Meat eaters are destroying the planet, warns WWF report

[editor]

Fuck me, are you actually reading what anyone else puts or just banging your vegetable bongo by reflex? If you check ever post i have made on this thread you will see

I AGREE, GENERALLY WE SHOULD EAT LESS MEAT

I just believe the situation is more complex than the reductionist is argument you are continually presenting without engaging with the nuances of the broader discussion.

BTW I am a former scientist with an MSc, so yes I understand the articles you quote which recommend eating LESS meat, not necessarily becoming veggie, vegan, fruitopian or whatever.

I just happen to believe that the problem is complex and needs complex solutions.

What is this 'broader argument' past people having to eat a fucking shitload less meat then? Please explain the real world practicalities of your more sophisticated argument.

And at no point have I ever implored or suggested that everyone or anyone should become veggie, vegan, fruitopian or whatever so I've no idea why you're bringing that up.

 

[editor]

This would have been a good point at which to consider the question you had just typed, and hence whether you were about to waste a lot of perfectly good keystrokes.

Why even type that? All your contributions seem to be you trying to stir the pot. If you're unwilling yo discuss the topic please leave the thread.

 

[8ball]

Why even type that?

You're just being contrary now, aren't you?

 

[editor]

You're just being contrary now, aren't you?

I've had enough of your disruptive sniping. I know it's all a big laugh to you and fucking up this thread is how you get your lolz, but it's incredibly tedious and you're not half as smartarse as you think you are.

 

[8ball]

I've had enough of your disruptive sniping. I know it's all a big laugh to you and fucking up this thread is how you get your lolz, but it's incredibly tedious and you're not half as smartarse as you think you are.

Bit rich when you've been fucking up the thread since the OP.

 

[butcher]

The problem is not just over consumption but over population. If you still keep feeding an increasing population but on lentils it will still be a problem.

How that is addressed is a minefield, but as I wrote previously one way to ease over population may be developing infrastructure and funding education in emerging economies.

ETA I am getting a bit tired of the circle jerk party so will leave the thread now anyway

 

[editor]

Bit rich when you've been fucking up the thread since the OP.

You'll be delighted to know that you and others have done a brilliant job of closing down all debate in this thread. Just about all of your recent contributions have had absolutely nothing to do with the topic, and along with a few others, the main motivation has been to ensure that no sensible discussion can take place about the very real damage that meat intensive diets are causing.

 

[8ball]

The problem is not just over consumption but over population. If you still keep feeding an increasing population but on lentils it will still be a problem.

How that is addressed is a minefield, but as I wrote previously one way to ease over population may be developing infrastructure and funding education in emerging economies.

Population stuff is a complex thing which needs its own thread (especially when so much consumption is actually occurring in places with lower birth rates), but yeah, from what I have read it is education (especially of young women), and an increase in living standards which leads to a drop in birth rates.

<just wanted to see if I could get that in before being booted off thread>

 

[8ball]

You'll be delighted to know that you and others have done a brilliant job of closing down all debate in this thread.

You have no interest in debate of any kind in this thread. The dishonesty is actually really insulting to all involved.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The problem is not just over consumption but over population. If you still keep feeding an increasing population but on lentils it will still be a problem.

How that is addressed is a minefield, but as I wrote previously one way to ease over population may be developing infrastructure and funding education in emerging economies.

ETA I am getting a bit tired of the circle jerk party so will leave the thread now anyway

So which bit of the population is 'over'? Presumably not a bit that includes you.

Not going down this rabbit hole again, cos I've done it too many times on here, but no the problem is unsustainable consumption, most of it done by the rich in parts of the world whose population is no longer increasing.

 

[editor]

The problem is not just over consumption but over population. If you still keep feeding an increasing population but on lentils it will still be a problem.

How that is addressed is a minefield, but as I wrote previously one way to ease over population may be developing infrastructure and funding education in emerging economies.

ETA I am getting a bit tired of the circle jerk party so will leave the thread now anyway

Probably a good idea, because any 'solution' to your over population 'problem' strays into extremely dodgy ground. Funnily enough, almost all the studies don't put the blame at third world people having 'too many' children, and say that there's ample food around if people just changed their diets and, you know, ate less meat.

It would be far easier to feed nine billion people by 2050 if more of the crops we grew ended up in human stomachs. Today only 55 percent of the world’s crop calories feed people directly; the rest are fed to livestock (about 36 percent) or turned into biofuels and industrial products (roughly 9 percent). Though many of us consume meat, dairy, and eggs from animals raised on feedlots, only a fraction of the calories in feed given to livestock make their way into the meat and milk that we consume. For every 100 calories of grain we feed animals, we get only about 40 new calories of milk, 22 calories of eggs, 12 of chicken, 10 of pork, or 3 of beef. Finding more efficient ways to grow meat and shifting to less meat-intensive diets—even just switching from grain-fed beef to meats like chicken, pork, or pasture-raised beef—could free up substantial amounts of food across the world. Because people in developing countries are unlikely to eat less meat in the near future, given their newfound prosperity, we can first focus on countries that already have meat-rich diets. Curtailing the use of food crops for biofuels could also go a long way toward enhancing food availability.

