14 ms·

I think the problem with this is plausibility. I have much more faith in humanity culling itself, by whatever misanthropic means, than behaving "amicably and r

I think the problem with this is plausibility. I have much more faith in humanity culling itself, by whatever misanthropic means, than behaving "amicably and rapidly." The possible solution might not be the pleasant one.

lallysingh 8y ago
Basically stop eating beef and using internal-combustion cars, and the situation is vastly improved. Not impossible. A bunch of tax law changes would do it. And that's a lot more passable than killing a bunch of people.
- JTbane 8y ago
  The problem with that is people are really attached to their cars and beef.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Basically stop eating beef and using internal-combustion cars, and the situation is vastly improved. Not impossible. For one, beef's not that much of a problem: https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968 https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-envi... But second, all kinds of systems we have have been premised on economic growth year after year. When we hit some harder limits, we'll hit them hard.
  - iN7h33nD 8y ago
    Many sources would beg to differ about meat not being a problem. https://youtu.be/NxvQPzrg2Wg https://youtu.be/NxvQPzrg2Wg (Sources: https://sites.google.com/view/kgssourcesmeat/startseite https://sites.google.com/view/kgssourcesmeat/startseite) So even if FAO got it wrong, I just don't see beef not being a problem.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >Many sources would beg to differ about meat not being a problem. The "sources" in the link either reference to mistaken FAO stats, or give some numbers out of context and with no argument (e.g. "One kilogram of steak needs up to 25 kilos of grain and 15,000 liters of water" -- ok, but what's that compared to other consumers of such resources? Or "Meat just makes up 18% of our calories humans eat", ok so?)
      - osense 8y ago
        > "One kilogram of steak needs up to 25 kilos of grain and 15,000 liters of water" The argument is that in order to produce 1000 calories worth of meat, more resources (e.g. land, water, greenhouse emissions) are needed than to produce 1000 calories worth of plant-based food. > "Meat just makes up 18% of our calories humans eat" Same argument: even though meat makes up only 18% of calories in our diets, it produces 58% of agriculture-produced greenhouse gases and takes up a whopping 83% of currently farmed land, compared to overall agriculture [1][2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...
        coldtea 8y ago
        >The argument is that in order to produce 1000 calories worth of meat, more resources (e.g. land, water, greenhouse emissions) are needed than to produce 1000 calories worth of plant-based food. Sure, but either quantity might not be the real issue on the grand scheme of things, if it's just eg. 5% of resource use or pollution.
        osense 8y ago
        Unfortunately, this is not the case: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-repor... Note that the year of publication is 2010.
- deialtrous 8y ago
  Except that my diet and car have absolutely nothing to do with the problem. You're fixating on CO2 when the problem the article talks about is clearly environmental destruction. Canada and the US produce all of our own beef. There is no environmental destruction happening here for beef production. We can in fact produce much more beef using the existing idle grasslands we have now. And the only relevant problem from cars here is the mining, which is worse with an electric vehicle. Nothing you suggested even attempts to address the issue at all.
  - GVIrish 8y ago
