Does humanity need to reduce meat consumption?

[Secret Chief]

"The research shows that a big meat-eater's diet produces an average of 10.24 kg of planet-warming greenhouse gasses each day.
...
The analysis is the first to look at the detailed impact of diets on other environmental measures all together. These are land use, water use, water pollution and loss of species, usually caused by loss of habitat because of expansion of farming. In all cases high meat-eaters had a significantly higher adverse impact than other groups."

- Eating less meat 'like taking 8m cars off road'

The case for the need to reduce overall meat consumption seems clear cut to me. Unfortunately, it's currently increasing...

How say you? (Don't bother replying if you're a conspiracy theorist).

 

[YmirGF]

"The research shows that a big meat-eater's diet produces an average of 10.24 kg of planet-warming greenhouse gasses each day.
...
The analysis is the first to look at the detailed impact of diets on other environmental measures all together. These are land use, water use, water pollution and loss of species, usually caused by loss of habitat because of expansion of farming. In all cases high meat-eaters had a significantly higher adverse impact than other groups."

- Eating less meat 'like taking 8m cars off road'

The case for the need to reduce overall meat consumption seems clear cut to me. Unfortunately, it's currently increasing...

How say you? (Don't bother replying if you're a conspiracy theorist).

We don't really need to do this, what with Bidenomics no one is going to be able to affort meat soon anyways.

 

[Stevicus]

Humanity needs to reduce its reproduction rate more than anything else. None of these issues would be serious problems if the world population was only 100,000,000 people. But with over 8 billion people, the problems just get bigger.

 

[Quintessence]

No.

Humans need only do that which is within their nature to do, for they cannot do otherwise, really. These things will regulate themselves when humans inevitably fail to curtail their own excesses. Interventions on the part of humans are not necessary. Whether or not they are desirable depends on human values.

Personally, I think fixating on meat consumption is missing the larger issue. Humans need to reduce ALL consumption if the goal is to halt and reverse the human-induced sixth mass extinction event. And in addition to reducing ALL consumption, there need to be fewer humans and less technology, per I=PAT.

I = Human Impact
P = Population (number of humans)
A = Affluence (level of resource consumption per capita)
T = Technology (resource-intensiveness of consumption)

 

[Quintessence]

Humanity needs to reduce its reproduction rate more than anything else. None of these issues would be serious problems if the world population was only 100,000,000 people. But with over 8 billion people, the problems just get bigger.

Tech is the bigger issue. Population never would have reached these levels without the crutch of technology - it and only it has enabled humans to bypass conventional limits on carrying capacity of the environment. But nobody wants to talk about in the tech-worshipping country of the United States of America. Even less than they want to talk about stopping mindless consumerism.

 

[syo]

How say you?

Too many babies. Reduce humans. 5 billion is gross.

 

[metis]

How say you?

We definitely need to do so, and for more than one reason.

 

[metis]

We don't really need to do this, what with Bidenomics no one is going to be able to affort meat soon anyways.

I hope this was tongue-in-cheek, as blaming Biden for inflation is like blaming Santa Claus for not getting what one wants for Christmas.

 

[Twilight Hue]

"The research shows that a big meat-eater's diet produces an average of 10.24 kg of planet-warming greenhouse gasses each day.
...
The analysis is the first to look at the detailed impact of diets on other environmental measures all together. These are land use, water use, water pollution and loss of species, usually caused by loss of habitat because of expansion of farming. In all cases high meat-eaters had a significantly higher adverse impact than other groups."

- Eating less meat 'like taking 8m cars off road'

The case for the need to reduce overall meat consumption seems clear cut to me. Unfortunately, it's currently increasing...

How say you? (Don't bother replying if you're a conspiracy theorist).

With cultured meat on the horizon , one can actually eat cake and have it too!

 

[Twilight Hue]

I hope this was tongue-in-cheek, as blaming Biden for inflation is like blaming Santa Claus for not getting what one wants for Christmas.

I'm sure the auto industry will be relieved to know.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Humanity needs to reduce its reproduction rate more than anything else. None of these issues would be serious problems if the world population was only 100,000,000 people. But with over 8 billion people, the problems just get bigger.

Tech is the bigger issue. Population never would have reached these levels without the crutch of technology - it and only it has enabled humans to bypass conventional limits on carrying capacity of the environment. But nobody wants to talk about in the tech-worshipping country of the United States of America. Even less than they want to talk about stopping mindless consumerism.

