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

[littlebabyjesus]

The good thing about carbon emissions from cattle farts is they can be offset elsewhere. Nitrates from chemical fertilisers, on the other hand, can't be offset. They're polluting the rivers and killing everything, and the more people turn vege, the worse it's going to get.

The fundamental difference between cattle farts (it's burps mostly that are the problem) and emissions from petroleum-derived products is that the former are part of an existing carbon cycle while the latter add new carbon to the cycle.

We need to stop digging up fossil fuels and using them for energy, ferts, etc. That's the change in behaviour that is needed to address climate change. And it will require an enormous collective effort that we've not even begun to take. Even the easy stuff like plugging gas leaks hasn't been done yet (the fossil fuel industry puts a lot more methane in the atmosphere than cows - this being new carbon previously locked up underground).

 

[Funky_monks]

The good thing about carbon emissions from cattle farts is they can be offset elsewhere. Nitrates from chemical fertilisers, on the other hand, can't be offset. They're polluting the rivers and killing everything, and the more people turn vege, the worse it's going to get.

The emissions from cattle, certainly grazed ones are most likely offset on the farm on which they are currently residing.

Oddly enough, one of the measures proposed to reduce nitrate emissions on arable farms is re introducing grazing livestock in the rotation.

 

[Saul Goodman]

The emissions from cattle, certainly grazed ones are most likely offset on the farm on which they are currently residing.

Oddly enough, one of the measures proposed to reduce nitrate emissions on arable farms is re introducing grazing livestock in the rotation.

I doubt many people would find that odd. It makes perfect sense.

 

[Funky_monks]

The fundamental difference between cattle farts (it's burps mostly that are the problem) and emissions from petroleum-derived products is that the former are part of an existing carbon cycle while the latter add new carbon to the cycle.

We need to stop digging up fossil fuels and using them for energy, ferts, etc. That's the change in behaviour that is needed to address climate change. And it will require an enormous collective effort that we've not even begun to take. Even the easy stuff like plugging gas leaks hasn't been done yet (the fossil fuel industry puts a lot more methane in the atmosphere than cows - this being new carbon previously locked up underground).

Even with the burps - there's a whole methane reducing feed additive business sprung up around them, some of which, again were supposed to be compulsory soon under various schemes. However: The best additive to reduce methane is high-quality grass. So farmers are now asking if they can just say they feed animals grass in place of them......

 

[WouldBe]

I doubt many people would find that odd. It makes perfect sense.

Except to vegetarians.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Except to vegetarians.

I'm sure most vegetarians would get it. It's just the odd vocal few who don't seem to want to get it. Some seem to care more about self-image than they do about saving the planet.

 

[Funky_monks]

I'm sure most vegetarians would get it. It's just the odd vocal few who don't seem to want to get it. Some seem to care more about self-image than they do about saving the planet.

Quite - there's also this: New Study Shows Planting Trees May Not Be as Good for the Climate as Previously Believed - Inside Climate News

Permanent pasture (especially if you lime it) sequesters a lot of carbon too. Ive seen the figures for a silvopastoral (willow and cows) system that sequesters an awful lot of carbon....

 

[Saul Goodman]

Quite - there's also this: New Study Shows Planting Trees May Not Be as Good for the Climate as Previously Believed - Inside Climate News

Permanent pasture (especially if you lime it) sequesters a lot of carbon too. Ive seen the figures for a silvopastoral (willow and cows) system that sequesters an awful lot of carbon....

