Humans need some meat in their ration, and lab grown replacements etc are now too expensive for most of the planet.
However, “some” doesn’t mean a burger or two every day, so yes, there’s space for improvement. Meat is really expensive in terms of carbon emissions.
Frankly I’m not sure how one would notably reduce emissions of anything without actual control (like by force) over most of the world, where green stuff is less relevant than hunger and illiteracy.
But maybe it’s best that USA and EU and similar developed countries don’t have that control. I mean, green energy etc sometimes seem more important than actual lives being saved for many.
No, humans do not need meat. This is plain false! You can greatly decrease emissions by cutting out animal consumption and the FAO has been pleading for a global plant based diet for ages…
How much more expensive would such a diet be? Some plant-based foods can cost a lot depending on place and logistics.
That’s the question, and it’s an important one - it’s the same reason as why, say, WWW which started decentralized has become what it is now for most people. People do what’s easier and cheaper for them.
I’m not calling people “soy boys”, but people for whom you have to make such a diet not even plausible, but cheaper or as cheap as the existing ones, do not live in developed countries. Talk about the environment is not worth anything else for them.
I think that as soon as green alternatives are tastier and cheaper than the alternative, they will become more popular, like how solar panels are popular now that they are cheaper than coal power
Well, yes, this requires production of similar scale at every stage of the chain. With animals it’s animal food, drugs, various machinery in production, etc, which also cost less due to scale on which they are produced.
Green alternatives in this case have a potential be honestly (without subsidies or anything) cheaper in the end.
Humans need some meat in their ration, and lab grown replacements etc are now too expensive for most of the planet.
However, “some” doesn’t mean a burger or two every day, so yes, there’s space for improvement. Meat is really expensive in terms of carbon emissions.
Frankly I’m not sure how one would notably reduce emissions of anything without actual control (like by force) over most of the world, where green stuff is less relevant than hunger and illiteracy.
But maybe it’s best that USA and EU and similar developed countries don’t have that control. I mean, green energy etc sometimes seem more important than actual lives being saved for many.
No, humans do not need meat. This is plain false! You can greatly decrease emissions by cutting out animal consumption and the FAO has been pleading for a global plant based diet for ages…
How much more expensive would such a diet be? Some plant-based foods can cost a lot depending on place and logistics.
That’s the question, and it’s an important one - it’s the same reason as why, say, WWW which started decentralized has become what it is now for most people. People do what’s easier and cheaper for them.
I’m not calling people “soy boys”, but people for whom you have to make such a diet not even plausible, but cheaper or as cheap as the existing ones, do not live in developed countries. Talk about the environment is not worth anything else for them.
I think that as soon as green alternatives are tastier and cheaper than the alternative, they will become more popular, like how solar panels are popular now that they are cheaper than coal power
Well, yes, this requires production of similar scale at every stage of the chain. With animals it’s animal food, drugs, various machinery in production, etc, which also cost less due to scale on which they are produced.
Green alternatives in this case have a potential be honestly (without subsidies or anything) cheaper in the end.