Research paper referenced in the video that makes Dr. Hossenfelder very worried:

Global warming in the pipeline: https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889

Abstract

Improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change yields Charney (fast-feedback) equilibrium climate sensitivity 1.2 ± 0.3°C (2σ) per W/m2, which is 4.8°C ± 1.2°C for doubled CO2. Consistent analysis of temperature over the full Cenozoic era—including ‘slow’ feedbacks by ice sheets and trace gases—supports this sensitivity and implies that CO2 was 300350 ppm in the Pliocene and about 450 ppm at transition to a nearly ice-free planet, exposing unrealistic lethargy of ice sheet models. Equilibrium global warming for today’s GHG amount is 10°C, which is reduced to 8°C by today’s human-made aerosols. Equilibrium warming is not ‘committed’ warming; rapid phaseout of GHG emissions would prevent most equilibrium warming from occurring. However, decline of aerosol emissions since 2010 should increase the 19702010 global warming rate of 0.18°C per decade to a post-2010 rate of at least 0.27°C per decade. Thus, under the present geopolitical approach to GHG emissions, global warming will exceed 1.5°C in the 2020s and 2°C before 2050. Impacts on people and nature will accelerate as global warming increases hydrologic (weather) extremes. The enormity of consequences demands a return to Holocene-level global temperature. Required actions include: (1) a global increasing price on GHG emissions accompanied by development of abundant, affordable, dispatchable clean energy, (2) East-West cooperation in a way that accommodates developing world needs, and (3) intervention with Earth’s radiation imbalance to phase down today’s massive human-made ‘geo-transformation’ of Earth’s climate. Current political crises present an opportunity for reset, especially if young people can grasp their situation.

My basic summary (I am NOT a climate scientist so someone tell me if I’m wrong and I HOPE this is wrong for my children), scientists had dismissed hotter climate models due to the fact that we didn’t have historical data to prove them. Now folks are applying hotter models to predicting weather and the hotter models appear to be more accurate. So it looks like we’re going to break 2C BEFORE 2050 and could hit highs of 8C-10C by the end of the century with our CURRENT levels of green house gases, not even including increasing those.

EDIT: Adding more sources:

Use of Short-Range Forecasts to Evaluate Fast Physics Processes Relevant for Climate Sensitivity: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019MS001986

Short-term tests validate long-term estimates of climate change: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01484-5

  • mnmalst@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    We, or I might have to accept that a species, no matter how intelligent on an individual basis, is doomed to go extinct when the collective intelligence is not able to mitigate long term consequences.

      • Jeredin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        No society should have any businesses or individuals that are ultra rich. It’s one thing to surround yourself with materialistic goods and services, but to use that wealth as power and control over a huge majority is evil. I suspect when the ultra rich have proper self-repairing droves of service robots, worker drones and obedient AI, they won’t have use for most of us - I am not being hyperbole in writing this…

  • ShaunaTheDead@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’ve watched Sabine for awhile, she’s a really great science reporter who keeps things simple and pretty brief. Just a note though, I feel like she sometimes takes very skeptical and conservative views on some subjects where she doesn’t really have any expertise. It also makes me kind of uncomfortable how she seems to be obsessed with Elon Musk, she mentions him in basically every video.

    Despite all that, she’s pretty great, check her out, just keep in mind she talks about a lot of things she isn’t an expert in.

    • zynlyn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      70
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      I followed her for a few months but eventually stopped because I found her too inconsistent and sensationalized in many of the videos. Generally I’ve liked her physics coverage, but most other topics I feel like I’m doing myself a disservice listening to her. A lot of her material seems like Facebook meme quality content with a physics professor aesthetic

      • datavoid@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I had to unfollow her, her sensationalistic thumbnails and stupid video titles are way too much for me to handle.

        • EightLeggedFreak@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          That is why I have never watched one of her videos. YouTube tends to have at least one from her on the home page, and I don’t want to even give her a chance because of how clickbaity it is (along with 90% of the videos they push). I’m not even going to watch this one. I just came to the comments to validate my opinion lol.

      • Thorry84@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Agreed.

        Even with the physics stuff if it’s something I am familiar with, she just shits all over it. She acts like the general public / media understanding of a topic is what the people doing the work actually think. No, we are REQUIRED to write a blurb for the media department. The media department runs with it and publishes press releases which are 50% BS to start with. Then the general media picks it up (if they pick it up, mostly nobody cares) and the BS factor gets pushed to 11.

