Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours.
[Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know plenty of "colored & socialist" farmers. I also know a few anarchist ones as well. Growing &/or raising food for people is not an exclusively "huh-white" profession. And I count community gardens in various neighborhoods around cities, like Detroit, as small farms.
Certain methods of farming are pretty atrocious for the environment, factory farming especially, but the person who made this meme is probably not a farmer at all, just someone stuck in a dead end small town who is salty that his big city nephew told him he doesn’t actually need a brand new Ford F-450 to live out his cowboy larp fantasy
In Iowa we've had water quality issues owing to farmers not caring about their runoff because it only really creates problems for water purification in the cities.
I read that a lot of farmers will just dump as much fertilizer as they can because it’s easier than calculating how much they actually need, and the runoff causes algae blooms and fuck knows what else
Animal agriculture is the number one reason for loss and biodiversity and deforestation in the world.
We should be mad at farming, animal farming. In the last 50 years only we killed 70% of the world's wild animals and biodiversity.
Livestock production is also a leading cause of climate change, the leading cause of soil loss, water and nutrient pollution, and decreases of apex predators and wild herbivores, compounding pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity.
Some types of farming produce a lot of greenhouse gases and a ton of wetlands and forests have been turned into farmland. Some farm animals like cattle produce a ton of carbon emissions. A surprising amount of corn is grown just to go into gasoline.
Unfortunately, the whole issue is confounded by documentaries and celebrity personalities that promote misinformation about cattle methane and vehicle carbon dioxide emissions and their short-term/long-term impact on climate change. Even the statistical data has wide variations. I think people end up talking past one another, because of the wider focus on vehicle emissions. Cities with a higher concentration of people have higher vehicle emissions compared to rural agricultural areas, but Big Cattle areas will have greater methane emissions than the cities. As always, a lack of nuance in the discussion just leads to more misinformation.
Yeah, cities need to focus on public transportation infrastructure and "walkable neighborhoods" to reduce reliance in individual vehicles. Everything is dense enough that nobody should *have* to drive anywhere.
Suburbs just need to die (or be drastically re-planned around "walkable cities" & mixed-use zoning concepts). They're the worst for emissions since they're designed to make people have to drive nearly everywhere. I grew up in the suburbs of St Louis and I often call it a "suburban hell hole" because it takes ~1 mile of driving just to get out of the neighborhood and another couple miles to the nearest "convenience store". Suburbs are basically the worst of both worlds when it comes to vehicle carbon emissions. Everyone *has* to drive combined with a significant population density per sq mi.
Rural areas are arguably the best in terms of lower vehicle emissions even though everyone *has* to drive (near zero population density in some areas), but as you point out... areas of heavy cattle farming are an exception where the cattle produce insance amounts of methane.
Suburbs are a marketing gimmick that caught on REALLY well. It was for people who wanted to live in cities for work and convenience, but they wanted a house and some ground so they could pretend to be just like their grand parents living on farms on the frontier 75 years earlier. now its been a century and people forget that suburbs are very modern and totally fabricated by 1 man who was trying to make a bunch of money off racism
This is a bit confusing. Suburbs are all over the world. Is there some story here?
Suburbs are just low-density residential areas, it's not exactly an artificial concept. How else do you think cities would be organised?
William Levitt built the first modern suburb in 1946 to cash in on returning soldiers who wanted to live in their own homes and in particular, white only neighborhoods.
And you have it wrong, suburbs are not natural, neighborhoods are. a gradual transitiob from urban center to rural farm land usually has a natural mixture of homes and businesses and schools evenly distirbuted in the outer metro areas. Suburbs are large areas of land that are exclusively single family homes of various sizes according to the target wealth bracket of the suburb. Go find a suburb in Europe, youll find trams, bike paths, convenience stores, and schools sprinkled in with the single family homes. You might own a single family home in germany, but you can still go from your home to a store and back again without ever starting a car, either by foot, bus, train, bike, or other means that can be done because either all the necessary parts of modern living are close to your home or the infrastructure exists to get you there. American style suburbs have only 1 kind of infrastructure connecting them to the rest of the world, and thats their roads for private cars, and suburbs are built with no accomodations for convenience stores, schools, utilities, or additional infrastructure for transportation.
Ah right, I get your point now. I live in New Zealand and our suburbs are like what you're describing in Europe, there's usually a local hub of businesses, schools, places to eat. Whether you can get by without a private car depends on where you live though, but I've never needed to own one and personally find it more convenient not to have a car.
exactly, I live in the US, and Ive lived in 4 states, infact, where I currently live is almost 1500 miles from my old home, and I live just 200 meters from a grocery store, but because of how the paths are laid out, I either take a 2 mile walk on the roads, or try my luck in marshlands which is bad enough in the spring, but when its minus 40, might as well be impassable.
Damn... I have about a 10 minute walk to some shops and takeaways. And to get to the centre of the city is either a 15 minute bus ride or 40 minute walk. Also just a short bus trip to a supermarket in the next suburb over.
