I grew up on a (very) small farm - so I knew where all the meat we ate (and eggs, apple, plums and jam) came from.
One of the things I find most disconcerting as an adult is the disconnect with the food I eat. Even the local 'farmer butcher' - I don't actually know if the meat they sell me is what they say it is.
I buy a lot of deer from a friend of a friend as it feels slightly more known to me - even if I have no idea about what the deer actually ate in it's life.
ljf
11 days ago
I grew up similarly and it's part of the reason I've cut back on my meat.
Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives is unfortunately how a lot of beef is produced. They spend their lives covered in shit, sleeping in shit, and trapped with no where to roam.
And instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. [1]
I keep seeing people make this claim that cattle spend their entire lives on feed lots, but I've never seen this anywhere and I've been all over cattle country. Where do they do this? Because around here feedlots are only for finishing cattle and typically only spend about 2-3 months there after having very happy lives as calves on a ranch.
merpnderp
11 days ago
> I keep seeing people make this claim that cattle spend their entire lives on feed lots, but I've never seen this anywhere and I've been all over cattle country. Where do they do this?
Nobody does that, it’d be way too expensive. People here on HN have absolutely zero knowledge of how industrial cattle farming operates and have some really bizarre beliefs about the process. Largely because their only experience with it is the supermarket meat section and passing those massive stinky feedlots along the CA I5.
For everyone else: After a calf is raised and weaned from their mother, they are sent to “background” on pasture and the last few months a cow spends packed in a feedlot is just to fatten it up for human consumption. These are usually steps done by different companies altogether. The whole point of beef is utilizing marginal land that can’t grow human food. It converts tons of grassland to usable farmland, and that pasture makes up 2/3 of the total agricultural land in the US.
throwup238
11 days ago
I agree with everything you said except:
>"The whole point of beef is utilizing marginal land that can’t grow human food."
FYI: 36% of corn is grown just to feed cattle/livestock. I'm trying to breed chickens that are less dependent on commercial foods, so I'm somewhat familiar with the topic.
That's also very misleading because the vast majority of the corn we feed cows isn't fed to them fresh. It's distillers grains, an industrial waste from ethanol production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distillers_grains
It's a cheap type of corn [1] only grown on marginal farmland that is one step above pasture land.
I'm not here to police tone, but it sounded like you were disagreeing with the parent comment but your factual claims do not appear to disagree.
>> typically only spend about 2-3 months there after having very happy lives as calves on a ranch.
> After a calf is raised and weaned from their mother, they are sent to “background” on pasture and the last few months a cow spends packed in a feedlot is just to fatten it up for human consumption.
The only difference is the introduction of "sent to “background” on pasture" which arguably is not different from "happy lives as calves on a ranch" given different interpretations of calf to distinguish between baby and adolescent cattle.
adolph
11 days ago
Thanks, edited for clarity.
throwup238
11 days ago
[flagged]
notesinthefield
11 days ago
There is no hypocrisy in cattle farming. No species on earth other than humans care about another species existence other than how it will benefit their own species.
I'm not saying humans shouldn't be different, but there is no hypocrisy in keeping in line with every other species in the known universe.
toolz
11 days ago
I don't disagree with you, but I'm unaware (naive?) of any other species farming/enslaving/capturing hordes of another species and effectively torturing them the way humans do
Being suddenly killed by a lion is a rather short torture/cruel experience compared to what humans do at larger and larger scales. I think animals even have a mechanism that I forget the name of that spares them a lot of the pain involved in such a situation (adrenaline, "going into shock", etc)
I really do wish I/we could do something to be less cruel but everything seems driven by profit margins and that makes it rather difficult/impossible. They're outlawing 'lab grown' meat! :|
(I eat meat, but I don't feel good about it when I think about it)
thejazzman
11 days ago
Humans didn't care either until very recently, when it became apparant just how much capacity we have to drive other animals to extinction. Our ability to destroy is many orders of magnitude beyond any other animal, so having at least a little more restraint is basically a requirement for a sustainable society.
rurp
11 days ago
No one said that.
They did not live the entire lives in the feedlot.
Anything else, you read into.
pests
11 days ago
Probably responding to this from a parent comment:
> Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives
neolefty
11 days ago
yes they did say that, we can all read
whimsicalism
11 days ago
They said they don't spend all their time in the feedlots... are you sure about that?
pests
9 days ago
> Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives
?
whimsicalism
7 days ago
> Ah yes its fine to kill them
Yes. Fundamentally, most people, including myself, believe that it's fine to kill animals and eat them.
There's no hypocrisy here, disgusting or otherwise. You have your own concept of morality, I have mine, yours is considered extreme by society at large, mine is a shared moral belief of the great majority.
That's all that's going on here.
samatman
11 days ago
most people also do not care about factory farming. think the claim is that it is hypocrisy if you care about the animal suffering when you will just kill it at the end
whimsicalism
11 days ago
It's not hypocrisy to believe that a) animals can be killed for their meat, but also b) they should be treated humanely until then and killed as humanely as feasible.
That's the great thing about human intelligence; we can ensure a humane kill of our prey as opposed to ripping it apart with fangs and claws like other predators.
psunavy03
11 days ago
That's a very bold statement. I believe most people "care" about the welfare about the animals they eat.
Gud
11 days ago
I guess my threshold for care is if it is sufficient to motivate any action to be taken at all, whether that is eating slightly less meat or switching to non-factory farmed. The vast majority of people don’t do that, so their revealed “care” is very little.
Frankly, I don’t really care which type they eat, meat is meat and has pretty much the same environmental (and ethics of killing) issues.
whimsicalism
11 days ago
What is the "disgusting hypocrisy of cattle farming?" The term "happiness" is an anthropomorphic emotion term to describe animals not living in the distress so well characterized by Temple Grandin. The theory is growing the animal in a low stress environment leads to a higher quality product. Given the scary prions which spread in part by feeding cows to themselves, it makes sense to avoid some of the conditions humans often find aesthetically or morally objectionable.
adolph
11 days ago
wow, one year in jail just for trespassing or taking a photo and doing absolutely no damage.
I wonder how much it costs to buy a legislature house. Can't we crowfund buying it to make "modern" farming illegal?
rmbyrro
11 days ago
"wow, one year in jail just for trespassing"
Many western states have much stricter views on property rights and trespassing than the coasts. The penalties are generally higher even if not dealing with this specific scenario. Even regular ID trespassing law can carry 6mo-1y jail time depending on the circumstances, etc.
One often overlooked thing that isn't particularly applicable in this case is the biosecurity aspect involved in agricultural trespassing. Even trespassing in agricultural areas without taking pictures can carry higher penalties in many states.
giantg2
11 days ago
in other states, these penalties only exist for slaughterhouses, if you broke into a Beyond meat factory and filmed you wouldn’t be eligible for same penalties
whimsicalism
11 days ago
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Most of the agricultural trespassing, disruption, etc laws don't just apply to slaughterhouses, but also include the farms and such. Many states have general secret recording that apply to nearly all scenarios if you're referring to recording. If you're talking about just trespass, if you "broke" into a beyond meat facility you would in fact face similar penalties in other western states with similar property rights culture. I believe even the ID law would result in 6-12mo maximum jail if you broke into the factory (might even qualify as burglary with higher penalties depending on specifics).
giantg2
11 days ago
Utah at least specifically only protected things like slaughterhouses. I am not familiar.
The penalties in these laws are higher than just generic secret recording.
whimsicalism
11 days ago
I think both depend on which state.
Do you have the law that prevents the recording in UT? I only see the tresspassing law. Which by the way, would appear to be a class B misdemeanor if it was agricultural land or if it was a building (same for both your examples).
I wasn't trying to distinguish between land and building, mostly just that they are about recording and specifically animal operations.
I'm almost certain Utah is not the only state that specifically has laws around recording and specifically for animal operations that go beyond just generic trespass, but I don't have time right now to dive in.
whimsicalism
11 days ago
Ok, thanks for the link. Based on that information it seems generic tresspass and the agricultural interference laws carry similar penalties depending on the circumstances. Both are either class A or class B misdemeanors.
giantg2
11 days ago
but penalties stack :) and not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass - many times it is people who are employed there who are doing the recording
whimsicalism
11 days ago
"but penalties stack :)"
Do they, or are they concurrent stemming from the same act in UT?
"not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass"
True. Your example was breaking into a Beyond Meat plant, comparing trespass to interference. In that case, the penalties are similar.
giantg2
11 days ago
Relevant search terms: “lesser included offense” or “multiplicity” or “double jeopardy.”
singleshot_
11 days ago
Not sure why you're putting these here. These are not relevant to discussion we're having. We're talking about the sentencing phase and the rules determining concurrent sentences.
giantg2
11 days ago
How are you going to get concurrent sentences for two things you can’t get convicted for — or sentenced for — simultaneously? My point is that what you are contemplating would not be possible. Obviously I’m missing something. What is it?
singleshot_
11 days ago
So why can't you get sentenced for trespassing and agricultural interference if you trespassed into a facility and recorded animals? I didn't see anything in UT laws preventing concurrent sentences for those. Why do you think those can't be sentenced together?
giantg2
11 days ago
Now we will see why my previous comment was relevant.
A lesser included offense is an offense which itself constitutes one element of another offense. Under the doctrine of multiplicity, you may either be tried for the lesser included or the offense for which the lesser included is an element — but not both. To be charged with both would run afoul of the constitutional provisions limiting double jeopardy.
This is not part of any Utah statute, it’s a general constitutional principle under US law.
Why you made me say this twice, I do not know.
singleshot_
10 days ago
I didn't make you say anything. It looks like you replied to the wrong person, and in a unconstructive way. Seems you should have replied to the person about stacking penalties. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40310758
You could have been constructive and said that criminal trespass was a lesser included offense under section 2d. Or should I just reply to you using a few semirandom words? Relevant search terms include: conversation, context, sentences, convey complete ideas
giantg2
10 days ago
Talking to Computer Guy about legal principles yields unsurprising results.
Honestly, if you just Google the search terms it’s easier for both of us because you can tailor your search to your level of understanding.
singleshot_
10 days ago
The principle is well understood. You could have pointed out how that principle applied - that the lesser included offense of criminal trespass existed under 2d. Researching principles does nothing if there is a missing fact. Or are you referring to yourself as "Computer Guy"?
If it's too much work for you to engage in a thoughful conversation (per the guidelines), just don't engage at all next time. We don't need low effort "search terms..." comments on here.
giantg2
10 days ago
Sounds like the principle isn’t too well understood if you’re
singleshot_
10 days ago
> if you broke into a Beyond meat factory you wouldn’t be eligible
You're saying that there wouldn't be penalties for breaking and entering?
HeyLaughingBoy
11 days ago
You would not have as high penalties if it wasn’t an animal facility and you were filming.
whimsicalism
11 days ago
Do you have the law on that? It seems your example in Utah would be class B misdemeanors for trespass in either scenario. I didn't see any law specifically about recording slaughterhouses.
Based on that link, tresspass in non animal facilities carry similar penalties (both either class A or class B misdemeanors depending on specifics).
giantg2
11 days ago
I personally empathize more with the concerns of poor humans than I do mistreated animals and increasing food costs seems likely to increase their pain. I'll gladly wait for technology to improve the lives of animals, but I think it's important our legislation focuses entirely on improving the life of people, exclusively.
toolz
11 days ago
Your conclusions are all wrong.
Beef is incredibly expensive in terms of costs of food, land, and water -- and in high density situations - rapid disease spread (and post consumption disease spread via cancer, metabolic, and heart disease)
By promoting sustainable diets, mostly vegetarian with optional beef splurges
- food costs decrease
- food transport costs decrease
- disease caused by diets decrease
smileysteve
11 days ago
Enforcing ignorance is the answer?
> but I think it's important our legislation focuses entirely on improving the life of people, exclusively
What about the activists who are motivated by a genuine belief that this is wrong and believe it's their life's work to raise awareness of the issue? Throwing them in jail isn't improving their lives - what framework are you using to pick losers & winners of the people you help vs hurt?
vlovich123
11 days ago
"Throwing them in jail isn't improving their lives - what framework are you using to pick losers & winners of the people you help vs hurt?"
Seems to be the combined wishes of the constituents. Same theory applies to most topics. You can see this in how different states poll on firearms (or abortion, etc) and the types of laws they have on that topic. As an extreme example, the same person can carry the same gun in two different states and be lawful in one and committing a felony in another without causing any damage simply because the values and beliefs expressed by the populations results in different laws. They might even qualify to carry lawfully in both states but are missing a piece of paper confirming it. That's how the laws works - break it and suffer consequences. Maybe it's worth it depeding on your moral convictions. Don't like it, then change the law. In the case of agricultural tresspass, the law is not likely to change in ID based on the current views of the population there.
giantg2
11 days ago
In a representative democracy, the will of the population isn't so directly represented in the laws that are held. Given the role money and lobbying have in politics, there's no way to conclude that any given law has the broad support of the people vs "this isn't important enough for me to get worked up over vs issues that are more immediately pressing to me" or even "powerful economic powers are acting to sway the opinion of the general population". There's even [1] which adds credence to the idea that laws are passed by the will of the wealthy, not by the will of the constituents. Also immoral laws can be passed when the people in power are immoral. Immoral people can gain power through alternate ways than following the will of the constituents.
More importantly, we have ideals and principles that supersede the will of the public. Arguably the most sacred ideal in America is the First Amendment with respect to protections about speech & this is pretty adjacent in that the law is criminalizing speech for something that should arguably be a civil matter at best. Laws like this are not dissimilar to passing a law protecting employers from employees trying to document unsafe working conditions.
So the idea that the law is purely an expression of the wishes of the constituents is nice but not borne out in the structure of modern democratic governments, not borne out in practice because of how power & money intermix, & invalidated by the idea that we have principles that supersede the wishes of those constituents.
"Given the role money and lobbying have in politics, there's no way to conclude that any given law has the broad support of the people"
That's why I mentioned polling and gave generally verifiable examples.
Yes, money can sway the legislature or even the views of constituents. And yes, most topics have a large number of people who don't care because they don't know or the topic doesn't affect them. However, polling and other research can show how the population views the topic pertaining to the law and the culture in general.
"criminalizing speech for something that should arguably be a civil matter at best."
This is factually incorrect. The speech portion of this would be the sharing of the picture. The part that is criminalized is trespassing and recording to get that picture. The civil part would be stuff like libel or slander.
"So the idea that the law is purely an expression of the wishes of the constituents is nice but not borne out in the structure of modern democratic governments"
I never said it was a pure expression. You can clearly see that property rights are a part of the culture of most western states. Yes, those laws were influenced by the wealthy over generations, but it's now become part of the culture.
giantg2
11 days ago
Improving the lives of animals directly improves the lives of humans. Who do you think is eating them? Feeding them? Building their shelters and living near them? Slaughtering them and butchering them? Animal welfare is a public health issue. People have caught bird flu and died!
KittenInABox
11 days ago
[flagged]
dr_dshiv
11 days ago
> instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue.
This kind of corp-captured government is one more reason I'm certain we're in the 1910s again.
I'm finding it easier to count the exceptions to that. (they had appropriate housing, we have fewer labor-related deaths).
source: am an annoying genealogist
WarOnPrivacy
11 days ago
So that's the 'small government' I see so many folks talking about online.
hollywood_court
11 days ago
Money is speech, but photos are not apparently
walthamstow
11 days ago
A picture is worth a thousand words, so the voice of the industry would become too expensive (bribes, oh excuse me, lobbying and consulting) if the public can use pictures. Hence, pictures are forbidden.
earth-adventure
11 days ago
You should read the linked law. You may find it reasonable.
tengbretson
11 days ago
Unless my understanding of 'misrepresentation' is incorrect, and I'm neither a lawyer nor an American, but I find the law to outlaw basic journalism, including and especially the below section which seems to specifically outlaw undercover journalism. What's reasonable about that?
> (c) Obtains employment with an agricultural production facility by force, threat, or misrepresentation with the intent to cause economic or other injury to the facility’s operations, livestock, crops, owners, personnel, equipment, buildings, premises, business interests or customers;
walthamstow
11 days ago
If the definition of undercover journalism is simply lying about ones identity in order to publish secrets with the intent to cause injury to another party, then yes, absolutely, I'm in favor of outlawing it, and a 1 year max seems generous.
tengbretson
11 days ago
Divulging someone's secrets isn't intrinsically unethical. If I reveal the secret that you've murdered someone that's not a secret that you ever had any right to keep.
Likewise these "secrets" aren't something valuable like an algorithm that's in the interest of society to protect. The secret is their monstrous and unethical practices which lower their sales when their prospective consumers learn about them. Keeping it secret doesn't protect competition, it just hides something from consumers that would allow them to make a more informed choice.
