We have solutions, or at least ways we could drastically improve things, but I guess folks would rather accept that they’ll be left with algae patties in the future rather than working to limit their animal consumption today. I don’t get it.

[–] Dee_Imaginarium@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who said it has to be one or the other? We can pursue these new methods for tomorrow while simultaneously cutting down on animal products today.

These two things are not mutually exclusive.

[–] mreiner@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree with you, and I never said they were mutually exclusive.

My comment was on how, in my admittedly limited experience, people see stories like this and seem to accept that they may have no choice but to eat stuff like this in the future while making no change to their current choices.

[–] PascalPistachios@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, I think there's a novelty factor in a lot of "innovations" that claim to be the secret to solving climate change. And while not inherently bad they sort of miss the picture in my opinion. Like, the future, in my opinion, should be made of trains and apartments. The dull things that we know work.

On a much more insidious level (not that I think anyone here has ill intent, nor the people working on these technologies) it almost implies that we don't have the technology to stop our impact on the climate. We have the technology, it's all political will.

[–] snowbell@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Calling apartments "dull" is a bit generous