Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

In defense of myself not being a big meanie:

> You know what‘s a caveman take? Thinking that there is any chance to convince a meaningful number of people to reduce meat consumption globally in the required time window

The "caveman take" I'm referring to is when you implied the correct solution to climate change is suicide.

It's a caveman take because I've heard it numerous times, and it lacks all nuance or thought. Yes, we emit CO2 by existing the way we do. We can improve our situation without going to extremes. This is a "perfect is the enemy of good" type thought process.

It's what I call an anti-solution. It doesn't solve anything, but it does completely halt the conversation and makes sure that other real solutions can't pop up.

> As you can see, the type of meat matters a lot. Cheese is doing worse than pork in this example (not sure I even believe this without more evidence yet). Non-meat sources of protein don‘t do very well: Tofu is just 2x better than poultry. Compare this to the giant bar for beef.

Okay, but none of this was in your original comment. You talked about raising chickens, which I appropriately clocked as a not real solution that isn't going to work.

Eating more chicken and less beef is good, I agree, and a reasonable solution. You should probably lead with that.





Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: