Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?

[editor]

I'll answer as I see fit, thanks.

I'd have to first see the evidence my personal food intake is destructive. Then I'd want to know if that food could be produced in a better way.

It's not a simple binary

Feel free to read the links I just posted above. And here's some more:

Got Beef? Here’s What Your Hamburger Is Doing To The Climate

For centuries, the ethics of killing animals for their meat has been a bone of contention among humans. But the looming specter of climate change has given meat eaters an additional dilemma to consider.

www.forbes.com

We're eating more meat than ever, a huge obstacle in reducing climate change

A new study argues that changes to the meat and dairy industry are needed to address climate change.

fortune.com

These animals contribute as much as a third of the atmospheric methane that is hastening global climate change, according to recent estimates. Much of that is enteric methane, which is produced when cud-chewing animals like cows digest their food. Methane, which can hang around in the atmosphere for a decade, doesn’t linger as long as carbon dioxide does (up to 1,000 years), but it contributes more than 70% as much warming as an equivalent amount of CO2 in the same period. Because of this, the EPA states that “achieving significant reductions would have a rapid and significant effect on atmospheric warming potential.”

 

[glitch hiker]

You understand how climate change is contributing to rising sea levels, which in turn are fucking up people's lives, yes? And you understand the relationship between greenhouse gasses and climate change, yes?

No? Then educate yourself before embarrassing yourself further.

Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production, study finds

Production of meat worldwide causes twice the pollution of production of plant-based foods, a major new study has found

www.theguardian.com

You've equivocated on the statement "meat constumption is fucking up people's lives"

You're a bad faith actor and I'm done talking with you.

 

[glitch hiker]

Answering your question since glitch hiker doesnt' seem to like mine very much.

That's dishonest, I answered you.

 

[Spymaster]

Answering your question since glitch hiker doesnt' seem to like mine very much.

Not sure what you mean, Sue. It’s highly unlikely that GH giving up meat will solve climate change, no?

 

[Sue]

That's dishonest, I answered you.

You were 'answering' while I was posting as you'll see if you check the post times.

 

[editor]

You've equivocated on the statement "meat constumption is fucking up people's lives"

You're a bad faith actor and I'm done talking with you.

I've explained it with absolute clarity.

Meat production is a major contributor to climate change (multiple links already provided). And climate change is fucking up people's lives (multiple links already provided).

For example: As rising 'heat shocks' ruin rice crops, Bangladesh faces hunger risk

So which parts are you disputing here?

And here's some more reading for you to ignore:

Climate change will alter where many crops are grown

That means gains for some people, but losses for more

www.economist.com

Here's how climate change could cause insects to destroy our crops

One study predicted that crop yield lost to insects increases 10 to 25% for every 1 degree Celsius.

www.weforum.org

 

[Sue]

Not sure what you mean, Sue. It’s highly unlikely that GH giving up meat will solve climate change, no?

I think it's interesting to discover what would or would not motivate people to change their behaviour, don't you?

 

[Spymaster]

I think it's interesting to discover what would or would not motivate people to change their behaviour, don't you?

Sure, but you have to frame the proposal sensibly. If you asked me, and my giving up meat would solve global warming, I’d say yes. But it won’t, so the question is moot.

 

[Sue]

Sure, but you have to frame the proposal sensibly. If you asked me if my giving up meat would solve global warming, I’d say yes. But it won’t, so the question is moot.

Well thanks for putting me right!

 

[campanula]

Tbh, cost is the most likely determinant when it comes to behaviour changes (for me)...along with a growing reluctance to cook (there just is no quick way to knock up a pigeon sandwich). It is entirely possible to eat meat for free(ish) if you are not really fussed about doing the catching and prep. My dad and grandad were avid poachers and I still know quite a few who lamp for rabbits. I would never kill a hare because they are rare and beautiful but rabbits! We probably eat coney at least once a week and sometimes pheasant, and have lost count of the number of geese I have politely declined. I would absolutely keep chooks and a pair of pigs if I didn't live in a tiny urban house (not that this stops my neighbour, who seems to have a thriving duck and poultry farm). In many parts of Norfolk, meat is definitely part of the rural economy (my daughter and I buy a sheep off our neighbour)...as well as fleece...(although I definitely remember meat raffles in the pub).