        Like it’s good to set the record straight and educate people what a topic is really about, but it can be done in a respectful and non-condescending / non-confrontational way. She just likes to shit on everything for no reason and usually doesn’t even go into the details, just surface level. It’s like an armchair quarterback but for science nerds.

        Usually I don’t watch any of her non physics content, it’s way too cringe for me (especially the non funny jokes, like is the joke meant to be not funny and that’s the joke or?) and the whole Elon Musk thing feels like an obsession mixed with algorithm feeding mixed with hello fellow kids. The face filters she uses is also very weird and uncanny valley. When I do sometimes see something non-physics and it’s a topic I know, I get the same vibes, like very surface level, Facebook meme quality (great description @zynlyn ). And a lot of the times she gets stuff wrong and almost never goes back to correct any of it or take videos down where it’s proven to be total BS. Like the video she did on trans people which was panned by basically everybody and debunked by many people knowledgeable on the subject from different angles. That’s still up and it most definitely should not be, or have big disclaimer.

    • copymyjalopy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah, ever since she decided to weigh in on the transgender “debate” with a “science says you don’t exist” take I’ve moved on. That and the really odd “Yay Capitalism!” Video.

      It’s always important to evaluate whether the speaker is an actual expert in the field they’re talking about or are they an expert in a different field and just think they can speak to subjects outside their field with the same authority.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          100%. If she just stuck to her realm of expertise. I’d probably still be watching her videos today. They were entertaining enough. Not Greg. But good enough. But those videos right there. Sapped any interest and Goodwill I had.

  • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Okay, so, as others have expressed in this thread, I don’t completely trust Sabine as a science communicator. Can someone who knows what they’re talking about about shed some light on this paper and/or Sabine’s video?

    • ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      I can’t say much about this paper, but I like Sabine. She can be like judge Judy sometimes but I’d rather hear a hot take than a tepid one.

      Friends of mine have complained how she’s strayed away from physics videos towards more general science. She can also be a little condescending towards string theorists’ research interests

      Other people might get uncomfortable when it comes down to her videos on free will.

      For this paper however, it seems Climate targets in recent years have been under estimating global warming and have to accelerate their models each year. She seems worried this opens up the possibility of 4-6C of warming.

  • stalfoss@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    Downvoted out of principle for the ridiculous clickbait YouTube title/thumbnail. I can’t stand them, and I don’t care that it helps them get more engagement with the algorithm, the algorithm sucks.

    • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Agreed, 15 minute videos with two minutes of info in them are an absolute scourge on Lemmy

      Especially on an science based community, article or gtfo

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Agreed, 15 minute videos with two minutes of info in them are an absolute scourge on Lemmy

        Are you stating that generally, or in reference to Sabine’s video that OP linked? If it is the latter, I would question if you even watched her video.

        • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          Of course I didn’t! I see a video with a thumbnail like that, I’d rather hammer nails into my feet than watch it 😂

    • Daefsdeda@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I get it though. If it is your job and you are struggling than I get why you would do that. Maybe now it goes viral and maybe now it gets sustainable. It is a hard game and don’t hate the player.

  • TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I no longer trust Sabine when it comes to anything but physics.

    She has proven time and again to oversimplify and assume her correctness in topics she has on expertise on.

    • Sodis@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Her video on nuclear reactors was awful. She just neglected facts, that didn’t fit her narrative.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Her videos that touch on some psychology/sociology topics are even worse. As a psychologist I disagree with everything she says whenever she is not talking about her very narrow niche of expertise.

            • dasgoat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Yeah. Just because she’s capable of interpreting large data models, that doesn’t make her an expert on every field that uses data. And her pretending she is makes her a worse scientist even in her own field of study.

              Edit;

              ALSO how is she a scientist AND ‘not worried’ about climate change until she saw these numbers? How hard is it to accept that there is a field of thousands of researchers who are all screaming about climate change?

              • dustyData@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                Personal theory: she is a conservative scientists. They exist. She has a hard time reconciling her world view with her professional career. Thus the weird videos over sensitive topics that are apologetic about the conservative worldview. Hence why I don’t trust her whenever she is talking about anything but neutron interactions in nuclear physics.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Even on physics you can’t trust her necessarily.