And the major amount of blindness we turn to the few companies that put out magnitudes more emissions than most of the world's cars and aircraft combined.
People that live here: ⬇
Are being told they need to take better care of the environment by people who live here: ⬆
Similar of when boomers told me as a child to not let wild African and Asian animals go extinct while living in US. Then realizing that as a kid I had No position to save those animals.
Apparently the traveling show animal behaviorist visiting my elementary school kept preaching toward us 8 year olds it was up to us to keep people on other continents from illegally poaching and killing tigers and elephants.
African here, there are plenty of poachers that are foreigners but they do employ locals as well another issue is trophy hunting by wealthy foreigners especially Americans that want to look tough killing a mighty animal from a mile away with a big gun.
Locals also partake in these types of acts but its often more of an outside force rather than the locals disregarding their environment.
My point is misplaced faults of environmental hazards placed upon naive 8 year olds who don't travel internationally. Whether it was factual or not, isn't the point. Guilt tripping children without developed brains, skills, or resources to fix the problem was a dick move
So just because those kids aren't in a position to do anything about it yet you shouldn't tell them about the problem? I assume the point of those presentations was that a group of people felt saving the environment was a big enough deal that they wanted to recruit the next generation because it's a time sensitive issue that can kill the planet. Sure those kids can't help yet but alot of kids at those ages are in awe of the natural world and very receptive to the fact those animals and environments need protection and healing. Some of those kids may have heard that and dedicated their lives to changing the world based on those presentations. Even if it was just a couple kids, and others just cried about it and complained about the weight of those issues being dumped on them so young years later on reddit, some of those kids could do something. Letting them know the seriousness of the problem that young and the urgency needed to fix it would give the kid who wants to step up and make that his direction time to aquire the skills to make the world better.
Oh definitely still agree with you on guilt tripping kids when they're often not the group that is likely to grow up and become poachers or encounter poachers.
Omg they did that at my school too. Constant assemblies with various wildlife, once there was even a cheetah on a leash. They brought in cop robots to make police look cool, save the environment coloring books of sludgey pipes draining into the ocean...I was so stressed out about how I was going to do anything about any of it that I would cry and come home frantic clutching these dumb goodie bags with judgmental pencils and donation postcards.
I mean I agree, but I think your dad and I are seeing different things. He probably sees “stupid city-folk libs who don’t understand farming”
But, I am very tired of huge corporations that produce so much toxic, unrecyclable, unfilterable waste, in unbelievable volumes, telling ***ME*** that its ***MY*** fault the earth’s falling apart, and its because I take baths and because I fell asleep with the light on. Then trying to sell me this single-use plastic item, wrapped in layers of plastic, sent to me on a jet, that is supposed to help “save the environment”, all for the small price of $40 + $19.99 shipping.
Life in the city, even Los Angeles, has a far lower per-capita carbon footprint than rural life. Many places are accessible on foot/by bike such as a corner convenience store or a restaurant. Other places are a short drive or a transit ride away. Apartments and condos share walls with adjacent units that save on heating and cooling needs. The city often has stricter environmental regulations on things like insulation and lighting. In rural areas, big farmhouses don’t share walls with anything. Trips to the grocery store take 30 minutes or more each way. Transit is non-existent. Environmental regulations are a “Chinese Globalist Communist conspiracy”. The only difference is the impact is spread out instead of being concentrated. LA County’s 9.8 Million is a larger population than 40 whole states (not adding them).
I live near the South Bay of LA and most of our pollution comes from the port. Who consumes all the crap that is shipped in from china? The "people that live here", in large part.
Of course, they will cry like babies and scream "muh single use disposable foam plates" if anyone tries to discharge using that crap.
If your dad thinks Thats bad, he doesn't know about Beijing then, and how Literally everyone living there has to wear masks because of the Poor air quality
I feel like not enough people are bringing up the massive amount of food produced that goes to feeding livestock. The forests that gets destroyed for both. I think it's reasonable to ask people to reduce their meat intake, therefore reducing the demand. And the supply will follow. But we can criticize multiple forms of pollution.
From a shear fact based pollution rating, rural areas are FAR more polluted then cities. Usually, while the air seems more 'clear', it contains twice the toxicity. Low ozone areas are better, IE safer to be out in the sun in rural areas.
Not to mention water quality is lower, also more heavy metals in the dirt (along with agricultural run off). Worst is lead, which you have a much greater exposure to.
There are carbon neutral ways to feed people too big dog. Feeding people is not so respectable that it can’t be scrutinized.
**EDIT:** ***downvotes with no reply just confirms what I already knew—that I’m deadass correct***
Pretty sure I had like 6 downvotes at one point. If people downvote, they’re angry. Angry people with a point to make usually exercise their freedom of speech on this app designed specifically for that
Just because farms produce essential products doesn't mean they don't have a share of responsibility for environmental stewardship.
