Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

[cheesethief]

Why should we reduce our impact on the planet? Who or what are we saving it for?

Given that people keep dropping sprogs at an ever increasing rate, the global population will inevitably increase beyond the point at which the planet can cope. Any attempts at mitigating the impact will merely serve to delay the inevitable. Eventually a tipping point will be reached and society will collapse, billions will die, the survivors will envy the dead. By reducing our impact on the planet we are allowing the population to grow even bigger before that fateful day arrives, resulting in many more suffering & dying. Therefore the most compassionate course of action is for each of us to do everything we can to accelerate the pace of decline - don't recycle, over consume, eat all the things, gorge with wanton abandon, party harder than we've ever partied before. It's the responsible thing to do.

 

[8ball]

Given that people keep dropping sprogs at an ever increasing rate, the global population will inevitably increase beyond the point at which the planet can cope.

They're not and it won't.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Given that people keep dropping sprogs at an ever increasing rate, the global population will inevitably increase beyond the point at which the planet can cope. Any attempts at mitigating the impact will merely serve to delay the inevitable. Eventually a tipping point will be reached and society will collapse, billions will die, the survivors will envy the dead. By reducing our impact on the planet we are allowing the population to grow even bigger before that fateful day arrives, resulting in many more suffering & dying. Therefore the most compassionate course of action is for each of us to do everything we can to accelerate the pace of decline - don't recycle, over consume, eat all the things, gorge with wanton abandon, party harder than we've ever partied before. It's the responsible thing to do.

Have you ever flown in an plane?

 

[Gromit]

Earth has been around 4.5 billions years.
Humans been around 200,000 years.
Sun dies in about another 5 billion years.

We have time for the human race to die out and come back 25,000 times over.

The earth will be fine.

 

[8ball]

Earth has been around 4.5 billions years.
Humans been around 200,000 years.
Sun dies in about another 5 billion years.

We have time for the human race to die out and come back 25,000 times over.

The earth will be fine.

Some slightly out of date figures there.
Plus the sun becomes very problematic much, much sooner than that.

I'm not even going to get started on what the evolutionary thinking in that statement must be.

 

[Gromit]

Some slightly out of date figures there.
Plus the sun becomes very problematic much, much sooner than that.

Google never lies.

It's said 5 billion years ish. I won't be around to write them a scathing email if they be a billion or two out.

 

[NoXion]

No surprise that this thread has brought out all kinds of dangerous, misanthropic neo-Malthusian rubbish. I especially liked that one about humans being self-destructive when there have never been more humans around than now.

 

[8ball]

Google never lies.

It's said 5 billion years ish. I won't be around to write them a scathing email if they be a billion or two out.

Yeah but it will be uninhabitable for humans in less than half that time even if we don't bollocks things up for ourselves, or have an extinction event (they come round pretty frequently compared to this timescale). But it's the human race 'dying out and coming back' bit that looks the most iffy, unless you are presupposing extraterrestrial intervention.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

No surprise that this thread has brought out all kinds of dangerous, misanthropic neo-Malthusian rubbish. I especially liked that one about humans being self-destructive when there have never been more humans around than now.

Equally predictably, it has also brought out the even more dangerous arrogance, self-deception, selfishness, lack of empathy and inability to be critically self-reflective that is so characteristic of any discussion of human impacts on the planet, future generations and the other species we share this earth with.

 

[8ball]

Equally predictably, it has also brought out the even more dangerous arrogance, self-deception, selfishness, lack of empathy and inability to be critically self-reflective that is so characteristic of any discussion of human impacts on the planet, future generations and the other species we share this earth with.

You get people who push against suggested changes (and also who don't like being told what to do) no matter what you suggest.
The half-baked Malthusian nonsense, however, typically comes from those considering themselves on the enlightened side of the argument.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

You get people who push against suggested changes (and also who don't like being told what to do) no matter what you suggest.
The half-baked Malthusian nonsense, however, typically comes from those considering themselves on the enlightened side of the argument.

What exactly do you think qualifies as 'Malthusian nonsense' on this thread though? If there is any at all, it seems dwarfed by the fingers-in-their-ears brigade.

 

[8ball]

What exactly do you think qualifies as 'Malthusian nonsense' on this thread though? If there is any at all, it seems dwarfed by the fingers-in-their-ears brigade.

There's not all that much of the latter - we've only even had the word "bacon" once (now twice), and not used in a weaponised manner.
I can't fathom why vegans whinge about it so much, (I suspect there's a "protesteth too much" thing is in force and it works as a kind of validation).

But here's some what qualifies as the former:

i) Humans are multiplying faster than ever
ii) Human population shows signs of exponential growth leading to inevitable catastrophe
iii) It is the fast-growing parts of the human population which are going to tip us into environmental collapse

While, being fair, cheesethief's post above was pretty clearly in jest, these tropes recur in a lot of threads about the environment.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

No surprise that this thread has brought out all kinds of dangerous, misanthropic neo-Malthusian rubbish. I especially liked that one about humans being self-destructive when there have never been more humans around than now.