This is changing though. My kids wouldn't have the first clue how to skin a rabbit (although the boys were quick to make use of a large wood pigeon some rural yahoo had shot and just left so I dunno) but they make use of 'Hello Fresh' and shit so I doubt they would suddenly morph into ferals, if Morrisons and Aldi weren't an easy option. I can't really imagine starving while there is food on the hoof (bloody muntjacs are practically vermin and absolutely wreck my seedlings and saplings). Years ago, when we had lurchers, sweetheart used to fancifully imagine a diet entirely consisting of wild meat...but seeing as the cooking usually devolved to me, this did not ever gain much traction.
Not advocating everyone who eats meat should go down this route at all...but I can't deny it is a handy source of useful protein in a diet (mine) which mostly consists of very basic constituents.

 

[MrCurry]

The poll results tell an interesting story. Combining the top three options, around 40% of respondents either have already given up meat or would be willing to.

A further 24% are reluctant but accept it‘s necessary, so that only leaves around 36% who are opposed to the idea with varying strength of resistance and nearly 20% of them seem to base their opposition on the assumption that “nothing much will change“ and meat is going to remain ubiquitous (Psst.. it won’t!)

I’m more convinced than ever that it won’t be hard to steadily move people to plant based diets with appropriate nudges as the strength of the opposition seems far less than I expected.

 

[glitch hiker]

The poll results tell an interesting story. Combining the top three options, around 40% of respondents either have already given up meat or would be willing to.

A further 24% are reluctant but accept it‘s necessary, so that only leaves around 36% who are opposed to the idea with varying strength of resistance and nearly 20% of them seem to base their opposition on the assumption that “nothing much will change“ and meat is going to remain ubiquitous (Psst.. it won’t!)

I’m more convinced than ever that it won’t be hard to steadily move people to plant based diets with appropriate nudges as the strength of the opposition seems far less than I expected.

Yes, if a majority who wants everyone to eat PB foods gets their way those who don't want to or can't are going to have a pretty shitty time. Whether or not that happens in my lifetime, it won't be a circumstance I feel happy about. Would you then object to people privately keeping livestock?

 

[MrCurry]

Yes, if a majority who wants everyone to eat PB foods gets their way those who don't want to or can't are going to have a pretty shitty time. Whether or not that happens in my lifetime, it won't be a circumstance I feel happy about. Would you then object to people privately keeping livestock?

I have no objections to that, but very much doubt my position on the matter will influence things.

 

[editor]

Yes, if a majority who wants everyone to eat PB foods gets their way ...

You do understand the damage that the meat industry is causing to the planet, yes? You've already stated you don't give a fuck and are going to carry on eating as much meat as you like regardless, but sometimes personal choices can't come first.

People have to eat less meat. Full fucking stop.

 

[Saul Goodman]

The poll results tell an interesting story. Combining the top three options, around 40% of respondents either have already given up meat or would be willing to.

A further 24% are reluctant but accept it‘s necessary, so that only leaves around 36% who are opposed to the idea with varying strength of resistance and nearly 20% of them seem to base their opposition on the assumption that “nothing much will change“ and meat is going to remain ubiquitous (Psst.. it won’t!)

I’m more convinced than ever that it won’t be hard to steadily move people to plant based diets with appropriate nudges as the strength of the opposition seems far less than I expected.

In a poll of 72 people, some voted one way and some another.
Try not to read too far into it, as it may not be indicative of the real world.

 

[Spymaster]

I have no objections to that, but very much doubt my position on the matter will influence things.

I think it may do.

What do you think would be more beneficial to the environment; telling people they have to eat less meat; full fucking stop; or promoting better production practices?

 

[WouldBe]

You do understand the damage that the meat industry is causing to the planet, yes? You've already stated you don't give a fuck and are going to carry on eating as much meat as you like regardless, but sometimes personal choices can't come first.

People have to eat less meat. Full fucking stop.

Alternatively cut out as much of the CO2 you create that doesn't come from farming, that could be up to 60% of emissions.

 

[editor]

Alternatively cut out as much of the CO2 you create that doesn't come from farming, that could be up to 60% of emissions.

No. Just eat less meat +and+ do other stuff too. All this denial and whataboutery is so fucking tedious.

 

[mentalchik]

Am a sometime meat eater and yes i do agree we should be eating less meat, industrial scale intensive meat farming is horrible blot in our society but i think it will be a long road and extremely difficult one to achieve....there are also other issues that go alongside it...the pet food industry wich is a large slice of meat consumption...cat's for instance cannot survive on a totally plant based diet, there are researches going on to get around this but on doing some internet searches it's a long way off and very problematical.

