Does humanity need to reduce meat consumption?

[Debater Slayer]

A better approach would be to use regulation,
eg, curbing overpopulation. (It's more humane
than socialism's typical starvations & pogroms.)

See post #11. The idea that reducing population levels without tackling disproportionate consumption would be a solution is not supported by evidence, and it shifts the focus to poorer populations whose carbon footprint is far smaller than that of the wealthiest segments of the global population.

Regulation can also address environmental
degradation. Capitalism has been shown best
to generate the money to finance such efforts.

Current regulation is failing quite hard at sufficiently addressing that at the moment, and the fact remains that a minority of the world's population disproportionately contribute to environmental destruction. How do you propose that regulation address that?

For example, how can regulation deal with issues like these?

The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday that entertainers including Kim Kardashian and Sylvester Stallone were among the more than 2,000 people the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District issued “notices of exceedance” to, alerting homeowners that they used more than 150% of their monthly water budget at least four times since a drought emergency was declared just last year.

And a recent report by Yard, a UK-based sustainability marketing agency, analyzed flight data of the celebrities with the worst private jet emissions. Taylor Swift topped the list at more than 170 flights since January, totalling up to 15.9 days in the air, and 8,293.54 metric tons of CO2 emissions—that’s equivalent to all the emissions from the energy used by over 1,000 homes in the U.S. for a year.

From private jets to superyachts, here's the climate impact of the rich and famous

Luxury travel became more popular during the pandemic

time.com

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Another famous boast of capitalism is that their support of the free market promotes and encourages innovation and invention - which the West saw a lot of since the advent of industrialism. Technology built upon technology which was built upon technology. This seems to imply that if we simply let capitalists do their thing and maintain the free market, maybe someone will eventually invent something that will solve all our problems. Maybe someone will invent a machine or process which can reverse global warming or replicate resources or any number of other things which could make what is impossible today into a possibility tomorrow. But even that seems wildly hypothetical at this point.

But that seems to be where people are at, since they go on business as usual and hope for the best. We can't really put the genie back in the bottle. Just like the band playing on the Titanic, people will keep on doing what they're doing right up to the very end.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

I gave it a "Useful" rating because I found it detailed and relevant to the discussion. I don't have to agree with all of it.

I think capitalism, in its current form, will inevitably need to be replaced as the climate crisis worsens, but I don't know that the replacement will necessarily be socialism. I think it could be some combination of different systems. We're in an unprecedented time because no one in a previous era had to deal with climate change with the same urgency that we do, so it's possible that older proposed solutions may not apply so effectively either.

 

[Revoltingest]

Current regulation is failing....

If you can favor extreme change of replacing
capitalism with socialism, then certainly you
could entertain the possibility of the less
extreme measure of using regulation without
economic authoritarianism.

 

[Stevicus]

Capitalism has been shown best
to generate the money to finance such efforts.

Well, sure, they generate the money. They made a lot of money when they caused this global catastrophe in the first place.

But sure, blame it on the socialists from 100 years ago. It's all their fault.

 

[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.

Having fewer goods & cars is a false goal.
However many goods & cars there are, the
goal should be reducing their deleterious
effects.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If you can favor extreme change of replacing
capitalism with socialism,

I didn't favor that. Read my previous post.

Also, you didn't give your opinion on how regulation can address the highly disproportionate environmental impact of the wealthiest segments of the population, whether on a global or country-specific level.

then certainly you
could entertain the possibility of the less
extreme measure of using regulation without
economic authoritarianism.

Considering that the climate crisis is becoming increasingly pressing and, in some places, life-threatening to many people, I don't think there's much room or time to keep doing the same old things and expect different results.

This is not to say that leaders of global superpowers will sufficiently tackle the problem, though. Many of them are in their 50s or 70s, and they may not even be alive by the time the worst happens. This really is a problem that will affect the current and next generations the most.

 

[Revoltingest]

I gave it a "Useful" rating because I found it detailed and relevant to the discussion. I don't have to agree with all of it.

I think capitalism, in its current form, will inevitably need to be replaced....

That seems like backtracking from approval
of socialism replacing capitalism, yet not fully
admitting that strategy.
Socialism certainly results in people being forced
to make do with less. But is scarcity due to
economic failure the best way to achieve it?