Muckraker journalism like this is one of the main reasons the US has regulations for things like food safety and working conditions. Should a journalist go to jail for revealing that a slaughterhouse is hiring 8 year olds, or that there is a mass contamination of a food product that the company still intends to sell? Those can be "secrets" too.
DoughnutHole
11 days ago
[deleted]
11 days ago
There's a difference between publishing actual secrets and publishing evidence of someone breaking the law.
We're seeing with Boeing what happens when law-breaking is swept under the rug for too long.
mschuster91
11 days ago
[deleted]
11 days ago
[deleted]
11 days ago
I think what they're saying there is "I was just taking pictures... noooo, you will break my camera!!! you evil brute!" when you say GTFO is no defense.
Not saying there aren't weird laws. Check the notions of boxed squares (miles) and airspace. Some of these need addressing at the federal level.
m3047
11 days ago
> Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives is unfortunately how a lot of beef is produced. They spend their lives covered in shit, sleeping in shit, and trapped with no where to roam.
And then being shoved into a truck, shipped who knows how many thousand miles to a butchering facility that does it for 3c cheaper and then end up in a line with all your peers to be killed in a horribly industrialized way.
When I lived in central Europe there was a story about pigs or cows, I don't remember, being shipped to Morocco for butchering, imagine that!
People would be vegetarians in a heartbeat if they saw how meat is produced.
> And instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. [1]
Same in Canada. Very disappointing.
barbazoo
11 days ago
> People would be vegetarians in a heartbeat if they saw how meat is produced.
No, because most people wouldn't care.
maleldil
11 days ago
I agree with you--feedlots are disgusting and cruel.
However, cattle do not spend their "entire lives" at a feedlot. Usually only the last few months (or less) before slaughter. Prior to that, that majority of cattle live in very open and pleasant conditions.
bequanna
11 days ago
Isn’t selling venison against the law?
chasd00
11 days ago
I'm in the UK - but yes he's a registered 'pest controller' - he gets paid by local farmers to keep the invasive deer population low (muncjac and Chinese water deer), and is also licenced to sell the meat. You can get either a whole/half skinned and basically butchered deer from him, or any selected cuts, for £9 a kg - which pretty damn cheap really!
ljf
11 days ago
That is a fantastic deal for meat you can feel good about! I pay that much for pork at the big organic grocery chain in Germany (ebl) that I can only hope they’re telling the truth about, and far more for the occasional beef steak there.
MandieD
11 days ago
I live in America. I buy half-beef from a farmer down the road. His cows are pastured all the time, grass-fed and grass-finished. It costs me $3.50/lb to do this and that includes dozens of steaks - all cuts and ground beef etc. are the same flat rate.
This isn't a special deal either, this is how the guy makes his living, along with some other farm products.
Amezarak
11 days ago
Link, please? Or at least a general area?
Grass-finished is really tough economically; corn results in an animal almost 3x the size.
The only grass-finished place I have is struggling no matter how much beef I eat :) I really need other places if it goes away.
bsder
11 days ago
What's "half-beef"?
arrowsmith
11 days ago
It's where you buy half of a cow
oaththrowaway
11 days ago
And that right there is a solid moat
kvirani
11 days ago
He gets paid twice - what a business!
ljf
11 days ago
Bait shop on one side, sushi shop on the other! As a friend likes to say.
nathancahill
11 days ago
Depends which jurisdiction. It’s legal in the UK if you have a license and I think it has to be professionally butchered and labelled at a registered slaughterhouse.
willyt
11 days ago
I'd be more concerned about prions in this case.
valicord
11 days ago
That should be the last concern of any decent human being. If they outlaw breathing, will you stop? Hunting is something our species has done for over a billion years by this point.
carlosjobim
11 days ago
I am pro-hunting. But this isn’t a good argument.
1) equivocating hunting with breathing? One is necessary for life, the other is done by less than a quarter of people, and for most of them it’s just a hobby.
2) slavery has also been done probably since humanity began millions of years ago, so that clearly is not sufficient for something shoulding be legal.
lukas099
11 days ago
Hunting is just as necessary for life as breathing. Domestication of animals and agriculture are the unnatural ways that man has invented. So banning it is banning the most natural human behaviour. All other predators do nothing except hunt, breathe, drink, sleep and mate. And they don't keep slaves.
There's a lot of people who never drink water, but drinking water is still essential and shouldn't be outlawed.
carlosjobim
11 days ago
That doesn't make any sense. What makes hunting any more natural than agriculture? Isn't exerting control over our environment one of the defining characteristics of humanity?
mathieuh
11 days ago
It is more natural because creatures in nature do it. Together with mating, hunting is one of the foundations of life itself for the predator or omnivore class of animals.
All the behaviours that we have in common with other mammals are natural and eternal. They can never be legislated away, even though many have tried and they have died. Including kings trying to ban hunting certain game for commoners and having them for themselves.
carlosjobim
11 days ago
> It is more natural because creatures in nature do it. All the behaviours that we have in common with other mammals are natural and eternal. They can never be legislated away
We outlaw all sorts of things that can be found in nature.
>>> What makes hunting any more natural than agriculture?
>> It is more natural because creatures in nature do it.
> "Creatures in nature" also "farm"
Thus "hunting" is not "more natural" than agriculture and domestication of other species.
If you don't find it interesting that non-human life has been performing behaviors humans think unique to themselves, well that's your problem.
adolph
11 days ago
Additionally, “natural” =/= “necessary to life”. Millions if not billions of people have the means to hunt if they wanted to, yet choose not to. And they are just fine.
lukas099
10 days ago
That's an odd view, were hunter-gatherers less human than us?
Drakim
11 days ago
>> Hunting is something our species has done for over a billion years by this point.
Sustenance hunting yes, but the rules about selling wild meat are to prevent market hunting. There are more humans by weight than any other land animal. If the general population started eating hunted meat, any wild population would be wiped out. So we have careful rules to ensure hunters do not hunt simply to sell the meat.
sandworm101
11 days ago
I agree that there is a difference, but a very small difference. Even animals share their prey with those who didn't participate in the hunt.
If the general population started eating hunted meat, vast agricultural areas would be returned to nature, giving a slight offset to that problem.
But jumping back to reality, those people who actually hunt and purchase hunted meat right now are people who care about nature and shepherd it with responsibility. They can safely ignore any hacker that starts yapping about some law written by unnatural people.
carlosjobim
11 days ago
> If the general population started eating hunted meat, vast agricultural areas would be returned to nature, giving a slight offset to that problem.
I don't think the math works here. There isn't enough agricultural area on the planet to sustainably generate enough hunted Calories for the general population.
Marsymars
11 days ago
I wrote "slight offset".
carlosjobim
11 days ago
The selling of hunted meet to the general population for profit is a very very slippery slope.
Hunting isn't illegal. Selling hunted meat is. It combats overhunting and poaching.
saintfire
11 days ago
Sincere question - how does one "overhunt"?
If I were to use a huge trawler with a big net to catch hundreds of fish I would call that overfishing. But is that even fishing?
Thwres nuance between artisanal and industrial, and both get caught with the same word
IG_Semmelweiss
11 days ago
It’s simple… harvesting more than the population you are hunting can sustain. A lot of animals outside or deer are regulated through a lottery system, if everyone who wanted to hunt a bear, mountain goat, or cougar did every year, we’d have none.
mtnGoat
11 days ago
One issue with confusing laws with ethics: We forget that lines are best drawn between doing harm and not.
WarOnPrivacy
11 days ago
We have deer seasons for a reason. Lots of times you can only hunt the male bucks to keep populations in check. People have decimated populations. Look at the Goliath Grouper ban in Florida and how the species has recovered.
wil421
11 days ago
There weren't any plants, let alone animals, a billion years ago.
masfuerte
11 days ago
Microbes where hunting and fucking by that time.
carlosjobim
11 days ago
Which law, where?
Please don't assume that everyone here lives in the same city/state/country/continent as you.
scoot
11 days ago
Yeah you're on a site called hackernews quit being a dork
snapcaster
11 days ago
excuse me. where else are we dorks supposed do go? i'm running out of forums where I can post with the replica of my childhood pc rig.
WarOnPrivacy
11 days ago
Give Brazil time. Things will improve again. I hope the EU Mercosul FTA puts protections in place if it is ever signed.
Brazil reached 92 percent renewable energy. So there are good news.
What mechanisms were put into action that indicate improvement?
I'm Brazilian, living in Brazil and I don't share your optimism.
diegoholiveira
11 days ago
I've moved to a meat buying strategy of "only buy meat if you've met the farmer".
I don't object to eating meat, but so much of the industrial meat production world is a nightmare. From disease risk, to abuse of animals, to slash and burn, to waste.
By buying meat from a local farmer, you can eliminate a lot of that. You end up eating less meat, probably, but we buy a whole cow every few years and divvy it up between friends. You could do that more or less often if you still wanted to eat a lot of meat.
yareal
11 days ago
As an American why would you buy Brazilian beef when it’s already available here probably for cheaper, local, and higher quality?
righthand
11 days ago
I can see two reasons: maybe it is not cheaper, or maybe there's not enough for local consumers. There should definitely be some economic incentive somewhere.
Higher quality is debatable, foreign imports are not necessarily "lower quality", I'm a Brazilian so I'm on the other side of the coin, our beef is anything but low quality. The problem that the article wants to expose is that much of it is raised on illegal ranches, more often than not on the deflorested Amazon.
Being local is not something that food chains care about.
augusto-moura
11 days ago
Doubtful that the mass ranched cattle is raised to the same quality standards as in America, especially if they know their beef is going to fast food. Ex. Grass fed, hormone-free
Also I understand what the article points out about illegal ranches supplying corporations but Who eats the food from the food chains?
righthand
11 days ago
This is why I mentioned the word debatable. Brazil has high-quality standards for cattle; I specifically live in an agribusiness state in Brazil (very far away from the Amazon, although still having ecological problems). The absolute majority of cattle here are raised in free-range being grass-fed, without any hormones, and this is exactly the problem, free-ranging demands a lot of land, and ultimately this land is being made by cutting down old-growth forests.
Let's not make assumptions about quality when we don't have enough information from each country to make an educated guess. I will point out that Brazil is the largest exporter of agricultural products in the West, and we comply with very demanding markets, including the US. The problem being cited is not about quality—we are compliant with the FDA—but the ethics of ranging cattle in previously Amazon forests
augusto-moura
11 days ago
Right I never said it was about quality. I asked why an American would buy exported beef and quality obviously is a factor in a buying decision. Quality has to be proven, something that is difficult to understand and prove when the product is an export.
I am asking a different question than what is demonstrated by the article, intentionally.
righthand
10 days ago
How would you even know where it came from?
HeyLaughingBoy
11 days ago
Why would you continue when you found out?
righthand
11 days ago
Because it’s cheaper for Mc’Donalds and Burger King but probably not for the average consumer. Grocery store beef quality has gone down after Covid except Prime grade and local butchers $$$.
wil421
11 days ago
For context, I've known that McDonald's uses rain forest beef since the mid-1980s when my dad first told me about it. I thought they stopped that for a while, but nope:
Nothing has been done to stop it because of a number of cultural problems: 1) Americans love beef: "why would I eat what food eats?" 2) America could stop all conflict around the world, from deforestation to war to civil rights abuses, if that wasn't directly at odds with the appetites of our capitalist empire and 3) scarcity mindset for survival has so dominated the Global South for so long that nature is seen as a resource to be exploited, far below even the dignity of human life, due to unrelenting debt pressure from the IMF to create a wage slave class for harvesting cash crops and labor/resource-intensive commodities like beef.
zackmorris
11 days ago
> 2) America could stop all conflict around the world, from deforestation to war to civil rights abuses
That's nonsense. China and Russia are exploiting development countries as best they can (too). I wonder how you got the idea that it'd be only the US?
Websearch for "china cobalt mines congo" for example.
Interesting about McDonald's anyway
cutemonster
11 days ago
ask the chain burger fast-food companies.. they buy it
mistrial9
11 days ago
Who buys the chain burgers fast-food companies burgers?
The world would be much better if fast food were a US-only phenomenon but that's trivially untrue.
hombre_fatal
11 days ago
I didn't mean for my response to be exhaustive so much as directly responsive to the question asked... why Americans eat the Brazilian beef?
freejazz
11 days ago
GOTO 10
righthand
11 days ago
[flagged]
TechDebtDevin
11 days ago
It's not hard to understand: It's affordable, culturally acceptable, the taste is appealing to the palate, it's an easy source of protein, people are disengaged to know the details of the supply chain and as such don't really engage on discussing the ethics of modern meat production.
tcgv
11 days ago
You can also push a concession out of most normal people that it's unethical, in person. Only online do people act like it's not an elephant in everyone's room—just one that we don't think about unless scrolling past a documentary or something. It's just incredibly hard to red pill out of the comforts you were born into.
hombre_fatal
11 days ago
Why would they care, when they can't see the animal suffering in front of their nose? When it's just something abstract in the newspapers sometimes, and it's more fun to watch Netflix or hang out with friends than read more about that?
cutemonster
11 days ago
> Why would you murder and bleed out a cute little animal for calories.
Who are you talking to ? We don't eat cute puppies here. /s
hulitu
10 days ago
For anyone interested in the numbers behind how bad beef and deforestation are for the environment, see Hannah Ritchie’s great new book Not the End of the World.
matt_daemon
11 days ago
As a counter point, livestock are a critical part of the regenerative ag movement.
Our property was farmland for 150 years before it basically ran out of nutrients in the 1970s. After one year of a pretty good harvest (not great) in 2019, we couldn't grow anything. One home testing kit later, and we found that there were virtually no minerals in the soil.
Fast forward five years and between heavy composting and generating a very healthy amount of bird waste, we're just starting to restore the nutrient balance in the soil. The next step (in progress) is planting some native grasses and low lying shrubs to try and break up the practically impenetrable clay pan that exists below the soil.
Many people dislike meat eating, and I understand that, but developing a healthy relationship with the land practically requires some form of livestock. We are turning "dead" land into highly productive pasture literally in one growing cycle.
debacle
11 days ago
Where did the feed for the animals come from?
guhidalg
11 days ago
Kitchen scraps and forage mostly. We did add some feed during the winter because we miscalculated our needs.
We aren't doing anything intensive, and we don't have chickens or pigs. I did the math, and it doesn't really seem like you can have chickens or pigs just range, you have to supplement their diet in some way. Geese on the other hand are like...the best animals for regenerative ag, maybe next to sheep.
We will probably get chickens at some point (unless we miraculously can range enough ducks for eggs), but we will have to buy in their feed.
debacle
11 days ago
This is currently downvoted, but it's a valid question. The concept at play is "ghost acres". The idea being that you might have a wonderful regenerated plot of productive land, but if it requires a massive amount of land elsewhere to maintain, you might not have gained as much as you think.
shmageggy
11 days ago
Rgenerative AG is BS. For example, they'll talk about how they sequester CO2, but fail to mention that after 10 years, the ground reaches a limit, from which point forward it produces far more CO2 than our current meat production.
They'll also ignore any imports into the system from conventional sources. SO, they'll feed conventionally grown feed, but not include that in their numbers.
In the end, even if regenerative farming was any good, the amount of meat we could afford to produce (aka without using too much land, water or other resources) is so tiny that 90% of our food would end up being vegan anyway.
LinXitoW
11 days ago
What is the solution to recover topsoil in the midwest without cattle? I'd also be for returning the buffalo that made it so fertile in the first place, but clearly what we're doing now is not sustainable.
Amezarak
11 days ago
Beef in itself is not bad for the environment. It's the scale of demand that is bad. And that demand is fueled by the combined effects of global population growth and global increase in standards of living.
We tend to stop at the symptoms instead of going after the root cause.
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
> Beef in itself is not bad for the environment. It's the scale of demand that is bad.
Wasting crops feeding cattle is inherently worse than the alternative, feeding directly on the crops and avoiding the wasting of calories when going up one trophic level.
Qem
11 days ago
"A large amount of beef is grown in areas that are not suitable for crop farming in the United States. In fact, 85% of the land used to graze cattle in the U.S. is marginal land, which means it's not suitable for growing crops. Marginal land is either untouched or used for grazing livestock, mostly cattle"
Grain finishing is another matter. But it's not a 1 grain : 1/10th beef type situation.
Now chopping and burning down the amazon to create grazing land for cattle? yeah that's going to probably kill us all.
virtue3
11 days ago
They're gonna chop and burn it down either way, it'll either be for cattle or if you make eating meat illegal they'll chop and burn it for something else like palm oil.
Like it's obvious the people who own and control that land don't care about it anywhere near as much as you do so if you want them to stop chopping it down essentially you're gonna need to start paying them not to. Just seems naive to think stopping specifically poor people from eating meat is the solution to this.
whywhywhywhy
11 days ago
If you take away one of the profitable reasons to chop down the Amazon, it’ll reduce people doing it at the margin - that is simply facts.