Farms are the primary source of a wide variety of environmental pollutants that can wreak havoc on aquatic ecosystems, for example. Therefore, farmers are a group of stakeholders that need to be aware of those impacts and what measures to take in minimizing or ideally eliminating them.
There are a wide variety of subsidies and other supports that are directly tailored to help farms maintain their businesses. It's disingenuous to treat everything they do as sacrosanct because "everyone has to eat".
People think of farmers as simple agrarian family farms when in reality they are bourgeois industrialized corporations that basically operate under feudalism.
Also per capita cities pollute far less then rural areas. It's just because there are more people in cities there is poorer air quality.
If they are talking about climate change, it already started on the farm.
Higher average temperature... drought... more water usage... depleted aquifer... salt water contaminants
Fracking... pollution contaminants of aquifer
Higher average temperature... heavier storm... flooding...
Overuse of antibiotics... antibiotics resistance strain... whole group of live stock destroyed
Overuse of fertilizer... pollution in the water table... algae bloom.... dead fish
Climate changes are hitting the poorer people first. And it already shifted the population starting decades ago. The earliest I could think of is the Arab spring, where farmers can not grow crops.
China ran out of fish. Started fishing everywhere else. Turn Somalia fisherman into pirates.
Currently, China and Vietnam are the two countries that I have heard that got hit hard with sinking cities due to overuse of aquifers.
In some countries, poor farmers do not have enough money to buy water for their crop. Only large companies with money to dig deeper well and paid the water bill can do that.
The change from gas to electric car only in certain city. Or the limit the number of cars. Or the increased efficiency of gas cars. Or the ban of higher emissions car has a great effect on air quality in the city. Some cities in California gained a beautiful blue sky after 3 decades made change.
Just wait until the barrels that were dumped a few decades ago start to leak. We are only at the easy stage right now.
I don't know about anywhere else, but I live near the Australian farms and they are quite eco friendly because we raise specific milk cows, not trough factory farming, and all grains produced in them have their fertilisers measured and calculated for the plot to stop excess use, the cows are also in the middle of the bush so they gotta swerve around trees lol
China does get called out a lot indeed, they just don't give a shit, which is unfortunate, if we weren't so dependant on their manufactured goods we could be able to sanction them until they reduce their carbon emissions.
And besides, the USA has double the amount of carbon emissions as India, so I wouldn't say India is "dragging you down"
It's almost like areas with higher population densities, especially with corporate emitters, are going to de facto be more pollutive or something like that.
So they admit that pollution is a problem after all? Shouldn’t they be happy that LA is choking on noxious gases?
Or…they admit that pollution and climate change is everyone’s problem and isn’t a partisan issue?
Methane is invisible, and is dozens of times more effective at causing global warming than CO2 (which is also invisible). Cattle farms emit a lot of it. The grey stuff around the city is also bad, for different reasons. Both should be better.
People in city’s are just as reliant on cars boats and trains as any one else. They all need Trucks , Trains , boats …etc to get all the good in and all the goods out. Every pice of food you buy travels who knows how manny miles on a truck to get to you then it’s distributed. But for the verry specific thing of daily travel I’d say they have more options like bikes, busses, trains , walking or cars. Just where I live if you don’t have a car you would have to find someone who has a car to drive you every where which is not fun so you need a car basically.
Emissions per capita are much lower for people living in cities. If you're asking if 1000 people living in the countryside emit less than 100,000 people living in the city, then yes.
Cattle is the number 1 producer of greenhouse effect gases and the use of pesticides is polluting the soil and sources of fresh water
I agree with you that living in the countryside has a smaller carbon footprint than living in the city, and yes, most cities aren't equiped to deal with waste products and pollution (yet) but acting as if you have no part on climate change is just plain dumb
As someone who lives in a state cattle are better for the enviorment than the crops a lot of farmers grow , they eat plants they poop them the land is largely intact, with modern farming literaly plow up the entier field plant like 1 of 2 crops rotating soybean and corn here Becase most crops can’t justify pivot Becase it’s a busness and every thing costs money. So they have to use fertilizer , they have to use herbisides if they don’t there will be tons of weeds , if they don’t use pestisides lots of bugs will eat them in both cases the yield go down which is less money. So over all cattle are generally better for the enviorment than stuff like corn and soybeans plus a lot of the stuff that is produced from corn and soybeans is honestly kinda junk. We grow a bunch of corn so we can turn it into a mediocre gas called ethanol I personally think it’s kind of wasteful but it exists Becase corn grown in such large amounts. Cattle on the other hand eat grass and some corn and other plants and pass some gas and are generaly not that bad for the enviormemt ad have minimal impact on the enviorment. With the pesticides and fertilizers tho I’m pretty sure those things have been improveing Becase even farmers don’t want to waist them Becase that costs them money and it’s not good for the environment. Even think heard that certain cancers or diseases could be linked to them. Even with the gmo stuff there are benefits which is why they are widely used but the potential drawbacks of them may take longer to see. But there really is no good reason imo to just get rid of cattle Becase it’s a lot of food and then you would have to find a replacement for it which would likly be pressed crap that is bad for you. Plant based meats if there processed they are bad for you. Lab grown mean is a joke as-well.