I object to the term "neo-Malthusian". I'm an old-style, card carrying misanthrope.

 

[8ball]

I object to the term "neo-Malthusian". I'm an old-style, card carrying misanthrope.

You can be misanthropic without subscribing to any of that Malthusian stuff, neo or otherwise.

 

[bellaozzydog]

I got myself a vasectomy. I have plenty of credit in the save the planet stakes

The Rev Bob Malthus rocks

 

[8ball]

I got myself a vasectomy. I have plenty of credit in the save the planet stakes

The Rev Bob Malthus rocks

The damage has been done by the point most people get vasectomies.
Is it really like being flicked in the bollocks with an elastic band?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

There's not all that much of the latter - we've only even had the word "bacon" once (now twice), and not used in a weaponised manner.
I can't fathom why vegans whinge about it so much, (I suspect there's a "protesteth too much" thing is in force and it works as a kind of validation).

But here's some what qualifies as the former:

i) Humans are multiplying faster than ever
ii) Human population shows signs of exponential growth leading to inevitable catastrophe
iii) It is the fast-growing parts of the human population which are going to tip us into environmental collapse

While, being fair, cheesethief's post above was pretty clearly in jest, these tropes recur in a lot of threads about the environment.

As you say cheesethief's posts are clearly playful irony so what else is there? If you don't think there's a whole tonne of denial going on here, then I don't think you've been reading the thread. In response to a report that says individuals could significantly lower their environmental footprints by adopting vegan diets (or substantially reducing their consumption of animal products) you'd think people who profess to care about the environment would at the very least say 'well if that's the case then I hope that more people (including perhaps me) do this - even though what we really need is a political solution to this problem'. But that has not by and large been the response. It has in fact been to be defensive and to ridicule and dismiss the idea that dietary change has any role to play whatsoever (even though the evidence suggests otherwise). It seems as if many people are more invested in their unfettered rights as consumers to pay for the exploitation and killing of animals than they are for the long term health of our planet.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

There's not all that much of the latter - we've only even had the word "bacon" once (now twice), and not used in a weaponised manner.
I can't fathom why vegans whinge about it so much, (I suspect there's a "protesteth too much" thing is in force and it works as a kind of validation).

But here's some what qualifies as the former:

i) Humans are multiplying faster than ever
ii) Human population shows signs of exponential growth leading to inevitable catastrophe
iii) It is the fast-growing parts of the human population which are going to tip us into environmental collapse

While, being fair, cheesethief's post above was pretty clearly in jest, these tropes recur in a lot of threads about the environment.

btw, weaponized bacon?

 

[8ball]

As you say cheesethief's posts are clearly playful irony so what else is there?

There was your poorly thought-out anti-natalism for starters.

 

[8ball]

btw, weaponized bacon?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

There was your poorly thought-out anti-natalism for starters.

Well, I rowed back on that one didn't I? And in any event it was motivated out of a philanthropic concern for children in need of adoption not out of misanthropy.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Jesus.

 

[8ball]

Well, I rowed back on that one didn't I? And in any event it was motivated out of a philanthropic concern for children in need of adoption not out of misanthropy.

Well, it was also motivated by seeing natal children as an environmental burden, as opposed to unwanted children being a 'sunk cost'.
Which is better than arguing for post-natal abortion, granted.

I understand your frustration with the idea that there is no place for individual actions and that 'structural' things have to be changed before its worth doing anything. Not your apparent surprise at apathy/evasion/derision, though. If you're well out of your teens you must have realised that's pretty much the default background.

 

[8ball]

I preferred the first one.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Well, it was also motivated by seeing natal children as an environmental burden, as opposed to unwanted children being a 'sunk cost'.
Which is better than arguing for post-natal abortion, granted.

I understand your frustration with the idea that there is no place for individual actions and that 'structural' things have to be changed before its worth doing anything. Not your apparent surprise at apathy/evasion/derision, though. If you're well out of your teens you must have realised that's pretty much the default background.

Oh I'm not surprised, just frustrated.

 

[Spymaster]

I think he's trying to cook it using the heat of the barrel.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Not the most efficient way of cooking it, but fire enough rounds and I reckon you’d get a meal

 

[Shechemite]

And you can't even lock them up in their kennel or keep them on a leash if they misbehave.

We talking kids or cats?

 

[8ball]

Oh I'm not surprised, just frustrated.

On the subject of the actual study, this confirms the results of another study with a very different methodology (the potential limitations of the methodology were criticised in that case). It's very good backing for the idea that reducing meat intake could have a very significant environmental impact, especially certain kinds of meat from certain places.

In terms of scientific rigour and potential impact, this is on a level close to those studies linking smoking with lung cancer. Took a while for people to come round to that too, and a lot of money was thrown in the opposing direction by Big Tobacco. I'd expect a similar period of attrition here.