13 ms·

I don’t really buy into 4-6. I don’t see any benefit for a country to turn its currency into a crypto asset. Either they are relinquishing a great deal of cont

I don’t really buy into 4-6. I don’t see any benefit for a country to turn its currency into a crypto asset. Either they are relinquishing a great deal of control in democratizing their financial system (also exposing themselves to attack), or it’s a crypto in name only that doesn’t seem any better than digital cash through banks except for a buzzword. Decentralization is hit or miss. You get economies of scale with centralization that are hard to beat. I only see decentralization being useful for certain applications (namely, anything that needs to be censorship resistant/ can’t rely on the centralized infra for some reason) like it already is being used for. Meat won’t be a delicacy unless we are not counting lab grown meat. Absolutely no way. I would be willing to take a huge bet on this. People all over the world love meat, it’s one of the first things people start spending on when they hit middle income (globally speaking). Plant based alternatives will become a lot more popular especially once they become cheaper, and we will probably start eating mostly lab grown meat, but meat will be consumed, at least by stubborn, older red-blooded Americans wary of technology and set in their ways that the author likely has little exposure to.

pascalxus 7y ago
Yes, the only way #6 will come true is if the replacement for meat looks, smells and tastes exactly like the real thing and it'll have to be cheaper too. People all over the world love meat, especially US, UK and the Chinese. I've tried to convince some family members to reduce their meat consumption even a tiniest amount gets a huge amount of resistance. People aren't going to give up their meat: they may not even be willing to try alternatives. Impossible meat has a great start and I think their market share will continue to increase. But, there's an immense amount of variety in the meat market and the alternative meat industry still has a huge amount of work to do to address it.
- 6nf 7y ago
  Faced with a choice between beef or fake beef that tastes exactly the same, most people will just go for the real beef. They don't want the highly processed fake stuff that contains who knows what. The only way beef loses is if the alternatives are significantly cheaper. If a McBeef is $5 more than a McFakeBeef then you got a shot at converting people.
  - rhlsthrm 7y ago
    But what if it's not "highly processed" due to advancements in tech? Personally I would always choose the fake (lab grown or plant based) over the real meat. Real meat and three industrial farming process just has too many ways that the product is prone to contamination, not even to mention the cruelty/ethics. I say this as an avid meat eater as well. I love the taste of meat but I'd switch in a heartbeat once there's an alternative that compares.
    - pascalxus 7y ago
      This is a bit shocking and I'll get downvoted for it but: Not to mention that red meat is a class 2 carcinogen (Source: WHO). And processed meat, is a class 1 carcinogen, right up there with Plutonium, according to the World health organization.
      - TheCycoONE 7y ago
        That statement is factually correct but worded in a way that suggests a misunderstanding of the WHO classification system. "The lists describe the level of evidence that something can cause cancer, not how likely it is that something will cause cancer in any person (or how much it might raise your risk)."
      - mitchty 7y ago
        > This is a bit shocking and I'll get downvoted for it but: Not to mention that red meat is a class 2 carcinogen (Source: WHO). And processed meat, is a class 1 carcinogen, right up there with Plutonium, according to the World health organization. I downvoted you not because of what you wrote, but because what you wrote is directly refuted by your (unlisted no less which I find intellectually lazy) source. Processed meat being a class 1 carcinogen doesn't mean that plutonium = read meat! It simply means there is a likely link between it and cancer. Not that they are equivalent. This statement is scaremongering at best, unsupported by the classification. Also "cancer" is vague, the WHO organization, IARC, listed colorectal cancer as the specific cancer. Ref: https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ And for red meat being a class 2 carcinogen, they listed as probably not that its known. From their FAQ: This recommendation was based on epidemiological studies suggesting that small increases in the risk of several cancers may be associated with high consumption of red meat or processed meat. Although these risks are small, they could be important for public health because many people worldwide eat meat and meat consumption is increasing in low- and middle-income countries. Although some health agencies already recommend limiting intake of meat, these recommendations are aimed mostly at reducing the risk of other diseases. With this in mind, it was important for IARC to provide authoritative scientific evidence on the cancer risks associated with eating red meat and processed meat. Note that phrase: "Although these risks are small" If you want to paint red meat with a broad "bad for humans and whatnot" brush. At least get your facts straight. I can't look at the paper cause its behind the elsevier paywall but it should be here for anyone that can get it. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00444-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2... I bet the 18% more chance of colorectal cancer listed in the study amounts to for 500 people instead of 4 getting cancer, maybe 5 do now. One of my biggest pet peeves with all of this is the focus on whatever number is higher without contextualizing it.
- __d 7y ago