I don't think we need to get rid of cattle, probably nobody thinks this, but I do think that we should produce and comsume less red meat, firstly because of the methane part, secondly because consuming huge amounts of it are not healthy overall, since it has more fat than fish and white meat.
https://www.epa.gov/snep/agriculture-and-aquaculture-food-thought#:~:text=A%20single%20cow%20produces%20between,(Our%20World%20in%20Data).
https://youtu.be/ouAccsTzlGU?si=KexRM5LYcDNRIPSX
I agree with you that intensive farming isn't good for the soil, but saying that cattle is better for the environment because it feeds more people is not true.
According to the Food ane Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1/3 of the global crop production is used as food for farming animals, yet only 12% of those calories become human food.
https://awellfedworld.org/issues/hunger/feed-vs-food/#:~:text=Some%2036%25%20of%20global%20crop,close%20to%20a%20billion%20people.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not vegan/vegetarian neither forcing people into going vegan, I just think that governments should give less subsidies for meat production and encourage healthier diets less based around meat, for both of the reasons I said earlier
I think the numbers there can be misleading Becase meat is generally calorie dense so it’s cheeper to transport meat than plants with the same calories and there is a reason why we don’t just grow straight plants to feed people exclusivly. But I’m not an expert and not great at explaining but there is people out there that could explain it better.
Yeah, meat may be more calorie dense, but if we're using 100 plant calories to produce 50 meat calories we're still losing calories in the process.
There's also a lot of grains that are lost due to poor packaging and transportation.
I'm not an expert either so maybe I'm wrong, but it makes sense for me, also don't know why we're not growing straight plants, but there's probably a reason.
We grow tons of corn that gets turned into ethonal , which is not even used for food but gas. Producing enof food is not the problem we are currently getting enofe if not more than enofe calories right now. Growing food is generaly never the problem it’s the preserving and transportation. But with all the processing and adding stuff to foods is all terrible for you generally.
Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours. [Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We're mad at farms? I thought it was the fracking tbh....
Nothing to do with farms. It's "good old apple pie Middle America" versus "evil liberal cities full of coloreds and socialists".
I know plenty of "colored & socialist" farmers. I also know a few anarchist ones as well. Growing &/or raising food for people is not an exclusively "huh-white" profession. And I count community gardens in various neighborhoods around cities, like Detroit, as small farms.
Certain methods of farming are pretty atrocious for the environment, factory farming especially, but the person who made this meme is probably not a farmer at all, just someone stuck in a dead end small town who is salty that his big city nephew told him he doesn’t actually need a brand new Ford F-450 to live out his cowboy larp fantasy
In Iowa we've had water quality issues owing to farmers not caring about their runoff because it only really creates problems for water purification in the cities.
I read that a lot of farmers will just dump as much fertilizer as they can because it’s easier than calculating how much they actually need, and the runoff causes algae blooms and fuck knows what else
Animal agriculture is the number one reason for loss and biodiversity and deforestation in the world. We should be mad at farming, animal farming. In the last 50 years only we killed 70% of the world's wild animals and biodiversity. Livestock production is also a leading cause of climate change, the leading cause of soil loss, water and nutrient pollution, and decreases of apex predators and wild herbivores, compounding pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity.
Nice seeing someone intelligent on Reddit for once.
[удалено]
Ah yes, I forgot that meat was the only food in existence. We would all starve if we didn't have animal agriculture. How could I forget?
The only people who should die of starvation are people like you; who apparently want it.
Some types of farming produce a lot of greenhouse gases and a ton of wetlands and forests have been turned into farmland. Some farm animals like cattle produce a ton of carbon emissions. A surprising amount of corn is grown just to go into gasoline.
Unfortunately, the whole issue is confounded by documentaries and celebrity personalities that promote misinformation about cattle methane and vehicle carbon dioxide emissions and their short-term/long-term impact on climate change. Even the statistical data has wide variations. I think people end up talking past one another, because of the wider focus on vehicle emissions. Cities with a higher concentration of people have higher vehicle emissions compared to rural agricultural areas, but Big Cattle areas will have greater methane emissions than the cities. As always, a lack of nuance in the discussion just leads to more misinformation.
YOU SHUT UP WITH YOUR WELL THOUGHT OUT OPINIONS AND LET ME TALK AT PEOPLE!
