Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Opinion: "The End of Meat Is Here" - NY Times

The Olympic levels of whataboutery are truly a thing to behold in this thread.

Here's what the Environment Agency said about what's happening on the River Wye.

The Wye catchment is an iconic location and hugely important for biodiversity, principally due to the wide range of rare river wildlife. Over 60% of the phosphate load in the catchment is from diffuse agricultural pollution from livestock manure and nutrients washing into the river during heavy rain.

 
I check in on this thread from time to time and I’m yet to see anything except for two groups of people who have absolutely no chance of persuading each other of anything posting things that the other side has no interest in reading. Regardless of who is right, wrong, worthy or worthless, I have to ask what any of you are actually getting out of it? If you ignored this thread completely, would anything in the world change other than your blood pressure?
 
Presumably you've got a quote where Monbiot suggests 'we should stop all farming' in his book? Or perhaps you're the fucking loon?
I did say "all farming apart from his mate, who grows veg"

Lab-grown food is about to destroy farming – and save the planet | George Monbiot

"While arguments rage about plant- versus meat-based diets, new technologies will soon make them irrelevant. Before long, most of our food will come neither from animals nor plants, but from unicellular life. After 12,000 years of feeding humankind, all farming except fruit and veg production is likely to be replaced by ferming: brewing microbes through precision fermentation. This means multiplying particular micro-organisms, to produce particular products, in factories"

So, industrial, highly processed food. Obviously huge corporations controlling most of our food supply which is now mostly made up of highly processed synthetic foods is absolutely fine by George, but fucking terrifying to me.

Regenesis: Feeding the World Without Devouring the Planet.

This is a very positive review, but: "At the other end of the spectrum, Monbiot discusses the high-tech method of microbial fermentation that grows proteins in vats and has a tiny land footprint. Interestingly, he has become less convinced by attempts at growing cultured meat, instead hoping for completely new cuisines. I was left wondering about the nutritional value though. Monbiot seems fixated on the protein this technology can provide and dreams of a farm-free future in which vast tracts of land can be returned to nature. But we live on more than protein alone. Though he mentions that bacteria could produce the vitamins we need thanks to genetic engineering, he does not mention all the other macro- and micronutrients....."
 
I check in on this thread from time to time and I’m yet to see anything except for two groups of people who have absolutely no chance of persuading each other of anything posting things that the other side has no interest in reading. Regardless of who is right, wrong, worthy or worthless, I have to ask what any of you are actually getting out of it? If you ignored this thread completely, would anything in the world change other than your blood pressure?
I'm just documenting the damage that intensive meat production is causing to the planet while the others rage in a bizarre denial. At least one poster seems to have decided to cut back their meat consumption as a result, so that's a small win in my book.

What's your thoughts?
 
The Olympic levels of whataboutery are truly a thing to behold in this thread.

Here's what the Environment Agency said about what's happening on the River Wye.



By you, mostly. Every time a discussion on this thread advances so far you bowl another "what about this other thing"? Into the conversation.

There was a discussion about water use and you bowled a load of stuff about pollution in the Wye into the conversation, using your usual approach of not reading stuff, and just cut and pasting a vast number of Guardian articles into the conversation.

I Imagine some phosphate does come from ag, although there is no way of isolating this, what about the nitrate and potassium? Also - until recently, thanks to exposes by the press, water companies seemed to be discharging without people knowing.
 
I'm just documenting the damage that intensive meat production is causing to the planet while the others rage in a bizarre denial. At least one poster seems to have decided to cut back their meat consumption as a result, so that's a small win in my book.

What's your thoughts?
My thoughts are that you are not remotely interested in my thoughts. I’ve known that for years, which is why I have no desire to share them.
 
I check in on this thread from time to time and I’m yet to see anything except for two groups of people who have absolutely no chance of persuading each other of anything posting things that the other side has no interest in reading. Regardless of who is right, wrong, worthy or worthless, I have to ask what any of you are actually getting out of it? If you ignored this thread completely, would anything in the world change other than your blood pressure?

With no middle ground allowed.
 
I did say "all farming apart from his mate, who grows veg"

Lab-grown food is about to destroy farming – and save the planet | George Monbiot

"While arguments rage about plant- versus meat-based diets, new technologies will soon make them irrelevant. Before long, most of our food will come neither from animals nor plants, but from unicellular life. After 12,000 years of feeding humankind, all farming except fruit and veg production is likely to be replaced by ferming: brewing microbes through precision fermentation. This means multiplying particular micro-organisms, to produce particular products, in factories"

So, industrial, highly processed food. Obviously huge corporations controlling most of our food supply which is now mostly made up of highly processed synthetic foods is absolutely fine by George, but fucking terrifying to me.