  If an effective carbon tax is introduced (see #1) then the price of meat will rise astronomically, which will make reduced consumption inevitable. In many places, climate change will make existing agriculture unsustainable, so there'll be massive upheaval in the industry at the same time. If that's combined with a cultural movement similar to flugskam, I think drastically reduced meat consumption is possible. Of course, there'll be counter forces -- likely primarily cultural. "Only libtards don't eat meat" etc. So it goes.
  - pharke 7y ago
    There would likely be unintended consequences to raising the price of meat through a carbon tax. It creates a market for cheaper meat that there will be no shortage of producers or consumers for. How that meat is made cheaper is an open question. It could be through carbon offsets but it could just as well be through worse conditions for the animals or importing the meat from countries where production is cheaper.
    - KozmoNau7 7y ago
      The same argument is made against raising the taxes on tobacco products, that "people will smuggle in cigarettes from countries without the tax", but it never seems to actually happen to any significant degree. People are lazy, and if the only source of cheap meat is the black market of illegally-imported products, only a very small segment of people will bother.
      - pharke 7y ago
        I live somewhere with high taxes on tobacco products and illegal cigarettes are a big problem. It's not a small segment of the smoking population either but it is disproportionately those who are more economically disadvantaged. People are lazy but they are also motivated by economic pressures. It's easy for something like that to become an 'invisible' problem to people who aren't in those economic or social groups while still having severe negative effects on a large number of people.
  - torstenvl 7y ago
- jka 7y ago
  As someone from the UK who has tended to eat meat a lot in the past - I do agree with your reading of culture in the UK historically. But I also think it's remarkable how quickly public opinion in the UK has been shifting with regard to environmental concerns. Traveling by train as opposed to air travel, reduction of single-use plastics and plastic packaging, and reduced-meat diets all feel like much more common discussion topics and lifestyle choices than they were even five years ago. Shops and restaurants have also shifted to meet changing demands. There have been mistakes (incentives around long-life plastic shopping bags haven't worked out exactly as planned) but overall it feels like a wave of change.
  - larnmar 7y ago
    Perhaps, but fashions change fast. I remember the first environmentalism craze of the 90s, it didn’t last.
  - kmlx 7y ago
    1. trends come and go. 2. we all live in our bubbles. both meat consumption and air travel have increased YoY over the past 25 years in the UK. and sticking with the UK, current estimates point to an almost 100% increase in air passenger numbers in the 2030s, and Heahtrow still being in the top ten busiest airports in the world. anecdotally, my flights have increased 2x every year for the past 5 years. this year it's been 50 flights, 40 of which intercontinental (no train availability).
    - jka 7y ago
      Good food for thought, thanks. From a little more digging to try to break out of my bubble, here are some reading references: Of beef, pork, lamb, poultry, and fish -- only poultry has seen any broad increase in expenditure by UK households over the past few years (and slim, at 2%); all others have decreased or remained the same[0]. I'm not claiming that's related to environmental concerns directly but it shows some changes in behaviour. Air travel passenger numbers are certainly on the rise[1], although interestingly the number of flights ('air travel movements') appears to be somewhat more muted. Even so, greenhouse gas emissions from aviation have certainly increased a lot since the 1990s. Brexit and the prospect of a high-spending majority UK government could both have impacts on these over the next decade, no doubt - but in what direction I'm not sure. [0] - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/food-statistics-pocketbook/food-statistics-in-your-pocket-prices-and-expenditure https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/food-statistics-p... [1] - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/855288/tsgb-2019.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  It's also funny he compares it to caviar which today is almost all farmed and is as cheap as it's ever been in living memory.
- chirau 7y ago
  Yeah I don't see our species evolving into pure herbivores anytime soon. I'm from Africa and the only vegans I know there are either allergic to meat or just can't afford it yet. Eating meat is actually something we work towards aggressively. Meat is also a status symbol, as a result. We will be eating meat for a very very long time.
- cable2600 7y ago
  Tyson changed from a meat company to a protein company. Can make veggies taste like chicken or beef. I didn't have an Impossible Whopper yet but it costs a lot of money. For $12.99 with a coupon I can gt a family meal of three Whoppers, three cheeseburgers, and 3 fries. I hear the Vegans are mad that the Impossible Whopper is grilled on the same grill as the regular Whooper. I suppose the reason to turn away from meat eating is to save the environment? Animals exhale CO2 but not as much as factories with smoke stacks burning coal or oil.
  - mbil 7y ago
    Animals also output methane, and there are land-use issues with meat production. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production#Greenhouse_gas_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...
  - KozmoNau7 7y ago
    Only a very small segment of loud'n'proud vegans on social media complain about the cooking method of the impossible whopper. And you can have it microwave cooked if you want it to not touch the grill.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tluyben2 7y ago
