5 ms·

I'm not interested in eating less meat so we can grow the population more. It's not a cost issue. Why do we want a population size that requires people to cut

I'm not interested in eating less meat so we can grow the population more. It's not a cost issue. Why do we want a population size that requires people to cut back on quality of life?

madrasman 8y ago
eating beef being higher quality of life may be less real and more perceived (because of habit and freedom), given that there are several similar substitutes.
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  When it comes to quality of life perceived is real. The substitutes suck. I've tried them. If that changes then I will switch over.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kieranmaine 8y ago
Would you eat more chicken instead of beef though? Is there a certain meat you couldn't do without and if so why? I'm not against anyone eating meat (although as an ethical - and hypocritical milk drinking vegetarian - I'd like to see animal suffering reduced) just interested in what meat eaters love about meat.
- toast0 8y ago
  Chicken and beef have significantly different tastes, textures, and preparation options. They're substitute goods in the same was as a bicycle and a scooter; they provide the same kind of utility, but one may be preferred over the other for reasons that are hard to enumerate and don't really address the utility.
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  I don't see stacking as many people as possible on Earth as a worthy goal and therefore I am not interested in changing my behavior for the purpose of achieving it. Your animal suffering point has merit. But what the article is talking about is simply growing enough food to feed more people, so that's what I am addressing. However, I think that this is just another symptom of the same thing. Factory farming is only necessary if we need to feed multiple billions.
  - kieranmaine 8y ago
    I agree that we should stop over population, but that involves developing and enriching countries to lower the birth rate. As countries get richer they eat more meat, so the problem may still remain even if the population does decline.
wmf 8y ago
Plenty has been written on "the population question". Your intuitions don't agree with my understanding of the state of the art. Many environmentalists say that even the current world population can't afford Western middle-class quality of life. Efforts to limit population growth are already in place but it's mostly occurring in parts of the world too poor to do anything about it. We don't "want" higher population but short of some kind of massive neo-colonial invasion there's no way to stop it.
- RcIss 8y ago
  >Many environmentalists say that even the current world population can't afford Western middle-class quality of life. What makes you think we (we as in those of us who see reduction as a focus on environmentalism) disagree with this? We are, indeed, already too many, meaning that we should reduce further, and further, and not just be content with our current numbers, and certainly not allow those numbers to keep growing. The city I was born in, Montpellier, grew from 100k inhabitants in 1960 to 270k in 2018. It turned from beautiful Haussmann style architecture surrounded by crops of vines and wild countryside land to a nightmare of concrete towers, oppressive modern architecture ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Pierres_vives_Montpellier_03.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Pierres_... can you look at this and not feel overly disgusted?), overgrowth of suburbs around it to the point where we need to travel much further to see any wildland and a homeless problem ala san francisco that keeps getting worse and worse as we fail to build as much as necessary to fulfill the need of our constant growth and and rents and property costs keep growing beyond more and more out of reach of the average french man living there. It is not just about CO2 emissions like what people on the left side focus on so much. It is about quality of life itself. Or lack thereof induced by letting things go on like this. You are right, current numbers are horrendous and more than the earth could withstand if everyone had western middle class style economy, as even western countries have too much population. It isn't solely poor countries that should reduce their numbers. Encouraging people to sterilize in France would be a great thing too.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
moate 8y ago
>>Why do we want a population size that requires people to cut back on quality of life? If you can show me how eating meat directly correlates to a better quality of life, I'll be gobsmacked. You may enjoy eating meat, but that doesn't mean it's making your life better/easier. Besides the nutritional side (which is complex, but let's just agree that you can make cases both for or against eating animal flesh as helping your diet and wellness) the agriculture industry is responsible for approximately 9% of US carbon emissions and livestock account for about 3% all by themselves[1]. Changing that could possibly affect your quality of life (assuming you aren't planning on dying in the next 10-20 years before the impact of that starts mattering). Overall, eating meat is at best likely a net-neutral on your quality of life, even including how much you love eating a burger. 1-https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
- ericd 8y ago
  I think you may not be valuing beef appropriately for people who really love burgers or good steak. And there happen to be a lot of those. It's hard to appropriately value things like that if you don't appreciate them yourself. But sure, maybe that's not in their long term best interest. And unfortunately, humans are, on average, very bad at optimizing for their long term best interest vs. short term.
ScroogeMcDoug 8y ago
It's a selfish attitude, but certainly a more realistic one for most people. Look at it this way: You enjoy eating meat, and aren't interested in giving that up for the benefit of others just like others aren't willing to give up their desire to have children for your benefit.