Trees have their place but they're pretty shit slow at sequestering carbon. You're looking at 100 years before they're a viable sink. Then they'll probably get cut down and burned...
Soil sequestration is a much better method than trees. Cannabis would be a win win

 

[Funky_monks]

Trees have their place but they're pretty shit slow at sequestering carbon. You're looking at 100 years before they're a viable sink. Then they'll probably get cut down and burned...
Soil sequestration is a much better method than trees. Cannabis would be a win win

It would as long as you didn't then cut it down and smoke it

 

[Saul Goodman]

It would as long as you didn't then cut it down and smoke it

You could eat it

 

[Karl Masks]

The meat industry is doing its best to replicate the filthy tobacco industry:



Elsewhere:

‘Bewildering’ to omit meat-eating reduction from UN climate plan

Academic experts also criticise UN Food and Agriculture Organization for dismissing alternative proteins

www.theguardian.com

Banks driving increase in global meat and dairy production, report finds

Financiers providing billion-dollar support for industrial livestock companies to expand leading to unsustainable rise in production

www.theguardian.com

How do you address the bad retention rate that veganism suffers? It's a tiny minority of people in the world taht are vegan

 

[editor]

How do you address the bad retention rate that veganism suffers? It's a tiny minority of people in the world taht are vegan

My main issue is getting people to eat much less meat and on that score there's been huge successes.

Look how popular and mainstream non dairy milk has become. Or how many fast food restaurants and supermarkets etc now offer several vegan/veggie alternatives.

 

[Funky_monks]

It's mad to me that on a so-called left wing bulletin board, the fact that industrial food processors have managed to sell people highly processed plant water at a much greater margin than actual milk, so devoid of nutrition that it has to be fortified, often containing as much added sugar as Coca-Cola, whilst (in the case of soy) using one of the most environmentally damaging crops on the planet whilst also effectively manufacturing monogastric livestock feed as a byproduct is lauded.

Yay fucking capitalism.

Especially in the light of more and more research suggesting dairy (especially fermented, full fat dairy) being particularly healthy (unless you are lactose intolerant).....

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I'm not really sure what it could mean for a human to have a stronger interest in continued living than animals like rats and rabbits. That you're causing more grief by killing humans than by killing rats, I get, but not the 'interest'. All living things have an interest in staying alive.

By your definition of speciesist - to give less weight or consideration to the interests of a being simply in virtue of their species membership - I'm speciesist. I prioritise human wellbeing. I would prioritise the wellbeing of a dog over that of an insect. And I think you have to stretch the limits of your argument in order to say that you're not. You think the ideas I sketch out are 'a vague, ad-hoc, hodge-podge of intuitions' that are self-serving. But being vague and hodge-potch isn't necessarily a vice if you're aware that your ideas aren't watertight or entirely bulletproof. The real danger comes when you think your ideas are bulletproof. That's what I see in your arguments. You don't conceal your contempt for anyone who doesn't understand as you understand it that not being vegan is morally wrong. That's the fundamentalism. This position is correct, anything else is utterly wrong.

To step back a bit and say something about moral method, I think there are two equal vices in moral reasoning: on the one hand what philosophers call 'rationalism' (and you call 'fundamentalism') and on the other 'intuitionism' (i.e. the 'hodge-prodge' approach).

Rationalism is the belief that we can derive all moral principles from reason alone. The key is to discover general rational principles and then deductively apply them to all ethical dillemas to get the 'right' answer. Rationalism isn't a good approach. Moral deliberation is clearly a social and emotional practice as much it is about reasoning. The general principles that rationalists appeal to are either too vague to be of any use (e.g. 'act justly') or are too rigid to yeild plausible results (for example Kant - perhaps the most well known moral rationalist - thought that all moral principles derive from a 'categorical imperitive' to treat persons as ends in themself. He concluded from this principle that it would be wrong to lie to an axe murderer about the location of his victim because that would undermine the autonomy of the axe murderer, i.e. treat him as a mere means). Rationalism also struggles to resolve conflicts between ethical principles.

Intuitionism, by contrast, says moral principles are directly accessed through our intuitions - basically our 'gut feeling' about things. Intuitionism is more flexible and pluralist than rationalism but has its own drawbacks. It struggles to provide practical guidance for moral decision-making, it cannot resolve ethical disagreement, it can support an incoherent set of principles and is also in tension with moral progress. We know from history that there have been widely held intutions that have upheld monsterous practices. If you'd asked the average white person in the antebellum US South what they thought of slavery they probably had the intuition that it was just fine. If you'd asked most men (and maybe even women) in 19th Century England whether women should have the right to vote, many of them would have thought that idea absurd. What did people in the 1930s think of homosexuality? They probably had strong intuitions that it was disgusting. I fear your 'hodge podge' approach is a recipe for repeating these mistakes. I certainly can't see how it avoids them anyway. These examples should caution us about just relying on how we feel about something ethically. We should at least subject our ethical judgements to scrutiny rather than simply accepting them as they come to us.

