Does humanity need to reduce meat consumption?

[Father Heathen]

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

Let's make this about something it's not.

 

[Stevicus]

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

Perhaps there have been temporary, short-term successes here and there, but if it leads humanity to extinction, then that would be a monumental failure. Regardless of anything you could say about socialism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps there have been temporary, short-term successes here and there, but if it leads humanity to extinction, then that would be a monumental failure. Regardless of anything you could say about socialism.

We can agree on one thing....
Avoid humanity's extinction.

 

[YmirGF]

Let's make this about something it's not.

Fair. Scrap the Biden quip and my comment stands.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

Improve other foods. Meat is relatively safe food. We know what it is, where it comes from. It doesn't cause diabetes, and its a source of protein.

It seems like most things on the shelf are bad for health. There is almost always some compromise with health. Things have sugar, or they have soy oil or palm oil or have strange ingredients. Chips are constipation in a bag, yet there is an entire aisle devoted to them. Where is the food that isn't going to damage my digestive system? Where is the food that is not going to give me Alzheimer's or Parkinsons? Where is the food that tastes great yet is also good for me and is easy to prepare? Oh...that is meat.

 

[The Hammer]

"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).

Meh. We have always eaten meat. Since time immemorial. I say we find ethical ways of consuming meat, while also reducing it's prevalence. But getting rid of it altogether, good luck, humans are meat eaters.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Meh. We have always eaten meat. Since time immemorial. I say we find ethical ways of consuming meat, while also reducing it's prevalence. But getting rid of it altogether, good luck, humans are meat eaters.

I keep saying we should stop eating rotisserie chicken, but that idea always gets skewered.

 

[Heyo]

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.

You can't regulate capitalism to the degree it would be necessary. Capitalism relies on growth but we have a finite planet and we have reached a point where growth will be detrimental. That is a new thing that capitalism didn't have to face in the past so we can't expect to predict future development by past performance in this case. What we can predict is that more of the same will inevitably lead to more of the same problems.
We need to change from a demand driven and over producing economy to a sustainable, resource driven economy. Capitalism can't do that, it is inherently not sustainable.

 

[Heyo]

Meh. We have always eaten meat. Since time immemorial. I say we find ethical ways of consuming meat, while also reducing it's prevalence. But getting rid of it altogether, good luck, humans are meat eaters.

Nobody said to get rid of meat all together. The demand was to reduce meat consumption.

 

[Heyo]

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.

We have to do both.
The argument that overpopulation isn't a problem because poor people don't pollute as much as rich people is short sighted. The poor people want to get "rich" (have a more comfortable western lifestyle) also.
You can either reduce the number of people or you can deny a western lifestyle to the less developed world. You can't have growing affluence and a growing population without multiplying the problems.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We have to do both.
The argument that overpopulation isn't a problem because poor people don't pollute as much as rich people is short sighted. The poor people want to get "rich" (have a more comfortable western lifestyle) also.
You can either reduce the number of people or you can deny a western lifestyle to the less developed world. You can't have growing affluence and a growing population without multiplying the problems.

I agree. I believe controlling reproduction rates is context-dependent, though, as not all communities or societies have the same circumstances. I also believe that the rates should never be controlled through authoritarianism; only through approaches like awareness programs about overpopulation (when that is an actual problem), better access to contraceptives, addressing the socioeconomic issues that lead some people to feel a need to have many children (e.g., high infant mortality rates or blue-collar labor where parents need children to help them), etc.

 

[Heyo]

I agree. I believe controlling reproduction rates is context-dependent, though, as not all communities or societies have the same circumstances. I also believe that the rates should never be controlled through authoritarianism; only through approaches like awareness programs about overpopulation (when that is an actual problem), better access to contraceptives, addressing the socioeconomic issues that lead some people to feel a need to have many children (e.g., high infant mortality rates or blue-collar labor where parents need children to help them), etc.