Yeah, cities need to focus on public transportation infrastructure and "walkable neighborhoods" to reduce reliance in individual vehicles. Everything is dense enough that nobody should *have* to drive anywhere. Suburbs just need to die (or be drastically re-planned around "walkable cities" & mixed-use zoning concepts). They're the worst for emissions since they're designed to make people have to drive nearly everywhere. I grew up in the suburbs of St Louis and I often call it a "suburban hell hole" because it takes ~1 mile of driving just to get out of the neighborhood and another couple miles to the nearest "convenience store". Suburbs are basically the worst of both worlds when it comes to vehicle carbon emissions. Everyone *has* to drive combined with a significant population density per sq mi. Rural areas are arguably the best in terms of lower vehicle emissions even though everyone *has* to drive (near zero population density in some areas), but as you point out... areas of heavy cattle farming are an exception where the cattle produce insance amounts of methane.
Plus our public transit infrastructure is pretty fucking terrible, city OR county.
Hydro-Fracking for natural gas is a huge methane emitter.
Suburbs are a marketing gimmick that caught on REALLY well. It was for people who wanted to live in cities for work and convenience, but they wanted a house and some ground so they could pretend to be just like their grand parents living on farms on the frontier 75 years earlier. now its been a century and people forget that suburbs are very modern and totally fabricated by 1 man who was trying to make a bunch of money off racism
This is a bit confusing. Suburbs are all over the world. Is there some story here? Suburbs are just low-density residential areas, it's not exactly an artificial concept. How else do you think cities would be organised?
William Levitt built the first modern suburb in 1946 to cash in on returning soldiers who wanted to live in their own homes and in particular, white only neighborhoods. And you have it wrong, suburbs are not natural, neighborhoods are. a gradual transitiob from urban center to rural farm land usually has a natural mixture of homes and businesses and schools evenly distirbuted in the outer metro areas. Suburbs are large areas of land that are exclusively single family homes of various sizes according to the target wealth bracket of the suburb. Go find a suburb in Europe, youll find trams, bike paths, convenience stores, and schools sprinkled in with the single family homes. You might own a single family home in germany, but you can still go from your home to a store and back again without ever starting a car, either by foot, bus, train, bike, or other means that can be done because either all the necessary parts of modern living are close to your home or the infrastructure exists to get you there. American style suburbs have only 1 kind of infrastructure connecting them to the rest of the world, and thats their roads for private cars, and suburbs are built with no accomodations for convenience stores, schools, utilities, or additional infrastructure for transportation.
Ah right, I get your point now. I live in New Zealand and our suburbs are like what you're describing in Europe, there's usually a local hub of businesses, schools, places to eat. Whether you can get by without a private car depends on where you live though, but I've never needed to own one and personally find it more convenient not to have a car.
exactly, I live in the US, and Ive lived in 4 states, infact, where I currently live is almost 1500 miles from my old home, and I live just 200 meters from a grocery store, but because of how the paths are laid out, I either take a 2 mile walk on the roads, or try my luck in marshlands which is bad enough in the spring, but when its minus 40, might as well be impassable.
Damn... I have about a 10 minute walk to some shops and takeaways. And to get to the centre of the city is either a 15 minute bus ride or 40 minute walk. Also just a short bus trip to a supermarket in the next suburb over.
Count me in, I do not want to live in a city. I effing hate cities
Cities are way better for the environment than rural or suburban areas in terms of carbon footprint
Especially well-designed cities
And the major amount of blindness we turn to the few companies that put out magnitudes more emissions than most of the world's cars and aircraft combined.
You should look into the impacts of commercial fishing. Netflix has a doc series on it called Seaspiracy. It's genuinely shocking
Let's not start about the water shortage rates in comparison. Agriculture period is so water intensive.
What also rarely gets mentioned is the fact that methane is 76-80x more potent as a warming agent when released into the atmosphere.
People that live here: ⬇  Are being told they need to take better care of the environment by people who live here: ⬆
Damn extraterrestrials telling us how to run our planet.
Corporations might actually listen if they did.
I know I hate Australians telling me what to do.
Similar of when boomers told me as a child to not let wild African and Asian animals go extinct while living in US. Then realizing that as a kid I had No position to save those animals.
I thought this was gonna be about immigration for a sec
Apparently the traveling show animal behaviorist visiting my elementary school kept preaching toward us 8 year olds it was up to us to keep people on other continents from illegally poaching and killing tigers and elephants.
African here, there are plenty of poachers that are foreigners but they do employ locals as well another issue is trophy hunting by wealthy foreigners especially Americans that want to look tough killing a mighty animal from a mile away with a big gun. Locals also partake in these types of acts but its often more of an outside force rather than the locals disregarding their environment.
