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

[8ball]

I started the thread and it certainly isn’t about ”a personal belief that eating meat is wrong” as I’m a committed meat eater who has meat in most of my main meals.

The reason I started the thread was that i can see the inevitability that people‘s “meat habit” as I called it must change and I’m interested in how we will achieve that and what people’s attitudes to it are. As I said above, I’m surprised the number of votes in the upper half of the poll, as I expected most people to be so attached to meat eating that they would be reluctant to change.

As for arguments on the thread, that’s the responsibility of those individuals. If they can’t discuss a subject without being abusive that‘s not the fault of a “troll thread” is it?

Neither the poll options or thread title match this motive very well.

 

[MrCurry]

Neither the poll options or thread title match this motive very well.

You can’t please all the people all the time.

The poll has been quite useful I reckon, as it shows most people seem quite sanguine about changing their habits and of those that aren’t, around 2/3 seem to think it’s simply not going to be necessary. Some people can’t see beyond the nose on their face I guess.

 

[Saul Goodman]

The poll has been quite useful I reckon, as it shows most people seem quite sanguine about changing their habits and of those that aren’t, around 2/3 seem to think it’s simply not going to be necessary.

I think either you haven't worded the poll correctly or you're misinterpreting the data, as the voting doesn't show what you think it shows.

 

[MrCurry]

I think either you haven't worded the poll correctly or you're misinterpreting the data, as the voting doesn't show what you think it shows.

Fair enough.

 

[MrCurry]

If meat can be grown in a lab, surely creating synthetic coffee which tastes right is easy by comparison?

 

[8ball]

If meat can be grown in a lab, surely creating synthetic coffee which tastes right is easy by comparison?

I don’t know of any work happening on it, but that would be a fine thing.

You know that even of it was a real thing, some people would insist on drinking blood coffee, though.

 

[glitch hiker]

i bought some tofu this morning. Thought I might see if i can reduce meat intake, though I'll never get rid of it entirely. it's a shame that it's way more expensive than what I'd otherwise choose. for the same price i can get 5 tins of sardines and I think that way more nutritious and more content as well. YMMV

 

[CNT36]

i bought some tofu this morning. Thought I might see if i can reduce meat intake, though I'll never get rid of it entirely. it's a shame that it's way more expensive than what I'd otherwise choose. for the same price i can get 5 tins of sardines and I think that way more nutritious and more content as well. YMMV

Worth looking around for the best way to cook it. It can be tasty but really bad if done wrong.

 

[editor]

i bought some tofu this morning. Thought I might see if i can reduce meat intake, though I'll never get rid of it entirely. it's a shame that it's way more expensive than what I'd otherwise choose. for the same price i can get 5 tins of sardines and I think that way more nutritious and more content as well. YMMV

Or you could make yourself an even tastier and equally nutritious veggie meal/soup.

And not everyone agrees with those studies. For example: New methane emissions metric proposed for climate change policy

Err, no. That categorically does not refute the conclusions of multiple studies into the negative impact of meat production on the environment.

It even clearly says: "We just need to stop increasing our collective meat consumption." Do you agree with that or not?

 

[WouldBe]

If meat can be grown in a lab, surely creating synthetic coffee which tastes right is easy by comparison?

Didn't they have a dandelion coffee substitute in the war?

I've seen a roasted acorn coffe substitute in a survival book and caffeine is easy to synthesise.

 

[WouldBe]

It even clearly says: "We just need to stop increasing our collective meat consumption." Do you agree with that or not?

Note that says "stop increasing" not just "stop" as you've been saying.

 

[editor]

Note that says "stop increasing" not just "stop" as you've been saying.

It's not me that saying meat consumption should be drastically reduced. It's the scientific consensus that has been agreed from multiple studies.
Do you agree with that or not? Or is this one article from three years ago somehow going to negate all those studies and research?

It's no surprise to see the meat industry being caught peddling fake news and disinformation either

Scientists with the world’s top climate organization made reducing meat consumption an official policy recommendation in 2019, echoing what environmentalists had urged for years: Eating less meat, in particular beef, reduces the large volume of emissions attributed to livestock. That guidance has only accelerated efforts by the beef industry to discredit the notion that strip steaks and cheeseburgers are climate culprits.

For two years, industry officials and a handful of sympathetic academics, some of whom are funded by livestock business groups, have argued in congressional testimony, newspaper op-eds, and research papers that the climate science is all wrong. There’s even alternative math to prove the cattle industry has been falsely maligned.

Beef Industry Tries to Erase Its Emissions With Fuzzy Methane Math

A new campaign asserts, incorrectly, that cows in the U.S. “may not be contributing much at all to global warming.”

www.bloomberg.com

 

[editor]

Who's in favour of a meat tax?

