College, “but there are hurdles that they’ve had to overcome.”

    Manly men advertising meat – and Joe Rogan??? I guess all kinds of guys what to be oh so manly, but when I think of macho men, he’s just not on that list.

    Seeing someone in your close personal circle, or celebrities like athletes, make a behavior change can be an important piece of the puzzle, says Daniel Rosenfeld, psychology and food researcher at UCLA. “The way to get some people to eat less meat is to get other people to eat less meat,” he says.

    Personally, both myself and my better half enjoy the newer fake meat burgers. They really are a satisfying way to get a ‘manly’ burger.

  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    this is warmed-over poore-nemecek 2018. that’s the primary basis for the claims about the climate, but the methodology of that study is fucked, and it’s a disservice to actual climate science to keep touting this meta"study" that misuses its source material and myopically focuses on distilling data instead of understanding the complexity of our agricultural systems. the textile industry’s water use, land use, and emissions, i guarantee, are being counted in poore-nemecek as emissions from beef. i didn’t pull out the data from the separate reference to water use, but i will eat my hat if that doesn’t, as well.

    eating less beef has not been effective at stopping the growth of the beef industry for all the people who have done so. we need a real solution, and trying to influence individual consumer choice isn’t working.

    edit: down voting doesn’t change the truth

  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    My only care is that cow meat tastes damned good. KC strip steaks, smoked brisket, and hamburger in its many forms.

    If it can taste like that, then I almost don’t care where it comes from.