7 ms·

Maybe you care about it a good amount but don't believe in consumer climate control? If you eat local grass fed meat and don't support destructive factory farmi

Maybe you care about it a good amount but don't believe in consumer climate control? If you eat local grass fed meat and don't support destructive factory farming as well as support and push for vat grown meat, you end up decoupling these things. It's important to note that carnivores have existed for many, many years, and that it's also possible to construct clean, sustainable factories but we just choose not to, likely due to a lack of regulatory coordination, interest and pressure. I think it's important to separate the utilitarian argument from the moralistic argument here. Climate change is in large part accreted by large corporations, and the manner that they interact with corporate social responsibility and regulation is largely what has the potential to change things. Beyond that, it's hard (though not impossible) to get the same macronutrient profile without meat consumption. And beyond pure nutrition, many gastronomic entities are simply out of reach. I think you have to really think about what the purpose is of food (lots of sides to that) and not work backwards from the premise that meat consumption is intrinsically a poor choice. Vat grown meat technology is progressing at a pretty impressing clip from what I've seen. I think that's probably the technological change that will make this a lack of an issue.

seanwilson 8y ago
> If you eat local grass fed meat and don't support destructive factory farming Is this actually a feasible solution if meat is fundamentally inefficient? "It would be far easier to feed nine billion people by 2050 if more of the crops we grew ended up in human stomachs. Today only 55 percent of the world’s crop calories feed people directly; the rest are fed to livestock (about 36 percent) or turned into biofuels and industrial products (roughly 9 percent). Though many of us consume meat, dairy, and eggs from animals raised on feedlots, only a fraction of the calories in feed given to livestock make their way into the meat and milk that we consume. For every 100 calories of grain we feed animals, we get only about 40 new calories of milk, 22 calories of eggs, 12 of chicken, 10 of pork, or 3 of beef." https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-bi... "Huge reductions in meat-eating are essential to avoid dangerous climate change, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of the food system’s impact on the environment. In western countries, beef consumption needs to fall by 90% and be replaced by five times more beans and pulses." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-red... > Vat grown meat technology is progressing at a pretty impressing clip from what I've seen. I think that's probably the technological change that will make this a lack of an issue. I used to think this but it seems really silly to me now. We're going to require cutting edge technology to find a solution to the problem that people are too stubborn to adapt a little to combat climate change? There's plant based alternatives that exist today that taste somewhat like meat that don't require expensive technology and research to produce. We already know how to grow plants on a massive scale and I can't see how vat grown meat is going to compete with that any time soon. The requirement that we must have something that's close to indistinguishable from meat for people to switch seems an impossible bar to reach. Are people going to stick to cow milk until we devise technology to make a milk like product that's indistinguishable as well? Perhaps if meat was taxed based on its contribution to climate change people would be less picky. Waiting on vat grown meat doesn't sound like a realistic solution, especially given what's being said about the time we have to act on climate change.
- yowlingcat 8y ago
  I don't disagree with your last point! I think it is about incentives and it's likely that the agro lobby (at least in the USA) is resulting in subsidies to meat that artificially lower its actual cost. But I will say that specifically, I find it very hard to get my omega 3s in a sufficient (and cost effective) quantity outside of meat and fish. The ratio of omega 3s to omega 6s is not great in many plant substitutes. I think it's only chia and flax seed that have a comparable ratio to grass fed beef, and even then, you don't get the same macronutrient profile as in fish. This is the case everywhere with meats and fish -- you actually can't completely replace the macronutrient profile with vegetables. You can get close, but you lose out on things, and this is especially the case for parts of nutrition that we're still continuing to learn more about. This is my oversimplification, but I think there's a reason why humans have been omnivorous for most of their history; personally, I've always felt most healthy when I've been omnivorous but leaning towards a plant based diet (easier to keep it diverse) I'm a little curious as to why you didn't address my other points. I really don't agree with the premise of that guardian article. We need huge reductions to corporate emissions to avoid dangerous climate change. I think it's a bit of an anthropomorphic fallacy to believe that our consumption habits have a larger impact on the climate than demonstrably larger corporate contributors. It's pleasant to believe that we really have that much direct agency. But, it's wrong. If we really want to battle climate change, it requires coordinates, global pressure to the top.
  - seanwilson 8y ago
    > you actually can't completely replace the macronutrient profile with vegetables. You can get close, but you lose out on things, and this is especially the case for parts of nutrition that we're still continuing to learn more about. Do we have a history of eating so much meat, corn and diary? Humans in history have had very varied diets depending on location as far as I understand and the existence of vegan + vegetarian athletes is very convincing to me we don't need meat. > I'm a little curious as to why you didn't address my other points. Which ones? I probably tried to implicitly. > We need huge reductions to corporate emissions to avoid dangerous climate change. I think it's a bit of an anthropomorphic fallacy to believe that our consumption habits have a larger impact on the climate than demonstrably larger corporate contributors. Given these figures, do you still think believe this? 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... "The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions." > If we really want to battle climate change, it requires coordinates, global pressure to the top. Yes, but consumers definitely have an influence too. There's certainly been more demand for meat-free products in the last decade which companies are acting to profit from for example.