 

[MrCurry]

I think it may do.

What do you think would be more beneficial to the environment; telling people they have to eat less meat; full fucking stop; or promoting better production practices?

Pleased you think I’m so influential.

I’d be guessing which of those two has more effect, but since telling people in an authoritarian manner to change their ways is not often effective, I’ll choose the second one as a first step in the right direction. It’s a bit of a pointless distinction though isn’t it, as making wholesale changes in the way society operates is not and never will be about a false dichotomy of alternative individual measures but rather implementing a raft of policy changes which produce the necessary paradigm shift in attitudes and behaviours.

The “post-meat future” as I called it in the thread title is an exaggeration of course, I don’t believe we will see a total eradication of meat production, but a very strong shift towards meat-free diets so they account for the overwhelming majority of most people’s daily nutrition seems inevitable through necessity. The ways in which this change occurs - all the individual nudge factors and changes in the way food choices are perceived - may not be foreseeable for us, just as predicting how the internet would affect people’s lives proved to be a challenge beyond most pundits back in the mid nineties, but yeah, change is coming.

I’ll make one prediction though - posting shamelessly on the “what’s for tea tonight?” thread about the steak and chips you’re having won’t be stigma free forever. Expect being an “out” carnivore to become more and more socially unacceptable and the ravaging hordes of vegans and veggies to tear a strip off meaties who are brave enough to defend their habit instead of hiding it. You’ll love it Spy, will be right up your street

 

[glitch hiker]

No. Just eat less meat +and+ do other stuff too. All this denial and whataboutery is so fucking tedious.

unless the meat comes from your own land/farm/chicken coup in which case there's no factory farming involved and thus no problem.

 

[Chilli.s]

Taxation could be the key to meat consumption. Dirty sausages in a jar, made of snips off the abattoir floor, zero tax. Fillet steak, woowoo maximum tax bracket only for special occasions or the rich have to pay to play.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Taxation could be the key to meat consumption. Dirty sausages in a jar, made of snips off the abattoir floor, zero tax. Fillet steak, woowoo maximum tax bracket only for special occasions or the rich have to pay to play.

Taxation isn't even needed, just remove the huge state subsidies that keep the price of animal products artificially low. Redirect those subsidies into plant and cellular-based innovation.

 

[Chilli.s]

Poll is very sneery towards meat eaters too.

 

[editor]

unless the meat comes from your own land/farm/chicken coup in which case there's no factory farming involved and thus no problem.

Gold standard whataboutery.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Gold standard whataboutery.

No, it’s not

 

[editor]

No, it’s not

What percentage of meat do you think comes from people's back yards/chicken coups? And - practically - how many people can get their meat this way, even if they wanted to?

It's just more denial/whatboutery/excuses, and I'm surprised to see you joining in.

The message from science is crystal clear and supported by endless studies: eat less meat. It's as simple as that.

 

[Saul Goodman]

No, it’s not

Depends on your definition of whataboutery. If you use the one where whataboutery is anything that can't be refuted, as some here do, then maybe it is.

 

[WouldBe]

No. Just eat less meat +and+ do other stuff too. All this denial and whataboutery is so fucking tedious.

Im not denying that meat production does cause CO2 emisions, just about everything does. I was saying that instead of the 20% emissions caused by meat production you can make a bigger difference by tackling the othe much larger 80%. But this thread like many others has degenerated into an argument, not about saving the planet but about personal beliefs that eating meat is wrong.

 

[editor]

Im not denying that meat production does cause CO2 emisions, just about everything does. I was saying that instead of the 20% emissions caused by meat production you can make a bigger difference by tackling the othe much larger 80%. But this thread like many others has degenerated into an argument, not about saving the planet but about personal beliefs that eating meat is wrong.

People have to eat. But this is the important bit: "Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production."

So people clearly have to change their diets, especially as meat consumption continues to soar.

Not sure where you're getting this 20% figure from either.

The global production of food is responsible for a third of all planet-heating gases emitted by human activity, with the use of animals for meat causing twice the pollution of producing plant-based foods, a major new study has found.

The entire system of food production, such as the use of farming machinery, spraying of fertilizer and transportation of products, causes 17.3bn metric tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, according to the research.

This enormous release of gases that fuel the climate crisis is more than double the entire emissions of the US and represents 35% of all global emissions, researchers said.

Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production, study finds

Production of meat worldwide causes twice the pollution of production of plant-based foods, a major new study has found

www.theguardian.com