> Poor people from eating meat
Yeah and a carbon tax will stop poor people from using as much gas, etc. - if we want to solve climate change we cannot just insulate all poor people from externality pricing.
whimsicalism
11 days ago
At global scale we can't solve the environmental crisis in general (climate is only one aspect) and solve poverty at the same time with 10 billion people.
Solving the environmental crisis means reducing our consumption of resources. Solving global poverty means a significant increase in consumption of resources.
So the only way forward is to let the global population decrease ASAP so that we can both live well and preserve the planet.
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
Resource intensity is decreasing. We can solve both at the same time, but we can’t solve both with maximum possible speed at the same time, true.
whimsicalism
11 days ago
Resource intensity may or may not be decreasing but that's not solving the issue if you look at global numbers of poor people versus economic and consumption growth needed to bring everyone to, say, European level of living standard.
We are already wreacking havoc on the planet and marginal decrease in resource intensity is not going to make a difference because our total impact needs to be slashed.
I never understand the insistence of some of ignoring population in the equation, which is the key parameter.
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
> marginal decrease in resource intensity
We're seeing more than simply marginal decreases - if we can successfully transition our power. The gap in per capita CO2 emissions between developing, middle-income, developed is not nearly as great as what you are suggesting [0] and will decrease even further in the time that it takes to raise people in poverty now to developed-world standards.
> I never understand the insistence of some of ignoring population in the equation, which is the key parameter.
A few reasons:
1. Population is projected to peak in the coming decades.
2. "Slashing" population counts requires a global deployment of force that is both not practically feasible right now and incredibly unpopular. There is no practical path to "slashing" population. This is the primary reason, imo.
3. People in the West always imagine that it would be other people/nations slashing their population count when the biggest marginal impact (especially given climate lags) would be slashing their own population. These solutions are eugenicist in nature.
Also - taking a step back for a moment, I am confused as to how this in any way justifies beef. Beef contributes to the gap between rich and poor in CO2. If we reduce reliance on beef, it means we can support a larger population sustainably?
CO2 emissions for power generation, or in general, are only a small part of our impact. The environmental crisis is not only caused by this, but by our total consumption of resources and production of many pollutants.
And so we are screwed.
Now the West is already slashing its own population, birth rates have crashed. The issue is that it's refusing to let it go because it's not the easy option, and at global scale this is a taboo subject.
And so we are doubly screwed.
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
There’s limitless profitable reasons to chop it down.
Don’t understand why people want to play whack a mole to get to the end goal all while making everyone’s lives worse, esp on the lower income levels who can’t afford organic meat.
When if you want the trees saved then pay them to keep them and hold them to it. Like that’s the actual goal no? And easier than completely retooling society as a backwards way to cause that change.
I mean this is about the trees right?
whywhywhywhy
11 days ago
> When if you want the trees saved then pay them to keep them and hold them to it. Like that’s the actual goal no? And easier than completely retooling society as a backwards way to cause that change.
REDD+ programs (which is what you are describing) are massive failures at preventing deforestation or carbon decreases.
> There’s limitless profitable reasons to chop it down.
No, there are costs and profits and if you decrease the profits and increase the costs it changes peoples behavior at the margin. The Amazon rainforest isn't the one thing that is exempt from basic economics.
whimsicalism
11 days ago
You stop them using it for meat they’ll use it for palm oil you stop them using it for that they’ll use it for something else. It’s just so naive to expect it just to switch to something they can sell. Like they own it they can do what they want with it, if you want it to be trees pay them for it to be trees. Just because some NGO likely scam failed to do it under a climate banner doesn’t mean it’s impossible, someone pays them to use the land for meat right? So pay for it to be trees in the same channels.
whywhywhywhy
10 days ago
Accountability seems impossible sending money alone. There have to be officials with guns enforcing the preservation. People who cannot be paid off.
paulryanrogers
10 days ago
Yes, but now give out the statistics on how much of the calories fed to cows in total in the US or worldwide is actually grazing and how much is from crops that need extra area apart from where the animals graze. Even cattle that grazes is often supplemented with grain, and the grain is of course much more calorie-dense.
So the answer to "what would we do with all that land we can't put crops on" is "whatever we want". For example, we could just leave it be nature, since we don't need it for farming.
nolverostae
11 days ago
[deleted]
11 days ago
“Not suitable for crop farming” =/= “ecologically unimportant”
lukas099
11 days ago
Seriously, the is a big problem in the US. Cattle are grazed on BLM land and they trample all the stream banks to such an extent that riparian ecosystems are totally destroyed. And in exchange the grazing fee is only $1/head/month! If you stand at the point where a stream crosses from a fenced conservation area into a grazing area, the difference across the boundary is stark.
jeffbee
11 days ago
How did did the riparian ecosystems thrive when there were tens of millions of bison? There is the same order of magnitude of cows in the US today (90 million) as bison hundreds of years ago (30-60 million.) Bison are also generally much heavier, meaning they eat more and trod the ground more deeply.
Amezarak
11 days ago
The historical range of the American bison was largely not overlapping with BLM grazing lands. The bison, a sensible animal, wasn't found in California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
jeffbee
11 days ago
The historical range of the bison did extend into those states, but granted, not into most of that land area.
I think we are safe in describing the pre-columbian bison range as not marginal, and the post that started this thread is about how most of our cattle grazing is on marginal lands. The way Americans do this is the worst possible way: grow feed on the excellent grazing range, and feed it to an animal that spends most of its life either grazing a desert or standing in parking lot. We'd get more of everything, easier and cheaper, if we just grazed bison where we currently grow corn.
jeffbee
11 days ago
I'm all for that: bison is delicious.
HeyLaughingBoy
11 days ago
> Now chopping and burning down the amazon to create grazing land for cattle? yeah that's going to probably kill us all.
How?
I mean, I'm not a fan of destroying forests, etc, but around here, there is no unmanaged land so presumably all the forests were already burnt etc for farmers... But we're all around, right? I don't get how burning the Amazon for food people want will actually kill us.
verisimi
11 days ago
Because the rainforest is important in regulating global temperature and oxygen production, much more so than the (probable) temperate climate forests you are from.
You are living in a post destruction area, with new forests planted to supplement the destruction that was there before. Most of these forests aren't more than 70 years old, that's about when we finally made an effort to fix how badly we totally fucked up and why people needed clean air to not die from lung cancer (among other things). The loss of biodiversity, air quality, etc. already occurred. You are a survivor. What's more, your survival was in part supported by the air quality of other virgin forests further away from you that weren't yet cut down. But now that they are being cut down, there's less left to support you.
In short, you're asking yourself why you shouldn't shoot yourself in the foot again, because you managed to survive the first shot and it looks to you like it healed just fine (it didn't).
jterrys
11 days ago
I didn't shoot myself in the foot.
Someone around here did clear the forests for farmland... and people are doing ok.
Its not that everyone died, as the comment I responded to said.
verisimi
11 days ago
To substantiate your point, I was thinking about deforestation for farming in Indiana (where I live) and Ohio last week and learned that Indiana was 90% forest until taxes got in the way. It's crazy that something as silly as taxes can cause most of your forests to become farmland.
Yeah, it's crazy to insentivise deforestation. But people need to eat. And, depending on who you listen to, there is even some evidence that the rainforest may have been a cultivated environment itself, in the dim and distant past.
verisimi
11 days ago
[deleted]
11 days ago
The Amazon is pretty important for the global climate
adrianN
11 days ago
Cows don't eat people crops.
bongodongobob
11 days ago
The amount of energy and water used to grow those crops is spent regardless, and could have either not been spent, or spent on people crops.
colordrops
10 days ago
[flagged]
b800h
11 days ago
That's essentially what we do with cows. Do you see the hypocrisy? We don't inflict this on humans so why do it to other creatures which can know terror and pain just as we do?
emptysongglass
11 days ago
Because empathy being applied to other species is an evolutionary bug, not a feature. Bug probably triggered by the luxurious abundance and the accompanying decadence acting on brains a bit too disconnected from the reality of the animal kingdom.
And if you want intellectual justifications: because we're the apex predators and we do what we want when we want; that includes raising and eating beasts that are of no other value to us. The other carnivorous animals wouldn't act in any other way, in our position.
BoingBoomTschak
11 days ago
Sometimes there isn't anything one can do to sugarcoat something: this is stupid. For one thing, even if we were to take your bald assertion that empathy is somehow an evolutionary bug at face value, though you've provided no evidence for this or even really any suggestion of what it could mean, it doesn't follow that lacking it is the optimal behavior relative to "evolutionary goals" (which are nothing) or whatever unstated goals you presume we all share.
Like on of the most wonderful things about human beings is that we can reflect upon our behavior, form moral and aesthetic opinions about how we'd like the future to be, and make appropriate adjustments to our behavior to achieve those ends.
In any case, the material circumstances that produced us have absolutely no meaning at all. The essence of the evolutionary explanation is that life really is random, given that, we may just as freely reject evolutionary understandings of what we want from the world as we may accept them. Surely they are of practical value, in the sense that if we want to optimally act on the world we have to understand it, but they impose no necessary moral or aesthetic demands upon us. It is deeply confused to believe that the mere evolutionary circumstances that produced you ought to constrain how you want the future to look.
nathan_compton
11 days ago
> Because empathy being applied to other species is an evolutionary bug, not a feature
I hope our eventual AI overlords do not feel similarly.
asoneth
11 days ago
"Species" is, in and of itself, a man made construct. To define your own morals by an arbitrary distinction isn't just simplistic, it's downright dangerous.
It wasn't long ago that certain people were considered "subhuman", and therefore open to all kinds of abuse. Did you learn nothing from that?
And of course, the same is true for your ridiculous "might makes right" argument. Have you considered making other horribly uneducated arguments, like "it's natural"? Maybe add some "we've always done it that way".
LinXitoW
11 days ago
Ah yes, might makes right, the pinnacle of moral thinking…
lukas099
11 days ago
Most of the human suffering in this concept comes from being able to think, compare and ideas about the good life and then those thoughts create the suffering. The actual physical suffering is limited, although present.
Cows can‘t do that and don‘t have the point of reference to compare. I doubt even humans could unless they are raised to be taught all the cultural norms and what‘s good and bad.
quonn
11 days ago
> Cows can‘t do that and don‘t have the point of reference to compare. I doubt even humans could unless they are raised to be taught all the cultural norms and what‘s good and bad.
By that logic, would it be ethical to eat humans who do not have a point of reference to compare and have not been taught cultural norms and what's good and bad?
asoneth
11 days ago
I was not talking about eating, I was talking about living conditions.
Furthermore (again regarding living conditions): Still no, because those humans likely have loved ones or family and additionally no because of what this would do to the other humans who housed them so.
quonn
11 days ago
I wouldn't eat beef if it was raised in those conditions but it doesn't reflect the reality of most British beef rearing operations. Most British beef is fed predominantly a forage based diet, outside in pasture except during the winter months and perhaps during the period before slaughter where they are flattened up.
VBprogrammer
11 days ago
That's an uneeded "optimisation". There is nothing wrong with eating meat and breeding cattle. Again, the issue is that the environment has a limited, finite capacity, which we exceed when we are 10 billion with good standards of living.
To reduce quality of life (because it's not limited to meat, it's comprehensive restrictions) simply to accomodate ever more humans on the planet is madness and unsustainable, anyway.
PS: Let's also remember, for example, that 50-60 million bisons roamed North America before European settlement, whereas there are about 28 million beef cows in the US today (according to Google).
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
> There is nothing wrong with eating meat and breeding cattle.
You're not doing a whole lot to explain why there is nothing wrong with eating meat and breeding cattle. I can think of a whole host of reasons why it is wrong in matters of ethics and mercy. Who is there to advocate for the cow? We know cows feel a gamut of emotions just as we do. They are not insensate. Most humans, when given a knife or a captive bolt gun and told to go kill that cow on yonder would not. So we externalize the death-making to slaughterhouse workers who coincidentally also suffer:
> ...SHWs had significantly higher levels of depression compared with office workers, but not butchers. The difference in depression rates differed from study to study, ranging from 10% to 50% [1]
There's really no good, ethical argument to be made for the killing of animals for food or pleasure. Did we need to do it once to survive as a species? Yes. Are we largely living in a post-scarcity world where those practices should now be challenged? Yes.
> You're not doing a whole lot to explain why there is nothing wrong with eating meat and breeding cattle.
Why should explain why something is NOT bad ? It's up to you to convince him (or others) that it is bad, and the reasoning "according to MY ethics it is bad" is not a good argument.
There is a good argument to be made that in the West we should eat less meat, but that doesn't mean removing it completely: it is harder to make a balanced vegan diet, so for most people that would mean a less healthy outcome that just eating a moderate amount of meat.
mrighele
11 days ago
> Why should explain why something is NOT bad?
Because they're the one who made the claim without evidence or argument.
> It's up to you to convince him (or others) that it is bad
Yes, that's what I did.
> the reasoning "according to MY ethics it is bad" is not a good argument.
That wasn't my argument.
emptysongglass
11 days ago
> There is a good argument to be made that in the West we should eat less meat, but that doesn't mean removing it completely: it is harder to make a balanced vegan diet, so for most people that would mean a less healthy outcome that just eating a moderate amount of meat.
You're making something of a jump there - not eating meat equates to a vegetarian diet, not a vegan diet. One can argue about the merits of a vegan diet over a vegetarian one, but a vegetarian, non-vegan diet is already a big step up over a meat-heavy one, and a vegetarian diet including eggs and dairy doesn't really have any challenges in being balanced/healthy compared to a moderate-meat diet.
Marsymars
11 days ago
There is nothing wrong or unethical with eating meat. It is a natural behaviour, which we are evolved for, and in fact a necessary animal behaviour within the environment at large.
If you do not wish to eat meat for personal reasons you are free to do so of course but I object to the current trend of minority groups trying to impose their views to the whole of society and to paint those who disagree as 'wrong'.
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
> I object to the current trend of minority groups trying to impose their views to the whole of society and to paint those who disagree as 'wrong'.
I'm curious what you mean by "impose their views" with respect to meat-eating. Has a vegan ever tried to stop you from eating meat for example through physical force, threatening your livelihood, making meat illegal in their state, etc?
Don't get me wrong, I also dislike when strangers impose their moral, ethical, racial, political, or religious views on me.
But of all the groups that concern me, vegans are low on my list as their weapons mostly seem to be uncomfortably strong arguments on the internet and the occasional preachy Netflix documentary.
asoneth
11 days ago
We are omnivores and we have plentiful sources of plant nutrition. Eating meat is mot necessary for either health or happiness, and any appeal to it being “natural”, even if true (primitive human diets varied enormously) is irrelevant.
One could argue that meat eating is necessary for taking part on some people’s culture, which is true, but also shifting. And spreading the idea of vegetarianism is helpful in making that shift happen.
lukas099
11 days ago
[flagged]
LinXitoW
11 days ago
Maybe the GP did engage in the naturalistic fallacy, but nobody has been able to demonstrate why eating meat is wrong either, they just say "I personally feel killing animals to eat them is so evil that it should be illegal." OK, that's fine, but why should I also feel that way? I don't.
Amezarak
11 days ago
There's no fallacy there. There is nothing wrong with eating meat and writing that this a perfectly acceptable and natural behaviour is just stating a fact, really.
This is all proving my point that a vocal minority is poisoning the issue in order to impose their views by accusing others of fallacy, wrongthink, and even according to the person you're replying to (and that's a new one) by bringing rape into it...
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
Vegetarians also have higher levels of depression. [1]
It's obviously that they became vegetarian due to this personality trait rather than the other way around. Your study doesn't indicate otherwise. Vegetarians and vegans become so precisely because they are depressed about the state of affairs in animal welfare, human health, and the environment.
colordrops
10 days ago
Another way to cast the meat vs crops debate is "true pricing": the growing demand for meat is not simply a result of growing population or growing standards of living, but caused by ignoring "externalities".
I.e.: if the true impact of turning crops into meat were reflected in the price of a hamburger, demand elasticity would eventually result in much less production. Or: growing meat consumption is mostly a result of implicit subsidies to maintain status quo, ignore climate change,etc.
repelsteeltje
11 days ago
And to think those 50-60 million animals were slaughtered and laid to waste just to starve the natives out of the Great Plains.
mtnGoat
11 days ago
If you think there are too many people, remember that you are people.
jdietrich
11 days ago
Why is it always impossible to have an adult discussion on this issue? (An interesting question for academics, I think)
Obviously we are all people. The question is do we keep chasing an ever increasing population or do we accept that it cannot keep growing and should in fact probably decrease?
Most developed countries have birth rates below replacement rate so this is already happening. We need to accept it and adapt.
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
>The question is do we keep chasing an ever increasing population
We aren't.
Every bit of evidence is that Human population is on the path to stabilizing. Developing countries plateau, and all that "India and china are going to outreproduce us!" rhetoric was stupidity; people extrapolating an S curve as if it were an infinite exponential curve.