In my view, the best compromise between these two approaches is some variant of the idea of 'reflective equilibrium'. The basic idea here is that we ought to consider both our general moral principles and our judgements about particular cases as 'data points' and aim to achieve the broadest coherent fit between all of them. This might in some instances involve revising or rejecting judgements about particular cases or it may involve the modification or rejection of some general moral principles.

It is through the process of reflective equilibrium that I have arrived at my general judgements about anti-speciesism and animal rights.

Consider the following, fairly uncontroversial moral principles for example:

* we owe some moral obligations to other sentient animals

* its wrong to discriminate against individuals on the basis of characteristics which are irrelevant to the nature and strength of their interests (this is why sexism, racism, ableism etc. are bad)

* when it comes to humans, sentience alone is at least sufficient for full inclusion within the community of moral equals

When I consider the application of these principles to various cases I find that they withstand the process of reflective equilibrium so I accept them as moral principles. However, when combined with certain uncontroversial empirical assumptions I find that the conjunction of those principles also entails a commitment to anti-speciesism.

 

[bcuster]

The posts (all of them) here are taking a high level. I appreciate it. I’m learning a lot. Thanks, guys…

 

[Karl Masks]

My main issue is getting people to eat much less meat and on that score there's been huge successes.

Look how popular and mainstream non dairy milk has become. Or how many fast food restaurants and supermarkets etc now offer several vegan/veggie alternatives.

The ingredients of these milks is as scary as the price. I don't see them really taking off

 

[krtek a houby]

My main issue is getting people to eat much less meat and on that score there's been huge successes.

Look how popular and mainstream non dairy milk has become. Or how many fast food restaurants and supermarkets etc now offer several vegan/veggie alternatives.

The milks really make a difference, though do miss the variety available in the UK.

 

[Karl Masks]

My main issue is getting people to eat much less meat and on that score there's been huge successes.

Look how popular and mainstream non dairy milk has become. Or how many fast food restaurants and supermarkets etc now offer several vegan/veggie alternatives.

But again, much less than what? It's extremely filling and very nutritious. Whether or not you agree with the ethics of its production

 

[Karl Masks]

To step back a bit and say something about moral method, I think there are two equal vices in moral reasoning: on the one hand what philosophers call 'rationalism' (and you call 'fundamentalism') and on the other 'intuitionism' (i.e. the 'hodge-prodge' approach).

Rationalism is the belief that we can derive all moral principles from reason alone. The key is to discover general rational principles and then deductively apply them to all ethical dillemas to get the 'right' answer. Rationalism isn't a good approach. Moral deliberation is clearly a social and emotional practice as much it is about reasoning. The general principles that rationalists appeal to are either too vague to be of any use (e.g. 'act justly') or are too rigid to yeild plausible results (for example Kant - perhaps the most well known moral rationalist - thought that all moral principles derive from a 'categorical imperitive' to treat persons as ends in themself. He concluded from this principle that it would be wrong to lie to an axe murderer about the location of his victim because that would undermine the autonomy of the axe murderer, i.e. treat him as a mere means). Rationalism also struggles to resolve conflicts between ethical principles.