Regenesis: Feeding the World Without Devouring the Planet.

This is a very positive review, but: "At the other end of the spectrum, Monbiot discusses the high-tech method of microbial fermentation that grows proteins in vats and has a tiny land footprint. Interestingly, he has become less convinced by attempts at growing cultured meat, instead hoping for completely new cuisines. I was left wondering about the nutritional value though. Monbiot seems fixated on the protein this technology can provide and dreams of a farm-free future in which vast tracts of land can be returned to nature. But we live on more than protein alone. Though he mentions that bacteria could produce the vitamins we need thanks to genetic engineering, he does not mention all the other macro- and micronutrients....."

So you're quoting from a two year old article in which Monbiot makes predictions about the direction of the food system. The new book is different. Its a call for regenerative agriculture and a discussion of soil ecology. Cellular technologies to replace and exterminate the barbaric meat industry are just a part of the discussion.
 
So you're quoting from a two year old article in which Monbiot makes predictions about the direction of the food system. The new book is different. Its a call for regenerative agriculture and a discussion of soil ecology. Cellular technologies to replace and exterminate the barbaric meat industry are just a part of the discussion.
Have you read it (the book)?

It rubbishes regen ag and organic systems. Apart from some veg growers (his mate) there is to be no farming. Soil will be protected by wholesale rewilding. Hence, his own term "farmfree" future.

Regen ag is one of the areas I'm interested in, I'm currently involved in a couple of projects - one looking at approaches to grazing and measuring biodiversity in planned, mixed species (of sward), compared to set stocking. There are quite a few ecologists interested in these type approaches and some on "monocrop" (actually in the UK usually three in rotation) farms, using undersowing and catch cropping to use grazing animals to improve soil and increase biodiversity.
 
Last edited:
With no middle ground allowed.
I think there's quite lot allowed, I have been quite critical of some livestock ag and some cropping - earlier in the thread I talked about how farming needed to change.

All I seem to get back is a load of ridiculous Guardian articles with sweeping figures written by, and posted on here by someone with no understanding whatsoever about how one might actually produce any food, and no aknowledgement that animal and crop production are inextricably linked.

See my earlier post -

People are now drinking oat milk, this produces oat pulp as waste. Unless you want to just leave that (highly nutritious) stuff lying around or dump it somewhere, you can (and people do) feed it to animals.

Ergo, if you buy oat milk, you are "supporting animal ag".
 
I agree with a lot of what Vandana Shiva is saying here - you'll have to ignore the presence of Russell Brand and the "great reset" stuff, I don't buy into that, I just think it's capitalists doing what they always do - wanting to own and control all markets (but that is a topic for other threads). The point is, that we have to move away from fossil fuel fertilisers, and that is going to involve manure. Manure comes from animals.
The other, very important point is that agriculture is slow to change, and highly subject to weather - this is in part because of long lead in times for crops (possibly with the exception of a chicken) - Wheat might take 6-10 months, a lamb 8 months, a beef animal 2 years, soft fruit bushes 2-3 years (better after 4-5), top fruit at least 6 years and so on.
What governments are trying to do is force land change use quickly because they know this is the only place carbon can be sequestered "until industry can improve its carbon footprint", this is why there is tree based greenwashing all over the shop from companies desperate to offset - its the wrong way round. Industry & transport should be forced to change NOW, land use, and the building up of soils takes time.



Here she is talking about livestock:



Here's a take I partially agree with on regenesis, although I don't like the authors tone much. It's also possibly worth a look at some of the things James Rebanks talks about.

George Monbiot's farming fantasies

I have a feeling George is having a lifelong rebellion against his former Tory MP dad and councillor mum, but when you read him, that unmistakable air of the patronising, know all Tory comes straight back through. It's how he was raised.
 
People are now drinking oat milk, this produces oat pulp as waste. Unless you want to just leave that (highly nutritious) stuff lying around or dump it somewhere, you can (and people do) feed it to animals.

Ergo, if you buy oat milk, you are "supporting animal ag".
The NFU article I saw earlier turns the water usage figures on their head. With 1l of cows milk taking 8l of water to produce and almond milk taking 208l for a litre of milk.
 
What the fuck has almonds got to do with this?
And excuse me wild surprise that the NFU might try to shuffle the figures around.