All you have to do is give women an education and legal access to birth control and it turns out most humans do not want 50 kids. Women happily manage population control, with no moral problems.
mrguyorama
11 days ago
Oh we are. While global birth rates are indeed down this is seen as a catastrophe. Governments have policies to increase birth rates and in Europe we're also madly opening the doors to massive immigration to keep the population growing.
I have yet to see a government declare that they will let population decrease and initiate programs to adapt. Perhaps Japan comes close but we'll see.
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
WE should keep the history of the world in mind. How things shake out when people say "there's too many people". Who gets killed first? Who gets involuntarily sterilized?
WE should consider that in the equation of "overpopulation", the other variable, "resource consumption", is far easier and more ethical to reduce.
The issue, of course, is that option 1 hurts others that aren't us, while option 2 will require changes from US, like not eating meat, reducing personal cars, reducing consumption and infinite growth in general.
LinXitoW
11 days ago
[deleted]
11 days ago
That's like saying "oil is not bad for the environment, it's the scale of the demand that is bad".
colordrops
11 days ago
Beef is extremely inefficient compared to plant-based food. We could sustain a far larger population with no loss in standards of living without it.
DasIch
11 days ago
Most people would argue that not eating beef would lower their standard of living.
wk_end
11 days ago
[flagged]
_3u10
11 days ago
[flagged]
rangestransform
11 days ago
[dead]
pickleberto
11 days ago
Agreed. Check out /r/keto and /r/zerocarb for some great research about the natural human diet. Humans have eaten beef (exclusively even) for billions of years.
defiamazing
11 days ago
Humans have only existed for about 300,000 years. Cows are about 10,000 years old.
> China’s outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes in large part (42%) from programs to conserve and expand forests. These were developed in an effort to reduce the effects of soil erosion, air pollution and climate change. Another 32% there – and 82% of the greening seen in India – comes from intensive cultivation of food crops.
If the green of pristine forests is replaced by the green desert of a monocultural eucalyptus planted forest, or the green of grass pastures, it's still a big ecological net loss.
Qem
11 days ago
Also: greening != biodiversity
themk
11 days ago
[deleted]
11 days ago
Read the first one. The second has a lot of spin that is obvious once you have the context from the first article.
The entire planet is greener. Everywhere. The planting did little.
> Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect
One of those Inconvenient Truths.
willcipriano
11 days ago
>One of those Inconvenient Truths.
But it's not at all an """Incovenient""" truth. The fact that plants use CO2 to grow, and that more CO2 can result in more ruffage growing is uncontroversial.
It also does nothing to offset the actual problems with increasing CO2 levels!
mrguyorama
11 days ago
Exactly, the US and Europe are free to reforest but choose not to for some unexplained reason.
Brazilian beef is frankly way less deforested than anything from
the U.S. or Europe.
The three most forested countries in the world are Russia, Canada and Brazil in that order.
In all honesty I’m perfectly fine with the bans / boycotts it keeps farmers here poor and beef cheap.
_3u10
11 days ago
Russia is barely in the top 50 if you are talking as a percentage of land mass that is forest. (Russia 49, Canada 73, and Brazil 27... US is 89)
Finland, Sweden and Japan are the top 3 fully industiralized nations for forested land as a percentage of land mass.
Russia 49.78%
Canada 38.70%
Brazil 59.42%
US 33.87%
tlb
11 days ago
I listed rankings, not percentage
FuriouslyAdrift
11 days ago
North America (and the US) is greener than 20 years ago.
Europe is greener than 20 years ago.
Asia is greener than 20 years ago.
Africa is greener than 20 years ago.
The entire planet is greener than 20 years ago.
It has nothing to do with people planting trees and everything to do with Co2 being what plants eat.
willcipriano
11 days ago
Fully agree. The world was greenest during the Carboniferous when avg temps were 0 above modern levels and CO2 was 800ppm.
_3u10
11 days ago
That's my understanding as well: more carbon dioxide -> more green.
robertlagrant
11 days ago
If the Amazon was in the US or Europe, there'd be nothing left of it today.
rmbyrro
11 days ago
Not sure what leads to this believe, we have lots of untouched and well managed forests in the US. Sure we logged most of the eastern states but we also learned their importance before we completely destroyed them, hence wilderness and national park areas that can’t be logged.
mtnGoat
11 days ago
Same in many countries in Europe. Also see France's South American forests in French Guyana. Much better managed than Brazil's. Incomparable, actually.
merry_flame
11 days ago
Look up what the French did in Haiti and how it's like there nowadays. Hint: the forests gone is the "minor" issue left by the French.
rmbyrro
10 days ago
I agree with you on reforestation. As a matter of fact, Northern Europe was almost completely deforested only 100 years ago, and is now one of the greenest parts of the planet. Looking at old photographs from that time, you won't recognise places. It is disgusting listening to these Germans and French sitting on their high horses and trying to impose their will onto a country on the other side of the world, while not planting any trees in their own deforested nations.
carlosjobim
11 days ago
In Italy the amount of forest increased by about 75% in the past 80 years.
This is mostly due to the fact after WW2 lot of people stopped farming in the hills and mountains, and moved to urban areas. There are plenty of ghost towns in the Italian mountains.
"Forest" is a 3-D bulk tonnage of captured (for now at least) carbon dioxide.
This increase in the colour green that you tout hasn't made a dent in reducing the ever increasing amount of insulating CO2 in the atmosphere.
Otherwise yellow grasses being greener due to increased CO2 is of some small interest, but it's not the same as a similar area X height of large trees in terms of capture.
Just pragmnatic facts, not a "convenient" or "inconvenient" "truth".
Nice attempt at a tangent, pity it fell flat.
defrost
11 days ago
Killing off most of the bison shifted lots of land from grassland to forest. Forest is greener than grassland but doesn’t necessarily store more carbon.
More to your implied point, deforestation can happen one place and afforestation/reforestation another at the same time. Even a net increase in forest worldwide doesn’t make the loss of Brazilian rainforests are any better
lukas099
11 days ago
You can trace back where an animal grew up and lived by analyzing its isotopes. There's a unique pattern for every place on Earth.
emsign
11 days ago
A month or so ago a ship filled with 19,000 Brazilian cattle destined for the Middle East docked in Cape Town. The cows were living in such horrendous conditions that the stink of the ship took over the entire city. Living in pools of excrement, sick, lame, pregnant and even dead cows among them. The South African animal protection service had to put many down.
It's easy, its right to blame the Bolsonaro regime for having ramped up cattle farming in the Amazon leading to situations like this. It's harder to think of them when we have beef on our plates.
In this specific case, it's because Middle Eastern countries want live imports due to halal requirements.
Live exports should be entirely banned.
hpestyghr
11 days ago
Don't see why halal needs live imports. The main thing is theyre slaughtered in a halal way. Presumably it's just cheaper to ship them live (or just about) to the middle east and then slaughter them there than send halal qualified slaughters to Brazil and then ship over frozen meat.
Also, don't think it's right to let Brazil off the hook here - it's their cattle ranching practices and export legislation.
nanna
11 days ago
It’s really profitable to. I know a Greek fella that transports goats in bulk and has said it’s very profitable due to not many ships fitted to do it well.
mtnGoat
11 days ago
[deleted]
11 days ago
[flagged]
debacle
11 days ago
Now THIS is first world problems, having enough choices to be able to be picky.
luxuryballs
11 days ago
[dead]
aaron695
11 days ago
[flagged]
_3u10
11 days ago
Yeah, because crossing a border completely changes the flavour of the meat.
brabel
11 days ago
I’m no expert, but the beef cows I saw in Brazil were a noticeably different breed than the ones I see in the US.
arcticfox
11 days ago
I was talking about the distinction between the neighbouring countries of Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina.
brabel
11 days ago
It’s more the feed. If you’re getting factory farmed stuff yeah it’s all going to taste roughly the same.
But the Amazon, Chaco, and Pampas are wildly different ecological regions.
Will Argentine Chaco and Paraguayan Chaco taste roughly the same, yes.
But the pampas, that is where real beef comes from.
_3u10
11 days ago
Sure, but the Pampas are partly in Brazil as well... and there's probably a lot of beef from Argentina that is not from the Pampas region. I mean, you could just say "pampas beef" tastes better, that would make more sense.
brabel
11 days ago
You’re an idiot. If you get Brazilian, Argentine or Paraguayan beef it’s not from the triple frontier where they border each other. Anywhere other than that area are vastly different ecologies. Especially the beef growing areas.
as long as the sun isn't terribly angry at its energy being used to help my heart beat, there should be a path to converting its energy into what i need in 2024
jareklupinski
11 days ago
You pay taxes under pain of imprisonment.
Your taxes fund maiming and killing innocent civilians.
That's one of those evil games.
swayvil
11 days ago
[deleted]
11 days ago
[flagged]
block_dagger
11 days ago
That doesn't sound like a solution, and it is not attainable at all unless we are talking about thousands upon thousands of years. Meat is culturally important, and only a small percentage of the global population is willing to give up on it.
PS: When you talk about mammals only, are you still pro-consumption of fish and avians?
augusto-moura
11 days ago
No, I think fish and avians should be avoided for consumption as well but the article is about beef and we need to start somewhere. Cows are sentient emotional social animals as we are.
block_dagger
11 days ago
No, there is no better protein
user90131313
11 days ago
Protein quality only matters if you’re not getting enough protein.
You could use Quorn instead and just eat more of it. It has less protein by weight, but more for the same number of calories. Also beans are very good.
aembleton
11 days ago
and Brasillians will have nothing to sell to us
skirge
11 days ago
I believe you are misinformed. Brazil is the top exporter in the world of several agricultural products and metals. Beef is not even in the top 10 exports from Brazil to the US.
Brazil is the largest soybean producer in the world.
bilekas
11 days ago
Which… is largely fed to our livestock?
pgraf
11 days ago
If you want less rainforest torn down to grow soybeans, eat more soybeans.
MandieD
11 days ago
Soybeans aren't just good for food, they can be turned into fuel and plastics.
guhidalg
11 days ago
What about the cool carnival hats??
uneoneuno
11 days ago
[flagged]
andsmedeiros
11 days ago
> There is no ethical meat
Depends on your definition of ethical. Assuming you define it in terms of a lack of cruelty to the animals and their handlers then such meat does exist.
However, the vast majority of meat is not that. The issue is it's cheaper to produce meat unethically than it is to produce it ethically. Because of that, at every step in the production to mouth there's a strong incentive to go the cheap route rather than the ethical route.
cogman10
11 days ago
>a lack of cruelty
But doesn't this depend upon your definition of cruelty? I've seen vegans who define raising an animal for the purpose of eating it to be inherently cruel, even if it doesn't suffer any negative treatment until the day it is killed to be eaten.
Even this is just going with common enough definitions found in modern society. If we expand our scope of what ethics and what views of cruelty are allowed, there is no end to what results we see.
SkyBelow
11 days ago
Totally agree. And I don't fault people for taking such a position about livestock, it's not unreasonable. I don't land there myself but can see why others would.
It really just comes down to definitions.
cogman10
11 days ago
Honest question: what you expect people that live in grasslands (Mongolia for example) to eat?
speeder
11 days ago
[flagged]
micromacrofoot
11 days ago
That is the thing. USA people can do a lot to reduce their emissions. But when this anti-meat bullshit comes up, all it does is screw people from other countries that rely on meat due to their environment.
I am not from the USA, and got tired of whenever USA people do heavy anti-meat campaign people go bother me about it, but when I ask them what I am supposed to eat, then it is not their problem.
speeder
10 days ago
It doesn't screw anyone, the vast majority of people eat meat in almost every country. Vegetarians yield near zero power.
Are people going out of their way to bother you about it, or are you interjecting to make the discussion about you, like you're doing here?
micromacrofoot
10 days ago
I'm a vegetarian, and while not vegan, I take care to reduce animal products to a minimum, but IMO ethical meat exists. If a farmer has a few chickens running around, and he slaughters one for consumption, that's fine with me. It would only be unethical if you hold all (animal) life sacred, a very difficult position. It's the scale and means of meat production that makes meat consumption unethical and immoral.
tgv
11 days ago
Tell that to your genetic predecessors.
jonahbenton
11 days ago
Turns out the model of the primarily meat eating ancestors may be wrong.
Which sort of makes sense when you consider our closest relatives are primarily plant eaters.
cogman10
11 days ago
Those are extremely recent ancestors, from less than ten thousand years ago. Moreover they were located in a place (the Andean highlands) where it is likely that there were not enough animals to allow them to sustain themselves by hunting.
Our ancestors have shifted to a diet with a large percentage of animal fat and meat, which has lead to a simplification of our digestive system, for more than a million years.
Only during a little more than the last ten thousand years there has been a reverse shift towards a lower percentage of animal food, most likely after we had exterminated most suitable wild animals, which forced us to become creative and discover agriculture, otherwise we might have become extinct, like our prey.
Now, with our reduced digestive system, we could not live eating the kind of plants eaten by a gorilla or even by a chimpanzee. We need much more nutritious food, which can be provided only by plant seeds, the only parts of plants that are rich in proteins.
adrian_b
11 days ago
If 30% of what they ate was meat, then roughly 3/5ths of their caloric intake was meat. And as the study you posted states, they were eating mammals not fish or birds.
debacle
11 days ago
I guess you're assuming this is about the weight of food they are eating. Why?
What they're actually doing is measuring the isotopes in the carbon of the bodies of the human remains. You don't get any carbon in your body from the water or from the fiber in plants.
So your estimate correction needs to go the other way - the study says that > 80% of carbon in the bodies of early human foragers comes from plants. That means that also > 80% of the caloric intake comes from plants. Or alternatively, it would mean that > 95% of what they ate (by weight) was plants.
nolverostae
11 days ago
[deleted]
11 days ago
"My predecessors did it" is not moral reasoning.
tmvphil
11 days ago
Tell them what? that we've grown so fat and stupid on the abundance the earth provides that we can't properly manage it and will probably cause millions undue suffering because we don't want to reduce our meat consumption to less than 250lbs per year despite it being easily possible?
micromacrofoot
11 days ago
Heh, I eat a lot of meat and still less than 250lbs per year. That's a perfectly fine number. The parent was saying that zero was the right number. Zero is really not the right number for much of the current human population. We shall see what happens in the future.
I'm with you that the collective we is fat and stupid and would go further than our various systems and patterns solve for predatory behavior against both humans and non-humans leading to those outcomes, and it is super unfortunate.
jonahbenton
11 days ago
250lbs per year is the american average
0 is a great number for rich countries to aspire to. Without some sort of massive crisis (which we're heading towards globally) it would probably take at least 100 years to even halve the current consumption levels. It took roughly 100 years to go from an average of 10lbs of chicken consumption per year (1920) to the current 70lb average (2020). Chicken is really where all the growth for meat consumption has come from.
Beef has been fairly steady per capita, and has decreased from its height a few decades ago — but the population keeps rising so it can't continue like this.
I grew up on a (very) small farm - so I knew where all the meat we ate (and eggs, apple, plums and jam) came from.
One of the things I find most disconcerting as an adult is the disconnect with the food I eat. Even the local 'farmer butcher' - I don't actually know if the meat they sell me is what they say it is.
I buy a lot of deer from a friend of a friend as it feels slightly more known to me - even if I have no idea about what the deer actually ate in it's life.
ljf
11 days ago
I grew up similarly and it's part of the reason I've cut back on my meat.
Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives is unfortunately how a lot of beef is produced. They spend their lives covered in shit, sleeping in shit, and trapped with no where to roam.
And instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. [1]
[1] https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t...
cogman10
11 days ago
I keep seeing people make this claim that cattle spend their entire lives on feed lots, but I've never seen this anywhere and I've been all over cattle country. Where do they do this? Because around here feedlots are only for finishing cattle and typically only spend about 2-3 months there after having very happy lives as calves on a ranch.
merpnderp
11 days ago
> I keep seeing people make this claim that cattle spend their entire lives on feed lots, but I've never seen this anywhere and I've been all over cattle country. Where do they do this?
Nobody does that, it’d be way too expensive. People here on HN have absolutely zero knowledge of how industrial cattle farming operates and have some really bizarre beliefs about the process. Largely because their only experience with it is the supermarket meat section and passing those massive stinky feedlots along the CA I5.
For everyone else: After a calf is raised and weaned from their mother, they are sent to “background” on pasture and the last few months a cow spends packed in a feedlot is just to fatten it up for human consumption. These are usually steps done by different companies altogether. The whole point of beef is utilizing marginal land that can’t grow human food. It converts tons of grassland to usable farmland, and that pasture makes up 2/3 of the total agricultural land in the US.
throwup238
11 days ago
I agree with everything you said except:
>"The whole point of beef is utilizing marginal land that can’t grow human food."
