can
David RobertsBeef: it's destroying the earth. You should eat less of it, or none.
This conclusion is backed by *mountains* of evidence, but man, people hate it.
www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...
usnews.com/opinion/articl...
usnews.com/opinion/articl...
Since I know you're going to fill the replies to this tweet with nonsense about how you only eat artisanal cows, hand fed acorns & given regular massages by compassionate farm companions, I'll just cc @mikegrunwald.bsky.social & let him respond. You're it, Mike!
lgsp@volts.wtf how many things like this: damaging the planet, backed by huge scientific evidence, with existing alternatives, but somehow backed by majority of humanity. Let me name the 2 I have in mind:
- cars
- oil
- cars
- oil
Netux@volts.wtf we recycle and do our part, the amount beef contributes to global warming is bad, but until the fucksticks that create the vast majority of the pollution roll back some, we may as well have a little hedonism. We can't stop the world from burning, so we may as well fiddle a little bit.
Being ascetic while the rich continue does nothing but contribute to our own misery while they continue to make normal people feel like they aren't doing enough.
@volts.wtf
ITT: people hating the evidence
ITT: people hating the evidence
Jay Stephens@volts.wtf
As a vegetarian, I was amazed when I actually looked at the stats to discover that (purely in terms of environmental harm) just switching from beef to chicken gets you 90% of the way there vs beef-to-veg.
As a vegetarian, I was amazed when I actually looked at the stats to discover that (purely in terms of environmental harm) just switching from beef to chicken gets you 90% of the way there vs beef-to-veg.
αxel simon ↙︎↙︎↙︎@volts.wtf Also, the cows hate being eaten.
And "even if it sucks for the chickens" is some euphemism. Trying not to get angry here, but it's difficult after so many years to see the depth of thought on the issue still so basic.