  > People aren't going to give up their meat: they may not even be willing to try alternatives. That's the problem; they will say it's not the same even if it is 100% the same. I bake a lot of pizzas for friends and I tend to do real sausage and Beyond sausage and have people taste. I tell them upfront that some are real and some are fake meat but not which are which. Yesterday I did almost 50 pizzas on a hangover party (it's a hobby...) and the most 'angry' meat eaters taste fake when it's real, real when it's fake, but once they think that they have the fake one (even though it was the real one), they simply leave it. And that I really don't understand. Little disclaimer about tasting: I don't load my pizza's up with that 'meatlover' amount of (fake or real) meat. I like subtle tastes, so there won't be a lot of sausage on a pizza.
nobrains 7y ago
Muslims, 24% of the world's population, have the following requirements to eat meat: - They sacrifice a goat (or sheep, cow, camel, etc.) once a year on Eid. - They sacrifice a goat, etc. upon every baby's birth. - They are encouraged to sacrifice an animal for atonement, blessings and other reasons. Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice#Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice#Islam I don't think animal consumption is going down that soon.
- danans 7y ago
  The vast majority of those Muslims are in poorer countries (think Indonesia and Bangladesh, and not Saudi Arabia), and could never afford to eat meat in the daily quantities eaten in the West, the Gulf, and increasingly in the wealthier population of China. Their regular diet consists largely of cereal grains, legumes, vegetables, and small amounts of meat to supplement, and even that is mostly cheaper to produce/acquire meat like chicken and eggs, or small riverine fish. The religious observances you mention account for a tiny portion of overall meat consumption in the world, and to use them as an example why meat consumption can't be reduced is at best an abuse of statistics, and at worst a cultural scapegoat. If anything, other cultures could perhaps learn from them to treat the consumption of meat as a sort of sacrament to be appreciated on special occasions, like the birth of a child. Prior to the era of industrial scale food production, that is how most non-aristocratic people consumed meat of larger animals, regardless of their culture or religion. The far bigger factor driving meat production and the associated environmental issues is my kid ordering a 1/4 pound hot dog and then throwing away half of it.
  - nobrains 7y ago
    Well, that's an interesting angle, i.e their consumption of meat can be looked as a one time / 2 times a year treat at special occasions, with non-meat products for the rest of the year.
    - danans 7y ago
      It could even be once a week and it would still have a dramatic effect on GHG emissions. But as others have noted, it's too big a problem to rely on individually motivated behavior change. The price has to go up for it to be considered precious.
6nf 7y ago
I don't think any major currencies will get turned into crypto assets either, there's no reason for a government to do that. Instead what's happening is that traditional banking systems are being upgraded to allow instant and person-to-person transfers of money. This is one of the main benefits of crypto - being able to instantly send money to anyone. If you can just use your existing online banking system, so much easier. And the government still gets to track it all and make sure we're not cheating on our taxes or funding terrorists or whatever. I'm not an expert but I believe many EU countries now have instant P2P bank transfers. Australia just got their system going in the last few years too. The US is a bit behind but I'm sure it's coming.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  All the big consumer banks in the US also have instant transfers to phone numbers or email addresses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelle_(payment_service) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelle_(payment_service)
  - 6nf 7y ago
    The Australian system does not require signup from the recipient (or the sender for that matter) and there's no transfer limits beyond what your bank already had on your accounts previously.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
      Ditto for the UK and European systems. Give destination routing number and account and amount, press some button. Done. No fees, ever, and transfer is more or less instantaneous.
      - kmlx 7y ago
        doesn't apply to all European systems.
Gustomaximus 7y ago
Also 7/10 7 - I can't see massive exploration suddenly over 10 years. And when this boom does come governments will be very involved, like in the colonial periods, there is massive national advantage to get people to go stake claims. I can only see it being a similar blend of govt/private. 10 - we will see progress but anything groundbreaking in the cancer fight this seems too short a time scale.
chamza 7y ago
The reason a country would want to use a crypto asset for their money supply would be to own the private ledger completely; they wouldn't utilize the decentralized, public, blockchains we see today. All financial activity and transactions can easily be monitored on a blockchain; the movement of money could be tracked from it's inception to it's current location on one ledger. Each private key can correspond to a citizen (much like a social security ID) and citizens can be taxed more easily and efficiently. This is why China is leading the pack here and is already developing a PBOC digital currency[1]. [1]=https://fortune.com/2019/11/01/china-digital-currency-libra-wakeup-call-us/ https://fortune.com/2019/11/01/china-digital-currency-libra-...
- opportune 7y ago
  Yeah, but if you own the private ledger completely, what advantage do you have over just having that kind of control over banks? It seems you can just do all of that with heavy handed banking regulations.
