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

[Jeff Robinson]

I'm not sure where the false dichotomy exists. I simply put humans first. How does that lead to the destruction of the environment? There are thousands of species we don't consume

Also hard to keto without corpses.

 

[Cid]

Also hard to keto without corpses.

Yes, you're either vegan or Mikhaila Peterson, those are the two categories of diet.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Yes, you're either vegan or Mikhaila Peterson, those are the two categories of diet.

I just suspect this Karl Masks character is banned returning user whose previous Schlick was to push keto pseudoscience on vegan threads. Not that he’s pushed ketoism this time but the combination of brain dead analysis and boring as fuck prose are the hallmarks of this worthless cunt.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

That doesn't really have anything to do with the sentience of creatures exploited though does it? Ecosystem collapse will happen with mismanaged agriculture of any form...

I wasn't aware that there's a rule that I can only discuss animal intelligence as a measure of their moral value or their value as part of the ecosystem.

Arguably some of the most egregious examples (dust bowl, collective farms, Lysenkoism) have very little to do with animal agriculture.

There are very few sustainable agricultural models in current use, animal or otherwise. If you want to discuss all the ways non-animal agriculture contributes to environmental damage, I'm all for it. I don't think things like groundwater contamination, soil degradation, climate change, dead zones, pollutants, deforestation, ag chemical drift, waste runoff, etc. gets enough attention.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I'm not sure where the false dichotomy exists. I simply put humans first. How does that lead to the destruction of the environment? There are thousands of species we don't consume

We make choices all the time between animals and humans all the time. The processed food industry needs more palm oil, but these orangutans need a habitat? "Let's put humans first." The bees are dying, but humans want to use neonicotinoids to produce food because it's cheaper and easier? "Let's put humans first." We don't have to consume a species to do it harm when it's in the way of producing what else we eat. Add all those choices up over time and the damage becomes massive.

 

[Pickman's model]

We make choices all the time between animals and humans all the time. The processed food industry needs more palm oil, but these orangutans need a habitat? "Let's put humans first." The bees are dying, but humans want to use neonicotinoids to produce food because it's cheaper and easier? "Let's put humans first." We don't have to consume a species to do it harm when it's in the way of producing what else we eat.

you'd have thought that the great reliance humans have on the pollination activities of bees would see self-interest trump short term convenience

bad news for the non-pollinating orang utans tho

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

you'd have thought that the great reliance humans have on the pollination activities of bees would see self-interest trump short term convenience

bad news for the non-pollinating orang utans tho

Sucks to be them.

 

[Pickman's model]

Sucks to be them.

or to be an elephant there

How elephants, orang-utans and other wild animals are dying because of factory farming – Philip Lymbery

At the crime scene, there was much finger-pointing and chatter about the assailant’s entry and exit.

www.scotsman.com

 

[Funky_monks]

Come on now, surely its just as simple as meat = bad = factory farms
plants = good and environmentally sustainable

 

[Cid]

I wasn't aware that there's a rule that I can only discuss animal intelligence as a measure of their moral value or their value as part of the ecosystem.



There are very few sustainable agricultural models in current use, animal or otherwise. If you want to discuss all the ways non-animal agriculture contributes to environmental damage, I'm all for it. I don't think things like groundwater contamination, soil degradation, climate change, dead zones, pollutants, deforestation, ag chemical drift, waste runoff, etc. gets enough attention.

Probably misinterpreted the context, no issue with any of that.

 

[DaphneM]

Vegans should stay away from Tesco fruit!

Forbidden fruit: why vegans are up in arms over Tesco’s oranges and lemons

What happens when you treat citrus fruit with animal products like shellac and beeswax? They get lovely and shiny – and unsuitable for vegans

www.theguardian.com

 

[ddraig]

Back to hypocrisy hunting, yaaaaaawn

 

[Pickman's model]

I wasn't aware that there's a rule that I can only discuss animal intelligence as a measure of their moral value or their value as part of the ecosystem.

it's on page 2 of the terms and rules

 

[bcuster]

Sinful gluttony showcased in this WaPo article. Here's a thought on saving money at the supermarket: purchase LESS meat, not entire animals. What happens to the frozen animal corpses when electrical power is lost? Into the waste bin as biohazard?