I think most arguments about climate change that focus on the number of humans are fundamentally misplaced. For example:

In 2021, the average North American emitted 11 times more energy-related CO2 than the average African. Yet variations across income groups are even more significant. The top 1% of emitters globally each had carbon footprints of over 50 tonnes of CO2 in 2021, more than 1 000 times greater than those of the bottom 1% of emitters. Meanwhile, the global average energy-related carbon footprint is around 4.7 tonnes of CO2 per person – the equivalent of taking two round-trip flights between Singapore and New York, or of driving an average SUV for 18 months. These large contrasts reflect great differences in income and wealth, and in lifestyles and consumption patterns.

The top 10% of emitters span all continents. Around 85% of them live in advanced economies – including Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, United States, and United Kingdom – and also in China. The rest are from the Middle East, Russia, and South Africa, in countries with relatively high income and wealth inequality and emissions-intensive fuel mixes. The bottom 10% of emitters globally live in developing economies in Africa and Asia, where they consume relatively small amounts of goods and services, and in many cases lack access to electricity and clean cooking.

Globally, the top 10% of emitters were responsible for almost half of global energy-related CO2 emissions in 2021, compared with a mere 0.2% for the bottom 10%. The top 10% averaged 22 tonnes of CO2 per capita in 2021, over 200 times more than the average for the bottom 10%. There are 782 million people in the top 10% of emitters, extending well beyond traditional ideas of the super rich. By comparison, around 0.6% of the world – an estimated 46.8 million individuals – are considered millionaires or billionaires.

The world’s top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1% – Analysis - IEA

The world’s top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1% - A commentary by Laura Cozzi, Olivia Chen, Hyeji Kim

www.iea.org

Inequality, concentration of wealth, and consumerism are such that the top 10%-20% of the global population in terms of wealth have an extremely disproportionate impact compared to the remaining 80%-90%. In many cases, I see arguments about "overpopulation" as a distraction from issues like cruise ships, private yachts, and private jets, all of which do exponentially more environmental damage than millions of poor people put together. In my opinion, some of those arguments essentially amount to asking poorer people to reproduce less so that middle-class and wealthier ones—especially in Europe and North America—can maintain their unsustainably consumerist lifestyles.

This is not to say that overpopulation can't be a problem, but any arguments about it that don't take into account the abovementioned disproportionate impact and the inherent unsustainability of consumerism are bound to miss the core point, in my opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

No need to stop eating meat.
All things have their costs.
Meat is worth its.

 

[Stevicus]

I think most arguments about climate change that focus on the number of humans are fundamentally misplaced. For example:

The world’s top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1% – Analysis - IEA

The world’s top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1% - A commentary by Laura Cozzi, Olivia Chen, Hyeji Kim

www.iea.org

Inequality, concentration of wealth, and consumerism are such that the top 10%-20% of the global population in terms of wealth have an extremely disproportionate impact compared to the remaining 80%-90%. In many cases, I see arguments about "overpopulation" as a distraction from issues like cruise ships, private yachts, and private jets, all of which do exponentially more environmental damage than millions of poor people put together. In my opinion, some of those arguments essentially amount to asking poorer people to reproduce less so that middle-class and wealthier ones—especially in Europe and North America—can maintain their unsustainably consumerist lifestyles.

This is not to say that overpopulation can't be a problem, but any arguments about it that don't take into account the abovementioned disproportionate impact and the inherent unsustainability of consumerism are bound to miss the core point, in my opinion.

You make some good points, particularly about the cruise ships, private yachts, and private jets - which should be banned long before anyone starts thinking about reducing meat consumption.

I would question whether it's all due to consumption or whether some of it is due to manufacturing of goods which aren't made in Africa or other places. People can only use just so much. For example, there's 7.3 billion cellphone users in the world. (3.12 Billion More Phones Than People In The World!.). They're not all from the West. But if there were fewer people in the world, all the resources used to manufacture these devices could be conserved exponentially.

Same with cars:

Even if it's uneven like this, fewer people would mean fewer cars and decreased emissions.

When MIT made their doomsday prediction in 1972, the world population was less than half of what it is today. The world has never seen this many people at any one time.

I agree that the West should consume less, particularly those at the top levels of society. But I will never accept rationing imposed on the little people until the bigshots put their money where their mouth is.

To be honest, I think the people of Africa and other impoverished areas of the world should be able to enjoy the luxuries and benefits of these technologies. They should not be denied either.

The capitalists created this situation, so if they can't supply everyone in the world with the same amount of stuff, then they'll have to admit their mistake. They'll have to admit that they were short-sighted and foolish - and that they really didn't know what they were doing all along. They'll have to admit that they are unfit to offer any opinions or influence over public policy - and they will have to yield to the socialists who should take over and fix this planet. But the last thing they should ever be doing is telling the common people to consume less meat.

