this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2025
357 points (95.2% liked)
Good News Everyone
1857 readers
425 users here now
A place to post good news and prevent doom scrolling!
Rules for now:
- posts must link from a reliable news source
- no reposts
- paywalled articles must be made available
- avoid politics & schadenfreude
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It’s nice to see Gen Z getting more qualitatively neutral headline language. Millennials would’ve been “killing the meat industry.”
Also, this is really good. While we don’t all need to become total vegans, reducing the number of domesticated animals would have a significantly positive impact on both the environment and the quality of those animals’ lives.
Tbh it's from a vegan souce, and probably written by millenials too
They're citing a gallup poll https://news.gallup.com/poll/510038/identify-vegetarian-vegan.aspx
What does the article being written by someone with a birth year within a specific range have to do with it's the validity of its contents?
Millennials bore the brunt of a ton of media framing their changes as evil, so they aren't doing the same to subsequent generations. A similar inference could be made about the positivity towards veganism (i.e., coming from a vegan site).
Millenials love blaming stuff on other generations, they just go for boomers instead. It'll probably be Gen Alpha next. Kinda already is with the scorn over stuff popular with alpha, such as skibidi toilet and 6 7.
Ah yes, being made fun of for making up words is the same as being blamed for entire industries falling.
Yea I was thrown off by the "tbh" at the beginning and misconstrued "vegan source" to imply they were alleging bias.
Yes we did. Hence why I was trigged lol
This is where I'm at. Half-assed vegetarian. I don't buy meat but if someone serves it at a dinner I don't refuse to eat. Baby steps. It's making progress without the shock of an abrupt change all at once.
Yeah I turned meat into a “special occasion” food, and it was way easier than I thought once I got over the perfectionism. Animal products are a lot easier to reduce than completely eliminate, but every little bit helps.
This. This is the healthiest take.
The healthiest take is to eat the best quality food you can afford that isn't ultra processed.
Vegan food can be slop - see beyond meat, meat substitutes, lab grown meat etc. Heck, even South Park made an episode about it.
(I know you meant "the healthiest take in the vegan-nonvegan dichotomy", but I just couldn't help myself, tee hee)
Do I just not know how to talk or is it really a reading comprehension issue I'm running in to?
Just saw the last bit of your reply. It is reading comprehension... Mine. My mistake.
It's not about your health its primarily about the exploited group.
I mean healthiest in the "all or nothing thinking is bad" way.
For you. Let other people have other perspectives and they can all be valid.
I'm just saying, if your reasons for being against the holocaust is that burning the corpses contributed to greenhouse gas emissions, you are kind of a shitty person, but hey, whatever gets you there...?
You’re the vegan everyone complains about.
Complain all you want, at least I don't pay people to kill animals so that I may consume their corpse. Merry Christmas though!
godwin strikes again
"Perspectives" doesn't work when they are beings being harmed. When they are victims let people oppress isn't a good take.
Sure it does when we’re discussing the motivation for someone to choose eating less meat. If they are doing it for health reasons that’s no less valid than your reasons.
Over >50% of the space humans occupy is for agriculture. 3/4 of that space is dedicated to livestock/feed.
Recently I learned that plants like Bambara Nuts (africa) and Water Lentils (duckweed) have complete amino complexes and b12. They're probably not the only ones either.
There's also many pest/drought resistant perennial crops that are nitrogen/nutrient fixers that eliminate the need for fertilizers and pesticides.
I expect that the impending climate induced supply chain collapse of global agriculture will force people to return to these more ancestral, and arguably superior, food sources.
i think it's more like >90%.
i.e. of the area that is used (Agriculture, Urban and Built-up Land),
so agriculture is 48 of 49 millions km² used, that's 98%. The remaining 2% are for streets and housing.
Huh, isn't duckweed pretty easy to grow?
yes, but also super invasive. we have them in areas where thier are bonds in norcal they blanket the entire water surface. they spread by vegatative propagation.
Just watched a lady "grow" it in buckets of pond/tap water. It doubles in biomass every 48h. Literally just let it sit there.