Half cows, entire pigs: Families are buying meat in bulk to save money

It was the $200 weekly grocery bills that finally did him in. With three young kids and soaring meat costs, Logan Wagoner decided it was time to go whole hog. This spring, the St. Louis attorney bought half a cow and an entire pig - plus a freezer that now holds 320 pounds of bacon, sausages...

finance.yahoo.com

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Sinful gluttony showcased in this WaPo article. Here's a thought on saving money at the supermarket: purchase LESS meat, not entire animals. What happens to the frozen animal corpses when electrical power is lost? Into the waste bin as biohazard?

Half cows, entire pigs: Families are buying meat in bulk to save money

It was the $200 weekly grocery bills that finally did him in. With three young kids and soaring meat costs, Logan Wagoner decided it was time to go whole hog. This spring, the St. Louis attorney bought half a cow and an entire pig - plus a freezer that now holds 320 pounds of bacon, sausages...

finance.yahoo.com

probably be ok for a day or so if its a big bit. they could salt or smoke it for preservation too.
worst comes to worst throw a BBQ.

i could see a factory throwing out thawed meat but probably not a home cook.

 

[bcuster]

probably be ok for a day or so if its a big bit. they could salt or smoke it for preservation too.
worst comes to worst throw a BBQ.

i could see a factory throwing out thawed meat but probably not a home cook.

Good ideas to avoid wasting the food

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Sinful gluttony showcased in this WaPo article. Here's a thought on saving money at the supermarket: purchase LESS meat, not entire animals. What happens to the frozen animal corpses when electrical power is lost? Into the waste bin as biohazard?

Half cows, entire pigs: Families are buying meat in bulk to save money

It was the $200 weekly grocery bills that finally did him in. With three young kids and soaring meat costs, Logan Wagoner decided it was time to go whole hog. This spring, the St. Louis attorney bought half a cow and an entire pig - plus a freezer that now holds 320 pounds of bacon, sausages...

finance.yahoo.com

This isn't so much about "sinful gluttony" as it is survival thinking. It's a regular thing in rural parts of the US to put half a beef away in the freezer to get through the winter. When I was little, we'd order a side of beef, shoot a deer, catch some fish, and then preserve it all so we wouldn't go hungry. We'd also raise a garden and preserve it for the winter. We had a root cellar where we stored it all. I think we raised about 80% of what we ate. When we'd go to the store (which wasn't often), it was to buy things like sugar, coffee, and luxury items (like sugared cereal) we couldn't raise ourselves.

As for the freezer losing power, most of them have alarms that will warn you if they lose power for some reason. We had one freezer defrost on us, we cooked it all, and ate or canned it. Waste doesn't really go with the lifestyle.

 

[bcuster]

This isn't so much about "sinful gluttony" as it is survival thinking. It's a regular thing in rural parts of the US to put half a beef away in the freezer to get through the winter. When I was little, we'd order a side of beef, shoot a deer, catch some fish, and then preserve it all so we wouldn't go hungry. We'd also raise a garden and preserve it for the winter. We had a root cellar where we stored it all. I think we raised about 80% of what we ate. When we'd go to the store (which wasn't often), it was to buy things like sugar, coffee, and luxury items (like sugared cereal) we couldn't raise ourselves.

As for the freezer losing power, most of them have alarms that will warn you if they lose power for some reason. We had one freezer defrost on us, we cooked it all, and ate or canned it. Waste doesn't really go with the lifestyle.

I think the over-riding point is that we should be eating less meat, if for no other reason (and there are other reasons) than the sky-rocketing cost. Inflation is easing in many other areas, except for food prices.
In my opinion, the resources needed to maintain the national carnivoran diet of americans and other first-worlders; rural or otherwise

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I think the over-riding point is that we should be eating less meat, if for no other reason (and there are other reasons) than the sky-rocketing cost. Inflation is easing in many other areas, except for food prices.
In my opinion, the resources needed to maintain the national carnivoran diet of americans and other first-worlders; rural or otherwise

I agree we should be eating less meat. However, if you want these rural people to change how they live, you have to understand why they do what they do. It's basically a response to intergenerational memories past hardship, not "sinful gluttony." A lot of rural people are actually food insecure on a regular basis. This is their way of coping with it.

 

[bcuster]

I agree we should be eating less meat. However, if you want these rural people to change how they live, you have to understand why they do what they do. It's basically a response to intergenerational memories past hardship, not "sinful gluttony."

you are right. i withdraw that portion of my post...