The idea of a meat tax has been widely discussed across the globe in recent years, particularly as a way to reduce consumption of beef in light of the effects the cattle industry has on the climate crisis. The United Nations has said that emissions from livestock account for 14.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions across the planet. Almost two-thirds of those emissions come from cattle, especially in the form of the methane gas emitted by the animals, according to the United Nations.

Should you pay a 'meat tax' on your burger? Some environmentalists say it's a necessary step to save the planet

Concerns about the climate crisis are fueling the meat-tax debate, especially in connection with the Glasgow COP26 environmental summit

www.marketwatch.com

 

[glitch hiker]

Worth looking around for the best way to cook it. It can be tasty but really bad if done wrong.

I just fried it along with some sardines

 

[kabbes]

My focus for both health and environmental reasons is on avoiding what I will loosely call “processed” food (although the reality is more complicated than that, because almost everything involves a process. I’m focused here on factory processes that both bring a lot of chemicals into the mix and also necessitate a lot of food miles as part of the production process). That means avoiding an awful lot of meat-based products. However, it also means avoiding plenty of vegetarian and vegan products too. The idea is just laughable that some of these incredibly highly processed meat-substitute sausages are better for the environment than a sausage from a organically-reared pig that is eating waste vegetable matter and whose manure is being ploughed back into the soil as a result of its natural rooting. It’s not just about whether it’s meat or not meat, it’s also about all the ancillary food industry that surrounds it.

 

[editor]

The idea is just laughable that some of these incredibly highly processed meat-substitute sausages are better for the environment than a sausage from a organically-reared pig that is eating waste vegetable matter and whose manure is being ploughed back into the soil as a result of its natural rooting.

Such a cherry-picked and idyllic view of the pig industry.

No one can disagree that those fortunate "organically-reared pigs that are eating waste vegetable matter" are having a reduced environmental impact, but then you're the vast majority don't have such pleasant lives.

Here's what the reality often looks like.

The environmental impact of soya versus meat production​

If choosing between meat and soya, it is important to keep the environmental impacts of soya in perspective. Analyses nearly always suggest that meat is substantially worse in environmental terms than the alternatives.

Not eating soya directly does not mean that you are not eating soya at all. Per 100 grams, animal products contain the following amounts of embedded soya, from the soya used in feed:

• Chicken – about 109 grams (more than the weight of the actual meat)
• Farmed salmon – about 60 grams.
• Eggs – about 64 grams
• Pork or beef – about 50 grams
• Cheese – about 25 grams

Vegan and Meat Alternative Foods | Ethical Consumer

We look at vegan brands owned by big meat producers, meat-free ingredients, soya and deforestation, and more. With ethical & environmental rankings of 28 meat alternative brands, and recommended buys.

www.ethicalconsumer.org

 

[glitch hiker]

Or you could make yourself an even tastier and equally nutritious veggie meal/soup.

Err, no. That categorically does not refute the conclusions of multiple studies into the negative impact of meat production on the environment.

It even clearly says: "We just need to stop increasing our collective meat consumption." Do you agree with that or not?

Anything would be tastier than tofu. I don't hate it (wouldn't be eating it otherwise) but it isn't intrinsically tasty. unlike the broccoli cucumber bok choi and fish and eggs I ate with it.

This is what the quote your referencing says:

“We don’t actually need to give up eating meat to stabilise global temperatures,” says Professor Myles Allen who led the study (meat production is a major source of methane). “We just need to stop increasing our collective meat consumption. But we do need to give up dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Every tonne of CO2 emitted is equivalent to a permanent increase in the methane emission rate. Climate policies could be designed to reflect this.”

I don't think I've advocated a higher collective meat consumption. In fact I'm willing to believe, in lieu of hard evidence of course, that, with a properly healthy diet, our collective consumption might be less.

 

[editor]

Anything would be tastier than tofu. I don't hate it (wouldn't be eating it otherwise) but it isn't intrinsically tasty. unlike the broccoli cucumber bok choi and fish and eggs I ate with it.

This is what the quote your referencing says:

“We don’t actually need to give up eating meat to stabilise global temperatures,” says Professor Myles Allen who led the study (meat production is a major source of methane). “We just need to stop increasing our collective meat consumption. But we do need to give up dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Every tonne of CO2 emitted is equivalent to a permanent increase in the methane emission rate. Climate policies could be designed to reflect this.”

I don't think I've advocated a higher collective meat consumption. In fact I'm willing to believe, in lieu of hard evidence of course, that, with a properly healthy diet, our collective consumption might be less.

