543

We produce more resources than we could ever consume in the least sustainable ways possible. (mander.xyz)

submitted 13 hours ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

126 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Senal@programming.dev 13 points 10 hours ago

This mix of "things that are possible/reasonable" and "things that are wildly speculative" is interesting.

Producing beef is the most inefficient way to produce food, in both use of space and water, and energy.

Reasonable/possible

We don’t need to impose things on people if humanity reduces its beef consumption.

Wild speculation / nonsensical.

This is not at all how large societies have worked, in any time period, ever.

While it might be technically true, it's missing a whole bunch of steps in the middle for it to be a practicality.

If we cut beef consumption by half, literally oligarchs would not have an economic reason to deforest the Amazon, because of the price drops. But no one wants to do that.

Palm Oil
Real Estate
Mineral Speculation
Wood

And that was just off of the top of my head.

Oligarchs gonna oligarch, removing one revenue source isn't going to suddenly kill interest in the amazon, with it's abundant resources and space.

[-] potatoguy@mbin.potato-guy.space 5 points 10 hours ago

While it might be technically true, it's missing a whole bunch of steps in the middle for it to be a practicality.

As I said in my comment:

But no one wants to do that.

And about this:

And that was just off of the top of my head.

Beef is the major factor in the amazon, by a large margin, as in my original comment. Palm Oil is not a significant part in Brazil, nor real state. Mineral is mainly in Roraima, but not as big as beef, because it's based on small operations, there are a lot of sources on this for gold mining and the local Yanomami indigenous population that fights agains this (as this is done on their land).

[-] Senal@programming.dev 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

If you’re going to cherry pick at least cherry pick from the text being mentioned.

Your whole comment was :

If we cut beef consumption by half, literally oligarchs would not have an economic reason to deforest the Amazon, because of the price drops. But no one wants to do that.

and wasn’t the comment to which i was responding.

Beef is the major factor in the amazon, by a large margin, as in my original comment. Palm Oil is not a significant part in Brazil, nor real state. Mineral is mainly in Roraima, but not as big as beef, because it’s based on small operations, there are a lot of sources on this for gold mining and the local Yanomami indigenous population that fights agains this (as this is done on their land).

Cool story, still irrelevant to my point which was:

Oligarchs gonna oligarch

Create a revenue vacuum (like removing the biggest value stream in a region) and oligarchs gonna oligarch right in and expand another value stream to make up the difference.

I’m not advocating for this to happen, I’m saying that expecting beef reduction to remove oligarchs from the amazon is unrealistic.