      She’s prone to pushing fringe theoretical physics ideas without contextualizing the degree to which they are fringe.

      Not a bad resource for physics explanations and discussion - just take with a grain of salt.

    • MoistMogwai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Agreed, used to really enjoy the videos, but saw the same thing. Rebecca Watson does some good videos taking Sabine to task on this.

  • wabafee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Ironic conversation with someone close, we were strolling nearby a river. Comments about river being dirty, talks about people on this area lack of dicipline. After awhile buys a bottle of water then proceed to throw plastic beside the road, nearby the river. Me Surprised Pikachu face.

    • Spzi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      A dark sense of hope here: At least some of us are able to adapt quickly.

      • OurTragicUniverse@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I REALLY hope that doesn’t happen. Our species is a fucking horror show of wars and bigotry. We should end when we kill our planet.
        Prolonging this suffering isn’t going to make humans a nicer creature, the authoritarianism, greed and corruptability is hardwired in. Can you imagine the sheer scale of fucking misery if humans filled other resource rich planets up with people?

        • SendMePhotos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          I can imagine planets being dedicated to serve a single purpose like the districts of the hunger games.

          • OurTragicUniverse@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            It’s going to be slavery and strip mining on a scale that’s unimaginable.
            And trillionaire capitalists won’t need to worry about ““human rights”” on their colonies, those are barely enforced on earth now as it is. Endless generations of slaves will never know any other life. That will be the human legacy if we colonise space.

  • xkforce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    It is insane that there are scientists out there that weren’t worried about climate change until now. And dissappointing that Sabine was apparently one of them.

  • Lath@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Maybe authorities don’t care about climate change because they plan on making it a moot point by 2050.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Reagan planned on making Climate Change a moot point thanks to nuclear holocaust, but he couldn’t provoke the Soviets into a first strike and didn’t have the heart to pull a Stillson. (He should have known better. China relayed the Soviet plan for Мирное сосуществование and Carter was fully on board.

      Anyway, the cold war ended and Germany reunified, and now we didn’t kill ourselves with nukes, and death by mostly famine is looking like a grim possibility. (I was rooting for AI takeover or science experiment mishap if we had to choose a near-future great filter) We knew shit was bad in the 1990s and aughts, and the science sector had strong data analysis in the seventies (when there was a strong conservation movement). But capitalism prevailed and Reagan got elected which was the beginning of the dusk of America.

  • Nudding@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    This lady is fantastically entertaining, thank you for the discovery!

    Shame about the climate, hopefully whatever takes over after humans can live in harmony with its environment ✌️

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      She’s fine, as long as you don’t take what she says at face value. Or automatically accept it. She has felt compelled to make videos on topics she really had no standing or need to. Packed with misinformation and false premise. When it comes to physics related things. Like climate change, she’s probably fine. But if you want to see something so bad and wrong it’s beyond cringe. Go check out her videos on trans issues and capitalism at least. I used to enjoy watching her and her schtick. But since then I have not watched a single new video of hers. Because she’s not that Entertaining. And if she doesn’t bother to make sure the information she’s presenting is correct and just talks from her fee fees. What the point.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          When it comes to topics like particle physics and other physics related things. She’s pretty decent. It’s what she studied, it’s what she does. So she tries to be cautious and responsible when it comes to that. Unfortunately that doesn’t apply to other subjects. Which is why you have to be careful with anyone, not just her. But those videos definitely did sour me on her.

      • Argonne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        9 months ago

        Get over it. Those videos happened and every single fucking time there’s a new video some blowhard brings those up. This video has absolutely nothing to do with those videos. This is about climate change. It’s a very informative video. What are your criticisms of this video?

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          We bring it up for a reason. When it comes to science content, we want accuracy and factualness. You are okay with lies and fantasy. That’s a you thing. so you do you.

          It’s not like it’s even a rare or unheard of thing either. Other YouTubers like scishow regularly correct themselves. When they find out the information they presented was inaccurate. Sabine could do that too. But to my knowledge she hasn’t yet. And that’s the problem.

          Even then it wasn’t like she simply misplaced the decimal point or misstated something accidentally. It was horribly inaccurate shit takes. At odds with history, psychology, biology etc. Further, this sort of content was completely out of her wheelhouse. If she wanted to express her personal held feelings and emotions surrounding these topics. It would have been better on a second channel. Devoted to that sort of thing. It’s hard to take someone’s science channel seriously when they stop doing science and start doing propaganda. That’s all.