FYI: 36% of corn is grown just to feed cattle/livestock. I'm trying to breed chickens that are less dependent on commercial foods, so I'm somewhat familiar with the topic.
Also if anybody is interested in reading about how cattle are raised just read the USDA's page on it: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/...
Sightline
11 days ago
That's also very misleading because the vast majority of the corn we feed cows isn't fed to them fresh. It's distillers grains, an industrial waste from ethanol production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distillers_grains
It's a cheap type of corn [1] only grown on marginal farmland that is one step above pasture land.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dent_corn
throwup238
11 days ago
[flagged]
Sightline
11 days ago
I'm not here to police tone, but it sounded like you were disagreeing with the parent comment but your factual claims do not appear to disagree.
>> typically only spend about 2-3 months there after having very happy lives as calves on a ranch.
> After a calf is raised and weaned from their mother, they are sent to “background” on pasture and the last few months a cow spends packed in a feedlot is just to fatten it up for human consumption.
The only difference is the introduction of "sent to “background” on pasture" which arguably is not different from "happy lives as calves on a ranch" given different interpretations of calf to distinguish between baby and adolescent cattle.
adolph
11 days ago
Thanks, edited for clarity.
throwup238
11 days ago
[flagged]
notesinthefield
11 days ago
There is no hypocrisy in cattle farming. No species on earth other than humans care about another species existence other than how it will benefit their own species.
I'm not saying humans shouldn't be different, but there is no hypocrisy in keeping in line with every other species in the known universe.
toolz
11 days ago
I don't disagree with you, but I'm unaware (naive?) of any other species farming/enslaving/capturing hordes of another species and effectively torturing them the way humans do
Being suddenly killed by a lion is a rather short torture/cruel experience compared to what humans do at larger and larger scales. I think animals even have a mechanism that I forget the name of that spares them a lot of the pain involved in such a situation (adrenaline, "going into shock", etc)
I really do wish I/we could do something to be less cruel but everything seems driven by profit margins and that makes it rather difficult/impossible. They're outlawing 'lab grown' meat! :|
(I eat meat, but I don't feel good about it when I think about it)
thejazzman
11 days ago
Humans didn't care either until very recently, when it became apparant just how much capacity we have to drive other animals to extinction. Our ability to destroy is many orders of magnitude beyond any other animal, so having at least a little more restraint is basically a requirement for a sustainable society.
rurp
11 days ago
No one said that.
They did not live the entire lives in the feedlot.
Anything else, you read into.
pests
11 days ago
Probably responding to this from a parent comment:
> Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives
neolefty
11 days ago
yes they did say that, we can all read
whimsicalism
11 days ago
They said they don't spend all their time in the feedlots... are you sure about that?
pests
9 days ago
> Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives
?
whimsicalism
7 days ago
> Ah yes its fine to kill them
Yes. Fundamentally, most people, including myself, believe that it's fine to kill animals and eat them.
There's no hypocrisy here, disgusting or otherwise. You have your own concept of morality, I have mine, yours is considered extreme by society at large, mine is a shared moral belief of the great majority.
That's all that's going on here.
samatman
11 days ago
most people also do not care about factory farming. think the claim is that it is hypocrisy if you care about the animal suffering when you will just kill it at the end
whimsicalism
11 days ago
It's not hypocrisy to believe that a) animals can be killed for their meat, but also b) they should be treated humanely until then and killed as humanely as feasible.
That's the great thing about human intelligence; we can ensure a humane kill of our prey as opposed to ripping it apart with fangs and claws like other predators.
psunavy03
11 days ago
That's a very bold statement. I believe most people "care" about the welfare about the animals they eat.
Gud
11 days ago
I guess my threshold for care is if it is sufficient to motivate any action to be taken at all, whether that is eating slightly less meat or switching to non-factory farmed. The vast majority of people don’t do that, so their revealed “care” is very little.
Frankly, I don’t really care which type they eat, meat is meat and has pretty much the same environmental (and ethics of killing) issues.
whimsicalism
11 days ago
What is the "disgusting hypocrisy of cattle farming?" The term "happiness" is an anthropomorphic emotion term to describe animals not living in the distress so well characterized by Temple Grandin. The theory is growing the animal in a low stress environment leads to a higher quality product. Given the scary prions which spread in part by feeding cows to themselves, it makes sense to avoid some of the conditions humans often find aesthetically or morally objectionable.
adolph
11 days ago
wow, one year in jail just for trespassing or taking a photo and doing absolutely no damage.
I wonder how much it costs to buy a legislature house. Can't we crowfund buying it to make "modern" farming illegal?
rmbyrro
11 days ago
"wow, one year in jail just for trespassing"
Many western states have much stricter views on property rights and trespassing than the coasts. The penalties are generally higher even if not dealing with this specific scenario. Even regular ID trespassing law can carry 6mo-1y jail time depending on the circumstances, etc.
One often overlooked thing that isn't particularly applicable in this case is the biosecurity aspect involved in agricultural trespassing. Even trespassing in agricultural areas without taking pictures can carry higher penalties in many states.
giantg2
11 days ago
in other states, these penalties only exist for slaughterhouses, if you broke into a Beyond meat factory and filmed you wouldn’t be eligible for same penalties
whimsicalism
11 days ago
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Most of the agricultural trespassing, disruption, etc laws don't just apply to slaughterhouses, but also include the farms and such. Many states have general secret recording that apply to nearly all scenarios if you're referring to recording. If you're talking about just trespass, if you "broke" into a beyond meat facility you would in fact face similar penalties in other western states with similar property rights culture. I believe even the ID law would result in 6-12mo maximum jail if you broke into the factory (might even qualify as burglary with higher penalties depending on specifics).
giantg2
11 days ago
Utah at least specifically only protected things like slaughterhouses. I am not familiar.
The penalties in these laws are higher than just generic secret recording.
whimsicalism
11 days ago
I think both depend on which state.
Do you have the law that prevents the recording in UT? I only see the tresspassing law. Which by the way, would appear to be a class B misdemeanor if it was agricultural land or if it was a building (same for both your examples).
giantg2
11 days ago
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter6/76-6-S112.html
I wasn't trying to distinguish between land and building, mostly just that they are about recording and specifically animal operations.
I'm almost certain Utah is not the only state that specifically has laws around recording and specifically for animal operations that go beyond just generic trespass, but I don't have time right now to dive in.
whimsicalism
11 days ago
Ok, thanks for the link. Based on that information it seems generic tresspass and the agricultural interference laws carry similar penalties depending on the circumstances. Both are either class A or class B misdemeanors.
giantg2
11 days ago
but penalties stack :) and not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass - many times it is people who are employed there who are doing the recording
whimsicalism
11 days ago
"but penalties stack :)"
Do they, or are they concurrent stemming from the same act in UT?
"not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass"
True. Your example was breaking into a Beyond Meat plant, comparing trespass to interference. In that case, the penalties are similar.
giantg2
11 days ago
Relevant search terms: “lesser included offense” or “multiplicity” or “double jeopardy.”
singleshot_
11 days ago
Not sure why you're putting these here. These are not relevant to discussion we're having. We're talking about the sentencing phase and the rules determining concurrent sentences.
giantg2
11 days ago
How are you going to get concurrent sentences for two things you can’t get convicted for — or sentenced for — simultaneously? My point is that what you are contemplating would not be possible. Obviously I’m missing something. What is it?
singleshot_
11 days ago
So why can't you get sentenced for trespassing and agricultural interference if you trespassed into a facility and recorded animals? I didn't see anything in UT laws preventing concurrent sentences for those. Why do you think those can't be sentenced together?
giantg2
11 days ago
Now we will see why my previous comment was relevant.
A lesser included offense is an offense which itself constitutes one element of another offense. Under the doctrine of multiplicity, you may either be tried for the lesser included or the offense for which the lesser included is an element — but not both. To be charged with both would run afoul of the constitutional provisions limiting double jeopardy.
This is not part of any Utah statute, it’s a general constitutional principle under US law.
Why you made me say this twice, I do not know.
singleshot_
10 days ago
I didn't make you say anything. It looks like you replied to the wrong person, and in a unconstructive way. Seems you should have replied to the person about stacking penalties. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40310758
You could have been constructive and said that criminal trespass was a lesser included offense under section 2d. Or should I just reply to you using a few semirandom words? Relevant search terms include: conversation, context, sentences, convey complete ideas
giantg2
10 days ago
Talking to Computer Guy about legal principles yields unsurprising results.
Honestly, if you just Google the search terms it’s easier for both of us because you can tailor your search to your level of understanding.
singleshot_
10 days ago
The principle is well understood. You could have pointed out how that principle applied - that the lesser included offense of criminal trespass existed under 2d. Researching principles does nothing if there is a missing fact. Or are you referring to yourself as "Computer Guy"?
If it's too much work for you to engage in a thoughful conversation (per the guidelines), just don't engage at all next time. We don't need low effort "search terms..." comments on here.
giantg2
10 days ago
Sounds like the principle isn’t too well understood if you’re
singleshot_
10 days ago
> if you broke into a Beyond meat factory you wouldn’t be eligible
You're saying that there wouldn't be penalties for breaking and entering?
HeyLaughingBoy
11 days ago
You would not have as high penalties if it wasn’t an animal facility and you were filming.
whimsicalism
11 days ago
Do you have the law on that? It seems your example in Utah would be class B misdemeanors for trespass in either scenario. I didn't see any law specifically about recording slaughterhouses.
giantg2
11 days ago
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter6/76-6-S112.html
also linked in other comment
whimsicalism
11 days ago
Based on that link, tresspass in non animal facilities carry similar penalties (both either class A or class B misdemeanors depending on specifics).
giantg2
11 days ago
I personally empathize more with the concerns of poor humans than I do mistreated animals and increasing food costs seems likely to increase their pain. I'll gladly wait for technology to improve the lives of animals, but I think it's important our legislation focuses entirely on improving the life of people, exclusively.
toolz
11 days ago
Your conclusions are all wrong.
Beef is incredibly expensive in terms of costs of food, land, and water -- and in high density situations - rapid disease spread (and post consumption disease spread via cancer, metabolic, and heart disease)
By promoting sustainable diets, mostly vegetarian with optional beef splurges
- food costs decrease
- food transport costs decrease
- disease caused by diets decrease
smileysteve
11 days ago
Enforcing ignorance is the answer?
> but I think it's important our legislation focuses entirely on improving the life of people, exclusively
What about the activists who are motivated by a genuine belief that this is wrong and believe it's their life's work to raise awareness of the issue? Throwing them in jail isn't improving their lives - what framework are you using to pick losers & winners of the people you help vs hurt?
vlovich123
11 days ago
"Throwing them in jail isn't improving their lives - what framework are you using to pick losers & winners of the people you help vs hurt?"
Seems to be the combined wishes of the constituents. Same theory applies to most topics. You can see this in how different states poll on firearms (or abortion, etc) and the types of laws they have on that topic. As an extreme example, the same person can carry the same gun in two different states and be lawful in one and committing a felony in another without causing any damage simply because the values and beliefs expressed by the populations results in different laws. They might even qualify to carry lawfully in both states but are missing a piece of paper confirming it. That's how the laws works - break it and suffer consequences. Maybe it's worth it depeding on your moral convictions. Don't like it, then change the law. In the case of agricultural tresspass, the law is not likely to change in ID based on the current views of the population there.
giantg2
11 days ago
In a representative democracy, the will of the population isn't so directly represented in the laws that are held. Given the role money and lobbying have in politics, there's no way to conclude that any given law has the broad support of the people vs "this isn't important enough for me to get worked up over vs issues that are more immediately pressing to me" or even "powerful economic powers are acting to sway the opinion of the general population". There's even [1] which adds credence to the idea that laws are passed by the will of the wealthy, not by the will of the constituents. Also immoral laws can be passed when the people in power are immoral. Immoral people can gain power through alternate ways than following the will of the constituents.
More importantly, we have ideals and principles that supersede the will of the public. Arguably the most sacred ideal in America is the First Amendment with respect to protections about speech & this is pretty adjacent in that the law is criminalizing speech for something that should arguably be a civil matter at best. Laws like this are not dissimilar to passing a law protecting employers from employees trying to document unsafe working conditions.
So the idea that the law is purely an expression of the wishes of the constituents is nice but not borne out in the structure of modern democratic governments, not borne out in practice because of how power & money intermix, & invalidated by the idea that we have principles that supersede the wishes of those constituents.
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
vlovich123
11 days ago
"Given the role money and lobbying have in politics, there's no way to conclude that any given law has the broad support of the people"
That's why I mentioned polling and gave generally verifiable examples.
Yes, money can sway the legislature or even the views of constituents. And yes, most topics have a large number of people who don't care because they don't know or the topic doesn't affect them. However, polling and other research can show how the population views the topic pertaining to the law and the culture in general.
"criminalizing speech for something that should arguably be a civil matter at best."
This is factually incorrect. The speech portion of this would be the sharing of the picture. The part that is criminalized is trespassing and recording to get that picture. The civil part would be stuff like libel or slander.
"So the idea that the law is purely an expression of the wishes of the constituents is nice but not borne out in the structure of modern democratic governments"
I never said it was a pure expression. You can clearly see that property rights are a part of the culture of most western states. Yes, those laws were influenced by the wealthy over generations, but it's now become part of the culture.
giantg2
11 days ago
Improving the lives of animals directly improves the lives of humans. Who do you think is eating them? Feeding them? Building their shelters and living near them? Slaughtering them and butchering them? Animal welfare is a public health issue. People have caught bird flu and died!
KittenInABox
11 days ago
[flagged]
dr_dshiv
11 days ago
> instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue.
This kind of corp-captured government is one more reason I'm certain we're in the 1910s again.
I'm finding it easier to count the exceptions to that. (they had appropriate housing, we have fewer labor-related deaths).
source: am an annoying genealogist
WarOnPrivacy
11 days ago
So that's the 'small government' I see so many folks talking about online.
hollywood_court
11 days ago
Money is speech, but photos are not apparently
walthamstow
11 days ago
A picture is worth a thousand words, so the voice of the industry would become too expensive (bribes, oh excuse me, lobbying and consulting) if the public can use pictures. Hence, pictures are forbidden.
earth-adventure
11 days ago
You should read the linked law. You may find it reasonable.
tengbretson
11 days ago
Unless my understanding of 'misrepresentation' is incorrect, and I'm neither a lawyer nor an American, but I find the law to outlaw basic journalism, including and especially the below section which seems to specifically outlaw undercover journalism. What's reasonable about that?
> (c) Obtains employment with an agricultural production facility by force, threat, or misrepresentation with the intent to cause economic or other injury to the facility’s operations, livestock, crops, owners, personnel, equipment, buildings, premises, business interests or customers;
walthamstow
11 days ago
If the definition of undercover journalism is simply lying about ones identity in order to publish secrets with the intent to cause injury to another party, then yes, absolutely, I'm in favor of outlawing it, and a 1 year max seems generous.
tengbretson
11 days ago
Divulging someone's secrets isn't intrinsically unethical. If I reveal the secret that you've murdered someone that's not a secret that you ever had any right to keep.
Likewise these "secrets" aren't something valuable like an algorithm that's in the interest of society to protect. The secret is their monstrous and unethical practices which lower their sales when their prospective consumers learn about them. Keeping it secret doesn't protect competition, it just hides something from consumers that would allow them to make a more informed choice.
Muckraker journalism like this is one of the main reasons the US has regulations for things like food safety and working conditions. Should a journalist go to jail for revealing that a slaughterhouse is hiring 8 year olds, or that there is a mass contamination of a food product that the company still intends to sell? Those can be "secrets" too.
DoughnutHole
11 days ago
11 days ago
There's a difference between publishing actual secrets and publishing evidence of someone breaking the law.
We're seeing with Boeing what happens when law-breaking is swept under the rug for too long.
mschuster91
11 days ago
11 days ago
11 days ago
I think what they're saying there is "I was just taking pictures... noooo, you will break my camera!!! you evil brute!" when you say GTFO is no defense.
Not saying there aren't weird laws. Check the notions of boxed squares (miles) and airspace. Some of these need addressing at the federal level.
m3047
11 days ago
> Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives is unfortunately how a lot of beef is produced. They spend their lives covered in shit, sleeping in shit, and trapped with no where to roam.
And then being shoved into a truck, shipped who knows how many thousand miles to a butchering facility that does it for 3c cheaper and then end up in a line with all your peers to be killed in a horribly industrialized way.
When I lived in central Europe there was a story about pigs or cows, I don't remember, being shipped to Morocco for butchering, imagine that!
People would be vegetarians in a heartbeat if they saw how meat is produced.
> And instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. [1]
Same in Canada. Very disappointing.
barbazoo
11 days ago
> People would be vegetarians in a heartbeat if they saw how meat is produced.
No, because most people wouldn't care.
maleldil
11 days ago
I agree with you--feedlots are disgusting and cruel.