One example of using regulation would be to
factor disposal & environmental costs into the
price of goods. This would retain competition,
choice, & availability.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, sure, they generate the money. They made a lot of money when they caused this global catastrophe in the first place.

But sure, blame it on the socialists from 100 years ago. It's all their fault.

Socialism didn't play much of a role for the
simple reason that it cannot produce much.
This doesn't make it a solution.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Having fewer goods & cars is a false goal.

That's debatable, but even if we grant it for the sake of argument, we'll then need to figure out how billions of people would be able to have that level of luxury.

The alternative is to argue that they shouldn't or that there shouldn't be billions of people in the world (so, technically, we would be talking about reducing the global population to fewer than three billion people). I find both of those ethically questionable and unrealistic (how could governments reduce the global population from eight to three billion without committing atrocities?), and the latter sometimes strikes me as borderline eugenicist.

However many goods & cars there are, the
goal should be reducing their deleterious
effects.

Their very production has an environmental footprint. At a certain point, the sheer volume of production will become unsustainable no matter how much we try to prevent that.

Light one match and you'll find its heat tolerable. Light a billion and the heat will be smothering no matter how small each match is.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't favor that. Read my previous post.

I read it.
I saw what you approved, &
your confirming following post.

Also, you didn't give your opinion on how regulation can address the...

I don't present solutions to every aspect of every problem.
Neither do you.
But I did give one example.
(And saw no response to it.)

Considering that the climate crisis is becoming increasingly pressing and, in some places, life-threatening to many people, I don't think there's much room or time to keep doing the same old things and expect different results.

Oh, you young whippersnappers...always
in a hurry, & ready to give government
far greater power to do what you want.

A problem there is that what you want
done isn't necessarily what government
would actually do.

This is not to say that leaders of global superpowers will sufficiently tackle the problem, though. Many of them are in their 50s or 70s, and they may not even be alive by the time the worst happens. This really is a problem that will affect the current and next generations the most.

The problems will affect my children &
grandchildren. The same would be true
for aged leaders. So I & they have just
as much a stack in this as you young'ns.

 

[fantome profane]

A better approach would be to use regulation,
eg, curbing overpopulation.

Would you be so kind as to give an example of what a regulation to curb overpopulation might look like?

 

[Stevicus]

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.

This all sounds good in theory, and I can even get behind some of this. But that's only if the capitalists - and the politicians who represent their interests - are willing to compromise and go along with the kind of changes and regulations that might need to happen.

I was only speaking hypothetically anyway. Obviously, the socialists are all washed up and have no chance of ever gaining power - unless the capitalists screw up royally, which is socialism's greatest chance at making a comeback.

Ultimately, it comes down to the capitalists. If what you're saying is true, then capitalism will get us out of this mess - and socialism will remain a distant memory. Even I would applaud, if I actually saw some measurable positive results.

But if capitalists choose to squabble with each other and tear each other apart, then socialists need only watch and wait.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's debatable...

That's why we're all here.

....but even if we grant it for the sake of argument, we'll then need to figure out how billions of people would be able to have that level of luxury.

There's an issue of dirt poor people around the
globe who ought to have more than they do.
Capitalism would enable this more than would
socialism.
But that's not the issue under discussion.

The alternative is to argue that they shouldn't or that there shouldn't be billions of people in the world (so, technically, we would be talking about reducing the global population to fewer than three billion people). I find both of those ethically questionable and unrealistic (how could governments reduce the global population from eight to three billion without committing atrocities?), and the latter sometimes strikes me as borderline eugenicist.

If curbing over-population is off the table, then
no matter what economic systems are in place,
more of the natural environment will be paved
over, plowed under, or denuded of diverse life.

You can suggest that this means eugenics, but
that smacks of false demonization of recognizing
the realities of over-population.

Their very production has an environmental footprint. At a certain point, the sheer volume of production will become unsustainable no matter how much we try to prevent that.

If your solution is simply to produce less by
command, that would be simplistic, severe,
& wrong.
Better would be to reduce the negative effects
of production, use, servicing, & ultimate disposal.

Light one match and you'll find its heat tolerable. Light a billion and the heat will be smothering no matter how small each match is.

Matches aren't the problem.

