Maybe not with you. But in most modern cities they are actively campaigning against meat, they are mostly using the moral card: you are destroying the planet. How fun.

It isn't a 0 or 1, prob good for you health wise and for the planet to eat a little less meat and a bit more veg. Just look at the data out there.

This last year I am really decreasing how much meat I eat (ill never give it up although I am excited about ground cricket meat and trying that). I am doing it for my health, costs, and because its good for the planet long term.

Data is sort of wildcard argument. Doesn't has any value if you don't point to specific.

Cashew cheese really is not better for the planet the local organic milk cheese.

In north of Holland there huge patches of land only cow can grace the land and nothing else grows, and there is an abundance of the water. Yet everyone complains about milk and meat taking too much wayer, and that growing plants would be more efficient.

It all depends, you cant just say "data".

Same with health. You really can't claim fried soya or pea protein is healthier then ground beef from a cow that spends his summers outside.

Sure, but buying a locally raised cow that is fed on local farmland is a lot better for the environment than steak from Argentina most of the time. The data around that is pretty solid.

I don't think cashew cheese grows in nature, i would never consider it vegetables and I am not advocating for processed foods. Merely stating that cutting down on how much meat you eat and eating more veg is better for your health and the planet. Well backed by data.

Well backed by data? What does that mean.

You missed the conclusion step

Sorry bit confused, you asked what data was and I sent you a big explanation? Sorry I am a bit literal at times, what are you requesting that you can't find on Google?

Lol, at any rate you are saying a bunch of statements that seem pretty shaky, saying they are backed by data, and not linking any sources. I guess the data is in another dimension or something.

For sure :)

I live in a quite progressive modern city (in central Europe though) and at least here it can't be very widespread as I've never noticed anything like that.

I've got a few friends who are vegan but it's mostly me doing the questioning as I'm curious about developments in that field (and agtech)

what destroys the planet is not meat or non-meat. Its mass production of [insert food here]. I have fun listening the vegan arguments until they are shown how their over-consumption of avocados or soy-based foods has devastating or exploiting effects on ecosystems and people.

But people (including you it seems) don't really understand the scale at which meat production harm the environment compared to vegetables. Yes, every mass production have problems, but with meat you need multiple times the amount of everything, because you first need to produce the food the cow or whatever eats, and then the meat production.

For instance, it's multiple times less co2 impact for me eating an avocado here in Norway that's been shipped half the globe around from south america, compared to eating meat from the local farm. The scales are just so incredibly different in production (vs transportation) that it's not to "gotcha" many believe to claim that something imported is automatically bad.

You can't honestly claim buying avacado's is better for the planet, it's wreaked social & ecological havoc in multiple south American countries with dried up rivers, gangs and lack of diversification of the income of a country.

Next to that it's not always Plants vs meats. In many places only cattle can graze but not much of value can grow.

The CO2 issue is really a terrible comparison. Everything cows put out has been put in from the air. The airplanes are excreting new/old CO2 taken from fossil fuels. Some claim cows are still worse because of methane, but they forget to mention methane only had 12 years lifespan in the atmosphere.

> it's wreaked social & ecological havoc in multiple south American countries with dried up rivers, gangs and lack of diversification of the income of a country.

The produce to feed the cattle is often detrimental to the environment too. They're not cutting down rain forests in Brazil to produce soy for meat substitutes but rather for produce to feed animals.

But it's absolutely important to eat local and if you're gonna eat meat ensure that the animal was fed local produce too.

You’d really rather have them making drugs than avocados?

The question is about scales (or proportions) -- yes, most mass produced foods, (e.g. avocados) wreaked havoc, but the scope meat production does that might be way larger.

> or soy-based foods

The vast majority of soy production, particularly the environmentally destructive production that’s converting rainforests in South America into farmland, is for animal feed, not human consumption: https://ourworldindata.org/soy

Bold of you to assume I'm not growing my own food.

Campaigning (for anything) is good, I see nothing wrong about it.

Active people will (and should) win, that's the law of nature.

100 years is a long time, if they're not seriously considering it, they should.

That timeline is long enough to also include the serious possibility of basically any weird currently-just-Sci-Fi option: https://youtu.be/Z_ZGq8Tah0k

We’re only a few disasters away from the government deciding that the climate crisis requires drastic measures, including a severe rationing of meat and other products considered harmful to the environment. It’s clear from the rhetoric that this is the direction we are moving in, and it’s also clear that the great percentage of the population will comply and even celebrate such restrictions.

Maybe it’s time we take action to reduce the severity of the crisis before we end up in the scenario you describe.

Institutional science is now politics. At this point there’s no way to systemically create the kind of feedback loop necessary to take any kind of intelligent action, nor is there political will. It’s far more politically expedient in the near term for the powers that be to say that whatever measures they’ve implemented are working and then let the networked tribe punish anyone who dissents.

I can’t walk about in public wearing a mask for any length of time without getting harassed, despite the continued prevalence of COVID and the worsening picture regarding long term consequences. I have trouble believing “it’s clear” that a great percentage of the population will comply, I think the handling of the early lockdowns has done for that. It seems more clear to me that governments will struggle to get compliance for any such measures at scale, based on attitudes since.

Where do you live? I walk around with a mask in the UK with zero issues, same with my partner and family.

Well, if we're talking about climate change action items, then it actually makes sense to me, although I cannot find any numbers on how effective it is (comparing, to, say, better insulation of house windows).

By the way, "the government deciding" sounds like it's totally detached from public wish. But in democratic countries public has a lot of influence on the government, way more than popular meme says (speaking as an emigrant from autocratic regime), it just public is not exercising their right (or really trust the government). So it's actually "people are going to decide".

If you could remove meat from the supply chain and be the main supplier for the alternative, why wouldn’t you choose to profit from that?

The upside for the politicians and suppliers seems too astronomical not to be at least thinking about it.