Red meat has a huge carbon footprint because cattle requires a large amount of land and water.

https://sph.tulane.edu/climate-and-food-environmental-impact-beef-consumption

Demand for steaks and burgers is the primary driver of Deforestation:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-beef-industry-fueling-amazon-rainforest-destruction-deforestation/

https://e360.yale.edu/features/marcel-gomes-interview

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-06-02/almost-a-billion-trees-felled-to-feed-appetite-for-brazilian-beef

If you don’t have a car and rarely eat red meat, you are doing GREAT 🙌🙌 🙌

Sure, you can drink tap water instead of plastic water. You can switch to Tea. You can travel by train. You can use Linux instead of Windows AI’s crap. Those are great ideas. But, don’t drive yourself crazy. If you are only an ordinary citizen, remember that perfect is the enemy of good.

  • acargitz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    What a bullshit dilemma.

    And you are wrong that wealth inequality causes the drop in birth rates. The birth rate was higher in the Dickensian times of Britain compared to now. If anything, it is wealth equality, universal positive rights, and women’s liberation that tend to make people have fewer kids.

    A ecosocialist world is a sustainable one. An ecofascist world is just a death spiral.

    • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      An ecosocialist world would not allow wealth inequality to become this bad.

      It’s a biological fact when resources are constrained that a population will plateu.

      • acargitz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        An ecosocialist world would not allow wealth inequality to become this bad.

        We don’t live in one. The challenge is to make one.

        It’s a biological fact when resources are constrained that a population will plateu.

        Mice and fleas don’t have medicine, feminism, research centres and agriculture. Look at the world around you. In societies with high degrees of scarcity and high infant mortality, humans have tended to have a lot of babies. This is true now, and it was true historically. On the flipside, in societies with high development indexes, humans tend to not have many kids. From Japan to Sweden to Cuba, you see that fertility rates inversely correlate with human development. These are just observable facts.

        • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          The vestiges of mutual aid left in our society do not meaningfully counteract every generation having 1/2-1/4th of the resources their parents did.

          These resource constraints limit population growth, humans are smart enough to see what’s coming, and many voluntarily don’t reproduce. We’re already seeing wealth inequality force our birth rate decline.