 

[Funky_monks]

I agree we should be eating less meat. However, if you want these rural people to change how they live, you have to understand why they do what they do. It's basically a response to intergenerational memories past hardship, not "sinful gluttony." A lot of rural people are actually food insecure on a regular basis. This is their way of coping with it.

Who says that people buying a whole carcass aren't eating less meat anyway?
Just because they are bulk buying, doesn't mean they are consuming more in total, it might be going further.

The "In case of freezer breakdown" take is baffling. Can't remember my deep freeze breaking down in the 12 years I've had it - also, as long as you don't open it during a winter power cut, if it's relatively full, even in the warm UK it'd take days to defrost, that's without even considering some emergency meat curing.

It's a baffling post (that you've quoted) all round.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Who says that people buying a whole carcass aren't eating less meat anyway?
Just because they are bulk buying, doesn't mean they are consuming more in total, it might be going further.

True. I don't think people are aware of the scope of food insecurity in the rural US. When I run home, I make up food boxes to take to various neighbors that I know are struggling. Most of what people are eating is rice, pasta, cereal, sugary snacks, etc. For some people the meat they eat is used more as flavoring than the main part of the meal. In other words, they're mostly eating cheap filler foods that aren't all that great for health.

 

[editor]

Now I hope you are not expecting Ed to read all of that before replying Funky_monks

He's been on ignore for ages.

 

[DaphneM]

Eating meat isn’t a crime against the planet – if it’s done right | Thomasina Miers

George Monbiot has criticised ‘chefs and foodies’ like me for focusing on regenerative grazing, says cook and writer Thomasina Miers

www.theguardian.com

Interesting read

 

[editor]

Meanwhile, in Canada:

Canadians Should Eat 50% Less Meat To Meet Climate Targets, Report Suggests

Canada needs to eat less meat if it wants to stay on track to reach climate crisis targets, a new analysis says.

plantbasednews.org

First, if food consumption shifts away from animal-based foods towards plant-based alternatives, this reduces emissions from the agriculture sector and contributes towards achievement of Canada's emissions targets. Because animal agriculture is more emissions intensive than plant-based agriculture, shifting demand towards plant-based production leads to lower emissions in this sector. If future animal consumption is low, the resulting reduction in emissions could be enough, in combination with the implementation of ERP policies, to allow . There are other environmental benefits of this shift, beyond the impact on GHG emissions, which are not explored in this analysis, including land-use25,26,27,28, water29,30,31,32, biodiversity33,34,35, and pandemic risk36,37,38.

Study: https://www.worldanimalprotection.c...nimal_Protection_Navius_Report_2022-08-11.pdf

 

[Funky_monks]

Oh, that again.

I think Canadian farming has a lot more to worry about than beef, given its high emitting arable sector.

Also "12% of Canadas emissions come from ag, with 5% being livestock"
"eating 50% less meat could halve total emissions"?

OK then


And also: all these daft reports fail to say what will happen to the unused grazing land - given that there are a lot of plains in Canada, you might expect large wild ruminants to then graze them in "rewilding" and then the enteric methane output will be much the same.

So; are we eating less cattle and then shooting any wild ruminants that colonise the "free" habitat? Full on deer massacre? Bison extermination programmes?

You can tell this stuff is written by mathematician types and not ecologists.

 

[lazythursday]

Eating meat isn’t a crime against the planet – if it’s done right | Thomasina Miers

George Monbiot has criticised ‘chefs and foodies’ like me for focusing on regenerative grazing, says cook and writer Thomasina Miers

www.theguardian.com

Interesting read

The problem with this article is it starts off as a challenge to Monbiot but then completely fails to answer any of the points he makes, and more importantly the data he crunches around the environmental impact of particular farming systems. Then makes unsubstantiated criticisms of precision fermentation. I'm not sure that Monbiot gets everything right, but he does always make a clear case based on scientific data, not just some waffle about how wonderful some particular farm is without any serious analysis about whether it is scalable and what that means for yield / land use.

 

[Funky_monks]

The problem with this article is it starts off as a challenge to Monbiot but then completely fails to answer any of the points he makes, and more importantly the data he crunches around the environmental impact of particular farming systems. Then makes unsubstantiated criticisms of precision fermentation. I'm not sure that Monbiot gets everything right, but he does always make a clear case based on scientific data, not just some waffle about how wonderful some particular farm is without any serious analysis about whether it is scalable and what that means for yield / land use.