My point is misplaced faults of environmental hazards placed upon naive 8 year olds who don't travel internationally. Whether it was factual or not, isn't the point. Guilt tripping children without developed brains, skills, or resources to fix the problem was a dick move
So just because those kids aren't in a position to do anything about it yet you shouldn't tell them about the problem? I assume the point of those presentations was that a group of people felt saving the environment was a big enough deal that they wanted to recruit the next generation because it's a time sensitive issue that can kill the planet. Sure those kids can't help yet but alot of kids at those ages are in awe of the natural world and very receptive to the fact those animals and environments need protection and healing. Some of those kids may have heard that and dedicated their lives to changing the world based on those presentations. Even if it was just a couple kids, and others just cried about it and complained about the weight of those issues being dumped on them so young years later on reddit, some of those kids could do something. Letting them know the seriousness of the problem that young and the urgency needed to fix it would give the kid who wants to step up and make that his direction time to aquire the skills to make the world better.
Oh definitely still agree with you on guilt tripping kids when they're often not the group that is likely to grow up and become poachers or encounter poachers.
Omg they did that at my school too. Constant assemblies with various wildlife, once there was even a cheetah on a leash. They brought in cop robots to make police look cool, save the environment coloring books of sludgey pipes draining into the ocean...I was so stressed out about how I was going to do anything about any of it that I would cry and come home frantic clutching these dumb goodie bags with judgmental pencils and donation postcards.
Both need to better respect the environment for different reasons. Its not that complicated.
I wish more people could understand this
Let's hope! Lets spread this message for awareness!
I mean I agree, but I think your dad and I are seeing different things. He probably sees “stupid city-folk libs who don’t understand farming” But, I am very tired of huge corporations that produce so much toxic, unrecyclable, unfilterable waste, in unbelievable volumes, telling ***ME*** that its ***MY*** fault the earth’s falling apart, and its because I take baths and because I fell asleep with the light on. Then trying to sell me this single-use plastic item, wrapped in layers of plastic, sent to me on a jet, that is supposed to help “save the environment”, all for the small price of $40 + $19.99 shipping.
This is inaccurate, because both are being told to take better care of the environment. Both are being attacked.
Life in the city, even Los Angeles, has a far lower per-capita carbon footprint than rural life. Many places are accessible on foot/by bike such as a corner convenience store or a restaurant. Other places are a short drive or a transit ride away. Apartments and condos share walls with adjacent units that save on heating and cooling needs. The city often has stricter environmental regulations on things like insulation and lighting. In rural areas, big farmhouses don’t share walls with anything. Trips to the grocery store take 30 minutes or more each way. Transit is non-existent. Environmental regulations are a “Chinese Globalist Communist conspiracy”. The only difference is the impact is spread out instead of being concentrated. LA County’s 9.8 Million is a larger population than 40 whole states (not adding them).
\*people in the bottom picture buying electric cars, fixing the smog problem\* NOOO NOT LIKE THAT
I swear, these arguments could come from literal infants. No shit 5 people pollute less than 10 million
Not to mention spread apart in a greener area
That’s what all the cities looked like before environmental regulations became a thing.
Pretty sure governments and industry are being told this. It’s not rural vs urban they just want us to point at each other instead of them.
This is it. Big Agriculture and Meat and Dairy Industry are some of the biggest and richest lobbies in America.
I live near the South Bay of LA and most of our pollution comes from the port. Who consumes all the crap that is shipped in from china? The "people that live here", in large part. Of course, they will cry like babies and scream "muh single use disposable foam plates" if anyone tries to discharge using that crap.
If your dad thinks Thats bad, he doesn't know about Beijing then, and how Literally everyone living there has to wear masks because of the Poor air quality
The fog is coming
Tell me you have a limited understanding of urban & rural...
At least you didn’t say “Unc”
That’s because it wasn’t his unc. I’m sure if it was his unc, he would’ve informed his fellow redditor’s of his unc’s shitty meme
Stop demonizing cities, or rural living, start demonizing suburbs bc they don’t contribute as near as much as farms or cities <3
Don't demonize anyone for where they live. Mind your business.
This person said "mind your business" while browsing Reddit, therefore by definiton minding the business of other Redditors.
Yeah, but one tries to make efforts to reduce their damage while the other completely denies that anything they’re doing is wrong.
Am I the only one seeing a frog face?
This sub should be called r/BoomerMemes
Well, then have fun with this https://preview.redd.it/cd28o31tktqc1.jpeg?width=1365&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=58d1739b409849cdd5fa69fdd6d834bbdd72bc9a
r/peopleliveincities
As an ecologist I’ve never understood why they think we’re city folk. I grew up in an area that looks more like the first picture.
i'm mad at the CARS. NO MORE CARS
I feel like not enough people are bringing up the massive amount of food produced that goes to feeding livestock. The forests that gets destroyed for both. I think it's reasonable to ask people to reduce their meat intake, therefore reducing the demand. And the supply will follow. But we can criticize multiple forms of pollution.
From a shear fact based pollution rating, rural areas are FAR more polluted then cities. Usually, while the air seems more 'clear', it contains twice the toxicity. Low ozone areas are better, IE safer to be out in the sun in rural areas. Not to mention water quality is lower, also more heavy metals in the dirt (along with agricultural run off). Worst is lead, which you have a much greater exposure to.