 

[Shaul]

We don't need to do that at all. Eating meat is not inherently more deleterious to the environment than not eating meat. It is just a question of how each is done.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That seems like backtracking from approval
of socialism replacing capitalism, yet not fully
admitting that strategy.

I've been clear in this thread and others about my opinion that the current, globally prevalent form of capitalism needs to be replaced in the long term. I would certainly prefer socialism to it provided that socialism became prevalent through democracy, but socialism or not, my core point is that the current system of the global economy is fundamentally unsustainable and self-destructive at this point.

Socialism certainly results in people being forced
to make do with less. But is scarcity due to
economic failure the best way to achieve it?

You're arguing against Marxism-Leninism and its offshoots, so we're basically talking about different things.

Scarcity due to economic failure isn't the solution, but neither is excessive consumption mainly due to a global minority's disproportionate impact through wealth concentration. Any approach that overlooks or dismisses the role of said disproportionality is bound to be insufficient and unrealistic.

One example of using regulation would be to
factor disposal & environmental costs into the
price of goods. This would retain competition,
choice, & availability.

That doesn't address some of the biggest offenders, such as private yachts, private jets, and cruise ships. We're basically talking about a tree while a forest is burning down in the background.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If curbing over-population is off the table, then
no matter what economic systems are in place,
more of the natural environment will be paved
over, plowed under, or denuded of diverse life.

You can suggest that this means eugenics, but
that smacks of false demonization of recognizing
the realities of over-population.

I said this earlier:

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.

And I also specified that sometimes calls to "curb overpopulation" strike me as borderline eugenicist. I find China's former one-child policy and the authoritarianism with which it was enacted to be within that category. Do you disagree?

Also, how do you suggest governments curb overpopulation?

If your solution is simply to produce less by
command, that would be simplistic, severe,
& wrong.
Better would be to reduce the negative effects
of production, use, servicing, & ultimate disposal.

I think the solution would probably include a combination of less consumption (and production, consequently) and a reduction of the negative effects of the things you mentioned. It's not an either-or situation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Would you be so kind as to give an example of what a regulation to curb overpopulation might look like?

There would be many ways to do this. What
would work in China & Singapore, won't here.
I've not even begun to consider them all.
There's much research on factors that lead
parents to choose smaller families, but I'd
rather not steer the thread to become about
that.
One way is to structure an economy & social
services such that parents needn't depend upon
children to work to support the family, or upon
children to support the parents in old age.
This would remove some incentive for large
families.

Let's consider not curbing over-population...
As more people cover more of the Earth, more
land will be used for dwelling, infrastructure,
farming, & waste. More of the ocean will be
denuded of life to feed them. This will impose
various limits on food, energy, goods, & housing.
Bumping into those limits will impose great
hardship. Is that better than using regulation
& persuasion before the problem solves itself?

 

[Revoltingest]

This all sounds good in theory...

Actually, capitalism & useful regulation have a record of success.
Socialism lacks this, so it's more "theoretical".

 

[Revoltingest]

I've been clear in this thread and others about my opinion that the current, globally prevalent form of capitalism needs to be replaced in the long term. I would certainly prefer socialism to it provided that socialism became prevalent through democracy, but socialism or not, my core point is that the current system of the global economy is fundamentally unsustainable and self-destructive at this point.

You've been somewhat clear in advocacy for
socialism replacing capitalism. I argue that
capitalism with useful regulation offers better
results.

You're arguing against Marxism-Leninism and its offshoots, so we're basically talking about different things.

I'm not arguing against the label you've
proffered. Only against what the other
poster proposed, & you approved of.

Scarcity due to economic failure isn't the solution, but neither is excessive consumption....

I smell a straw man.
I've not defended excessive consumption.
I even offered one example of how to curb
it....with no response from anyone.

...mainly due to a global minority's disproportionate impact through wealth concentration. Any approach that overlooks or dismisses the role of said disproportionality is bound to be insufficient and unrealistic.

If wealth concentration is a problem,
there are ways to address it without
replacing capitalism with socialism.

That doesn't address some of the biggest offenders, such as private yachts, private jets, and cruise ships.

I don't address everything.
Neither do you.
So that criticism is without merit.
(That's the polite way to phrase it.)

We're basically talking about a tree while a forest is burning down in the background.

That's a colorful way to describe your
sense of urgency. But it doesn't justify
throwing the baby out with the bathwater.