Ah you're back to this one article. Why are you refusing to comment or engage on all the other links from established studies?

You sound increasingly like a conspiracy theorist who will constantly ignore the overwhelming consensus of science and multiple studies just because you've found one minor article that has a slightly different viewpoint.

And from the same author:

There is little scope for technical solutions, it concludes, so the effort needs to be focused on reducing food waste and loss, improving livestock management and encouraging consumers to adopt what the report calls "healthier diets" - those with a lower meat and dairy content.

If a concerted effort managed to achieve that 45% cut in methane emissions, it would help avoid nearly 0.3C of global warming as early as the 2040s, the report claims.

Because of methane's contribution to the formation of ozone, up to a quarter of a million premature deaths could be avoided worldwide under the most aggressive emission abatement efforts.

This attempt to focus on the issue of methane is very welcome, said Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford University, provided it does not distract from the need to reduce CO2 emissions to net zero as soon as possible.

Cutting methane gas 'crucial for climate fight'

Reducing methane emissions needs to play a much more important role in tackling global warming.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[WouldBe]

Here's what the reality often looks like.

Aren't they farrowing crates for when the pigs give birth?
If they are there should be gaps between the pigs to allow the piglets to get out if the way to prevent them getting crushed by the mother when she rolls over.

If they aren't farrowing crates then that farm is going out of business if they only have that few pigs for all those crates.

Staged?

 

[Chilli.s]

There are pigs that are free ranging in fields, I pay extra for that meat and eat less of it as it is a luxury.

 

[editor]

Aren't they farrowing crates for when the pigs give birth?
If they are there should be gaps between the pigs to allow the piglets to get out if the way to prevent them getting crushed by the mother when she rolls over.

If they aren't farrowing crates then that farm is going out of business if they only have that few pigs for all those crates.

Staged?

So now you're going into full Trump-like conspiracy denial and claiming that any images that don't fit your narrative must be 'staged.'

There is plenty of evidence of the cruel and inhumane conditions of intensively farmed pigs.

Intensive pig farming - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the UK there are around 11,000 pig farms. Approximately 1,400 of these units house more than 1,000 pigs and contain about 85% of the total UK pig population.[27][28] Because of this, the vast majority of the pork products sold in the UK come from intensive farms.

Intensive pig farming - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The suffering of farmed pigs - Animal Aid

Most pigs in Britain are raised in crowded, dank sheds and get to taste fresh air only briefly while being shunted to and from the breeding units.

www.animalaid.org.uk

 

[Spymaster]

So loads of posts of pictures of intensive farming, in response to a post about organic farming.

 

[gentlegreen]

So loads of posts of pictures of intensive farming, in response to a post about organic farming.

Because that is not how 8 billion people will be able achieve their aspiration of dying painfully and slowly, the American way ...

 

[kabbes]

Intensive pig farming is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. I don’t eat any pork that has been intensively farmed. At all.

 

[WouldBe]

So now you're going into full Trump-like conspiracy denial and claiming that any images that don't fit your narrative must be 'staged.'

FFS I've not claimed anything. I questioned it hence the ?

 

[editor]

FFS I've not claimed anything. I questioned it hence the ?

The very fact that you're 'questioning' it without offering a single shred of evidence to even suggest that the photo was 'staged' is classic conspiraloon territory and it's as tiresome as fuck.

 

[editor]

Intensive pig farming is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. I don’t eat any pork that has been intensively farmed. At all.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who eat pork do eat the intensively farmed stuff.

 

[WouldBe]

The very fact that you're 'questioning' it without offering a single shred of evidence to even suggest that the photo was 'staged' is classic conspiraloon territory and it's as tiresome as fuck.

People learn by questioning things. You ought to try it some time.

 

[kabbes]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who eat pork do eat the intensively farmed stuff.

And my point is that replacing that with another intensive factory process, whilst certainly beneficial in terms of animal welfare, is not inherently better for either health or environment. If you want people to go vegetarian, I don’t think that the solution is to treat horrendously artificial food processing as the pathway.

 

[glitch hiker]

Ah you're back to this one article. Why are you refusing to comment or engage on all the other links from established studies?

Yes, the article I posted that you responded to. Directly quoting.

And from the same author:

It is entirely possible for the one author to be wrong on one claim and right on another. They are different claims around the issue of animal food and you vacilate between the two constantly. I don't agree that a healthy diet requires no animal food. In fact the comment you highlighted is relevant and so meaningless sans context. One could be eating an unhealthy diet that is high in animal products which contains all sorts of unhealth elements (candy, energy drinks, etc). That diet could be reduced to a level you would still find high and also still meet the criteria of this statement. The problem isnt' meat, it's the standard western diet