  - katbyte 7y ago
    The cryptographically proven history built in rather then attempting to lay on on top
    - candiodari 7y ago
      In any democracy this would kill the banks and government and central bank's ability to lie about spending and liquidity ... (because the ledger would be accessible to the justice system) I find it hard to believe any central bank will risk that.
beloch 7y ago
Canada's mint already created a crypto-currency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintChip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintChip It didn't exactly explode in popularity, and has since been sold to a private corp. China won't be the first country to issue a crypto-currency because it's already been done by other countries. If China does issue one, people likely won't trust it and will avoid it like the plague. China's only real advantage here it is to leverage their authoritarian state to force their own citizens to use a state-approved crypto-currency and hope it catches on elsewhere as a result. As for China becoming the world's sole super-power in the next decade... I am skeptical. Given China's demographics (i.e. greying), current political problems (e.g. Hong Kong), exodus of manufacturing (e.g. Samsung), and increasing resistance to their influence from other states, I would predict China's global power is near its peak and will soon begin declining, likely being substantially lower at the end of the decade than it is now.
- gremlinsinc 7y ago
  I predict china will hit a ceiling in growth as a result of it's imhumane policies, and eventually authoritarianism is going to hit a line where the people rise up. China may go to far in it's ethnic cleansing or other bad things might come up and unless they change, they will never rise above a certain growth level. Not saying they'll become democratic, but at least better stewards over their own people. Also, I think and HOPE their social credit program fails miserably, that's the last thing we need other countries to start adopting.
fnord77 7y ago
the trend of the world has been to decrease transaction friction and costs. Crypto increases both. And moving to crypto is like going back on the gold standard. No way to expand or contract monetary supply.
- ThatGeoGuy 7y ago
  > Crypto increases both. Not _exactly_. This is kind of the whole point of Stellar, and why IBM invested in creating World Wire. Crypto can make this problem easier, especially if you're looking at it internationally rather than in day-to-day transactions. I also think for auditability there is an advantage here, which can't be brushed away. Tracing down international currencies can be very hard. That said, what the article is describing is definitely not this, but seems to predict (at least based on the text) something more akin to a stablecoin that corresponds to a given fiat currency. So yeah, in that case, you'd probably be correct, but I don't think we can generalize that to every type of cryptocurrency.
- puranjay 7y ago
  I had to make a payment in Bitcoin for the first time in years. I honestly can't see the average person dealing with this complexity. Even the basic math is hard to grasp for the average Joe. Try asking a normal person to quickly add 0.0005 to 0.0461. The former was the fees for my transaction.
  - Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
    Which wallet forced you to do the math in your head? Don't they all just display the result of that calculation as the total transaction cost?
teleforce 7y ago
Please check my other comments on prediction 5, which I think is the most probable of the lots
anthony_doan 7y ago
I agree with you. I don't think country is going to give up their control of currency and all those monetary tools that they know for something new. These monetary policies have been evolving base on past mistakes. I can only see decentralize internet if the world crack down on the internet and put more pressure in it. Or more fragmentation like how bit torrent is rising because there are more streaming services. Meat is not going anywhere either. China, Korea, etc.. place status and emphasize on meat. It's also ingrain in culture too.
tluyben2 7y ago
I do hope for #5 and there are countries currently planning (not sure how serious, but we've been in tenders) for #4.
mnm1 7y ago
Meat will also be eaten by people who are tired of the carb and sugar filled garbage that passes off as food but leads to obesity and death. Like the impossible burger and all the garbage like that. The worst part of a hamburger, as far as diet is concerned, is the bun which in America has tons of sugar. Assuming they didn't add sugar to the meat. The irony is that meat is some of the healthiest food available that's also tasty. People will be eating it way after global warming has given us a few degrees Celsius rise in temperature.
maremp 7y ago
For point 6, as the article mentions in a different place, there will be fewer baby boomers "dominating the conversation". Sure, that's meant mostly politically, but it applies to other sections too. Calling it a delicacy is a stretch, it not changing that fast. But the "set in their ways" people are becoming the minority and those of us who are open to trying new stuff slowly change to stop eating meat and shifting towards plant-based. I used to love a good steak, burger, chicken, etc. I stopped eating meat in early November 2019 to see how long I can go without it. Still going, and I don't have any need to eat it, so it's effortless. When eating meat, I sometimes had this bad feeling in my stomach, and now it doesn't happen anymore. Sure, they use pesticides on plants and soy is said to be heavily modified and whatever. I get that from my family, who are set in their ways. I'm not trying to convince anyone, it's just what feels better for my body. Also, I'm lucky to have a supply of home-grown vegetables so I can be sure of the origin. Tastes much better than the stuff they sell in stores too.