 

[fantome profane]

Too many babies. Reduce humans. 5 billion is gross.

I guess the other 3 billion are the cute ones?

 

[Debater Slayer]

You make some good points, particularly about the cruise ships, private yachts, and private jets - which should be banned long before anyone starts thinking about reducing meat consumption.

I would question whether it's all due to consumption or whether some of it is due to manufacturing of goods which aren't made in Africa or other places. People can only use just so much. For example, there's 7.3 billion cellphone users in the world. (3.12 Billion More Phones Than People In The World!.). They're not all from the West. But if there were fewer people in the world, all the resources used to manufacture these devices could be conserved exponentially.

Same with cars:

Even if it's uneven like this, fewer people would mean fewer cars and decreased emissions.

When MIT made their doomsday prediction in 1972, the world population was less than half of what it is today. The world has never seen this many people at any one time.

I agree that the West should consume less, particularly those at the top levels of society. But I will never accept rationing imposed on the little people until the bigshots put their money where their mouth is.

To be honest, I think the people of Africa and other impoverished areas of the world should be able to enjoy the luxuries and benefits of these technologies. They should not be denied either.

The capitalists created this situation, so if they can't supply everyone in the world with the same amount of stuff, then they'll have to admit their mistake. They'll have to admit that they were short-sighted and foolish - and that they really didn't know what they were doing all along. They'll have to admit that they are unfit to offer any opinions or influence over public policy - and they will have to yield to the socialists who should take over and fix this planet. But the last thing they should ever be doing is telling the common people to consume less meat.

I definitely agree that the excessive consumption isn't just in the West—not by a long shot. I would say that wealth inequality anywhere is a bigger factor than where one lives. For instance, I would expect that Chinese, Indian, Arab, and other non-Western millionaires and billionaires consume and pollute far more than the average European or American citizen does.

I think the global capitalist, growth-fixated system is largely to blame as well. The notion that only economic growth matters for a country has pushed industrialization to glaringly unsustainable levels, often with no real long-term perspective of its downsides and residually destructive effects. In fairness, I can't blame capitalists alone for that, because the USSR and Maoist China made similar mistakes with their fixation on industrialization without sufficient planning or regard for the costs, leading to environmental destruction, famines, and widespread poverty.

I think it may be too late to put that genie back in its bottle. The world's three biggest emitters of carbon—China, the US, and India, in that order—are not doing enough to avert the climate crisis, and the first two are having increasing problems agreeing on many major issues, let alone one that requires so much coordinated and joint action. As you implied, there are a few key steps that could and should be taken that would have a bigger impact than telling the average citizen to eat less meat, although I also don't doubt that eating less meat would significantly help on a global level and is, on an individual level, arguably the more responsible thing for an average person to do if they can't control anyone or anything except their own actions and consumption.

 

[Stevicus]

I definitely agree that the excessive consumption isn't just in the West—not by a long shot. I would say that wealth inequality anywhere is a bigger factor than where one lives. For instance, I would expect that Chinese, Indian, Arab, and other non-Western millionaires and billionaires consume and pollute far more than the average European or American citizen does.

I think the global capitalist, growth-fixated system is largely to blame as well. The notion that only economic growth matters for a country has pushed industrialization to glaringly unsustainable levels, often with no real long-term perspective of its downsides and residually destructive effects. The USSR and Maoist China made similar mistakes with their fixation on industrialization without sufficient regard for the costs, leading to environmental destruction, famines, and widespread poverty.

I think it may be too late to put that genie back in its bottle. The world's three biggest emitters of carbon—China, the US, and India, in that order—are not doing enough to avert the climate crisis, and the first two are having increasing problems agreeing on many major issues, let alone one that requires so much coordinated and joint action. As you implied, there are many steps that could and should be taken that would have a significantly bigger impact than telling the average citizen to eat less meat.

I think we've reached a kind of plateau. For the past 30-40 years, people in America have been talking about the global economy, advocating for free trade and the opening up of new markets in China and elsewhere around the world. I believe that the motives weren't solely mercenary, as there were those who felt that it could improve the living standards of other countries and bring about greater economic and political stability, which could lead to a more lasting peace in the world. At the end of the Cold War, there were people who thought this was possible, since communism was defeated and the world was becoming more capitalist-friendly.

I can see the merit in such a view. It seems pretty obvious that if everyone in the world had a first-world standard of living, much like the average middle class person in North America or Europe, then I think we'd see a lot less angst, dissension, terrorism, and violence in the world. If the capitalists still wanted to make money from that, then so be it, as long as the world was more peaceful, less violent, and more economically/politically stable.