However, cattle do not spend their "entire lives" at a feedlot. Usually only the last few months (or less) before slaughter. Prior to that, that majority of cattle live in very open and pleasant conditions.
bequanna
11 days ago
Isn’t selling venison against the law?
chasd00
11 days ago
I'm in the UK - but yes he's a registered 'pest controller' - he gets paid by local farmers to keep the invasive deer population low (muncjac and Chinese water deer), and is also licenced to sell the meat. You can get either a whole/half skinned and basically butchered deer from him, or any selected cuts, for £9 a kg - which pretty damn cheap really!
ljf
11 days ago
That is a fantastic deal for meat you can feel good about! I pay that much for pork at the big organic grocery chain in Germany (ebl) that I can only hope they’re telling the truth about, and far more for the occasional beef steak there.
MandieD
11 days ago
I live in America. I buy half-beef from a farmer down the road. His cows are pastured all the time, grass-fed and grass-finished. It costs me $3.50/lb to do this and that includes dozens of steaks - all cuts and ground beef etc. are the same flat rate.
This isn't a special deal either, this is how the guy makes his living, along with some other farm products.
Amezarak
11 days ago
Link, please? Or at least a general area?
Grass-finished is really tough economically; corn results in an animal almost 3x the size.
The only grass-finished place I have is struggling no matter how much beef I eat :) I really need other places if it goes away.
bsder
11 days ago
What's "half-beef"?
arrowsmith
11 days ago
It's where you buy half of a cow
oaththrowaway
11 days ago
And that right there is a solid moat
kvirani
11 days ago
He gets paid twice - what a business!
ljf
11 days ago
Bait shop on one side, sushi shop on the other! As a friend likes to say.
nathancahill
11 days ago
Depends which jurisdiction. It’s legal in the UK if you have a license and I think it has to be professionally butchered and labelled at a registered slaughterhouse.
willyt
11 days ago
I'd be more concerned about prions in this case.
valicord
11 days ago
That should be the last concern of any decent human being. If they outlaw breathing, will you stop? Hunting is something our species has done for over a billion years by this point.
carlosjobim
11 days ago
I am pro-hunting. But this isn’t a good argument.
1) equivocating hunting with breathing? One is necessary for life, the other is done by less than a quarter of people, and for most of them it’s just a hobby.
2) slavery has also been done probably since humanity began millions of years ago, so that clearly is not sufficient for something shoulding be legal.
lukas099
11 days ago
Hunting is just as necessary for life as breathing. Domestication of animals and agriculture are the unnatural ways that man has invented. So banning it is banning the most natural human behaviour. All other predators do nothing except hunt, breathe, drink, sleep and mate. And they don't keep slaves.
There's a lot of people who never drink water, but drinking water is still essential and shouldn't be outlawed.
carlosjobim
11 days ago
That doesn't make any sense. What makes hunting any more natural than agriculture? Isn't exerting control over our environment one of the defining characteristics of humanity?
mathieuh
11 days ago
It is more natural because creatures in nature do it. Together with mating, hunting is one of the foundations of life itself for the predator or omnivore class of animals.
All the behaviours that we have in common with other mammals are natural and eternal. They can never be legislated away, even though many have tried and they have died. Including kings trying to ban hunting certain game for commoners and having them for themselves.
carlosjobim
11 days ago
> It is more natural because creatures in nature do it. All the behaviours that we have in common with other mammals are natural and eternal. They can never be legislated away
We outlaw all sorts of things that can be found in nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)
hombre_fatal
11 days ago
"Creatures in nature" also "farm" and have symbiotic and/or co-evolutionary relationships with other species.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20630-zoologger-the-f...
adolph
11 days ago
That's an uninteresting reach, isn't it?
carlosjobim
11 days ago
>>> What makes hunting any more natural than agriculture?
>> It is more natural because creatures in nature do it.
> "Creatures in nature" also "farm"
Thus "hunting" is not "more natural" than agriculture and domestication of other species.
If you don't find it interesting that non-human life has been performing behaviors humans think unique to themselves, well that's your problem.
adolph
11 days ago
Additionally, “natural” =/= “necessary to life”. Millions if not billions of people have the means to hunt if they wanted to, yet choose not to. And they are just fine.
lukas099
10 days ago
That's an odd view, were hunter-gatherers less human than us?
Drakim
11 days ago
>> Hunting is something our species has done for over a billion years by this point.
Sustenance hunting yes, but the rules about selling wild meat are to prevent market hunting. There are more humans by weight than any other land animal. If the general population started eating hunted meat, any wild population would be wiped out. So we have careful rules to ensure hunters do not hunt simply to sell the meat.
sandworm101
11 days ago
I agree that there is a difference, but a very small difference. Even animals share their prey with those who didn't participate in the hunt.
If the general population started eating hunted meat, vast agricultural areas would be returned to nature, giving a slight offset to that problem.
But jumping back to reality, those people who actually hunt and purchase hunted meat right now are people who care about nature and shepherd it with responsibility. They can safely ignore any hacker that starts yapping about some law written by unnatural people.
carlosjobim
11 days ago
> If the general population started eating hunted meat, vast agricultural areas would be returned to nature, giving a slight offset to that problem.
I don't think the math works here. There isn't enough agricultural area on the planet to sustainably generate enough hunted Calories for the general population.
Marsymars
11 days ago
I wrote "slight offset".
carlosjobim
11 days ago
The selling of hunted meet to the general population for profit is a very very slippery slope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punt_gun
sandworm101
11 days ago
Hunting isn't illegal. Selling hunted meat is. It combats overhunting and poaching.
saintfire
11 days ago
Sincere question - how does one "overhunt"?
If I were to use a huge trawler with a big net to catch hundreds of fish I would call that overfishing. But is that even fishing?
Thwres nuance between artisanal and industrial, and both get caught with the same word
IG_Semmelweiss
11 days ago
It’s simple… harvesting more than the population you are hunting can sustain. A lot of animals outside or deer are regulated through a lottery system, if everyone who wanted to hunt a bear, mountain goat, or cougar did every year, we’d have none.
mtnGoat
11 days ago
One issue with confusing laws with ethics: We forget that lines are best drawn between doing harm and not.
WarOnPrivacy
11 days ago
We have deer seasons for a reason. Lots of times you can only hunt the male bucks to keep populations in check. People have decimated populations. Look at the Goliath Grouper ban in Florida and how the species has recovered.
wil421
11 days ago
There weren't any plants, let alone animals, a billion years ago.
masfuerte
11 days ago
Microbes where hunting and fucking by that time.
carlosjobim
11 days ago
Which law, where?
Please don't assume that everyone here lives in the same city/state/country/continent as you.
scoot
11 days ago
Yeah you're on a site called hackernews quit being a dork
snapcaster
11 days ago
excuse me. where else are we dorks supposed do go? i'm running out of forums where I can post with the replica of my childhood pc rig.
WarOnPrivacy
11 days ago
Give Brazil time. Things will improve again. I hope the EU Mercosul FTA puts protections in place if it is ever signed.
Brazil reached 92 percent renewable energy. So there are good news.
https://www.gmexconsulting.com/cms/brazil-hits-92-renewable-...
fyt2024
11 days ago
> Give Brazil time. Things will improve again.
What mechanisms were put into action that indicate improvement?
I'm Brazilian, living in Brazil and I don't share your optimism.
diegoholiveira
11 days ago
I've moved to a meat buying strategy of "only buy meat if you've met the farmer".
I don't object to eating meat, but so much of the industrial meat production world is a nightmare. From disease risk, to abuse of animals, to slash and burn, to waste.
By buying meat from a local farmer, you can eliminate a lot of that. You end up eating less meat, probably, but we buy a whole cow every few years and divvy it up between friends. You could do that more or less often if you still wanted to eat a lot of meat.
yareal
11 days ago
As an American why would you buy Brazilian beef when it’s already available here probably for cheaper, local, and higher quality?
righthand
11 days ago
I can see two reasons: maybe it is not cheaper, or maybe there's not enough for local consumers. There should definitely be some economic incentive somewhere.
Higher quality is debatable, foreign imports are not necessarily "lower quality", I'm a Brazilian so I'm on the other side of the coin, our beef is anything but low quality. The problem that the article wants to expose is that much of it is raised on illegal ranches, more often than not on the deflorested Amazon.
Being local is not something that food chains care about.
augusto-moura
11 days ago
Doubtful that the mass ranched cattle is raised to the same quality standards as in America, especially if they know their beef is going to fast food. Ex. Grass fed, hormone-free
Also I understand what the article points out about illegal ranches supplying corporations but Who eats the food from the food chains?
righthand
11 days ago
This is why I mentioned the word debatable. Brazil has high-quality standards for cattle; I specifically live in an agribusiness state in Brazil (very far away from the Amazon, although still having ecological problems). The absolute majority of cattle here are raised in free-range being grass-fed, without any hormones, and this is exactly the problem, free-ranging demands a lot of land, and ultimately this land is being made by cutting down old-growth forests.
Let's not make assumptions about quality when we don't have enough information from each country to make an educated guess. I will point out that Brazil is the largest exporter of agricultural products in the West, and we comply with very demanding markets, including the US. The problem being cited is not about quality—we are compliant with the FDA—but the ethics of ranging cattle in previously Amazon forests
augusto-moura
11 days ago
Right I never said it was about quality. I asked why an American would buy exported beef and quality obviously is a factor in a buying decision. Quality has to be proven, something that is difficult to understand and prove when the product is an export.
I am asking a different question than what is demonstrated by the article, intentionally.
righthand
10 days ago
How would you even know where it came from?
HeyLaughingBoy
11 days ago
Why would you continue when you found out?
righthand
11 days ago
Because it’s cheaper for Mc’Donalds and Burger King but probably not for the average consumer. Grocery store beef quality has gone down after Covid except Prime grade and local butchers $$$.
wil421
11 days ago
For context, I've known that McDonald's uses rain forest beef since the mid-1980s when my dad first told me about it. I thought they stopped that for a while, but nope:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-30/mcdonald-...
Nothing has been done to stop it because of a number of cultural problems: 1) Americans love beef: "why would I eat what food eats?" 2) America could stop all conflict around the world, from deforestation to war to civil rights abuses, if that wasn't directly at odds with the appetites of our capitalist empire and 3) scarcity mindset for survival has so dominated the Global South for so long that nature is seen as a resource to be exploited, far below even the dignity of human life, due to unrelenting debt pressure from the IMF to create a wage slave class for harvesting cash crops and labor/resource-intensive commodities like beef.
zackmorris
11 days ago
> 2) America could stop all conflict around the world, from deforestation to war to civil rights abuses
That's nonsense. China and Russia are exploiting development countries as best they can (too). I wonder how you got the idea that it'd be only the US?
Websearch for "china cobalt mines congo" for example.
Interesting about McDonald's anyway
cutemonster
11 days ago
ask the chain burger fast-food companies.. they buy it
mistrial9
11 days ago
Who buys the chain burgers fast-food companies burgers?
righthand
11 days ago
Americans.
freejazz
11 days ago
Actually, everyone.
Even stereotypical food snobs like the French https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/19/the-french-have-fallen-in-lo...
The world would be much better if fast food were a US-only phenomenon but that's trivially untrue.
hombre_fatal
11 days ago
I didn't mean for my response to be exhaustive so much as directly responsive to the question asked... why Americans eat the Brazilian beef?
freejazz
11 days ago
GOTO 10
righthand
11 days ago
[flagged]
TechDebtDevin
11 days ago
It's not hard to understand: It's affordable, culturally acceptable, the taste is appealing to the palate, it's an easy source of protein, people are disengaged to know the details of the supply chain and as such don't really engage on discussing the ethics of modern meat production.
tcgv
11 days ago
You can also push a concession out of most normal people that it's unethical, in person. Only online do people act like it's not an elephant in everyone's room—just one that we don't think about unless scrolling past a documentary or something. It's just incredibly hard to red pill out of the comforts you were born into.
hombre_fatal
11 days ago
Why would they care, when they can't see the animal suffering in front of their nose? When it's just something abstract in the newspapers sometimes, and it's more fun to watch Netflix or hang out with friends than read more about that?
cutemonster
11 days ago
> Why would you murder and bleed out a cute little animal for calories.
Who are you talking to ? We don't eat cute puppies here. /s
hulitu
10 days ago
For anyone interested in the numbers behind how bad beef and deforestation are for the environment, see Hannah Ritchie’s great new book Not the End of the World.
matt_daemon
11 days ago
As a counter point, livestock are a critical part of the regenerative ag movement.
Our property was farmland for 150 years before it basically ran out of nutrients in the 1970s. After one year of a pretty good harvest (not great) in 2019, we couldn't grow anything. One home testing kit later, and we found that there were virtually no minerals in the soil.
Fast forward five years and between heavy composting and generating a very healthy amount of bird waste, we're just starting to restore the nutrient balance in the soil. The next step (in progress) is planting some native grasses and low lying shrubs to try and break up the practically impenetrable clay pan that exists below the soil.
Many people dislike meat eating, and I understand that, but developing a healthy relationship with the land practically requires some form of livestock. We are turning "dead" land into highly productive pasture literally in one growing cycle.
debacle
11 days ago
Where did the feed for the animals come from?
guhidalg
11 days ago
Kitchen scraps and forage mostly. We did add some feed during the winter because we miscalculated our needs.
We aren't doing anything intensive, and we don't have chickens or pigs. I did the math, and it doesn't really seem like you can have chickens or pigs just range, you have to supplement their diet in some way. Geese on the other hand are like...the best animals for regenerative ag, maybe next to sheep.
We will probably get chickens at some point (unless we miraculously can range enough ducks for eggs), but we will have to buy in their feed.
debacle
11 days ago
This is currently downvoted, but it's a valid question. The concept at play is "ghost acres". The idea being that you might have a wonderful regenerated plot of productive land, but if it requires a massive amount of land elsewhere to maintain, you might not have gained as much as you think.
shmageggy
11 days ago
Rgenerative AG is BS. For example, they'll talk about how they sequester CO2, but fail to mention that after 10 years, the ground reaches a limit, from which point forward it produces far more CO2 than our current meat production.
They'll also ignore any imports into the system from conventional sources. SO, they'll feed conventionally grown feed, but not include that in their numbers.
In the end, even if regenerative farming was any good, the amount of meat we could afford to produce (aka without using too much land, water or other resources) is so tiny that 90% of our food would end up being vegan anyway.
LinXitoW
11 days ago
What is the solution to recover topsoil in the midwest without cattle? I'd also be for returning the buffalo that made it so fertile in the first place, but clearly what we're doing now is not sustainable.
Amezarak
11 days ago
Beef in itself is not bad for the environment. It's the scale of demand that is bad. And that demand is fueled by the combined effects of global population growth and global increase in standards of living.
We tend to stop at the symptoms instead of going after the root cause.
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
> Beef in itself is not bad for the environment. It's the scale of demand that is bad.
Wasting crops feeding cattle is inherently worse than the alternative, feeding directly on the crops and avoiding the wasting of calories when going up one trophic level.
Qem
11 days ago
"A large amount of beef is grown in areas that are not suitable for crop farming in the United States. In fact, 85% of the land used to graze cattle in the U.S. is marginal land, which means it's not suitable for growing crops. Marginal land is either untouched or used for grazing livestock, mostly cattle"
Grain finishing is another matter. But it's not a 1 grain : 1/10th beef type situation.
Now chopping and burning down the amazon to create grazing land for cattle? yeah that's going to probably kill us all.
virtue3
11 days ago
They're gonna chop and burn it down either way, it'll either be for cattle or if you make eating meat illegal they'll chop and burn it for something else like palm oil.
Like it's obvious the people who own and control that land don't care about it anywhere near as much as you do so if you want them to stop chopping it down essentially you're gonna need to start paying them not to. Just seems naive to think stopping specifically poor people from eating meat is the solution to this.
whywhywhywhy
11 days ago
If you take away one of the profitable reasons to chop down the Amazon, it’ll reduce people doing it at the margin - that is simply facts.
> Poor people from eating meat
Yeah and a carbon tax will stop poor people from using as much gas, etc. - if we want to solve climate change we cannot just insulate all poor people from externality pricing.
whimsicalism
11 days ago
At global scale we can't solve the environmental crisis in general (climate is only one aspect) and solve poverty at the same time with 10 billion people.
Solving the environmental crisis means reducing our consumption of resources. Solving global poverty means a significant increase in consumption of resources.
So the only way forward is to let the global population decrease ASAP so that we can both live well and preserve the planet.
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
Resource intensity is decreasing. We can solve both at the same time, but we can’t solve both with maximum possible speed at the same time, true.
whimsicalism
11 days ago
Resource intensity may or may not be decreasing but that's not solving the issue if you look at global numbers of poor people versus economic and consumption growth needed to bring everyone to, say, European level of living standard.
