Downvoting because this doesn't really have anything to do with science. Also because it isn't funny. I support the message, though

The connection to science isn't explicit, but there's definitely an implicit connection. There's the engineering it would take to design efficient rail systems and modern locomotives, there's the calculation of relative emissions cost compared to reliance on automobiles, and all the science on the impacts of those emissions, the calculated benefit of converting infrastructure to rail-based, etc.

It doesn't out and say it, but anyone with the basic knowledge should be able to draw the connection.

You could say the same thing about a picture of a cow with the text "Cows have feelings. Stop killing cows." Yes, science can validate that cows have feelings, and it can discuss the ways in which animal agriculture contributes to climate change. But we could all tell that the poster has less interest in making jokes about science, and more interest in spreading heavy-handed vegan propaganda.

And again, I personally am in favor of reforming urban design to lessen our reliance on personal automobiles (though I will note that, contrary to the emphasis of the meme, the more research-supported position is that the primary transportation alternative to cars needs to be walking, not trains). But this meme is clearly not a science meme.

Also, it isn't funny. So I like it even less, because I think getting people on board with improved urban environments starts with being likeable - not whiny.

You could say the same thing about a picture of a cow with the text "Cows have feelings. Stop killing cows."

Yes, you could.

heavy-handed vegan propaganda

No such thing, only carnists desperate not to acknowledge their unethical behavior.

I don't think carnists are desperate, they just don't care. They don't view it as unethical.

You can try explaining to someone the harms of the meat industry from an environmental standpoint, an animal rights standpoint, a food security standpoint, a worker's rights standpoint, and some may be amenable with the right amount of convincing.

But trying to bludgeon someone into compliance through shaming and demanding them to change is heavy-handed. And especially when carnists are in the majority, it's not likely to be effective either

as a full time carnist - I'm not desperate, I don't see it as unethical, It's not that I don't care about science and health but the data I've found does not support the plant based movement, I'm open to new data but not propaganda or low hazard ratio epidemiology

I'm curious what data you've found that doesn't support the plant-based movement. Water consumption, the amount of grain it takes to produce a fraction of its weight in meat, methane emissions from factory farming, etc., all point to the need to at the very least reduce the scale at which meat is being produced

I'm just coming at it from the health aspects.

As for the other aspects - the ruminate methane cycle is a historic and carbon sequestration positive cycle. Factory farms are unsustainable but ruminants are a necessary part of soil health and in their natural pastoral setting are not a source of ecosystem harm... in factory farms I also include industrial plant agriculture too, importing fertilizer and soil destroying monocropping isn't sustainable.

The kg of grain needed to equate a kg of meat in nutritional value comparisons are crazy! https://hackertalks.com/post/5606539 i.e. if you wanted to eat 100% of the daily recommend nutrition intake eating only Liver - you would need to eat 21g (0.7oz). But with refined grains you would need to eat over 12,000g(26lbs) per day... - These numbers are based on absorption into humans and not raw values measured in the food

:::spoiler chart

:::

The argument for reducing meat production isn't about eliminating pastoral settings. Some people want to eliminate 100% of meat consumption, but I don't think that's entirely necessary. Eliminating factory farming is necessary though, and the methane produced by that method is entirely unsustainable.

Also, if you're only eating grain, then yeah it would take a lot of it to meet nutritional requirements. But if you're eating grains and legumes, then it's much easier to ensure complete nutrition without any meat products.

It takes 25kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef. If the land used to produce that grain were instead used to produce grains and legumes for human consumption, it would produce more than enough to end world hunger

It takes 25kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef.

That is only applicable in the factory farming context, which I've already said I agree with you, all industrial farming isn't sustainable.

Seems like we mostly agree on things. Nice to meet you on lemmy, enjoy your lifestyle. I'm glad your getting the outcomes you want on a diet you found for yourself.