Does humanity need to reduce meat consumption?

[Subduction Zone]

I prefer evolution to revolution.
A way to mitigate deleterious effects of
meat eating is to alter the ration of kinds
of meat produced.

Which meat harms our planet the least?

Green Lantern, you're always telling us how bad meat is for the environment. I'm willing to throw some more zucchini kebabs on my barbecue this...

slate.com

Eat more bacon & eggs!

Though I do see the PETA types advocating against factory farms they do appear to be more AGW friendly than traditional beef farming. You appear to have a valid point here (shh, don't tell anyone that I said so).

 

[We Never Know]

I prefer evolution to revolution.
A way to mitigate deleterious effects of
meat eating is to alter the ration of kinds
of meat produced.

Which meat harms our planet the least?

Green Lantern, you're always telling us how bad meat is for the environment. I'm willing to throw some more zucchini kebabs on my barbecue this...

slate.com

Eat more bacon & eggs!

 

[syo]

8 billion actually.

World Population Clock: 8.0 Billion People (LIVE, 2023) - Worldometer

Even worse.

 

[metis]

It is not cow farts that are the problem. It is cow burps. Most of their methane comes out the front end not the rear.

Ever hear of "duals"???

 

[Heyo]

I say deny a western lifestyle to everyone. It's unhealthy and unsustainable long term.

It could be sustainable with less than 2 billion people.

 

[Revoltingest]

It could be sustainable with less than 2 billion people.

Population control is an anathema to so many
societies (Eugenics! God's will!) that it won't be
controlled by many countries until it reaches the
point that it's desperately compelling....& not
merely the Anthropocene Mass Extinction.

 

[The Hammer]

It could be sustainable with less than 2 billion people.

I doubt that it's sustainable even then.

How do you propose we reduce the world's population to below that level and keep it there?

 

[Heyo]

I doubt that it's sustainable even then.

How do you propose we reduce the world's population to below that level and keep it there?

That would require multiple measures on a global scale. That's extremely difficult but we already have examples of international treaties that were successful, the Montreal Protocol, International Opium Convention.
1. International carbon tax and tariffs. One (small) part of that would be that a person has a tax free amount of CO2 they may produce. Stick that to a fixed date (I prefer 1945) and make it inheritable. I.e. the number of siblings you have determines how much CO2 you can produce tax free.
2. Help developing nations with education and production and distribution of contraceptives.
3. Help developing nations reach a standard of living and security where people naturally prefer small families.
4. Kick out all Catholic missionaries.

 

[Yerda]

"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).

I din't believe I can change anyone's mind but I think humanity should reduce meat eating to (roughly) zero. I don't think the practice of raising billions of animals (mostly in conditions that are frankly evil) to feed people is sustainable. Too much land, too much water, too much carbon feeding animals to feed people.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

I think ot has more to do with the costs and resources required for raising livestock than the act of consumption.

Fields, grain, water, housing etc.

 

[Secret Chief]

I din't believe I can change anyone's mind but I think humanity should reduce meat eating to (roughly) zero. I don't think the practice of raising billions of animals (mostly in conditions that are frankly evil) to feed people is sustainable. Too much land, too much water, too much carbon feeding animals to feed people.

You're right it's not sustainable, and Nature will redress.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I didn't see this but I'm surprised that it wasn't immediately recognised for what it was - but perhaps Greg Wallace presenting it was why:

‘The anger of it will linger for years’ – is The British Miracle Meat the most disturbing TV satire ever?

This flawlessly executed programme is one of the most audaciously satirical spoofs ever aired in the UK. It’s a full-blooded roar of a show that deserves an immediate watch

www.theguardian.com

Soylent Green seems to have been missed by many.

 

[Shaul]

I think ot has more to do with the costs and resources required for raising livestock than the act of consumption.

Fields, grain, water, housing etc.

Again it is a matter of how it is done. Meat production does not innately require more cost and resources than producing produce. Consider an extreme, perhaps ludicrous, example; hunting, fishing or eating eggs produced from free range self feeding chickens have low costs and resource usages compared to produce farmed on land stripped through "cut and slash" and transported via jets to far away markets. Obviously a abnormal example, but it serves the purpose of pointing out the it is just a matter of how each is done that is the key factor.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

"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).

In my view, all greed (including the over-consumption of meat) leads to imbalance and is unsustainable in all sorts of ways.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Secret Chief]

In my view, all greed (including the over-consumption of meat) leads to imbalance and is unsustainable in all sorts of ways.

Humbly,
Hermit

Yes. Together with anger and ignorance, the three poisons.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Again it is a matter of how it is done. Meat production does not innately require more cost and resources than producing produce. Consider an extreme, perhaps ludicrous, example; hunting, fishing or eating eggs produced from free range self feeding chickens have low costs and resource usages compared to produce farmed on land stripped through "cut and slash" and transported via jets to far away markets. Obviously a abnormal example, but it serves the purpose of pointing out the it is just a matter of how each is done that is the key factor.

It's a reason I think ulture meats have a future.

Those fields and pastures can be used more for human benefit than sustaining mass populations of livestock.

 

[metis]

Soylent Green seems to have been missed by many.

The recipe is in the book "How To Serve Your Fellow Man".

 

[metis]

I had to make changes in my previous post, so I corrected it as it was supposed to be punny.

 

[Alien826]

Almost none of what has been written in this thread matters much. Climate change is here to stay, because nobody is going to do anything about it on a large enough scale. It's got to the stage where what is needed is so drastic that it's going to hurt a lot, and those that could do something (our rulers) are either those with the most to lose or controlled by them.

Oh, I think we should keep trying, might as well go down bravely, but realistically all that's left is mitigation of the effects, and that may not be enough avoid the extinction of most of our race, and half the other creatures that have the misfortune to share this planet with us.

It would be easy to say "it serves us right", but the blame lies with only a small section of us, so it's all rather sad.

 

[George-ananda]

"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).

Interesting timing as I just watched a few videos extolling the virtues of a carnivore diet which is basically eating only animal products. It touts claim after claim on the health and weight loss benefits of such a diet. Carbohydrates are said to absolutely be the villain in our diets. This diet is essentially zero carbs!!

Now, on the other hand I believe we should all be sympathetic to the health of the earth and that includes reducing greenhouse gases to a minimum.

Furthermore, there is also the issue of violence and mistreatment of animals.

A dilemma can occur if there is a tradeoff between individual human health and the environment. Hopefully science can help us here? Lab grown meat??