Most things with weed in the name is going to be easy to grow. A lot of people with aquariums or ponds feel plagued by it. I love it for aquariums it's one of the few things that can out compete algae
Youtube has sent me down the rabbit hole. Almost every common weed that's not native to North America was once a staple food crop in Europe.
But in the mid 20th century big agriculture realized they'd make more money selling annuals, fertilizer, and pesticides... instead of letting people grow perennial plants that solved those problems on their own.
most of them escape in the wild, and established wild population. iceplant is another one, its from south africa, it actually doesnt help with preventing spread of fires,it blankets the coasts of california. relatives of the plants are quite nifty succulents for hobbyist(aizocae, aka stone plants) while the ornamentals are very hard to take care off, the iceplants is very hardy and invasive. blue gum, a type of eucalyptus grows fast, also invasive but the biggest problem is since its a eucalyptus it makes fires more dangerous because of the oils.
By the way, all plant foods have all amino acids. They just have them in proportions to one another that don't quite match the proportions that we need. But this is only relevant, if you eat the minimum amount of protein necessary to sustain your body tissues.
In a Western diet, we typically eat significantly more protein than that. As such, if e.g. black beans only provide 50% of an amino acid compared to the other amino acids and compared to what we need, you can totally eat 200% black beans to make up for it.
Or, what's more likely the case, you're not gonna eat just black beans, but rather mix and match them with lots of other protein sources, which will have different amino acid distributions. Even wheat and rice contain protein. Well, and then you're gonna eat significantly more of that mixture than you actually need, so you don't need be particularly cautious at mixing+matching either.
Not the most scientific source, but has some decent illustrations: https://vegfaqs.com/essential-amino-acid-profiles-beans/
The human body require 20 amino acids of which 9 our bodies cannot produce. A "complete amino complex" contains all 9 of those unproducible acids. Most plants do not contain all of them. Black beans lack methionine; so simply eating more black beans will not suffice.
No, that's what I'm saying. Black beans 'lack' methionine in that they have less milligram methionine per gram protein than other protein sources, but they don't have none.
This table in the source that I linked is to be read as "you should eat 4.59 cups of black beans per day to cover the methionine RDA (if you weigh 70kg and all you eat is black beans)":
Here's another diagram showing that black beans do contain methionine, which got published in a scientific paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Amino-acid-composition-of-quinoa-black-bean-and-lentil-proteins-g-100-g-of-protein_fig1_351804462
Tis a question of "how much of it can be absorbed by humans".
For example absorption rate of vitamin A from animal sources is ~90%, but about 10% from veggies (if you use vegetable fat it's a bit higher, animal fat even more higher, cook it, juice it, the absorption rate plateaues at 30%; and technically it's not a vitamin A but something that will become a vitamin A when dissolved in fat) - and the amount of it in veggies is lower compared to animal byproducts.
Bambara has apparently been a staple in Western Africa for centuries. So if it had any critical nutritional deficiencies I'd imagine a cultural/culinary solution would have presented itself by now. And the B12 in Bambara is uniquely bioavailable; unlike the b12 in most other plants.
Rentinol (vitamin a) is not an amino acid. It is a fat soluble molecule which is why you get more from fatty sources. It's a logical train of thought but you're comparing apples to oranges.
Isn't vit A the one we produce from carotenes? So technically we don't need to ingest the vitamin itself if we eat enough of the pro-vitamin? Am I confusing it with other vitamin?
Carotene is 10% absorption rate from my example (IIRC 30% from juice), but you still need to dissolve it in fat to get vitamin A.
Thank you!
No we need to free all slaves not just some.
comparing slaves to animals is exactly what slavers do
Given the source of the article, of course the title is going to have a positive tone.
That's true. But I'm willing to bet it's also because it's less affordable.
While it feels weird to argue that something should be more expensive, I think it’s best that meat is treated like a luxury for special occasions.
Meat is inherently an expensive process, and it was only ever cheap because the cost was paid elsewhere—mostly by horrible conditions for animals & human workers and environmental destruction.
Except the opposite is true by all accounts assuming you aren't eating fancy meat substitutes all the time.
The opposite?
A vegan diet is dramatically cheaper than a diet with a significant amount of meat, assuming you aren't eating expensive meat substitutes
Aaaah ok I get it. Thanks for the explanation.