We are already wreacking havoc on the planet and marginal decrease in resource intensity is not going to make a difference because our total impact needs to be slashed.
I never understand the insistence of some of ignoring population in the equation, which is the key parameter.
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
> marginal decrease in resource intensity
We're seeing more than simply marginal decreases - if we can successfully transition our power. The gap in per capita CO2 emissions between developing, middle-income, developed is not nearly as great as what you are suggesting [0] and will decrease even further in the time that it takes to raise people in poverty now to developed-world standards.
> I never understand the insistence of some of ignoring population in the equation, which is the key parameter.
A few reasons: 1. Population is projected to peak in the coming decades. 2. "Slashing" population counts requires a global deployment of force that is both not practically feasible right now and incredibly unpopular. There is no practical path to "slashing" population. This is the primary reason, imo. 3. People in the West always imagine that it would be other people/nations slashing their population count when the biggest marginal impact (especially given climate lags) would be slashing their own population. These solutions are eugenicist in nature.
Also - taking a step back for a moment, I am confused as to how this in any way justifies beef. Beef contributes to the gap between rich and poor in CO2. If we reduce reliance on beef, it means we can support a larger population sustainably?
[0]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...
whimsicalism
11 days ago
CO2 emissions for power generation, or in general, are only a small part of our impact. The environmental crisis is not only caused by this, but by our total consumption of resources and production of many pollutants.
And so we are screwed.
Now the West is already slashing its own population, birth rates have crashed. The issue is that it's refusing to let it go because it's not the easy option, and at global scale this is a taboo subject.
And so we are doubly screwed.
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
There’s limitless profitable reasons to chop it down.
Don’t understand why people want to play whack a mole to get to the end goal all while making everyone’s lives worse, esp on the lower income levels who can’t afford organic meat.
When if you want the trees saved then pay them to keep them and hold them to it. Like that’s the actual goal no? And easier than completely retooling society as a backwards way to cause that change.
I mean this is about the trees right?
whywhywhywhy
11 days ago
> When if you want the trees saved then pay them to keep them and hold them to it. Like that’s the actual goal no? And easier than completely retooling society as a backwards way to cause that change.
REDD+ programs (which is what you are describing) are massive failures at preventing deforestation or carbon decreases.
> There’s limitless profitable reasons to chop it down.
No, there are costs and profits and if you decrease the profits and increase the costs it changes peoples behavior at the margin. The Amazon rainforest isn't the one thing that is exempt from basic economics.
whimsicalism
11 days ago
You stop them using it for meat they’ll use it for palm oil you stop them using it for that they’ll use it for something else. It’s just so naive to expect it just to switch to something they can sell. Like they own it they can do what they want with it, if you want it to be trees pay them for it to be trees. Just because some NGO likely scam failed to do it under a climate banner doesn’t mean it’s impossible, someone pays them to use the land for meat right? So pay for it to be trees in the same channels.
whywhywhywhy
10 days ago
Accountability seems impossible sending money alone. There have to be officials with guns enforcing the preservation. People who cannot be paid off.
paulryanrogers
10 days ago
Yes, but now give out the statistics on how much of the calories fed to cows in total in the US or worldwide is actually grazing and how much is from crops that need extra area apart from where the animals graze. Even cattle that grazes is often supplemented with grain, and the grain is of course much more calorie-dense.
The world wide land area for farming would reduce from 4 to 1 billion hectares if we didn't use livestock to feed humans. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
So the answer to "what would we do with all that land we can't put crops on" is "whatever we want". For example, we could just leave it be nature, since we don't need it for farming.
nolverostae
11 days ago
11 days ago
“Not suitable for crop farming” =/= “ecologically unimportant”
lukas099
11 days ago
Seriously, the is a big problem in the US. Cattle are grazed on BLM land and they trample all the stream banks to such an extent that riparian ecosystems are totally destroyed. And in exchange the grazing fee is only $1/head/month! If you stand at the point where a stream crosses from a fenced conservation area into a grazing area, the difference across the boundary is stark.
jeffbee
11 days ago
How did did the riparian ecosystems thrive when there were tens of millions of bison? There is the same order of magnitude of cows in the US today (90 million) as bison hundreds of years ago (30-60 million.) Bison are also generally much heavier, meaning they eat more and trod the ground more deeply.
Amezarak
11 days ago
The historical range of the American bison was largely not overlapping with BLM grazing lands. The bison, a sensible animal, wasn't found in California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
jeffbee
11 days ago
The historical range of the bison did extend into those states, but granted, not into most of that land area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_bison_belt
Amezarak
11 days ago
I think we are safe in describing the pre-columbian bison range as not marginal, and the post that started this thread is about how most of our cattle grazing is on marginal lands. The way Americans do this is the worst possible way: grow feed on the excellent grazing range, and feed it to an animal that spends most of its life either grazing a desert or standing in parking lot. We'd get more of everything, easier and cheaper, if we just grazed bison where we currently grow corn.
jeffbee
11 days ago
I'm all for that: bison is delicious.
HeyLaughingBoy
11 days ago
> Now chopping and burning down the amazon to create grazing land for cattle? yeah that's going to probably kill us all.
How?
I mean, I'm not a fan of destroying forests, etc, but around here, there is no unmanaged land so presumably all the forests were already burnt etc for farmers... But we're all around, right? I don't get how burning the Amazon for food people want will actually kill us.
verisimi
11 days ago
Because the rainforest is important in regulating global temperature and oxygen production, much more so than the (probable) temperate climate forests you are from.
You are living in a post destruction area, with new forests planted to supplement the destruction that was there before. Most of these forests aren't more than 70 years old, that's about when we finally made an effort to fix how badly we totally fucked up and why people needed clean air to not die from lung cancer (among other things). The loss of biodiversity, air quality, etc. already occurred. You are a survivor. What's more, your survival was in part supported by the air quality of other virgin forests further away from you that weren't yet cut down. But now that they are being cut down, there's less left to support you.
In short, you're asking yourself why you shouldn't shoot yourself in the foot again, because you managed to survive the first shot and it looks to you like it healed just fine (it didn't).
jterrys
11 days ago
I didn't shoot myself in the foot.
Someone around here did clear the forests for farmland... and people are doing ok.
Its not that everyone died, as the comment I responded to said.
verisimi
11 days ago
To substantiate your point, I was thinking about deforestation for farming in Indiana (where I live) and Ohio last week and learned that Indiana was 90% forest until taxes got in the way. It's crazy that something as silly as taxes can cause most of your forests to become farmland.
https://woodlandsteward.squarespace.com/storage/past-issues/...
We are still alive. I wish we had the forests, but we have survived and the environment has adjusted.
chinupbuttercup
11 days ago
The US has increased in forest cover over the last 100 years. The loss in your state(s) is somewhat offset by gain in others.
https://www.wri.org/insights/tracking-global-tree-cover-gain
And, the Amazon is pretty damn big. The potential effects of its loss are detailed here:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-the-amazon...
Finally, tropical forests (/jungles) are a lot more productive in terms of growth (and carbon capture) than temperate forests.
https://news.mongabay.com/2011/06/tropical-forests-more-effe...
smallerfish
11 days ago
Yeah, it's crazy to insentivise deforestation. But people need to eat. And, depending on who you listen to, there is even some evidence that the rainforest may have been a cultivated environment itself, in the dim and distant past.
verisimi
11 days ago
11 days ago
The Amazon is pretty important for the global climate
adrianN
11 days ago
Cows don't eat people crops.
bongodongobob
11 days ago
The amount of energy and water used to grow those crops is spent regardless, and could have either not been spent, or spent on people crops.
colordrops
10 days ago
[flagged]
b800h
11 days ago
That's essentially what we do with cows. Do you see the hypocrisy? We don't inflict this on humans so why do it to other creatures which can know terror and pain just as we do?
emptysongglass
11 days ago
Because empathy being applied to other species is an evolutionary bug, not a feature. Bug probably triggered by the luxurious abundance and the accompanying decadence acting on brains a bit too disconnected from the reality of the animal kingdom.
And if you want intellectual justifications: because we're the apex predators and we do what we want when we want; that includes raising and eating beasts that are of no other value to us. The other carnivorous animals wouldn't act in any other way, in our position.
BoingBoomTschak
11 days ago
Sometimes there isn't anything one can do to sugarcoat something: this is stupid. For one thing, even if we were to take your bald assertion that empathy is somehow an evolutionary bug at face value, though you've provided no evidence for this or even really any suggestion of what it could mean, it doesn't follow that lacking it is the optimal behavior relative to "evolutionary goals" (which are nothing) or whatever unstated goals you presume we all share.
Like on of the most wonderful things about human beings is that we can reflect upon our behavior, form moral and aesthetic opinions about how we'd like the future to be, and make appropriate adjustments to our behavior to achieve those ends.
In any case, the material circumstances that produced us have absolutely no meaning at all. The essence of the evolutionary explanation is that life really is random, given that, we may just as freely reject evolutionary understandings of what we want from the world as we may accept them. Surely they are of practical value, in the sense that if we want to optimally act on the world we have to understand it, but they impose no necessary moral or aesthetic demands upon us. It is deeply confused to believe that the mere evolutionary circumstances that produced you ought to constrain how you want the future to look.
nathan_compton
11 days ago
> Because empathy being applied to other species is an evolutionary bug, not a feature
I hope our eventual AI overlords do not feel similarly.
asoneth
11 days ago
"Species" is, in and of itself, a man made construct. To define your own morals by an arbitrary distinction isn't just simplistic, it's downright dangerous.
It wasn't long ago that certain people were considered "subhuman", and therefore open to all kinds of abuse. Did you learn nothing from that?
And of course, the same is true for your ridiculous "might makes right" argument. Have you considered making other horribly uneducated arguments, like "it's natural"? Maybe add some "we've always done it that way".
LinXitoW
11 days ago
Ah yes, might makes right, the pinnacle of moral thinking…
lukas099
11 days ago
Most of the human suffering in this concept comes from being able to think, compare and ideas about the good life and then those thoughts create the suffering. The actual physical suffering is limited, although present.
Cows can‘t do that and don‘t have the point of reference to compare. I doubt even humans could unless they are raised to be taught all the cultural norms and what‘s good and bad.
quonn
11 days ago
> Cows can‘t do that and don‘t have the point of reference to compare. I doubt even humans could unless they are raised to be taught all the cultural norms and what‘s good and bad.
By that logic, would it be ethical to eat humans who do not have a point of reference to compare and have not been taught cultural norms and what's good and bad?
asoneth
11 days ago
I was not talking about eating, I was talking about living conditions.
Furthermore (again regarding living conditions): Still no, because those humans likely have loved ones or family and additionally no because of what this would do to the other humans who housed them so.
quonn
11 days ago
I wouldn't eat beef if it was raised in those conditions but it doesn't reflect the reality of most British beef rearing operations. Most British beef is fed predominantly a forage based diet, outside in pasture except during the winter months and perhaps during the period before slaughter where they are flattened up.
VBprogrammer
11 days ago
That's an uneeded "optimisation". There is nothing wrong with eating meat and breeding cattle. Again, the issue is that the environment has a limited, finite capacity, which we exceed when we are 10 billion with good standards of living.
To reduce quality of life (because it's not limited to meat, it's comprehensive restrictions) simply to accomodate ever more humans on the planet is madness and unsustainable, anyway.
PS: Let's also remember, for example, that 50-60 million bisons roamed North America before European settlement, whereas there are about 28 million beef cows in the US today (according to Google).
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
> There is nothing wrong with eating meat and breeding cattle.
You're not doing a whole lot to explain why there is nothing wrong with eating meat and breeding cattle. I can think of a whole host of reasons why it is wrong in matters of ethics and mercy. Who is there to advocate for the cow? We know cows feel a gamut of emotions just as we do. They are not insensate. Most humans, when given a knife or a captive bolt gun and told to go kill that cow on yonder would not. So we externalize the death-making to slaughterhouse workers who coincidentally also suffer:
> ...SHWs had significantly higher levels of depression compared with office workers, but not butchers. The difference in depression rates differed from study to study, ranging from 10% to 50% [1]
There's really no good, ethical argument to be made for the killing of animals for food or pleasure. Did we need to do it once to survive as a species? Yes. Are we largely living in a post-scarcity world where those practices should now be challenged? Yes.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10009492/
emptysongglass
11 days ago
> You're not doing a whole lot to explain why there is nothing wrong with eating meat and breeding cattle.
Why should explain why something is NOT bad ? It's up to you to convince him (or others) that it is bad, and the reasoning "according to MY ethics it is bad" is not a good argument.
There is a good argument to be made that in the West we should eat less meat, but that doesn't mean removing it completely: it is harder to make a balanced vegan diet, so for most people that would mean a less healthy outcome that just eating a moderate amount of meat.
mrighele
11 days ago
> Why should explain why something is NOT bad?
Because they're the one who made the claim without evidence or argument.
> It's up to you to convince him (or others) that it is bad
Yes, that's what I did.
> the reasoning "according to MY ethics it is bad" is not a good argument.
That wasn't my argument.
emptysongglass
11 days ago
> There is a good argument to be made that in the West we should eat less meat, but that doesn't mean removing it completely: it is harder to make a balanced vegan diet, so for most people that would mean a less healthy outcome that just eating a moderate amount of meat.
You're making something of a jump there - not eating meat equates to a vegetarian diet, not a vegan diet. One can argue about the merits of a vegan diet over a vegetarian one, but a vegetarian, non-vegan diet is already a big step up over a meat-heavy one, and a vegetarian diet including eggs and dairy doesn't really have any challenges in being balanced/healthy compared to a moderate-meat diet.
Marsymars
11 days ago
There is nothing wrong or unethical with eating meat. It is a natural behaviour, which we are evolved for, and in fact a necessary animal behaviour within the environment at large.
If you do not wish to eat meat for personal reasons you are free to do so of course but I object to the current trend of minority groups trying to impose their views to the whole of society and to paint those who disagree as 'wrong'.
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
> I object to the current trend of minority groups trying to impose their views to the whole of society and to paint those who disagree as 'wrong'.
I'm curious what you mean by "impose their views" with respect to meat-eating. Has a vegan ever tried to stop you from eating meat for example through physical force, threatening your livelihood, making meat illegal in their state, etc?
Don't get me wrong, I also dislike when strangers impose their moral, ethical, racial, political, or religious views on me.
But of all the groups that concern me, vegans are low on my list as their weapons mostly seem to be uncomfortably strong arguments on the internet and the occasional preachy Netflix documentary.
asoneth
11 days ago
We are omnivores and we have plentiful sources of plant nutrition. Eating meat is mot necessary for either health or happiness, and any appeal to it being “natural”, even if true (primitive human diets varied enormously) is irrelevant.
One could argue that meat eating is necessary for taking part on some people’s culture, which is true, but also shifting. And spreading the idea of vegetarianism is helpful in making that shift happen.
lukas099
11 days ago
[flagged]
LinXitoW
11 days ago
Maybe the GP did engage in the naturalistic fallacy, but nobody has been able to demonstrate why eating meat is wrong either, they just say "I personally feel killing animals to eat them is so evil that it should be illegal." OK, that's fine, but why should I also feel that way? I don't.
Amezarak
11 days ago
There's no fallacy there. There is nothing wrong with eating meat and writing that this a perfectly acceptable and natural behaviour is just stating a fact, really.
This is all proving my point that a vocal minority is poisoning the issue in order to impose their views by accusing others of fallacy, wrongthink, and even according to the person you're replying to (and that's a new one) by bringing rape into it...
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
Vegetarians also have higher levels of depression. [1]
1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01650...
carom
11 days ago
It's obviously that they became vegetarian due to this personality trait rather than the other way around. Your study doesn't indicate otherwise. Vegetarians and vegans become so precisely because they are depressed about the state of affairs in animal welfare, human health, and the environment.
colordrops
10 days ago
Another way to cast the meat vs crops debate is "true pricing": the growing demand for meat is not simply a result of growing population or growing standards of living, but caused by ignoring "externalities".
I.e.: if the true impact of turning crops into meat were reflected in the price of a hamburger, demand elasticity would eventually result in much less production. Or: growing meat consumption is mostly a result of implicit subsidies to maintain status quo, ignore climate change,etc.
repelsteeltje
11 days ago
And to think those 50-60 million animals were slaughtered and laid to waste just to starve the natives out of the Great Plains.
mtnGoat
11 days ago
If you think there are too many people, remember that you are people.
jdietrich
11 days ago
Why is it always impossible to have an adult discussion on this issue? (An interesting question for academics, I think)
Obviously we are all people. The question is do we keep chasing an ever increasing population or do we accept that it cannot keep growing and should in fact probably decrease?
Most developed countries have birth rates below replacement rate so this is already happening. We need to accept it and adapt.
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
>The question is do we keep chasing an ever increasing population
We aren't.