And fuck that conspiracy anti vax clown Russell Brand.
Ignore him - I've already pointed out that video isn't about him. Listen to the bloody environmentalist that he's interviewing.
It's quite sad really (for you) that you aren't capable of actually reading anything I write - I try to put some nuance in my posts, and direct people to the things that I think are relevant, but you seem incapable of reading that.

It's like me posting up an interview with a politician on Paxman, and you telling me you don't like Paxman, but ignoring the person he's interviewing.
 
Last edited:
I think almonds have been raised because it has been stated that they are miles better for the environment than cows milk
 
It's amazing that I can post up an interview with this person:
"Shiva is one of the leaders and board members of the International Forum on Globalization (with Jerry Mander, Ralph Nader, and Jeremy Rifkin), and a figure of the anti-globalisation movement. She is a member of the scientific committee of the Fundacion IDEAS, Spain's Socialist Party's think tank.[6] She is also a member of the International Organization for a Participatory Society.[7] She received the Right Livelihood Award in 1993, an award established by Swedish-German philanthropist Jakob von Uexkull, and regarded as an "Alternative Nobel Prize".

And all I get was but she was being interviewed by Russel Brand, and I don't like him, so it can't be worth listening to.
:rolleyes:

Vandana Shiva - Wikipedia
 
I think almonds have been raised because it has been stated that they are miles better for the environment than cows milk
I don't recall anyone making that quote - I certainly don't recommend the stuff - but you're making an arse of yourself again.

1657813390998.png


Environmental impact of one glass (200ml) of different milks:

Dairy​

Emissions (kg) = 0.63

Land use (square metre) = 1.79

Water (litre) = 125.6

Rice​

Emissions (kg) = 0.24

Land use (square metre) = 0.07

Water (litre) = 54

Soy​

Emissions (kg) = 0.2

Land use (square metre) = 0.13

Water (litre) = 5.6

Oat​

Emissions (kg) = 0.18

Land use (square metre) =0.15

Water (litre) = 9.6

Almond​

Emissions (kg) = 0.14

Land use (square metre) = 0.1

Water (litre) = 74.3


1657813346297.png

 
I don't recall anyone making that quote - I certainly don't recommend the stuff - but you're making an arse of yourself again.

View attachment 332274





View attachment 332273

Oh look, Poore and Nemeck again. Why did you just post up two graphs extrapolated from the same 2018 paper, again?
Gonna tell me I'm the only one going on about it again?
 
I don't recall anyone making that quote - I certainly don't recommend the stuff - but you're making an arse of yourself again.

View attachment 332274





View attachment 332273

You might not have said it directly but that's what the graphs you keep posting are saying. Both the NFU and the mechanical engineers can't both be right which is why I said we need to know how the worked those figures out.
 
You might not have said it directly but that's what the graphs you keep posting are saying. Both the NFU and the mechanical engineers can't both be right which is why I said we need to know how the worked those figures out.
Can we see this NFU research please?
 
I don't recall anyone making that quote - I certainly don't recommend the stuff - but you're making an arse of yourself again.

View attachment 332274





View attachment 332273


This may refresh your memory?
 

Attachments

  • C5718703-056E-496A-A186-6BA7C64926C1.jpeg
    C5718703-056E-496A-A186-6BA7C64926C1.jpeg
    116.3 KB · Views: 16
This may refresh your memory?
Thanks for that. And it appears that what I said back in Jan 2021 remains absolutely correct, so what is your point, exactly?

Here's a reminder:

1657826778924.png

LOL at the 'you are ignoring this member' notice - while you spend ages delving into my old posts from a year and a half ago!
 
Last edited:
And you think the NFU are an impartial source, yes? That leaflet is basically a big PR advert for their own industry and includes daft strawmen like: 'Myth: Red meat and dairy products are bad for your health'
References in the appendix (look for the small numbers in superspcript), its a slightly odd way of referencing, but it is, nonetheless, referenced.
 
Thanks for that. And it appears that what I said back in Jan 2021 remains absolutely correct, so what is your point, exactly?

Here's a reminder:

View attachment 332309

LOL at the 'you are ignoring this member' notice - while you spend ages delving into my old posts from a year and a half ago!
I just did a search on ‘almond’. Only took a sec. & I only did it because of your previous, quite rude post.
 
And you think the NFU are an impartial source, yes? That leaflet is basically a big PR advert for their own industry and includes daft strawmen like: 'Myth: Red meat and dairy products are bad for your health'
What's so bad about dairy for your health? And don't say fat as human milk has a higher fat content and most human babies are breast fed. :hmm:
 
Back
Top Bottom