pascalxus 7y ago

Yes, the only way #6 will come true is if the replacement for meat looks, smells and tastes exactly like the real thing and it'll have to be cheaper too. People all over the world love meat, especially US, UK and the Chinese. I've tried to convince some family members to reduce their meat consumption even a tiniest amount gets a huge amount of resistance. People aren't going to give up their meat: they may not even be willing to try alternatives. Impossible meat has a great start and I think their market share will continue to increase. But, there's an immense amount of variety in the meat market and the alternative meat industry still has a huge amount of work to do to address it.

6nf 7y ago
Faced with a choice between beef or fake beef that tastes exactly the same, most people will just go for the real beef. They don't want the highly processed fake stuff that contains who knows what. The only way beef loses is if the alternatives are significantly cheaper. If a McBeef is $5 more than a McFakeBeef then you got a shot at converting people.
- rhlsthrm 7y ago
  But what if it's not "highly processed" due to advancements in tech? Personally I would always choose the fake (lab grown or plant based) over the real meat. Real meat and three industrial farming process just has too many ways that the product is prone to contamination, not even to mention the cruelty/ethics. I say this as an avid meat eater as well. I love the taste of meat but I'd switch in a heartbeat once there's an alternative that compares.
  - pascalxus 7y ago
    This is a bit shocking and I'll get downvoted for it but: Not to mention that red meat is a class 2 carcinogen (Source: WHO). And processed meat, is a class 1 carcinogen, right up there with Plutonium, according to the World health organization.
    - TheCycoONE 7y ago
      That statement is factually correct but worded in a way that suggests a misunderstanding of the WHO classification system. "The lists describe the level of evidence that something can cause cancer, not how likely it is that something will cause cancer in any person (or how much it might raise your risk)."
    - mitchty 7y ago
      > This is a bit shocking and I'll get downvoted for it but: Not to mention that red meat is a class 2 carcinogen (Source: WHO). And processed meat, is a class 1 carcinogen, right up there with Plutonium, according to the World health organization. I downvoted you not because of what you wrote, but because what you wrote is directly refuted by your (unlisted no less which I find intellectually lazy) source. Processed meat being a class 1 carcinogen doesn't mean that plutonium = read meat! It simply means there is a likely link between it and cancer. Not that they are equivalent. This statement is scaremongering at best, unsupported by the classification. Also "cancer" is vague, the WHO organization, IARC, listed colorectal cancer as the specific cancer. Ref: https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ And for red meat being a class 2 carcinogen, they listed as probably not that its known. From their FAQ: This recommendation was based on epidemiological studies suggesting that small increases in the risk of several cancers may be associated with high consumption of red meat or processed meat. Although these risks are small, they could be important for public health because many people worldwide eat meat and meat consumption is increasing in low- and middle-income countries. Although some health agencies already recommend limiting intake of meat, these recommendations are aimed mostly at reducing the risk of other diseases. With this in mind, it was important for IARC to provide authoritative scientific evidence on the cancer risks associated with eating red meat and processed meat. Note that phrase: "Although these risks are small" If you want to paint red meat with a broad "bad for humans and whatnot" brush. At least get your facts straight. I can't look at the paper cause its behind the elsevier paywall but it should be here for anyone that can get it. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00444-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2... I bet the 18% more chance of colorectal cancer listed in the study amounts to for 500 people instead of 4 getting cancer, maybe 5 do now. One of my biggest pet peeves with all of this is the focus on whatever number is higher without contextualizing it.
__d 7y ago
If an effective carbon tax is introduced (see #1) then the price of meat will rise astronomically, which will make reduced consumption inevitable. In many places, climate change will make existing agriculture unsustainable, so there'll be massive upheaval in the industry at the same time. If that's combined with a cultural movement similar to flugskam, I think drastically reduced meat consumption is possible. Of course, there'll be counter forces -- likely primarily cultural. "Only libtards don't eat meat" etc. So it goes.
- pharke 7y ago
  There would likely be unintended consequences to raising the price of meat through a carbon tax. It creates a market for cheaper meat that there will be no shortage of producers or consumers for. How that meat is made cheaper is an open question. It could be through carbon offsets but it could just as well be through worse conditions for the animals or importing the meat from countries where production is cheaper.
  - KozmoNau7 7y ago
    The same argument is made against raising the taxes on tobacco products, that "people will smuggle in cigarettes from countries without the tax", but it never seems to actually happen to any significant degree. People are lazy, and if the only source of cheap meat is the black market of illegally-imported products, only a very small segment of people will bother.