Intuitionism, by contrast, says moral principles are directly accessed through our intuitions - basically our 'gut feeling' about things. Intuitionism is more flexible and pluralist than rationalism but has its own drawbacks. It struggles to provide practical guidance for moral decision-making, it cannot resolve ethical disagreement, it can support an incoherent set of principles and is also in tension with moral progress. We know from history that there have been widely held intutions that have upheld monsterous practices. If you'd asked the average white person in the antebellum US South what they thought of slavery they probably had the intuition that it was just fine. If you'd asked most men (and maybe even women) in 19th Century England whether women should have the right to vote, many of them would have thought that idea absurd. What did people in the 1930s think of homosexuality? They probably had strong intuitions that it was disgusting. I fear your 'hodge podge' approach is a recipe for repeating these mistakes. I certainly can't see how it avoids them anyway. These examples should caution us about just relying on how we feel about something ethically. We should at least subject our ethical judgements to scrutiny rather than simply accepting them as they come to us.

In my view, the best compromise between these two approaches is some variant of the idea of 'reflective equilibrium'. The basic idea here is that we ought to consider both our general moral principles and our judgements about particular cases as 'data points' and aim to achieve the broadest coherent fit between all of them. This might in some instances involve revising or rejecting judgements about particular cases or it may involve the modification or rejection of some general moral principles.

It is through the process of reflective equilibrium that I have arrived at my general judgements about anti-speciesism and animal rights.

Consider the following, fairly uncontroversial moral principles for example:

* we owe some moral obligations to other sentient animals

* its wrong to discriminate against individuals on the basis of characteristics which are irrelevant to the nature and strength of their interests (this is why sexism, racism, ableism etc. are bad)

* when it comes to humans, sentience alone is at least sufficient for full inclusion within the community of moral equals

When I consider the application of these principles to various cases I find that they withstand the process of reflective equilibrium so I accept them as moral principles. However, when combined with certain uncontroversial empirical assumptions I find that the conjunction of those principles also entails a commitment to anti-speciesism.

I take the view that animals are deserving of moral consideration, just not as much as humans. Some animals have become part of human social structure and as such we exempt them. We don't need to eat of all the animals, and I'm quite happy to exempt cat dog and chimp for example.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

To step back a bit and say something about moral method, I think there are two equal vices in moral reasoning: on the one hand what philosophers call 'rationalism' (and you call 'fundamentalism') and on the other 'intuitionism' (i.e. the 'hodge-prodge' approach).

Rationalism is the belief that we can derive all moral principles from reason alone. The key is to discover general rational principles and then deductively apply them to all ethical dillemas to get the 'right' answer. Rationalism isn't a good approach. Moral deliberation is clearly a social and emotional practice as much it is about reasoning. The general principles that rationalists appeal to are either too vague to be of any use (e.g. 'act justly') or are too rigid to yeild plausible results (for example Kant - perhaps the most well known moral rationalist - thought that all moral principles derive from a 'categorical imperitive' to treat persons as ends in themself. He concluded from this principle that it would be wrong to lie to an axe murderer about the location of his victim because that would undermine the autonomy of the axe murderer, i.e. treat him as a mere means). Rationalism also struggles to resolve conflicts between ethical principles.

Intuitionism, by contrast, says moral principles are directly accessed through our intuitions - basically our 'gut feeling' about things. Intuitionism is more flexible and pluralist than rationalism but has its own drawbacks. It struggles to provide practical guidance for moral decision-making, it cannot resolve ethical disagreement, it can support an incoherent set of principles and is also in tension with moral progress. We know from history that there have been widely held intutions that have upheld monsterous practices. If you'd asked the average white person in the antebellum US South what they thought of slavery they probably had the intuition that it was just fine. If you'd asked most men (and maybe even women) in 19th Century England whether women should have the right to vote, many of them would have thought that idea absurd. What did people in the 1930s think of homosexuality? They probably had strong intuitions that it was disgusting. I fear your 'hodge podge' approach is a recipe for repeating these mistakes. I certainly can't see how it avoids them anyway. These examples should caution us about just relying on how we feel about something ethically. We should at least subject our ethical judgements to scrutiny rather than simply accepting them as they come to us.

In my view, the best compromise between these two approaches is some variant of the idea of 'reflective equilibrium'. The basic idea here is that we ought to consider both our general moral principles and our judgements about particular cases as 'data points' and aim to achieve the broadest coherent fit between all of them. This might in some instances involve revising or rejecting judgements about particular cases or it may involve the modification or rejection of some general moral principles.

