Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

Re:Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to t... by kelnos on Tuesday January 08, 2019 @03:54PM (#18859590)

You can reduce your carbon footprint by orders of magnitude more by not having children, or having fewer children, but I don't see as many people advocating for voluntary sterilization (or even just abstaining from childbearing). Most people believe it's their deity-given right (and often imperative) to keep reproducing, even if our environment suffers as a result.

I point this out to suggest that at the end of the day all of this is emotional and is largely driven by how we were socialized and raised from a very young age. It's often difficult to get people to agree with rational arguments when those arguments contradict a lifetime of programming.

Having said all that, I've found that the environmental argument is the only one that gives me pause around my meat consumption.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to t... by groestl on Tuesday January 08, 2019 @04:51PM (#18860096)

Reducing the number of children is an aspect that rarely comes up in discussions about environmental impact (not necessarily about food), even though I find it a very compelling argument. In some countries (hint: not the US, or most of Europe), there is not even a need for much advocacy, as the concept is descriptive: fertility-rate times planetary-footprint is less than 2, so in the long run, those countries would actually be using zero resources.

[ Parent | on HN ]