    - pharke 7y ago
      I live somewhere with high taxes on tobacco products and illegal cigarettes are a big problem. It's not a small segment of the smoking population either but it is disproportionately those who are more economically disadvantaged. People are lazy but they are also motivated by economic pressures. It's easy for something like that to become an 'invisible' problem to people who aren't in those economic or social groups while still having severe negative effects on a large number of people.
- torstenvl 7y ago
jka 7y ago
As someone from the UK who has tended to eat meat a lot in the past - I do agree with your reading of culture in the UK historically. But I also think it's remarkable how quickly public opinion in the UK has been shifting with regard to environmental concerns. Traveling by train as opposed to air travel, reduction of single-use plastics and plastic packaging, and reduced-meat diets all feel like much more common discussion topics and lifestyle choices than they were even five years ago. Shops and restaurants have also shifted to meet changing demands. There have been mistakes (incentives around long-life plastic shopping bags haven't worked out exactly as planned) but overall it feels like a wave of change.
- larnmar 7y ago
  Perhaps, but fashions change fast. I remember the first environmentalism craze of the 90s, it didn’t last.
- kmlx 7y ago
  1. trends come and go. 2. we all live in our bubbles. both meat consumption and air travel have increased YoY over the past 25 years in the UK. and sticking with the UK, current estimates point to an almost 100% increase in air passenger numbers in the 2030s, and Heahtrow still being in the top ten busiest airports in the world. anecdotally, my flights have increased 2x every year for the past 5 years. this year it's been 50 flights, 40 of which intercontinental (no train availability).
  - jka 7y ago
    Good food for thought, thanks. From a little more digging to try to break out of my bubble, here are some reading references: Of beef, pork, lamb, poultry, and fish -- only poultry has seen any broad increase in expenditure by UK households over the past few years (and slim, at 2%); all others have decreased or remained the same[0]. I'm not claiming that's related to environmental concerns directly but it shows some changes in behaviour. Air travel passenger numbers are certainly on the rise[1], although interestingly the number of flights ('air travel movements') appears to be somewhat more muted. Even so, greenhouse gas emissions from aviation have certainly increased a lot since the 1990s. Brexit and the prospect of a high-spending majority UK government could both have impacts on these over the next decade, no doubt - but in what direction I'm not sure. [0] - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/food-statistics-pocketbook/food-statistics-in-your-pocket-prices-and-expenditure https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/food-statistics-p... [1] - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/855288/tsgb-2019.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Mikeb85 7y ago
It's also funny he compares it to caviar which today is almost all farmed and is as cheap as it's ever been in living memory.
chirau 7y ago
Yeah I don't see our species evolving into pure herbivores anytime soon. I'm from Africa and the only vegans I know there are either allergic to meat or just can't afford it yet. Eating meat is actually something we work towards aggressively. Meat is also a status symbol, as a result. We will be eating meat for a very very long time.
cable2600 7y ago
Tyson changed from a meat company to a protein company. Can make veggies taste like chicken or beef. I didn't have an Impossible Whopper yet but it costs a lot of money. For $12.99 with a coupon I can gt a family meal of three Whoppers, three cheeseburgers, and 3 fries. I hear the Vegans are mad that the Impossible Whopper is grilled on the same grill as the regular Whooper. I suppose the reason to turn away from meat eating is to save the environment? Animals exhale CO2 but not as much as factories with smoke stacks burning coal or oil.
- mbil 7y ago
  Animals also output methane, and there are land-use issues with meat production. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production#Greenhouse_gas_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...
- KozmoNau7 7y ago
  Only a very small segment of loud'n'proud vegans on social media complain about the cooking method of the impossible whopper. And you can have it microwave cooked if you want it to not touch the grill.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tluyben2 7y ago
> People aren't going to give up their meat: they may not even be willing to try alternatives. That's the problem; they will say it's not the same even if it is 100% the same. I bake a lot of pizzas for friends and I tend to do real sausage and Beyond sausage and have people taste. I tell them upfront that some are real and some are fake meat but not which are which. Yesterday I did almost 50 pizzas on a hangover party (it's a hobby...) and the most 'angry' meat eaters taste fake when it's real, real when it's fake, but once they think that they have the fake one (even though it was the real one), they simply leave it. And that I really don't understand. Little disclaimer about tasting: I don't load my pizza's up with that 'meatlover' amount of (fake or real) meat. I like subtle tastes, so there won't be a lot of sausage on a pizza.