It is through the process of reflective equilibrium that I have arrived at my general judgements about anti-speciesism and animal rights.

Consider the following, fairly uncontroversial moral principles for example:

* we owe some moral obligations to other sentient animals

* its wrong to discriminate against individuals on the basis of characteristics which are irrelevant to the nature and strength of their interests (this is why sexism, racism, ableism etc. are bad)

* when it comes to humans, sentience alone is at least sufficient for full inclusion within the community of moral equals

When I consider the application of these principles to various cases I find that they withstand the process of reflective equilibrium so I accept them as moral principles. However, when combined with certain uncontroversial empirical assumptions I find that the conjunction of those principles also entails a commitment to anti-speciesism.

It's not either/or, though, is it? It's not either rationalism or intuitionism. Strikes me that this is where moral philosophers tie themselves in knots. Eg Kant's categorical imperative (what if everyone acted like that?) is a handy go-to in thinking about our actions, but it's not foolproof. There aren't foolproof imperatives.

ETA:

As for your counterexamples of the dangers of 'intuitionism', they're very questionable. In the 19th century, so-called 'scientific racism' arose as a reaction to the ending of slavery. These ideas were formulated by some of the most influential thinkers of their day, many rightly forgotten now like Herbert Spencer. In the 1850s, Spencer was probably Britain's most famous public intellectual. He thought he was being uber-rational. I'd be far less charitable and say that his theorising and that of others came as a result of a gut desire to show the supremacy of the white race in order to justify the ongoing subjugation of freed slaves and their children. Those theories came in direct contradiction to the readily available intuitions that human races are equal, which have been felt by many people in many different times and places.

 

[editor]

But again, much less than what? It's extremely filling and very nutritious. Whether or not you agree with the ethics of its production

Seeing as you've seemingly ignored all the previous discussion in this thread, here's what the experts say:

The Eat-Lancet Commission recommends people consume no more than 15.7 kilograms of meat a year. The Rome-based UN agency, tasked with improving the agricultural sector and nutrition, is seeking to strike a balance between the climate transition and ensuring food security for the growing global population.

And the United Nations Guide to Climate Change says:

Animal-based diets have a high impact on our planet. Population growth and an increasing demand for meat and dairy results in the need to clear land and deforestation in order to make room for animal farms and growing animal feed. This results in loss of biodiversity, greater strain on resources like water and energy, among other adverse impacts. In the case of ruminant livestock such as cows and sheep, methane production, a greenhouse gas that is more potent than carbon dioxide, exacerbates the problem. The issue extends to seafood where overfishing and degradation of our oceans from industrial activity and pollution put the future of our ocean at jeopardy.

Switching to a plant-based diet can reduce an individual’s annual carbon footprint by up to 2.1 tons with a vegan diet or up to 1.5 tons for vegetarians. While switching completely overnight is difficult, easing into a plant-based diet by eating more vegetables for a particular meal(ex. lunch) or day of the week can be a great way to get started. Recruiting family, friends, and colleagues to make the transition more fun and social can also be an effective way to transition. With the availability of meat substitutions, vegan chefs and bloggers and the plant-based movement, eating more plants is becoming easier and more widespread with the additional benefits of better health and saving money!

Food | United Nations

www.un.org

 

[editor]

I'm quite happy to exempt cat dog and chimp for example.

Oh, how kind of you.

 

[Karl Masks]

Oh, how kind of you.

Do you find bitter sarcasm to hep persuading people to give up eating meat?

 

[editor]

Do you find bitter sarcasm to hep persuading people to give up eating meat?

Seeing as pigs are smarter than cats and dogs and on a par with chimpanzees in some areas. I'm curious why you're happy for them to be slaughtered in their millions while the former are declared 'exepmt.'
Perhaps you could explain the logic in your thinking?