Yes, I see that the same way. There were two major factors that reduced growth rates, retirement plans (pensions) and sex ed (with access to contraception).
Eliminate the need to have children and provide knowledge and means to avoid them.
But that is only the personal level. For countries to want to implement these, the industrialised countries need to provide incentives for the rulers, too. A numerous population means a big army and a strong workforce, those factors have to be balanced out.

 

[sayak83]

"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).

Short answer is yes.
The long answer is that there ought to be a global sustainability tax (and conversely a sustainability credit) on every product based on how poorly or well it is utilizing the resources of the earth and the effect on the environment that product has. That should provide the price signals necessary to get the various industries to react and find better means or product alternatives....as well as the customers to make better choices.

 

[exchemist]

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

I presume you mean Putinomics.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can't regulate capitalism to the degree it would be necessary.

You're saying it can't be coercive & authoritarian
enuf? Or that it's simply too productive, & we
need the withering failure of socialism to scale
back production?
If you say that we can't achieve useful regulation,
what makes you think we can install the even
more authoritarian socialism?

Capitalism relies on growth...

Growth is desired by companies & government,
but it's not at all necessary. BTW, when government
desires growth, this would apply to any economic
system, even socialism & communism. (Both the
PRC & USSR strived for growth.) The singular
advantage of command economies is that they
aren't nearly as capable of growth, & are even
rife with chronic shortages, often leading to famine.
So that would be embracing failure as a solution.
Dumb idea.

....but we have a finite planet and we have reached a point where growth will be detrimental.

Duh!
Yer preach'n to the choir, Berford.

That is a new thing that capitalism didn't have to face in the past so we can't expect to predict future development by past performance in this case. What we can predict is that more of the same will inevitably lead to more of the same problems.
We need to change from a demand driven and over producing economy to a sustainable, resource driven economy. Capitalism can't do that, it is inherently not sustainable.

The problem with fans of socialism is that
you see it as the goal itself, & dream that
it will solve all the problems. This has the
high costs of greatly curbing both liberty
& prosperity.
I prefer solutions that are less coercive, &
aren't based upon economic impotence
reducing consumption.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

Yeah, but who pays that cost?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, but who pays that cost?

The same people who pay for the costs
of other foods. Everything we eat creates
problems, eg, denuding the oceans of
life, plowing under natural spaces,
algal blooms from fertilizer runoff.

Is it reasonable that we must continue
increasing Earth's massive population
of humans to the point that no one can
eat meat because resources are strained
to the breaking point on a planet devoted
100% to maximizing our population?

 

[Heyo]

You're saying it can't be coercive & authoritarian
enuf? Or that it's simply too productive, & we
need the withering failure of socialism to scale
back production?
If you say that we can't achieve useful regulation,
what makes you think we can install the even
more authoritarian socialism?

Growth is desired by companies & government,
but it's not at all necessary. BTW, when government
desires growth, this would apply to any economic
system, even socialism & communism. (Both the
PRC & USSR strived for growth.) The singular
advantage of command economies is that they
aren't nearly as capable of growth, & are even
rife with chronic shortages, often leading to famine.
So that would be embracing failure as a solution.
Dumb idea.

Duh!
Yer preach'n to the choir, Berford.

The problem with fans of socialism is that
you see it as the goal itself, & dream that
it will solve all the problems. This has the
high costs of greatly curbing both liberty
& prosperity.
I prefer solutions that are less coercive, &
aren't based upon economic impotence
reducing consumption.

Still a one bit thinker, aren't you?
There is more than just capitalism and socialism. We need to get rid of that black-and-white fallacy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Yeah, it is all about the USA as you are both all of the world and not really in the world as you are so special.

 

[Revoltingest]

Still a one bit thinker, aren't you?
There is more than just capitalism and socialism. We need to get rid of that black-and-white fallacy.

I'm a modern 64-bit thinker, comrade.
We must ditch the fallacy that socialism is good for humans.
But it is wonderful for ants, bees, & naked mole-rats, all of
which live the hive (eusocialistic) life.

Some interesting reading...

Eusociality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org