nobrains 7y ago

Muslims, 24% of the world's population, have the following requirements to eat meat: - They sacrifice a goat (or sheep, cow, camel, etc.) once a year on Eid. - They sacrifice a goat, etc. upon every baby's birth. - They are encouraged to sacrifice an animal for atonement, blessings and other reasons. Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice#Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice#Islam I don't think animal consumption is going down that soon.

danans 7y ago
The vast majority of those Muslims are in poorer countries (think Indonesia and Bangladesh, and not Saudi Arabia), and could never afford to eat meat in the daily quantities eaten in the West, the Gulf, and increasingly in the wealthier population of China. Their regular diet consists largely of cereal grains, legumes, vegetables, and small amounts of meat to supplement, and even that is mostly cheaper to produce/acquire meat like chicken and eggs, or small riverine fish. The religious observances you mention account for a tiny portion of overall meat consumption in the world, and to use them as an example why meat consumption can't be reduced is at best an abuse of statistics, and at worst a cultural scapegoat. If anything, other cultures could perhaps learn from them to treat the consumption of meat as a sort of sacrament to be appreciated on special occasions, like the birth of a child. Prior to the era of industrial scale food production, that is how most non-aristocratic people consumed meat of larger animals, regardless of their culture or religion. The far bigger factor driving meat production and the associated environmental issues is my kid ordering a 1/4 pound hot dog and then throwing away half of it.
- nobrains 7y ago
  Well, that's an interesting angle, i.e their consumption of meat can be looked as a one time / 2 times a year treat at special occasions, with non-meat products for the rest of the year.
  - danans 7y ago
    It could even be once a week and it would still have a dramatic effect on GHG emissions. But as others have noted, it's too big a problem to rely on individually motivated behavior change. The price has to go up for it to be considered precious.

6nf 7y ago

I don't think any major currencies will get turned into crypto assets either, there's no reason for a government to do that. Instead what's happening is that traditional banking systems are being upgraded to allow instant and person-to-person transfers of money. This is one of the main benefits of crypto - being able to instantly send money to anyone. If you can just use your existing online banking system, so much easier. And the government still gets to track it all and make sure we're not cheating on our taxes or funding terrorists or whatever. I'm not an expert but I believe many EU countries now have instant P2P bank transfers. Australia just got their system going in the last few years too. The US is a bit behind but I'm sure it's coming.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
All the big consumer banks in the US also have instant transfers to phone numbers or email addresses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelle_(payment_service) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelle_(payment_service)
- 6nf 7y ago
  The Australian system does not require signup from the recipient (or the sender for that matter) and there's no transfer limits beyond what your bank already had on your accounts previously.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
    Ditto for the UK and European systems. Give destination routing number and account and amount, press some button. Done. No fees, ever, and transfer is more or less instantaneous.
    - kmlx 7y ago
      doesn't apply to all European systems.

Gustomaximus 7y ago

Also 7/10 7 - I can't see massive exploration suddenly over 10 years. And when this boom does come governments will be very involved, like in the colonial periods, there is massive national advantage to get people to go stake claims. I can only see it being a similar blend of govt/private. 10 - we will see progress but anything groundbreaking in the cancer fight this seems too short a time scale.

chamza 7y ago

The reason a country would want to use a crypto asset for their money supply would be to own the private ledger completely; they wouldn't utilize the decentralized, public, blockchains we see today. All financial activity and transactions can easily be monitored on a blockchain; the movement of money could be tracked from it's inception to it's current location on one ledger. Each private key can correspond to a citizen (much like a social security ID) and citizens can be taxed more easily and efficiently. This is why China is leading the pack here and is already developing a PBOC digital currency[1]. [1]=https://fortune.com/2019/11/01/china-digital-currency-libra-wakeup-call-us/ https://fortune.com/2019/11/01/china-digital-currency-libra-...

opportune 7y ago
Yeah, but if you own the private ledger completely, what advantage do you have over just having that kind of control over banks? It seems you can just do all of that with heavy handed banking regulations.
- katbyte 7y ago
  The cryptographically proven history built in rather then attempting to lay on on top
  - candiodari 7y ago
    In any democracy this would kill the banks and government and central bank's ability to lie about spending and liquidity ... (because the ledger would be accessible to the justice system) I find it hard to believe any central bank will risk that.