I'm not interested in eating less meat so we can grow the population more. It's not a cost issue. Why do we want a population size that requires people to cut back on quality of life?

madrasman 8y ago

eating beef being higher quality of life may be less real and more perceived (because of habit and freedom), given that there are several similar substitutes.

travisoneill1 8y ago
When it comes to quality of life perceived is real. The substitutes suck. I've tried them. If that changes then I will switch over.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

kieranmaine 8y ago

Would you eat more chicken instead of beef though? Is there a certain meat you couldn't do without and if so why? I'm not against anyone eating meat (although as an ethical - and hypocritical milk drinking vegetarian - I'd like to see animal suffering reduced) just interested in what meat eaters love about meat.

toast0 8y ago
Chicken and beef have significantly different tastes, textures, and preparation options. They're substitute goods in the same was as a bicycle and a scooter; they provide the same kind of utility, but one may be preferred over the other for reasons that are hard to enumerate and don't really address the utility.
travisoneill1 8y ago
I don't see stacking as many people as possible on Earth as a worthy goal and therefore I am not interested in changing my behavior for the purpose of achieving it. Your animal suffering point has merit. But what the article is talking about is simply growing enough food to feed more people, so that's what I am addressing. However, I think that this is just another symptom of the same thing. Factory farming is only necessary if we need to feed multiple billions.
- kieranmaine 8y ago
  I agree that we should stop over population, but that involves developing and enriching countries to lower the birth rate. As countries get richer they eat more meat, so the problem may still remain even if the population does decline.

wmf 8y ago

Plenty has been written on "the population question". Your intuitions don't agree with my understanding of the state of the art. Many environmentalists say that even the current world population can't afford Western middle-class quality of life. Efforts to limit population growth are already in place but it's mostly occurring in parts of the world too poor to do anything about it. We don't "want" higher population but short of some kind of massive neo-colonial invasion there's no way to stop it.

RcIss 8y ago
>Many environmentalists say that even the current world population can't afford Western middle-class quality of life. What makes you think we (we as in those of us who see reduction as a focus on environmentalism) disagree with this? We are, indeed, already too many, meaning that we should reduce further, and further, and not just be content with our current numbers, and certainly not allow those numbers to keep growing. The city I was born in, Montpellier, grew from 100k inhabitants in 1960 to 270k in 2018. It turned from beautiful Haussmann style architecture surrounded by crops of vines and wild countryside land to a nightmare of concrete towers, oppressive modern architecture ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Pierres_vives_Montpellier_03.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Pierres_... can you look at this and not feel overly disgusted?), overgrowth of suburbs around it to the point where we need to travel much further to see any wildland and a homeless problem ala san francisco that keeps getting worse and worse as we fail to build as much as necessary to fulfill the need of our constant growth and and rents and property costs keep growing beyond more and more out of reach of the average french man living there. It is not just about CO2 emissions like what people on the left side focus on so much. It is about quality of life itself. Or lack thereof induced by letting things go on like this. You are right, current numbers are horrendous and more than the earth could withstand if everyone had western middle class style economy, as even western countries have too much population. It isn't solely poor countries that should reduce their numbers. Encouraging people to sterilize in France would be a great thing too.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

moate 8y ago

>>Why do we want a population size that requires people to cut back on quality of life? If you can show me how eating meat directly correlates to a better quality of life, I'll be gobsmacked. You may enjoy eating meat, but that doesn't mean it's making your life better/easier. Besides the nutritional side (which is complex, but let's just agree that you can make cases both for or against eating animal flesh as helping your diet and wellness) the agriculture industry is responsible for approximately 9% of US carbon emissions and livestock account for about 3% all by themselves[1]. Changing that could possibly affect your quality of life (assuming you aren't planning on dying in the next 10-20 years before the impact of that starts mattering). Overall, eating meat is at best likely a net-neutral on your quality of life, even including how much you love eating a burger. 1-https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

ericd 8y ago
I think you may not be valuing beef appropriately for people who really love burgers or good steak. And there happen to be a lot of those. It's hard to appropriately value things like that if you don't appreciate them yourself. But sure, maybe that's not in their long term best interest. And unfortunately, humans are, on average, very bad at optimizing for their long term best interest vs. short term.

ScroogeMcDoug 8y ago

It's a selfish attitude, but certainly a more realistic one for most people. Look at it this way: You enjoy eating meat, and aren't interested in giving that up for the benefit of others just like others aren't willing to give up their desire to have children for your benefit.