• jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    7 months ago

    Actually, quite the opposite. As long as you buy beef, cattle will continue to be a major driver of climate change. Under capitalism, it only gets produced because you buy it

    • metaStatic@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      isn’t it heavily subsidized? I appreciate that you’re using a textbook definition of capitalism but that’s not how anything actually works.

      • Pan_Ziemniak@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Indeed! I would add to this, we also heavily subsidize corn and wheat production as well. We waste an inordinate amount of what should be prairie land just so we can put up a bunch of beyond inefficient farms so that the rich can continue making money off of what theyve already been profiting off of.

        Id also like to remind everyone that this sort of farming killed our prairies. In effect, this puts us at risk of another dust bowl due to the difference in size of root systems between corn/wheat and prairies tall grasses, and exacerbates the climate crisis further as prairies are incredibly efficient at pulling carbon out of our atmosphere.

        • Chocrates@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          And it isn’t just the plants. It is the centuries of plants that have lived and died to build the soil. Modern practices burn up the old plants (often, though no till and no burn practices to exist and are growing in popularity) making the soil consistently lose fertility. Also we cover them in pesticides and herbicides and monocrops.

          • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Fun fact: The guy in the “It’s not much but it’s honest work” meme was a pioneer in no-till agriculture, and helped to research methods and popularize the practice. He did tremendous work in helping to reduce runoff and save our soils.

            Honest work, indeed.

      • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Worldwide? Not necessarily, no. Most of the growth in beef demand in particular is in developing nations. Subsidies increase access, but they don’t create demand in and of themself

        • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          In my country meat is heavily subsided and if was put to market at true price less people would buy it.

          They don’t remove them because It would piss off a lot of business to remove the subsidies overnight and many would lose jobs. But I say fuck them, it’ll work out in the long run

        • baru@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Subsidies increase access, but they don’t create demand in and of themself

          If something is significantly lowered in price, wouldn’t that affect demand? If not, why would it suddenly work differently?

          You should also see how much of the EU budget directly goes to farming. That’s just direct subsidies, there’s also loads of indirect ones.

    • Chocrates@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yes you are right, but we don’t live in a truly free market. There are all kinds of shenanigans that happen to make our decisions have less impact. Also advertising has to be accounted for. Corporations use neuroscience to convince us to do things against our best interest. How can we account for that?