beloch 7y ago

Canada's mint already created a crypto-currency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintChip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintChip It didn't exactly explode in popularity, and has since been sold to a private corp. China won't be the first country to issue a crypto-currency because it's already been done by other countries. If China does issue one, people likely won't trust it and will avoid it like the plague. China's only real advantage here it is to leverage their authoritarian state to force their own citizens to use a state-approved crypto-currency and hope it catches on elsewhere as a result. As for China becoming the world's sole super-power in the next decade... I am skeptical. Given China's demographics (i.e. greying), current political problems (e.g. Hong Kong), exodus of manufacturing (e.g. Samsung), and increasing resistance to their influence from other states, I would predict China's global power is near its peak and will soon begin declining, likely being substantially lower at the end of the decade than it is now.

gremlinsinc 7y ago
I predict china will hit a ceiling in growth as a result of it's imhumane policies, and eventually authoritarianism is going to hit a line where the people rise up. China may go to far in it's ethnic cleansing or other bad things might come up and unless they change, they will never rise above a certain growth level. Not saying they'll become democratic, but at least better stewards over their own people. Also, I think and HOPE their social credit program fails miserably, that's the last thing we need other countries to start adopting.

fnord77 7y ago

the trend of the world has been to decrease transaction friction and costs. Crypto increases both. And moving to crypto is like going back on the gold standard. No way to expand or contract monetary supply.

ThatGeoGuy 7y ago
> Crypto increases both. Not _exactly_. This is kind of the whole point of Stellar, and why IBM invested in creating World Wire. Crypto can make this problem easier, especially if you're looking at it internationally rather than in day-to-day transactions. I also think for auditability there is an advantage here, which can't be brushed away. Tracing down international currencies can be very hard. That said, what the article is describing is definitely not this, but seems to predict (at least based on the text) something more akin to a stablecoin that corresponds to a given fiat currency. So yeah, in that case, you'd probably be correct, but I don't think we can generalize that to every type of cryptocurrency.
puranjay 7y ago
I had to make a payment in Bitcoin for the first time in years. I honestly can't see the average person dealing with this complexity. Even the basic math is hard to grasp for the average Joe. Try asking a normal person to quickly add 0.0005 to 0.0461. The former was the fees for my transaction.
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
  Which wallet forced you to do the math in your head? Don't they all just display the result of that calculation as the total transaction cost?

teleforce 7y ago

Please check my other comments on prediction 5, which I think is the most probable of the lots

anthony_doan 7y ago

I agree with you. I don't think country is going to give up their control of currency and all those monetary tools that they know for something new. These monetary policies have been evolving base on past mistakes. I can only see decentralize internet if the world crack down on the internet and put more pressure in it. Or more fragmentation like how bit torrent is rising because there are more streaming services. Meat is not going anywhere either. China, Korea, etc.. place status and emphasize on meat. It's also ingrain in culture too.

tluyben2 7y ago

I do hope for #5 and there are countries currently planning (not sure how serious, but we've been in tenders) for #4.

mnm1 7y ago

Meat will also be eaten by people who are tired of the carb and sugar filled garbage that passes off as food but leads to obesity and death. Like the impossible burger and all the garbage like that. The worst part of a hamburger, as far as diet is concerned, is the bun which in America has tons of sugar. Assuming they didn't add sugar to the meat. The irony is that meat is some of the healthiest food available that's also tasty. People will be eating it way after global warming has given us a few degrees Celsius rise in temperature.

maremp 7y ago

For point 6, as the article mentions in a different place, there will be fewer baby boomers "dominating the conversation". Sure, that's meant mostly politically, but it applies to other sections too. Calling it a delicacy is a stretch, it not changing that fast. But the "set in their ways" people are becoming the minority and those of us who are open to trying new stuff slowly change to stop eating meat and shifting towards plant-based. I used to love a good steak, burger, chicken, etc. I stopped eating meat in early November 2019 to see how long I can go without it. Still going, and I don't have any need to eat it, so it's effortless. When eating meat, I sometimes had this bad feeling in my stomach, and now it doesn't happen anymore. Sure, they use pesticides on plants and soy is said to be heavily modified and whatever. I get that from my family, who are set in their ways. I'm not trying to convince anyone, it's just what feels better for my body. Also, I'm lucky to have a supply of home-grown vegetables so I can be sure of the origin. Tastes much better than the stuff they sell in stores too.