Feeding 9 Billion - National Geographic

When we think about threats to the environment, we tend to picture cars and smokestacks, not dinner. But the truth is, our need for food poses one of the biggest dangers to the planet.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[8ball]

Probably a good idea, because any 'solution' to your over population 'problem' strays into extremely dodgy ground. Funnily enough, almost all the studies don't put the blame at third world people having too many children, and say that there's ample food around if people changed their diets.

<just chiming in with agreement on both points as it happens, though I don't think all discussion of the population issue has to go down dodgy routes>

 

[littlebabyjesus]

<just chiming in with agreement on both points as it happens, though I don't think all discussion of the population issue has to go down dodgy routes>

It invariably does when it's started off from an unexamined premise that there are 'too many' of us.

 

[editor]

<just chiming in with agreement on both points as it happens, though I don't think all discussion of the population issue has to go down dodgy routes>

So how would you address the over population 'problem'?

 

[editor]

It invariably does when it's started off from an unexamined premise that there are 'too many' of us.

Even more so when it appears to be tied into a defence of the meat industry against growing environmental pressures that people should drastically reduce their meat intake.

 

[8ball]

So how would you address the over population 'problem'?

Well, I'm just someone chatting shit on tinternet, so there's not much I can do to address it myself, but we know that with general economic development and education (which, despite not appearing on many headlines, is going pretty well in a lot of places), birth rates are, and will continue to drop.

At some point the world population will peak, and the main trick we need to pull off, in my view, is getting past what is probably an inevitable period of being beyond certain hard carrying-capacity limits* without major resource wars or falling into some kinds of potential oppressive dystopia (likely a result of the aforementioned wars). The peak is likely to be between 12 and 19 billion (ymmv), and being closer to the lower number is clearly the safer path.

I think this is all a bit theoretical, though, and it is our economic, political and farming** systems that we need to seriously look at, rather than approaching things as an engineering problem. I don't think population, in itself, is the nub of the issue.

* - a big debate in itself
** - which will be another big debate, but I do think mitigations will involve moving away from a place where each new region massively increases its meat demand at a particular point

 

[8ball]

Even more so when it appears to be tied into a defence of the meat industry against growing environmental pressures that people should drastically reduce their meat intake.

I might be going a couple of extra rungs up the cynicism ladder, but quite aside from the meat industry angle, there is sometimes a racist agenda to this. Should stress I am not accusing anyone on here of taking that angle.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

God this thread is fucked

 

[krtek a houby]

God this thread is fucked

Urban eats itself

 

[8ball]

Fuck me. Heavyweights have turned up, then.

 

[editor]

Just when it looked like this thread was getting back on topic. Sigh.

 

[TopCat]

Whats the impact comparison with having a kid vs being a veggie?

 

[8ball]

Whats the impact comparison with having a kid vs being a veggie?

Isn't that a pretty simple one seeing how having a kid is a positive carbon impact, whereas being a veggie is mostly probably negative unless you start off as a vegan.

 

[WouldBe]

Probably a good idea, because any 'solution' to your over population 'problem' strays into extremely dodgy ground. Funnily enough, almost all the studies don't put the blame at third world people having 'too many' children, and say that there's ample food around if people just changed their diets and, you know, ate less meat.

Finding more efficient ways to grow meat and shifting to less meat-intensive diets—even just switching from grain-fed beef to meats like chicken, pork, or pasture-raised beef—could free up substantial amounts of food across the world.

So no need to cut down just choose pasture raised beef instead.

 

[Humberto]

So no need to cut down just choose pasture raised beef instead.

'Pasture raised beef instead' presumably requiring more resources and space?

 

[8ball]

So no need to cut down just choose pasture raised beef instead.

WARNING - Intuitive thinking follows: I think if you wanted to make pasture-raised beef in the amounts created by far more destructive and intensive farming methods, you might need a few extra planets. That's not an expert view, though, so let's see what comes along.

 

[TopCat]

Bit rich when you've been fucking up the thread since the OP.

I would take note.

 

[editor]

I would take note.

And another one piles in with fuck all to say.

 

[WouldBe]

'Pasture raised beef instead' presumably requiring more resources and space?

Take it up with the experts ed quoted.

 

[editor]

So no need to cut down just choose pasture raised beef instead.

Because absolutely everyone can afford that and there's plenty of space and plenty of resources for the pasture raised beef, yes? And all those silly billy experts and scientists with their studies saying that we have to reduce the planet's beef consumption. What do they know, eh?