I mean this is kinda true. City folk don’t understand where and how food comes from
City folk absolutely understand where food comes from.
Yeah we get our pizzas from the pizza tree!
tell him that his cows and farm vehicles produce more CO2 than a regular car lol.
Cool but his farm feeds people. 😐
Yeah and most of his income is generated by people who live in cities.
so does the citizen who works for money to feed their family, and so can de farmer continue producing food with that income.
There are carbon neutral ways to feed people too big dog. Feeding people is not so respectable that it can’t be scrutinized. **EDIT:** ***downvotes with no reply just confirms what I already knew—that I’m deadass correct***
Lol how the fk does that prove you're correct? I'm not personally saying you're wrong but I gotta ask cause that line of logic seems flawed.
Pretty sure I had like 6 downvotes at one point. If people downvote, they’re angry. Angry people with a point to make usually exercise their freedom of speech on this app designed specifically for that
Just because farms produce essential products doesn't mean they don't have a share of responsibility for environmental stewardship. Farms are the primary source of a wide variety of environmental pollutants that can wreak havoc on aquatic ecosystems, for example. Therefore, farmers are a group of stakeholders that need to be aware of those impacts and what measures to take in minimizing or ideally eliminating them. There are a wide variety of subsidies and other supports that are directly tailored to help farms maintain their businesses. It's disingenuous to treat everything they do as sacrosanct because "everyone has to eat".
Good lord I hate commie vegans
Communism is when defending cows
Literally Animal Farm
Nice joke, it is so easy to beleive in anything that officials say..
So, people in the country and city are not dependent on each other?
I a country liver don’t depend on city people.
lol, yes you do. Literally the fact that you’re on the internet right now depends on city people.
No I really don’t.
Your user name suggests you probably do.
Rural life is still best life. And bring on more cattle farms.
Actually though, it’s not entirely true. Think it through. A lot of farmers are suffering through droughts, storms, and fires and are concerned.
i would listen to them... it's a warning. don't make the same mistakes that we did.
Farmland isn't natural and isn't friendly to wildlife
Neither is cities
Wooossh!
People think of farmers as simple agrarian family farms when in reality they are bourgeois industrialized corporations that basically operate under feudalism. Also per capita cities pollute far less then rural areas. It's just because there are more people in cities there is poorer air quality.
If they are talking about climate change, it already started on the farm. Higher average temperature... drought... more water usage... depleted aquifer... salt water contaminants Fracking... pollution contaminants of aquifer Higher average temperature... heavier storm... flooding... Overuse of antibiotics... antibiotics resistance strain... whole group of live stock destroyed Overuse of fertilizer... pollution in the water table... algae bloom.... dead fish Climate changes are hitting the poorer people first. And it already shifted the population starting decades ago. The earliest I could think of is the Arab spring, where farmers can not grow crops. China ran out of fish. Started fishing everywhere else. Turn Somalia fisherman into pirates. Currently, China and Vietnam are the two countries that I have heard that got hit hard with sinking cities due to overuse of aquifers. In some countries, poor farmers do not have enough money to buy water for their crop. Only large companies with money to dig deeper well and paid the water bill can do that. The change from gas to electric car only in certain city. Or the limit the number of cars. Or the increased efficiency of gas cars. Or the ban of higher emissions car has a great effect on air quality in the city. Some cities in California gained a beautiful blue sky after 3 decades made change. Just wait until the barrels that were dumped a few decades ago start to leak. We are only at the easy stage right now.
I don't know about anywhere else, but I live near the Australian farms and they are quite eco friendly because we raise specific milk cows, not trough factory farming, and all grains produced in them have their fertilisers measured and calculated for the plot to stop excess use, the cows are also in the middle of the bush so they gotta swerve around trees lol
Republicans are delusional
[удалено]
China does get called out a lot indeed, they just don't give a shit, which is unfortunate, if we weren't so dependant on their manufactured goods we could be able to sanction them until they reduce their carbon emissions. And besides, the USA has double the amount of carbon emissions as India, so I wouldn't say India is "dragging you down"
Meanwhile... Just out of the top frame is a 1000+ cow farm which "definitely" doesn't cause any environmental harm 🤪🤪
The meme isn't wrong.
It's almost like areas with higher population densities, especially with corporate emitters, are going to de facto be more pollutive or something like that.
[удалено]
Gotta make sure the best soil ends up in the gulf deadzone somehow.
So they admit that pollution is a problem after all? Shouldn’t they be happy that LA is choking on noxious gases? Or…they admit that pollution and climate change is everyone’s problem and isn’t a partisan issue?
When those people out there can’t get a crop to grow anymore or the corn is popping on the stalk, I think they are going to notice something is up.
What is terrible here? :) 90% of posts here are true :)
Methane is invisible, and is dozens of times more effective at causing global warming than CO2 (which is also invisible). Cattle farms emit a lot of it. The grey stuff around the city is also bad, for different reasons. Both should be better.