Recognizing themselves in a mirror, learning to perform certain behaviors and solve problems faster than other animals are some of the skills of pigs, considered to be one of the smartest species, even more than chimpanzees, dogs or dolphins.

To demonstrate this, a group of scientists from the University of Cambridge (United Kingdom) carried out a study to verify that pigs are sensitive and intelligent animals, which become aware of their own existence. Furthermore, they have the ability to develop certain skills that allow them to gain knowledge to develop complex problems.

Thus, this study showed that pigs are able to recognize themselves in a mirror and understand that certain objects they saw were only a reflection, and that they were not behind the mirror.

In turn, it was shown that pigs are capable of solving problems faster than other animals such as cats, dogs or chimpanzees, considered one of the most intelligent species

The pig, one of the most intelligent species

Pigs are able to use a command to move a sensor on a screen.

www.rotecna.com

Oh, and feel free to try and discredit the above source, which is the usual tactic around these parts.

 

[Karl Masks]

Seeing as you've seemingly ignored all the previous discussion in this thread, here's what the experts say:



And the United Nations Guide to Climate Change says:

Food | United Nations

www.un.org

I find this somewhat disingenuous. Why recommend so unreasonably low an amount? These people should jsut be honest about their intentions and call for people to give up meat altogether. This sort of dishonesty always bugs me. I'd have more respect for that. 15kg is just absurd to me

 

[Karl Masks]

Seeing as pigs are smarter than cats and dogs and on a par with chimpanzees in some areas.

By what metric? I mean, if pigs are sufficiently intelligent to warrant greater moral consideration then sure we can omit them and eat other animals.

I'm curious why you're happy for them to be slaughtered in their millions while the former are declared 'exepmt.'
Perhaps you could explain the logic in your thinking?

I don't find animal slaughter makes me 'happy'. I feel it's necessary to feed people and that if we can we should do so as humanely as possible. I'm not sure the 'in their millions' qualifier is necessary.

We delcare cats and dogs exempt because they occupy a part in our social structures. Pigs don't. Consequently we would, I imagine, find eating dog and cat to be at best weird. We could, it would just require a shift in our social dynamics to view domestic pets as livestock.

Oh, and feel free to try and discredit the above source, which is the usual tactic around these parts.

I simply don't know how practical their recommendations are. We may have boxed ourselves into a corner as a civilisation with climate. HUman biology doesn't care about the environment, it cares about getting adequate nutrition

 

[editor]

By what metric? I mean, if pigs are sufficiently intelligent to warrant greater moral consideration then sure we can omit them and eat other animals.

I've literally just supported that assertion with a quote and a link.

 

[editor]

I find this somewhat disingenuous. Why recommend so unreasonably low an amount? These people should jsut be honest about their intentions and call for people to give up meat altogether. This sort of dishonesty always bugs me. I'd have more respect for that. 15kg is just absurd to me

Perhaps this will help:

While switching completely overnight is difficult, easing into a plant-based diet by eating more vegetables for a particular meal(ex. lunch) or day of the week can be a great way to get started. Recruiting family, friends, and colleagues to make the transition more fun and social can also be an effective way to transition. With the availability of meat substitutions, vegan chefs and bloggers and the plant-based movement, eating more plants is becoming easier and more widespread with the additional benefits of better health and saving money!

 

[Karl Masks]

Perhaps this will help:

I tried it and it wasn't for me. Even eating big nutritionally rich meals wasn't enough to keep me full for more than an hour at best. Vegan diets just aren't for everyone IMO. Im not in favour of a diet that lets people eat like Mr Creosote, but austerity isn't the answer. We must find better ways to feed the enormous human population we have created for ourselves

 

[editor]

I tried it and it wasn't for me. Even eating big nutritionally rich meals wasn't enough to keep me full for more than an hour at best. Vegan diets just aren't for everyone IMO. Im not in favour of a diet that lets people eat like Mr Creosote, but austerity isn't the answer. We must find better ways to feed the enormous human population we have created for ourselves

Happily, it's not all about you and millions have already managed to start reducing their meat intake, like everyone should be doing.