No he doesn't, he deliberately cherry picks scientific articles to suit his agenda.

I made quite a detailed post about it here:

Here is an example of how he uses "science" to further his cause:

He writes: "Because we eat so much meat, the UK’s diet requires nearly 24 million hectares of land", citing Henri Ruiter et al (2017) in support of this statement. He seems to have somehow neglected to discuss the results section of this study, which states:

"Our results show that UK ruminant meat (i.e. mutton and beef) supply has decreased over the study period, while the supply of other animal products has increased, particularly for pig meat and poultry meat (see Table 5). On a per-capita basis, supply for all animal products, except pig meat and poultry meat, decreased, with decreases in per-capita ruminant meat consumption of more than 20%. The share of domestic production in the total UK supply has decreased for all animal products, except for mutton where the domestic share increased slightly from 69% in 1987 to 72% in 2010"

and:

"In 1987, an average kilogram of beef supplied to the UK required 64 m2 of grassland. In 2010, this value decreased to about 52 m2."

and:

"the total land footprint of UK food supply has decreased slightly over recent decades, mainly as a result of a lower grassland footprint"

In their discussion, they state:

"many grasslands are not suitable for crop production and livestock production on grassland does not always compete with food for human consumption (Schader et al. 2015), and may be a good option, especially if grasslands are used for milk production (Wilkinson 2011). Moreover, converting grasslands to cropland, if at all possible, may have negative consequences for greenhouse gas emissions in the short term, because grasslands generally store more carbon than croplands (Smith 2014)."

The authors then go on to state:

"Strategies aimed at reducing the consumption of meat should consider social and cultural norms and may be different for different types of consumers (de Boer et al. 2014)."

and:

"Moreover, singling out individual food items, such as animal products, to reduce the environmental impact of food, is an oversimplification. Modelling individual diets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while optimising nutritional outcomes reveals that there are multiple options to achieve this, and that in some cases, increasing meat intake can actually be the best strategy to ensure an acceptable nutritionally balanced diet (Horgan et al. 2016). Therefore, it is important to consider whole diets and to extend our current analysis using a wider range of nutrients."

This sort of thing seems to be going on all over the place.

 

[Cid]

No he doesn't, he deliberately cherry picks scientific articles to suit his agenda.

I made quite a detailed post about it here:

I wrote a review of <searches> Feral on here back in 2015... I do veer back and forth on him, but have found it really hard to take him seriously since then.

Yeah... Not very far in, but so far reads like this:

I am George Monbiot, I eat cockchafer grubs.

I have trod the paths of death, I have born witness to the violence of gold mines in the Amazon, but at the same time to the beauty of its peoples.

I am George Monbiot.

I take my Kayak and I am one with the Ocean, above worldly concerns. I will fish sustainably. I have a rod of hazel and the eyes of a hunter.

I am George Monbiot.

I have seen the Osprey, I have trod the tracks of ancestors and felt the surge of genetic memory as I put a deer across my shoulders.

I am George Monbiot.

I have been stung by the weaver, I have stared death and a great bull dolphin in the face. I ride the waves.

I am George Monbiot.

I have run with the Masai. I am their friend, I cannot join them but I bear witness to their dissolution.

I am George Monbiot, I eat my mackerel raw.

Presumably it gets more fact heavy and I'm just being a bit unfair. But so far it's like he's describing his life as one massively extended gap year. His wild life on the edge of Wales, his travels, his connections with Arcadia (which he, of course, qualifies, then launches on another fishing anecdote). I say this as someone no stranger to privilege, but my god does he reek of it.

I am tempted to get a fishing kayak. Bit lacking in sea though, Sheffield.

 

[lazythursday]

No he doesn't, he deliberately cherry picks scientific articles to suit his agenda.

I made quite a detailed post about it here:

I'm sure he is sometimes guilty of cherry picking. But the main point of his last controversial Guardian article that this one is responding to was about the fact that organic farming and other small-scale systems can often have higher environmental impacts, and involve greater land use than some conventional systems. This article rubbishes him without taking on that argument whatsoever. I'm sure there is a counter argument - my point is this article certainly isn't it.

And tbh, no-one is worse for cherry picking than the proponents of regenerative grazing, who make all sorts of claims based on shaky studies that haven't been replicated.