Modelled estimates of the environmental impact of dietary choices often fail to reflect true dietary practice. This study links a dietary dataset from 55,000 UK consumers with food-level data on GHG emissions, land use, water use, eutrophication and biodiversity to compare the environmental burden of different levels of meat consumption.
Right.
This means that you’re free to publicize your own stupidity as you’re doing here, getting triggered by science.
But I am also free to make fun of your ignorant attitude.
Well english is not my first language, i didn’t express my thoughts in the first comment like i wanted.
What i wanted to say in the first place is that of course having a balanced diet is the best, but no one should impose a balanced diet on other people. Take a random guy that he only want to eat meat or fish. No one should be able to force him into changing his diet.
Look. I posted a science article. The article claims that diets rich in animal products are bad for the environment. That is all. If you want to dispute this, please publish scientific literature proving the contrary.
We’re not talking about balanced diets (by the way, very possible both in a vegetarian and a vegan regime).
Neither the article, me or any of the other commenters suggested that it should be illegal to eat whatever you want. I honestly have no idea where you got this impression.
Contrary to what you might have heard, environmentalists are not fascists.
This community is for those who care about the environment. If you don’t care, if you care more about your steak than about a living planet, I don’t know why you’re here.
@zShxck @tetraodon the problem is you’re mixing up survival with capitalism. If you only have the option of eating fish bc you live in extremely poor conditions then eat fish, no choice unfortunately. If you live in a rich country, you earn big bucks and have the option of eating meat vs something else, the right thing to do is eating something else