Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 79 posts

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#21

Post by pengaru »

The future can look pretty grim when you start considering how rapidly quality of life can shift upwards even for huge populations, and how many people on earth have nowhere to go on that scale but up up up.

Population growth historically received a lot of attention, but at this point there's enough queued up people waiting to join the West's way of life it looks to me like that ship has sailed.

China promptly overtook the US in co2 emissions as they arrived in the past few decades [0], by a wide margin. What does the world look like when India starts competing with China for that position? They certainly have the headcount for it, at least they're mostly vegetarian right? For how much longer...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#22

Post by nobodyandproud »

deepnotderp wrote: post #17
Jiejeing wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is true, but we (as a society) still eat way too much meat compared to what is required as part of our nutritional intake. I don’t advocate getting the "just right" amount needed (because it is not really easy to compute depending on activity, lifestyle, body type, etc…), but modern meat consumption is neither healthy nor ecologically sustainable.

No we don’t. We eat less than most Hunter gatherers did, even accounting for variability iirc

I don’t think we can generalize that, because it depends on where the hunter-gatherer lived.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/05/health/hunter-gatherer-diet-t...

It’s a three day sampling, but fruit and honey make-up a non-trivial portion of their caloric intake.

Inuit diet, of course, was mostly fat and protein out of necessity

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#23

Post by ctoth »

pengaru wrote: post #21

The future can look pretty grim when you start considering how rapidly quality of life can shift upwards even for huge populations, and how many people on earth have nowhere to go on that scale but up up up. Population growth historically received a lot of attention, but at this point there's enough queued up people waiting to join the West's way of life it looks to me like that ship has sailed. China promptly overto…

> The future can look pretty grim when you start considering how rapidly quality of life can shift upwards even for huge populations, and how many people on earth have nowhere to go on that scale but up up up.

The future looks grim. Because life is getting better. for lots of people?

Take this anti-humanistic garbage elsewhere. We can solve problems and make a better world without having to decrease, or even slow the increase, of quality of life around the planet. Lab-grown meat. Spacefarms. Whatever. I can think of many ways to increase quality of life universally, and this pessimistic, anti-human sentiment is actively getting in the way.

I think at least some of this comes from the new environmental movement, which tends to be much more anti-human than pro-fixes.

I just want you to read your first sentence there, and really internalize what you said. How absurd is that?

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#24

Post by gorilla_fight »

BelenusMordred wrote: post #11
choeger wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. 275g per day is a huge average. Do you happen to know the median? I cannot agree with the cheese part, though. I think if you replace half of that meat consumption with cheese, it would be net positive for your health and the climate. Also one should not consider poultry equivalent to beef.

> 275g per day is a huge average Including food waste it's fairly reasonable. Commercial restaurants waste an amazing amount of food everyday.

The majority of food waste however is fruit and vegetables (about half), some meat is still wasted but is among the lowest category in food waste.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#25

Post by darksaints »

Robotbeat wrote: post #12
kuratkull wrote: post #6

Not sure why the author doesn't mention the known (and gaining traction) solution: rotational grazing. It's a rather simple carbon-negative solution. You have a bunch of land, you divide it into paddocks, you rotate ruminants to fresh grass. The previous paddocks regenerate and bind carbon. Repeat. A large plot of land is able to bind carbon for decades. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rotational+grazing+carbon+negative

I sincerely doubt this fully compensated for methane emissions.

Maybe.

http://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/animalsciencesdept/2016/06/22/cows...

Bison in particular have such a beneficial effect on soil retention, aeration, and quality, that some scientists view them as part of the solution as opposed to part of the problem. Their grazing patterns literally turn everything they touch into more efficient carbon sinks.

If this idea is to extend to other livestock, it would do wonders for swine, chicken, sheep, and goat carbon intensity as well, but it probably will never be enough to compensate for cow methane emissions.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#26

Post by ctoth »

jschveibinz wrote: post #3

We eat way more than we used to, and there are more people doing it. Per capita meat consumption in the US (poultry, beef, pork) in 1960 was about 170 lbs per year. Now it’s closer to 220 lbs per person per year. Cheese consumption has almost tripled since 1970. https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/st... Let’s all be heroes: Eat less (including meat and cheese), buy less, save money, improve your…

This comment is a perfect example of a person shifting systemic problems onto individual consumers. If we just all do our one little part, it makes a better world, right?

Except then you get situations like the great recycling crisis, where individual consumers do their part to recycle and then we "realize" that recycling has been a giant scam for decades.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#27

Post by Jiejeing »

deepnotderp wrote: post #17
Jiejeing wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is true, but we (as a society) still eat way too much meat compared to what is required as part of our nutritional intake. I don’t advocate getting the "just right" amount needed (because it is not really easy to compute depending on activity, lifestyle, body type, etc…), but modern meat consumption is neither healthy nor ecologically sustainable.

No we don’t. We eat less than most Hunter gatherers did, even accounting for variability iirc

Do you have the same nutritional needs as a hunter gatherer?

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#29

Post by nitrogen »

Jiejeing wrote: post #27
deepnotderp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No we don’t. We eat less than most Hunter gatherers did, even accounting for variability iirc

Do you have the same nutritional needs as a hunter gatherer?

Anyone who does many miles of running in a week, or works a manual labor job, just might.

Re: We’re on track to set a new record for global meat consumption

#30

Post by kuratkull »

Robotbeat wrote: post #12
kuratkull wrote: post #6

Not sure why the author doesn't mention the known (and gaining traction) solution: rotational grazing. It's a rather simple carbon-negative solution. You have a bunch of land, you divide it into paddocks, you rotate ruminants to fresh grass. The previous paddocks regenerate and bind carbon. Repeat. A large plot of land is able to bind carbon for decades. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rotational+grazing+carbon+negative

I sincerely doubt this fully compensated for methane emissions.

Do your sincere doubts have any basis to them or did you just want to blurt out something?
Post reply on HN