seanwilson 8y ago

> If you eat local grass fed meat and don't support destructive factory farming Is this actually a feasible solution if meat is fundamentally inefficient? "It would be far easier to feed nine billion people by 2050 if more of the crops we grew ended up in human stomachs. Today only 55 percent of the world’s crop calories feed people directly; the rest are fed to livestock (about 36 percent) or turned into biofuels and industrial products (roughly 9 percent). Though many of us consume meat, dairy, and eggs from animals raised on feedlots, only a fraction of the calories in feed given to livestock make their way into the meat and milk that we consume. For every 100 calories of grain we feed animals, we get only about 40 new calories of milk, 22 calories of eggs, 12 of chicken, 10 of pork, or 3 of beef." https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-bi... "Huge reductions in meat-eating are essential to avoid dangerous climate change, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of the food system’s impact on the environment. In western countries, beef consumption needs to fall by 90% and be replaced by five times more beans and pulses." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-red... > Vat grown meat technology is progressing at a pretty impressing clip from what I've seen. I think that's probably the technological change that will make this a lack of an issue. I used to think this but it seems really silly to me now. We're going to require cutting edge technology to find a solution to the problem that people are too stubborn to adapt a little to combat climate change? There's plant based alternatives that exist today that taste somewhat like meat that don't require expensive technology and research to produce. We already know how to grow plants on a massive scale and I can't see how vat grown meat is going to compete with that any time soon. The requirement that we must have something that's close to indistinguishable from meat for people to switch seems an impossible bar to reach. Are people going to stick to cow milk until we devise technology to make a milk like product that's indistinguishable as well? Perhaps if meat was taxed based on its contribution to climate change people would be less picky. Waiting on vat grown meat doesn't sound like a realistic solution, especially given what's being said about the time we have to act on climate change.

yowlingcat 8y ago
I don't disagree with your last point! I think it is about incentives and it's likely that the agro lobby (at least in the USA) is resulting in subsidies to meat that artificially lower its actual cost. But I will say that specifically, I find it very hard to get my omega 3s in a sufficient (and cost effective) quantity outside of meat and fish. The ratio of omega 3s to omega 6s is not great in many plant substitutes. I think it's only chia and flax seed that have a comparable ratio to grass fed beef, and even then, you don't get the same macronutrient profile as in fish. This is the case everywhere with meats and fish -- you actually can't completely replace the macronutrient profile with vegetables. You can get close, but you lose out on things, and this is especially the case for parts of nutrition that we're still continuing to learn more about. This is my oversimplification, but I think there's a reason why humans have been omnivorous for most of their history; personally, I've always felt most healthy when I've been omnivorous but leaning towards a plant based diet (easier to keep it diverse) I'm a little curious as to why you didn't address my other points. I really don't agree with the premise of that guardian article. We need huge reductions to corporate emissions to avoid dangerous climate change. I think it's a bit of an anthropomorphic fallacy to believe that our consumption habits have a larger impact on the climate than demonstrably larger corporate contributors. It's pleasant to believe that we really have that much direct agency. But, it's wrong. If we really want to battle climate change, it requires coordinates, global pressure to the top.
- seanwilson 8y ago
  > you actually can't completely replace the macronutrient profile with vegetables. You can get close, but you lose out on things, and this is especially the case for parts of nutrition that we're still continuing to learn more about. Do we have a history of eating so much meat, corn and diary? Humans in history have had very varied diets depending on location as far as I understand and the existence of vegan + vegetarian athletes is very convincing to me we don't need meat. > I'm a little curious as to why you didn't address my other points. Which ones? I probably tried to implicitly. > We need huge reductions to corporate emissions to avoid dangerous climate change. I think it's a bit of an anthropomorphic fallacy to believe that our consumption habits have a larger impact on the climate than demonstrably larger corporate contributors. Given these figures, do you still think believe this? 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... "The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions." > If we really want to battle climate change, it requires coordinates, global pressure to the top. Yes, but consumers definitely have an influence too. There's certainly been more demand for meat-free products in the last decade which companies are acting to profit from for example.