          It’s just really telling that you are more at odds with people who have lost respect for her over her lack of professionality. As opposed to her for not being professional.

          • Argonne@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            9 months ago

            I’m not at odds with people who don’t respect her. I’m at odds of people bringing up the same two videos over and over again. Should she have made those videos? No. We both agree with that. Does she owe an apology video for that? No, I don’t believe she does. YouTube is not a scientific journal, it’s a media outlet. Her main contribution to the channel is educating us on science and explaining things in ways we can understand. I accept that she will make mistakes sometimes because she is trying to put out way too much content than she has knowledge for. Unfortunately that’s how YouTube works, you either put out content or you lose algorithm power.

            What I don’t have respect for is scientists who try to put people down just because they made a few mistakes and don’t go groveling and make a sorry video about it. It’s an insufferable and arrogant, snobbish attitude. Absolutely unnecessary. Point out the mistake and move on. I’m not a scientist and I greatly benefit from watching her videos because it helps me understand. Then I read comments like yours that make her sound like a hack. It makes me severely upset that we pick on a few bad videos instead of acknowledging the hundreds of useful videos. Absolutely ridiculous. I have no respect for rabid people like that and that’s what made me write that comment. And then at the end you take a shot at me for deciding to speak out about it. Fitting snobbish behavior. Have a good life

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              Well then to quote someone you might know, “get over it”. I believe that was you? Am I quoting you right?

              If you want to be upset at someone, be upset at her for making and never having retracted the videos. As long as they’re out there people are going to point to them as reasons why she is not a reliable narrator. If she just wants to be a talking head, reading science, headlines etc. And giving insight as a particle physicist or a personal view of things from a particle physics standpoint. I’m all for it. That wasn’t what those videos were. They were well out of her wheelhouse. She was using it as a false appeal to her authority to push her feelings, not the facts.

              If she wants to start a second channel to post her shit takes. Then she should do it. (By the way, I’m told it’s more than just the two videos now. There’s at least a third or possibly even a fourth one.) Keep the professional stuff all on one channel and all the ignorant bigoted stuff on a separate channel. She could call it something catchy like Sabine takes instead of shit takes. But I’m not going to point anyone to her channel or recommend anyone visit her channel as long as she mixes in bullshit like that with actual insightful analysis.

              Again, if you have issues with me not liking her character. That is between you and her. It is not a me problem.

            • Sodis@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              As a scientist, it is tremendously important for us, that people trust our science. We saw, what happens, if enough neglect science with Covid and now climate change. Scientists like her, who stray from their area of expertise and report false facts, just damage our reputation. I mean, you seem to have a pretty bad opinion of scientists.
              Of course people can make mistakes. That’s actually a fundamental principle of science to be wrong a lot. It’s how you handle these mistakes, that matters. Adapt your views to the new information, do not stick to wrong facts, because you don’t like to admit, that you were wrong.
              The problem with people like her is, that they gain trust by making videos about topics, where they are very knowledgeable. Then they use this trust for other content and they do not put any disclaimer about that in it. So people who watch it and are not knowledgeable in the topic of the video think, that they will get the same quality. But they don’t. We have enough misinformation swirling around, we don’t need more published by reputable persons.
              You write yourself, that she describes stuff in a way, that you can understand it. But how do you judge, if she explains a topic correctly according to the current state of science, if you have no clue about it yourself? She could just bullshit you on every video without you knowing.

    • frunch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Agreed, there are much better sources for info on this incredibly important topic

      • doublejay1999@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Indeed. It was a flippant response from me, but I haven’t got much patience for these articles any more.

  • TCB13@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    9 months ago

    Because maybe people are feeling like this is all very questionable.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not denying climate change on a larger scale, I’m just saying that most of the studies that were used to say there’s climate change and to push policies such as reducing the production of meat are, most likely, made to support such policy changes that in reality aren’t driven by climate change but by some other economic / market factor.

    Take a look at this: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2XW1LX/

    Meme comparing jugs of water and ice does not prove sea level rise is a hoax The meme is not proof that melting ice sheets do not cause sea levels to rise, however, and does not accurately represent the change in volume when land-based ice melts into the oceans. “The correct analogy for land ice melting isn’t showing ice floating in a glass of ice water, it’s adding a whole bunch of new ice to the glass,”

    While the meme clearly fails to take in account all that mass of ice that sits on land it still has some truth to it because people like Al Gore said “I predict all ice caps will melt by 2014” something that we now know wasn’t true.

