201–210 of 277 posts
So discussing diet is interesting but eating les meat in the developed world will do nothing for the obvious big problem: Amazon deforestation.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122699/forest-area-surf...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
its appropriate both you and op can be right in that he said meat was essential for mankind and you say grain is foundation for society. grain was the way civilization was enforced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Grain:_A_Deep_Hist...
'The unfortunate reality is that mankind as we know it' The only was I can read that quote is mankind as we know it is the grain society that was enforced you point out.
Fascinating to see how these comment threads debate the relative facility of different diets, and even armchair evolutionary biology... while conveniently avoiding the critical topic: the choices we continue to make are defacing the planet, destabilizing ecologies, and exterminating other species at a scale that is hard to imagine. We’re all ok with this? So, why is it so hard, when confronted with facts about the co…
In both cases, it is that an individual's actions don't move the needle. Even a low-to-mid double-digit percentage of the population's actions don't move the needle that much.
So, to address your accusatory question: no, thinking people are not OK with the destructions of ecosystems, the decline in animal populations or the extinction of many species.
And if it were the case that through my own avoidance of consuming meat for the rest of my life I could significantly abate these problems, I'd happily make that choice.
But thinking people also know it's not remotely as simple as the question implies. I could avoid meat for the rest of my life, and it would make zero difference to these problems. Even worse, everyone in the world could avoid eating meat, but that would still leave (indeed possibly exacerbate) the issue of land and resource use for the production of plant-based foods. And it would also have no bearing on the issue of animal poaching for medicinal or ornamental uses, of which I'm pretty sure just about nobody on this website is an advocate or customer.
None of this is to say it's a lost cause, that there's nothing that can or should be done to improve things. Plenty is being done, and plenty more should be done.
To the extent that heathy ecosystems are necessary for human survival, self-interest will ensure that more efforts go into that, and social/political pressure will continue to see benevolent efforts being undertaken.
But for solutions to be truly effective, they have to be co-ordinated across society, and that is the great challenge we face.
I often observe that people who choose to avoid meat for environmental reasons and finger-wag at others for not following suit are avoiding confronting the deeper realities and challenges involved with solving these problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The unfortunate reality is that mankind as we know it, probably developed to the level it did, in part due to the consumption of meat. Meat is absolutely PACKED with bioavailable nutrients in a way that most plant products simply aren't. Add to that, the growing evidence that much of the plant material we're eating may have inflammatory side effects of consumption. The point I am making is that a solution isn't a sol…
> The unfortunate reality is that mankind as we know it, probably developed to the level it did, in part due to the consumption of meat. Hedging language aside — i.e. "humans evolved because X to some extent" — I recently had an epiphany touring the north island of New Zealand by minibus. Productivity utterly collapses when you have to frequently move from one (temporary) settlement to another. What you eat isn't nea…
We don’t buy insects because last time I checked, supermarkets don’t sell them. Maybe you could look into why time and time again, insect food startups fail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you wanted to replace all the meat and dairy with equivalent protein substitutes you’d be looking at huge amounts of land for growing soybeans, peanuts, tree nuts In addition to the other replies, I'd like to point out that insect farming is an often overlooked solution. But of course it's just not sexy enough for most westerners. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: > Edible…
> In addition to the other replies, I'd like to point out that insect farming is an often overlooked solution. What is the actual problem that needs a solution though? I feel like "but where will we get our protein from?" is a common fallacy on the subject of meat that people accept without evidence. We're eating more meat now than ever and most Americans eat too much protein: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/well/…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think these figures are pretty misleading. First of all, they only look at calories, not protein. If you wanted to replace all the meat and dairy with equivalent protein substitutes you’d be looking at huge amounts of land for growing soybeans, peanuts, tree nuts. Replace all the milk with almond milk and you’re still dealing with huge water and land use for a product that has inferior protein and nutrients. Second…
You can raise livestock on rough terrain, but the vast majority of the world's livestock is not raised like that. Meat prices would explode if we did that. You don't have to ban all meat to get most of the effect, not everyone has to become vegan. Livestock are part of a healthy agriculture; for example by turning waste into manure. Grazing is also important for maintaining certain biomes. What we need to stop is ind…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is key. It's this cultural blind spot where we gloss over the fact that these people are impoverished and so desperate that they would destroy the home around them, partly because we allow a tiny fraction of humanity to amass absurd wealth. Then we double down by making it socially acceptable for them to leverage that wealth into making it untouchable and ever-growing. If we just took this situation as strictly…
Well, innovation in agriculture has actually reduced the amount of land used for farming in more developed countries while increasing production.
The key quote is that 94% of the drop is in Latin America and the Caribbeans. For example in France forests are increasing since more than 100 years [0]. So discussing diet is interesting but eating les meat in the developed world will do nothing for the obvious big problem: Amazon deforestation. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122699/forest-area-surf...
The key quote is that 94% of the drop is in Latin America and the Caribbeans. For example in France forests are increasing since more than 100 years [0]. So discussing diet is interesting but eating les meat in the developed world will do nothing for the obvious big problem: Amazon deforestation. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122699/forest-area-surf...
Brazil is the world's biggest beef exporter, including to the EU, and the majority of deforested land goes to grazing, not agriculture.
System engineer here. The economic system current is wrong, it does not reward keeping ecological systems in a good state! We need to fix the economic system so that preserving wild life and nature is rewarded. Well functioning eco systems is very valuable to us as humans yet we do not preserve them as we should. Wildlife is valuable Clean air is valuable Oceans clean of plastic and full of fish is valuable Not warmi…
I think "the economic system is wrong" is a bit of a stretch, but despite objectively working pretty well there are a few glaring problems (some of which potentially lead to society imploding if left unchecked... but aside from that, pretty good!) As far as I'm aware, I think the most glaring problems (tragedy of the commons, dealing with negative externalities) are very well known & have relatively well understood p…
The tobacco industry has never had a particular good reputation, so getting social buy-in is not that hard. It has no more utility than the alcohol industry, so getting rid of it has not a lot of knock-on effects. Even then, demanding a few scary pictures was a slap on the wrist, compared to outright banning them. (Not sure about Australia, but other notions actually work with local bans in a gradually increasing number of locations)
I think fighting climate change and environmental collapse are harder problems because the responsible industries are deeply intertwined into our economic systems and lifestyles. They are also providing a significant amount of political power. We'll have to actively work to find alternative ways of doing things in many areas before we're able to scale back here.