    The energy, land, and water required to produce 1 lb of beef is several times greater than the resources required to produce 1 lb of chicken, which in turn is several times greater than the resources required to produce 1 lb of the average vegetable. Not only that, but methane emissions from cattle contribute to climate change. About a third of anthropogenic methane emissions in the US are from livestock. Not saying we need to stop eating beef completely, but if diets shifted away from beef it would have a number of positive environmental impacts.
    - deialtrous 8y ago
      None of those things have anything to do with the discussion though, which is developing nations torching natural ecosystems. Neither my beef nor my car is in any way a factor in this. Also, your comparison is disingenuous. A pound of beef or chicken contains far more calories and protein than a pound of any vegetable. And grass fed beef actually requires less energy to produce than vegetables.
      - wiz21c 8y ago
        for the beef : https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/is-grass-fed-beef-better-for-the-environment.html https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/is-grass-fed-beef-bette... for the car : just stop using a car, that'll be better for the environment.
        8y ago
- belorn 8y ago
  Freshwater habitats are the worst hit according to the article with populations having collapsed by 83%. To that we have several major causes with one being acidification from CO2, eutrophication, fresh water usage/water treatment, waste management and electrical dams. Beef and internal-combustion are part of the issue of C02, but we need to also start addressing the other issues if we want to see the trend change.
bryanlarsen 8y ago
We have a much better record of cleaning up the environment than we do have in human culling. Compare the US of today with that of 50 - 100 years ago. The tree cover is almost back to pre-contact levels, lakes & rivers are potable, smog doesn't kill 10's of thousands of people per year, et cetera. IOW, local environmental problems have been solved. And we know how to solve them elsewhere in the world: economic growth. Once people have their basic needs secure, they start caring about this stuff. Internalize the externalities and let the market sort it out. The challenge is global problems; climate change is a fairly classic tragedy of the commons. The solution here is similar: internalize the externalities and let the market sort it out. A global carbon tax, for example. We used to be able to do this stuff. We banned CFC's world-wide, for example. Our track record in culling is much worse. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot only managed to kill about 1% of the population, and the instability they created actually increased birth rates. Mao had an impact with the one child policy, but...
- deialtrous 8y ago
  >The tree cover is almost back to pre-contact levels The number of trees is not the issue. The ecosystem is. Huge plantations of SPF in rows that are all the same age and size does not make a natural ecosystem, and biodiversity is very low. >lakes & rivers are potable Public drinking water isn't even potable in many places, nevermind lakes and rivers. This is pure fantasy talk. >IOW, local environmental problems have been solved No, they have been relocated overseas so they are out of sight and out of mind. >The challenge is global problems; climate change is a fairly classic tragedy of the commons. Yes, I am sure the animals going extinct really just wish we could come together and tax people for breathing. Of course they don't care about their ecosystem being destroyed to grow corn for 5 years before exhausting the land and burning down another 1000 acres of forest for another 5 years of corn. >Our track record in culling is much worse. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot only managed to kill about 1% of the population None of them were trying to lower the population. Funny how you want to equate "lowering global population" with "mass murder" even though you clearly are aware that limiting births is the actual strategy, which actually works.
  - jlawson 8y ago