But if we don't have the resources to provide all that to everyone, then we're going to have problems. Even if we did have the resources, to have billions of people consuming and creating a carbon footprint at the same rate as the West would increase climate change exponentially.

The ideal would be a world of peace and plenty, but if we've reached a point where that has become a physical impossibility, then we're going to have some serious problems on the horizon. Cutting down on hamburgers might buy us a little extra time, but not much. The governments and leaders of the world are going to have to make some hard decisions.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think we've reached a kind of plateau. For the past 30-40 years, people in America have been talking about the global economy, advocating for free trade and the opening up of new markets in China and elsewhere around the world. I believe that the motives weren't solely mercenary, as there were those who felt that it could improve the living standards of other countries and bring about greater economic and political stability, which could lead to a more lasting peace in the world. At the end of the Cold War, there were people who thought this was possible, since communism was defeated and the world was becoming more capitalist-friendly.

I can see the merit in such a view. It seems pretty obvious that if everyone in the world had a first-world standard of living, much like the average middle class person in North America or Europe, then I think we'd see a lot less angst, dissension, terrorism, and violence in the world. If the capitalists still wanted to make money from that, then so be it, as long as the world was more peaceful, less violent, and more economically/politically stable.

But if we don't have the resources to provide all that to everyone, then we're going to have problems. Even if we did have the resources, to have billions of people consuming and creating a carbon footprint at the same rate as the West would increase climate change exponentially.

The ideal would be a world of peace and plenty, but if we've reached a point where that has become a physical impossibility, then we're going to have some serious problems on the horizon. Cutting down on hamburgers might buy us a little extra time, but not much. The governments and leaders of the world are going to have to make some hard decisions.

Excellent points. I remember reading a post about the USSR somewhere online a few years ago, where the author was extolling the supposed virtues of free-market capitalism and saying how, unlike in the USSR, a Finnish citizen could have two or three cars, a huge house, and plenty of furniture to populate it.

I found the post reasonable at the time, but in hindsight, I see so much unrealistic thinking in that kind of argument. Even if the world population were half as big as it is now, would the planet have the resources to sustain such an excessive, consumerist lifestyle for billions of people? And even if it miraculously did, for how long would that last before the planet got too strained to allow that lifestyle to continue?

If one acknowledges the physical impossibility of providing billions of people with that kind of lifestyle, I think there are only two choices to defend it at that point: to argue that the planet should have so few people that such a lifestyle would be sustainable—and that would border on eugenics and still probably be impossible, because there would be far fewer workers, less manufacturing capacity, and much less availability of cheap labor—or to argue that it's okay for the planet to have billions of people but that only a small subset should be able to live so extravagantly and, consequently, also be allowed to disproportionately pollute or destroy the environment in which many of the rest live, which I would find to be an ethically questionable viewpoint.

Now that the climate crisis threatens to upend many aspects of life even in the world's wealthiest countries and make many parts of poorer countries borderline or downright uninhabitable, I think more and more people are going to express furore at wealth inequality, poor environmental planning, and the side effects of both, although I also suspect that many conspiracy theories and a lot of misplaced anger will crop up as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

The capitalists created this situation, so if they can't supply everyone in the world with the same amount of stuff, then they'll have to admit their mistake. They'll have to admit that they were short-sighted and foolish - and that they really didn't know what they were doing all along. They'll have to admit that they are unfit to offer any opinions or influence over public policy - and they will have to yield to the socialists who should take over and fix this planet.

When you socialists take over, there'll certainly
be fewer cars, fewer goods, fewer rights, & fewer
people to miss their rights & economic liberty.

A better approach would be to use regulation,
eg, curbing overpopulation. (It's more humane
than socialism's typical starvations & pogroms.)
Regulation can also address environmental
degradation. Capitalism has been shown best
to generate the money to finance such efforts.

 

[Debater Slayer]

When you socialists take over, there'll certainly
be fewer cars, fewer goods, fewer rights, & fewer
people to miss their rights & economic liberty.

Given the current trajectory of climate change, do you think there should not be fewer goods and cars? I think there's a solid case that there are too many of both right now.

 

[Revoltingest]

Given the current trajectory of climate change, do you think there should not be fewer goods and cars? I think there's a solid case that there are too many of both right now.

You fruballed the post that wanted socialism to
replace capitalism. What has been the record
of doing this? Authoritarianism, death & misery.
It's a poor solution.

To reiterate an alternative...
A better approach would be to use regulation,
eg, curbing overpopulation. (It's more humane
than socialism's typical starvations & pogroms.)
Regulation can also address environmental
degradation. Capitalism has been shown best
to generate the money to finance such efforts.