    Details, as usual, are very important and people like Al Gore carefully cherry-picked them in order to build their arguments and sell a view of the world that wasn’t close the reality of things. We’ve been on this path with governments, public figures and large companies for a while now and people are just fed up of it all - that’s why she gets downvotes on her videos.

    • max@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      9 months ago

      How is the consumption of meat not a climate change issue? It produces a fuckton of greenhouse gases, uses an immense amount of water, and is actively contributing to monoculture crops in (for example) the Amazon.

      • TCB13@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        37
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        What’s your suggestion as alternative? Being vegan is even worse for the environment. Aren’t Avocados also a monoculture?

        We’ve to eat something and preferably not crickets. There’s no excuse to cut on meat production, especially during the food crisis that Ukraine / Russia created for Europe.

          • TCB13@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            39
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yes it is, you’re talking about mass producing tons of very specific plans, poisoning everything with monsanto and it required more land and for what’s worth it might not be that healthy. We should eat about everything not just plants.

            • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              9 months ago

              And producing meat uses 2 to 7 times (depending on what animal) the amount of mass produced monoculture to feed the animals instead of just eating the food ourselves. Ideally animals would just eat scraps or graze on land not suitable for growing things, but the industry requires exact growth rates and predictable schedules in large volumes.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                15
                ·
                9 months ago

                producing meat uses 2 to 7 times (depending on what animal) the amount of mass produced monoculture to feed the animals instead of just eating the food ourselves

                most people don’t want to eat the byproduct of soybean oil production, and we can’t live on grass.

                animals aren’t fed stuff that would land on our plate (for the most part) so it’s not like it’s an option to just eat their feed instead of giving it to them.

                • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Animals are just fed small amounts of byproduct in industrial agriculture right now. The largest part of the animal feed is soy itself, rice, wheat and corn and those are things we do eat.

            • calzone_gigante@lemmy.eco.br
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              9 months ago

              You know that livestock needs to eat, right ? And they eat a ton of food, we spend a lot of resources just to produce their food, and about health, the healthy amount of meat is way less that people eat today, people should eat less meat, not everyone needs to stop, but they should reduce.

            • krellor@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              9 months ago

              So first there is a difference between reduction of meat products and an elimination. Having people consume less meat is good and helpful even if they don’t cut it out completely.

              Second, as a vegetarian, I don’t understand what you mean by producing a bunch of monocultures. Do you think vegans just sit around all day eating avocados? I eat very little dairy or egg, and my diet consists largely of beans, rice, chilli, bread, stir fry, tofu, peanuts/legumes, veggies, baked potatoes, sandwiches, etc. I eat a large variety of staple goods cooked into a variety of dishes from around the world, and classic American fare, just without meat. Avocados and other resource intensive crops like almonds are a minority of my diet by a large margin. Things like beyond meat is also an infrequent treat.

              Edit: here’s a decent article. https://www.nytimes.com/article/plant-based-diet.html

              Generally speaking, a plant-based diet consists largely of vegetables, fruit, beans, legumes, grains and nuts, with little or no meat, dairy or fish.

              Yet another major study has recently been published, showing that eating a plant-based diet is significantly better for the environment than eating a meat-based diet.

              The research, conducted by Oxford University, found that people who follow a meat-free diet are responsible for 75 percent less in greenhouse gas emissions than those who eat meat every day, and that following a low-meat, vegetarian or pescatarian diet is proportionally less detrimental to land, water and biodiversity than a meat-heavy diet.

              Referenced research: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w

            • xkforce@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I just wonder wtf you think the animals we eat are eating if not plants? Space magic?

                • Apollo@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  What do you suppose they already grow to feed the majority of the meat animals we eat?

                  We already produce more than enough food to feed the planet, and we’d have 10x more if we ate what we feed industrially farmed animals.

        • kaffiene@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          Veganism is definitely better for the planet than meat eating. Just reducing how much meat you eat also helps. It’s not hard, just take one step in the right direction

        • ragica@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Crickets is a good alternative. Especially when sprinkled on avacado toast.

    • kaffiene@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      You’re wrong. Meat production produces a lot of methane and carbon. It’s also pretty poor for land and water usage.