lallysingh 8y ago

Basically stop eating beef and using internal-combustion cars, and the situation is vastly improved. Not impossible. A bunch of tax law changes would do it. And that's a lot more passable than killing a bunch of people.

JTbane 8y ago
The problem with that is people are really attached to their cars and beef.
coldtea 8y ago
>Basically stop eating beef and using internal-combustion cars, and the situation is vastly improved. Not impossible. For one, beef's not that much of a problem: https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968 https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-envi... But second, all kinds of systems we have have been premised on economic growth year after year. When we hit some harder limits, we'll hit them hard.
- iN7h33nD 8y ago
  Many sources would beg to differ about meat not being a problem. https://youtu.be/NxvQPzrg2Wg https://youtu.be/NxvQPzrg2Wg (Sources: https://sites.google.com/view/kgssourcesmeat/startseite https://sites.google.com/view/kgssourcesmeat/startseite) So even if FAO got it wrong, I just don't see beef not being a problem.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Many sources would beg to differ about meat not being a problem. The "sources" in the link either reference to mistaken FAO stats, or give some numbers out of context and with no argument (e.g. "One kilogram of steak needs up to 25 kilos of grain and 15,000 liters of water" -- ok, but what's that compared to other consumers of such resources? Or "Meat just makes up 18% of our calories humans eat", ok so?)
    - osense 8y ago
      > "One kilogram of steak needs up to 25 kilos of grain and 15,000 liters of water" The argument is that in order to produce 1000 calories worth of meat, more resources (e.g. land, water, greenhouse emissions) are needed than to produce 1000 calories worth of plant-based food. > "Meat just makes up 18% of our calories humans eat" Same argument: even though meat makes up only 18% of calories in our diets, it produces 58% of agriculture-produced greenhouse gases and takes up a whopping 83% of currently farmed land, compared to overall agriculture [1][2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >The argument is that in order to produce 1000 calories worth of meat, more resources (e.g. land, water, greenhouse emissions) are needed than to produce 1000 calories worth of plant-based food. Sure, but either quantity might not be the real issue on the grand scheme of things, if it's just eg. 5% of resource use or pollution.
        osense 8y ago
        Unfortunately, this is not the case: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-repor... Note that the year of publication is 2010.
deialtrous 8y ago
Except that my diet and car have absolutely nothing to do with the problem. You're fixating on CO2 when the problem the article talks about is clearly environmental destruction. Canada and the US produce all of our own beef. There is no environmental destruction happening here for beef production. We can in fact produce much more beef using the existing idle grasslands we have now. And the only relevant problem from cars here is the mining, which is worse with an electric vehicle. Nothing you suggested even attempts to address the issue at all.
- GVIrish 8y ago
  The energy, land, and water required to produce 1 lb of beef is several times greater than the resources required to produce 1 lb of chicken, which in turn is several times greater than the resources required to produce 1 lb of the average vegetable. Not only that, but methane emissions from cattle contribute to climate change. About a third of anthropogenic methane emissions in the US are from livestock. Not saying we need to stop eating beef completely, but if diets shifted away from beef it would have a number of positive environmental impacts.
  - deialtrous 8y ago
    None of those things have anything to do with the discussion though, which is developing nations torching natural ecosystems. Neither my beef nor my car is in any way a factor in this. Also, your comparison is disingenuous. A pound of beef or chicken contains far more calories and protein than a pound of any vegetable. And grass fed beef actually requires less energy to produce than vegetables.
    - wiz21c 8y ago
      for the beef : https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/is-grass-fed-beef-better-for-the-environment.html https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/is-grass-fed-beef-bette... for the car : just stop using a car, that'll be better for the environment.
      - 8y ago
belorn 8y ago
Freshwater habitats are the worst hit according to the article with populations having collapsed by 83%. To that we have several major causes with one being acidification from CO2, eutrophication, fresh water usage/water treatment, waste management and electrical dams. Beef and internal-combustion are part of the issue of C02, but we need to also start addressing the other issues if we want to see the trend change.

bryanlarsen 8y ago

We have a much better record of cleaning up the environment than we do have in human culling. Compare the US of today with that of 50 - 100 years ago. The tree cover is almost back to pre-contact levels, lakes & rivers are potable, smog doesn't kill 10's of thousands of people per year, et cetera. IOW, local environmental problems have been solved. And we know how to solve them elsewhere in the world: economic growth. Once people have their basic needs secure, they start caring about this stuff. Internalize the externalities and let the market sort it out. The challenge is global problems; climate change is a fairly classic tragedy of the commons. The solution here is similar: internalize the externalities and let the market sort it out. A global carbon tax, for example. We used to be able to do this stuff. We banned CFC's world-wide, for example. Our track record in culling is much worse. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot only managed to kill about 1% of the population, and the instability they created actually increased birth rates. Mao had an impact with the one child policy, but...

deialtrous 8y ago
>The tree cover is almost back to pre-contact levels The number of trees is not the issue. The ecosystem is. Huge plantations of SPF in rows that are all the same age and size does not make a natural ecosystem, and biodiversity is very low. >lakes & rivers are potable Public drinking water isn't even potable in many places, nevermind lakes and rivers. This is pure fantasy talk. >IOW, local environmental problems have been solved No, they have been relocated overseas so they are out of sight and out of mind. >The challenge is global problems; climate change is a fairly classic tragedy of the commons. Yes, I am sure the animals going extinct really just wish we could come together and tax people for breathing. Of course they don't care about their ecosystem being destroyed to grow corn for 5 years before exhausting the land and burning down another 1000 acres of forest for another 5 years of corn. >Our track record in culling is much worse. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot only managed to kill about 1% of the population None of them were trying to lower the population. Funny how you want to equate "lowering global population" with "mass murder" even though you clearly are aware that limiting births is the actual strategy, which actually works.
- jlawson 8y ago