Every bit of evidence is that Human population is on the path to stabilizing. Developing countries plateau, and all that "India and china are going to outreproduce us!" rhetoric was stupidity; people extrapolating an S curve as if it were an infinite exponential curve.
All you have to do is give women an education and legal access to birth control and it turns out most humans do not want 50 kids. Women happily manage population control, with no moral problems.
mrguyorama
11 days ago
Oh we are. While global birth rates are indeed down this is seen as a catastrophe. Governments have policies to increase birth rates and in Europe we're also madly opening the doors to massive immigration to keep the population growing.
I have yet to see a government declare that they will let population decrease and initiate programs to adapt. Perhaps Japan comes close but we'll see.
mytailorisrich
11 days ago
WE should keep the history of the world in mind. How things shake out when people say "there's too many people". Who gets killed first? Who gets involuntarily sterilized?
WE should consider that in the equation of "overpopulation", the other variable, "resource consumption", is far easier and more ethical to reduce.
The issue, of course, is that option 1 hurts others that aren't us, while option 2 will require changes from US, like not eating meat, reducing personal cars, reducing consumption and infinite growth in general.
LinXitoW
11 days ago
11 days ago
That's like saying "oil is not bad for the environment, it's the scale of the demand that is bad".
colordrops
11 days ago
Beef is extremely inefficient compared to plant-based food. We could sustain a far larger population with no loss in standards of living without it.
DasIch
11 days ago
Most people would argue that not eating beef would lower their standard of living.
wk_end
11 days ago
[flagged]
_3u10
11 days ago
[flagged]
rangestransform
11 days ago
[dead]
pickleberto
11 days ago
Agreed. Check out /r/keto and /r/zerocarb for some great research about the natural human diet. Humans have eaten beef (exclusively even) for billions of years.
defiamazing
11 days ago
Humans have only existed for about 300,000 years. Cows are about 10,000 years old.
jdietrich
11 days ago
Brazilians of years, not billions
chickenchase-rd
11 days ago
[flagged]
crawfishphase
11 days ago
11 days ago
> deforestation
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/co2-is-making-...
https://terra.nasa.gov/news/modis-shows-earth-is-greener
willcipriano
11 days ago
Greening != Recovery
> China’s outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes in large part (42%) from programs to conserve and expand forests. These were developed in an effort to reduce the effects of soil erosion, air pollution and climate change. Another 32% there – and 82% of the greening seen in India – comes from intensive cultivation of food crops.
If the green of pristine forests is replaced by the green desert of a monocultural eucalyptus planted forest, or the green of grass pastures, it's still a big ecological net loss.
Qem
11 days ago
Also: greening != biodiversity
themk
11 days ago
11 days ago
Read the first one. The second has a lot of spin that is obvious once you have the context from the first article.
The entire planet is greener. Everywhere. The planting did little.
> Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect
One of those Inconvenient Truths.
willcipriano
11 days ago
>One of those Inconvenient Truths.
But it's not at all an """Incovenient""" truth. The fact that plants use CO2 to grow, and that more CO2 can result in more ruffage growing is uncontroversial.
It also does nothing to offset the actual problems with increasing CO2 levels!
mrguyorama
11 days ago
Exactly, the US and Europe are free to reforest but choose not to for some unexplained reason.
Brazilian beef is frankly way less deforested than anything from the U.S. or Europe.
The three most forested countries in the world are Russia, Canada and Brazil in that order.
In all honesty I’m perfectly fine with the bans / boycotts it keeps farmers here poor and beef cheap.
_3u10
11 days ago
Russia is barely in the top 50 if you are talking as a percentage of land mass that is forest. (Russia 49, Canada 73, and Brazil 27... US is 89)
Finland, Sweden and Japan are the top 3 fully industiralized nations for forested land as a percentage of land mass.
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/AG.LND.FRST.ZS/r...
FuriouslyAdrift
11 days ago
Your source gives quite different numbers:
tlb
11 days ago
I listed rankings, not percentage
FuriouslyAdrift
11 days ago
North America (and the US) is greener than 20 years ago.
Europe is greener than 20 years ago.
Asia is greener than 20 years ago.
Africa is greener than 20 years ago.
The entire planet is greener than 20 years ago.
It has nothing to do with people planting trees and everything to do with Co2 being what plants eat.
willcipriano
11 days ago
Fully agree. The world was greenest during the Carboniferous when avg temps were 0 above modern levels and CO2 was 800ppm.
_3u10
11 days ago
That's my understanding as well: more carbon dioxide -> more green.
robertlagrant
11 days ago
If the Amazon was in the US or Europe, there'd be nothing left of it today.
rmbyrro
11 days ago
Not sure what leads to this believe, we have lots of untouched and well managed forests in the US. Sure we logged most of the eastern states but we also learned their importance before we completely destroyed them, hence wilderness and national park areas that can’t be logged.
mtnGoat
11 days ago
Same in many countries in Europe. Also see France's South American forests in French Guyana. Much better managed than Brazil's. Incomparable, actually.
merry_flame
11 days ago
Look up what the French did in Haiti and how it's like there nowadays. Hint: the forests gone is the "minor" issue left by the French.
rmbyrro
10 days ago
I agree with you on reforestation. As a matter of fact, Northern Europe was almost completely deforested only 100 years ago, and is now one of the greenest parts of the planet. Looking at old photographs from that time, you won't recognise places. It is disgusting listening to these Germans and French sitting on their high horses and trying to impose their will onto a country on the other side of the world, while not planting any trees in their own deforested nations.
carlosjobim
11 days ago
In Italy the amount of forest increased by about 75% in the past 80 years.
This is mostly due to the fact after WW2 lot of people stopped farming in the hills and mountains, and moved to urban areas. There are plenty of ghost towns in the Italian mountains.
[1] (link in Italian) https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/in-italia-mai-cosi-tante-for...
mrighele
11 days ago
"Green" is a 2-D layer of colour in a photograph.
"Forest" is a 3-D bulk tonnage of captured (for now at least) carbon dioxide.
This increase in the colour green that you tout hasn't made a dent in reducing the ever increasing amount of insulating CO2 in the atmosphere.
Otherwise yellow grasses being greener due to increased CO2 is of some small interest, but it's not the same as a similar area X height of large trees in terms of capture.
Just pragmnatic facts, not a "convenient" or "inconvenient" "truth".
Nice attempt at a tangent, pity it fell flat.
defrost
11 days ago
Killing off most of the bison shifted lots of land from grassland to forest. Forest is greener than grassland but doesn’t necessarily store more carbon.
More to your implied point, deforestation can happen one place and afforestation/reforestation another at the same time. Even a net increase in forest worldwide doesn’t make the loss of Brazilian rainforests are any better
lukas099
11 days ago
You can trace back where an animal grew up and lived by analyzing its isotopes. There's a unique pattern for every place on Earth.
emsign
11 days ago
A month or so ago a ship filled with 19,000 Brazilian cattle destined for the Middle East docked in Cape Town. The cows were living in such horrendous conditions that the stink of the ship took over the entire city. Living in pools of excrement, sick, lame, pregnant and even dead cows among them. The South African animal protection service had to put many down.
It's easy, its right to blame the Bolsonaro regime for having ramped up cattle farming in the Amazon leading to situations like this. It's harder to think of them when we have beef on our plates.
https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-cape/seven-h...
nanna
11 days ago
In this specific case, it's because Middle Eastern countries want live imports due to halal requirements.
Live exports should be entirely banned.
hpestyghr
11 days ago
Don't see why halal needs live imports. The main thing is theyre slaughtered in a halal way. Presumably it's just cheaper to ship them live (or just about) to the middle east and then slaughter them there than send halal qualified slaughters to Brazil and then ship over frozen meat.
Also, don't think it's right to let Brazil off the hook here - it's their cattle ranching practices and export legislation.
nanna
11 days ago
It’s really profitable to. I know a Greek fella that transports goats in bulk and has said it’s very profitable due to not many ships fitted to do it well.
mtnGoat
11 days ago
11 days ago
[flagged]
debacle
11 days ago
Now THIS is first world problems, having enough choices to be able to be picky.
luxuryballs
11 days ago
[dead]
aaron695
11 days ago
[flagged]
_3u10
11 days ago
Yeah, because crossing a border completely changes the flavour of the meat.
brabel
11 days ago
I’m no expert, but the beef cows I saw in Brazil were a noticeably different breed than the ones I see in the US.
arcticfox
11 days ago
I was talking about the distinction between the neighbouring countries of Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina.
brabel
11 days ago
It’s more the feed. If you’re getting factory farmed stuff yeah it’s all going to taste roughly the same.
But the Amazon, Chaco, and Pampas are wildly different ecological regions.
Will Argentine Chaco and Paraguayan Chaco taste roughly the same, yes.
But the pampas, that is where real beef comes from.
_3u10
11 days ago
Sure, but the Pampas are partly in Brazil as well... and there's probably a lot of beef from Argentina that is not from the Pampas region. I mean, you could just say "pampas beef" tastes better, that would make more sense.
brabel
11 days ago
You’re an idiot. If you get Brazilian, Argentine or Paraguayan beef it’s not from the triple frontier where they border each other. Anywhere other than that area are vastly different ecologies. Especially the beef growing areas.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1073718/number-cattle-li...
Where as in Argentina over half the cows are from the pampas not 10%
Go to a restaurant or grocery store and have a steak in each country, they are distinctly different.
_3u10
10 days ago
> You’re an idiot.
How classy, I can clearly see I am dealing with a very refined person.
brabel
10 days ago
[flagged]
swayvil
11 days ago
> You are locked in a cell with a kitten. You must punch the kitten in the face every day or else you will not be fed.
in my head, i already died the moment i became locked in a cell
everything I do after that just determines where i'm going next
i guess dont hang around people who have the habit of keeping jail cells and kittens around?
jareklupinski
11 days ago
You people are failing to grasp my metaphor.
Replace it with "the only way to feed my kids is by performing evil deeds, like trafficking in illicit beef".
What do you do when you are stuck in a game like that? You aren't exactly evil, but what are you?
What other games like this are there?
swayvil
11 days ago
> when you are stuck in a game like that
"we" people just aren't in the habit (or have overcome our desire) of getting stuck in evil games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-win_situation
> "the only winning move is not to play"
as long as the sun isn't terribly angry at its energy being used to help my heart beat, there should be a path to converting its energy into what i need in 2024
jareklupinski
11 days ago
You pay taxes under pain of imprisonment.
Your taxes fund maiming and killing innocent civilians.
That's one of those evil games.
swayvil
11 days ago
11 days ago
[flagged]
block_dagger
11 days ago
That doesn't sound like a solution, and it is not attainable at all unless we are talking about thousands upon thousands of years. Meat is culturally important, and only a small percentage of the global population is willing to give up on it.
PS: When you talk about mammals only, are you still pro-consumption of fish and avians?
augusto-moura
11 days ago
No, I think fish and avians should be avoided for consumption as well but the article is about beef and we need to start somewhere. Cows are sentient emotional social animals as we are.
block_dagger
11 days ago
No, there is no better protein
user90131313
11 days ago
Protein quality only matters if you’re not getting enough protein.
Here’s some good discussion you should read https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/barbell-medicine-protei...
lukas099
11 days ago
You could use Quorn instead and just eat more of it. It has less protein by weight, but more for the same number of calories. Also beans are very good.
aembleton
11 days ago
and Brasillians will have nothing to sell to us
skirge
11 days ago
I believe you are misinformed. Brazil is the top exporter in the world of several agricultural products and metals. Beef is not even in the top 10 exports from Brazil to the US.
https://tradingeconomics.com/brazil/exports/united-states
mtam
11 days ago
Brazil is the largest soybean producer in the world.
bilekas
11 days ago
Which… is largely fed to our livestock?
pgraf
11 days ago
If you want less rainforest torn down to grow soybeans, eat more soybeans.
MandieD
11 days ago
Soybeans aren't just good for food, they can be turned into fuel and plastics.
guhidalg
11 days ago
What about the cool carnival hats??
uneoneuno
11 days ago
[flagged]
andsmedeiros
11 days ago
> There is no ethical meat
Depends on your definition of ethical. Assuming you define it in terms of a lack of cruelty to the animals and their handlers then such meat does exist.
However, the vast majority of meat is not that. The issue is it's cheaper to produce meat unethically than it is to produce it ethically. Because of that, at every step in the production to mouth there's a strong incentive to go the cheap route rather than the ethical route.
cogman10
11 days ago
>a lack of cruelty
But doesn't this depend upon your definition of cruelty? I've seen vegans who define raising an animal for the purpose of eating it to be inherently cruel, even if it doesn't suffer any negative treatment until the day it is killed to be eaten.
Even this is just going with common enough definitions found in modern society. If we expand our scope of what ethics and what views of cruelty are allowed, there is no end to what results we see.
SkyBelow
11 days ago
Totally agree. And I don't fault people for taking such a position about livestock, it's not unreasonable. I don't land there myself but can see why others would.
It really just comes down to definitions.
cogman10
11 days ago
Honest question: what you expect people that live in grasslands (Mongolia for example) to eat?
speeder
11 days ago
[flagged]
micromacrofoot
11 days ago
That is the thing. USA people can do a lot to reduce their emissions. But when this anti-meat bullshit comes up, all it does is screw people from other countries that rely on meat due to their environment.
I am not from the USA, and got tired of whenever USA people do heavy anti-meat campaign people go bother me about it, but when I ask them what I am supposed to eat, then it is not their problem.
speeder
10 days ago
It doesn't screw anyone, the vast majority of people eat meat in almost every country. Vegetarians yield near zero power.
Are people going out of their way to bother you about it, or are you interjecting to make the discussion about you, like you're doing here?
micromacrofoot
10 days ago
I'm a vegetarian, and while not vegan, I take care to reduce animal products to a minimum, but IMO ethical meat exists. If a farmer has a few chickens running around, and he slaughters one for consumption, that's fine with me. It would only be unethical if you hold all (animal) life sacred, a very difficult position. It's the scale and means of meat production that makes meat consumption unethical and immoral.
tgv
11 days ago
Tell that to your genetic predecessors.
jonahbenton
11 days ago
Turns out the model of the primarily meat eating ancestors may be wrong.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
Which sort of makes sense when you consider our closest relatives are primarily plant eaters.
cogman10
11 days ago
Those are extremely recent ancestors, from less than ten thousand years ago. Moreover they were located in a place (the Andean highlands) where it is likely that there were not enough animals to allow them to sustain themselves by hunting.
Our ancestors have shifted to a diet with a large percentage of animal fat and meat, which has lead to a simplification of our digestive system, for more than a million years.
Only during a little more than the last ten thousand years there has been a reverse shift towards a lower percentage of animal food, most likely after we had exterminated most suitable wild animals, which forced us to become creative and discover agriculture, otherwise we might have become extinct, like our prey.
Now, with our reduced digestive system, we could not live eating the kind of plants eaten by a gorilla or even by a chimpanzee. We need much more nutritious food, which can be provided only by plant seeds, the only parts of plants that are rich in proteins.
adrian_b
11 days ago
If 30% of what they ate was meat, then roughly 3/5ths of their caloric intake was meat. And as the study you posted states, they were eating mammals not fish or birds.
debacle
11 days ago
I guess you're assuming this is about the weight of food they are eating. Why?
What they're actually doing is measuring the isotopes in the carbon of the bodies of the human remains. You don't get any carbon in your body from the water or from the fiber in plants.
So your estimate correction needs to go the other way - the study says that > 80% of carbon in the bodies of early human foragers comes from plants. That means that also > 80% of the caloric intake comes from plants. Or alternatively, it would mean that > 95% of what they ate (by weight) was plants.
nolverostae
11 days ago
11 days ago
"My predecessors did it" is not moral reasoning.
tmvphil
11 days ago
Tell them what? that we've grown so fat and stupid on the abundance the earth provides that we can't properly manage it and will probably cause millions undue suffering because we don't want to reduce our meat consumption to less than 250lbs per year despite it being easily possible?
micromacrofoot
11 days ago
Heh, I eat a lot of meat and still less than 250lbs per year. That's a perfectly fine number. The parent was saying that zero was the right number. Zero is really not the right number for much of the current human population. We shall see what happens in the future.
I'm with you that the collective we is fat and stupid and would go further than our various systems and patterns solve for predatory behavior against both humans and non-humans leading to those outcomes, and it is super unfortunate.
jonahbenton
11 days ago
250lbs per year is the american average
0 is a great number for rich countries to aspire to. Without some sort of massive crisis (which we're heading towards globally) it would probably take at least 100 years to even halve the current consumption levels. It took roughly 100 years to go from an average of 10lbs of chicken consumption per year (1920) to the current 70lb average (2020). Chicken is really where all the growth for meat consumption has come from.
Beef has been fairly steady per capita, and has decreased from its height a few decades ago — but the population keeps rising so it can't continue like this.
micromacrofoot
11 days ago
[dead]
AlgorithmicTime
11 days ago