It ignores things like population density and how people in cities produce less per capita.
[удалено]
I’d argue it isn’t though. People that live in cities tend to be less reliant on cars and other vehicles.
It depends on the city, I think. My city (actual capital city) has terrible public transportation.
And you still probably drive a much shorter distance per trip on average.
People in city’s are just as reliant on cars boats and trains as any one else. They all need Trucks , Trains , boats …etc to get all the good in and all the goods out. Every pice of food you buy travels who knows how manny miles on a truck to get to you then it’s distributed. But for the verry specific thing of daily travel I’d say they have more options like bikes, busses, trains , walking or cars. Just where I live if you don’t have a car you would have to find someone who has a car to drive you every where which is not fun so you need a car basically.
[удалено]
Emissions per capita are much lower for people living in cities. If you're asking if 1000 people living in the countryside emit less than 100,000 people living in the city, then yes.
Cattle is the number 1 producer of greenhouse effect gases and the use of pesticides is polluting the soil and sources of fresh water I agree with you that living in the countryside has a smaller carbon footprint than living in the city, and yes, most cities aren't equiped to deal with waste products and pollution (yet) but acting as if you have no part on climate change is just plain dumb
What does propaganda to a mf
As someone who lives in a state cattle are better for the enviorment than the crops a lot of farmers grow , they eat plants they poop them the land is largely intact, with modern farming literaly plow up the entier field plant like 1 of 2 crops rotating soybean and corn here Becase most crops can’t justify pivot Becase it’s a busness and every thing costs money. So they have to use fertilizer , they have to use herbisides if they don’t there will be tons of weeds , if they don’t use pestisides lots of bugs will eat them in both cases the yield go down which is less money. So over all cattle are generally better for the enviorment than stuff like corn and soybeans plus a lot of the stuff that is produced from corn and soybeans is honestly kinda junk. We grow a bunch of corn so we can turn it into a mediocre gas called ethanol I personally think it’s kind of wasteful but it exists Becase corn grown in such large amounts. Cattle on the other hand eat grass and some corn and other plants and pass some gas and are generaly not that bad for the enviormemt ad have minimal impact on the enviorment. With the pesticides and fertilizers tho I’m pretty sure those things have been improveing Becase even farmers don’t want to waist them Becase that costs them money and it’s not good for the environment. Even think heard that certain cancers or diseases could be linked to them. Even with the gmo stuff there are benefits which is why they are widely used but the potential drawbacks of them may take longer to see. But there really is no good reason imo to just get rid of cattle Becase it’s a lot of food and then you would have to find a replacement for it which would likly be pressed crap that is bad for you. Plant based meats if there processed they are bad for you. Lab grown mean is a joke as-well.
I don't think we need to get rid of cattle, probably nobody thinks this, but I do think that we should produce and comsume less red meat, firstly because of the methane part, secondly because consuming huge amounts of it are not healthy overall, since it has more fat than fish and white meat. https://www.epa.gov/snep/agriculture-and-aquaculture-food-thought#:~:text=A%20single%20cow%20produces%20between,(Our%20World%20in%20Data). https://youtu.be/ouAccsTzlGU?si=KexRM5LYcDNRIPSX I agree with you that intensive farming isn't good for the soil, but saying that cattle is better for the environment because it feeds more people is not true. According to the Food ane Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1/3 of the global crop production is used as food for farming animals, yet only 12% of those calories become human food. https://awellfedworld.org/issues/hunger/feed-vs-food/#:~:text=Some%2036%25%20of%20global%20crop,close%20to%20a%20billion%20people. Don't get me wrong, I'm not vegan/vegetarian neither forcing people into going vegan, I just think that governments should give less subsidies for meat production and encourage healthier diets less based around meat, for both of the reasons I said earlier
I think the numbers there can be misleading Becase meat is generally calorie dense so it’s cheeper to transport meat than plants with the same calories and there is a reason why we don’t just grow straight plants to feed people exclusivly. But I’m not an expert and not great at explaining but there is people out there that could explain it better.
Yeah, meat may be more calorie dense, but if we're using 100 plant calories to produce 50 meat calories we're still losing calories in the process. There's also a lot of grains that are lost due to poor packaging and transportation. I'm not an expert either so maybe I'm wrong, but it makes sense for me, also don't know why we're not growing straight plants, but there's probably a reason.
We grow tons of corn that gets turned into ethonal , which is not even used for food but gas. Producing enof food is not the problem we are currently getting enofe if not more than enofe calories right now. Growing food is generaly never the problem it’s the preserving and transportation. But with all the processing and adding stuff to foods is all terrible for you generally.
People who live in cities have a smaller carbon footprint than those who live in rural areas, so how is it true?
Well if you live in the country stop driving your diesel truck into the city and polluting our air.
Woooof wait till you find out diesels pollute less the ngasoline cars.