5 ms·

You do if you want it to scale to large numbers of people. Affordable lab-grown meat (when we have it) and intermediate solutions like the one in this article (

You do if you want it to scale to large numbers of people. Affordable lab-grown meat (when we have it) and intermediate solutions like the one in this article (if it's indeed viable) actually work for everybody. Even if we assume that veganism is an okay choice for one's health, trying to convince people to go vegan won't get you very far.

Tepix 6y ago
Look at India. There you have more than a billion people who don't eat cows.
- nkingsy 6y ago
  They do drink the milk
- briandear 6y ago
  How’s their carbon footprint?
  - toiletfuneral 6y ago
    way better than the US
  - meowgoldie 6y ago
    Not much (per capita)
  - ArkanExplorer 6y ago
    More importantly: what is their CO2 efficiency? How much GDP and science do they output per unit of CO2? India is close to Italy in Scientific output [1]: 1040 units vs 1104 respectively. India's CO2e output is 2.62 billion tonnes, vs Italy 337 million tonnes. India's GDP is $2.869trillion vs $2.004 trillion. India's population is 1,336million vs Italy 60 million. So, India consumes 7.7x the Earth's CO2 budget, but generates only .94x the scientific output and 1.43x the GDP. Or put another way: the average Italian consumes 2.86x the CO2 as the average Indian, but generates 23x the scientific output and 15x the GDP. Its really the 2nd and 3rd world who are flagrant wasters of the Earth's resources, not the developed world. Looking at CO2 on a per-capita basis is basically irrelevant. The inescapable solution to climate change and resource degradation is population reduction of the 2nd and 3rd world to density and intensity levels seen in the 1st world, or perhaps even lower seeing as housing is typically unaffordable in most 1st world countries. This would suggest a sustainable population of India of about 650 million - which was the population of the country as recently as 1977 [4]. [1] https://www.natureindex.com/country-outputs/generate/All/global/All/score https://www.natureindex.com/country-outputs/generate/All/glo... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/india https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/india [3] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/italy https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/italy [4] https://www.populationpyramid.net/india/1977/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/india/1977/
    - snarf21 6y ago
      It is such an unpopular opinion but this is the answer. Humans are selfish. The earth can't sustain 8B+ people. Maybe 2B max with some technological advances for cleaner cars and other renewables.
      - rocknor 6y ago
        It is rightfully unpopular, because it's not based on facts. The earth could easily sustain 8B+ people if certain countries do not over-consume as they are currently. But you are right, people are selfish, especially these over-consumers.
        kazinator 6y ago
        I think it's better for 2B billion to enjoy life, than for 20B to live under some miserable constraints.
        rocknor 6y ago
        Pretty stupid thing to say. UN predicts 11B humans at peak. Certain new studies predict 9.7B. Global average birth rate is already close to replacement levels. The earth population that can enjoy life is not fixed at 2B, that's very myopic thinking. We should fund science & tech so that it's possible for 11B people to enjoy life without damaging the planet, instead of blaming the "others" based on racist anti-science attitudes and deliberately keeping them poor by punishing them economically. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzBAxcJDSsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzBAxcJDSsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348 http://www.overpopulation.world/ http://www.overpopulation.world/ https://overpopulationisamyth.com/ https://overpopulationisamyth.com/ https://www.gapminder.org/ https://www.gapminder.org/
      - Tepix 6y ago
        It's a very arrogant comment indeed. A human's permitted CO2 output should not depend on how much she/he contributes to science or even the GDP. Anyway, earth could very well sustain even 20 billion people according to Martin Rees (in "On the Future"). It does require that we really reduce our resource usage, however. Going vegan, using virtual reality instead of travelling etc. Luckily the trends seem to indicate we won't reach more than 11 billion (which is still way too much at today's resource usage) before the numbers go down.
  - Tepix 6y ago
    According to https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=booklet2018&dst=CO2pc https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=booklet2018&ds... 1.83 tons of CO2 per capita for India 15.74 tons of CO2 per capita for the USA
- samatman 6y ago
  India isn't a great place to be looking if you don't want to see a bunch of cows.
toiletfuneral 6y ago
I agree, we've created a culture where even smallest of inconveniences is literally impossible for anyone. Anyway lets just finish destroying the planet because of bacon memes or whatever.

Tepix 6y ago

Look at India. There you have more than a billion people who don't eat cows.

nkingsy 6y ago
They do drink the milk
briandear 6y ago
How’s their carbon footprint?
- toiletfuneral 6y ago
  way better than the US
- meowgoldie 6y ago
  Not much (per capita)
- ArkanExplorer 6y ago
  More importantly: what is their CO2 efficiency? How much GDP and science do they output per unit of CO2? India is close to Italy in Scientific output [1]: 1040 units vs 1104 respectively. India's CO2e output is 2.62 billion tonnes, vs Italy 337 million tonnes. India's GDP is $2.869trillion vs $2.004 trillion. India's population is 1,336million vs Italy 60 million. So, India consumes 7.7x the Earth's CO2 budget, but generates only .94x the scientific output and 1.43x the GDP. Or put another way: the average Italian consumes 2.86x the CO2 as the average Indian, but generates 23x the scientific output and 15x the GDP. Its really the 2nd and 3rd world who are flagrant wasters of the Earth's resources, not the developed world. Looking at CO2 on a per-capita basis is basically irrelevant. The inescapable solution to climate change and resource degradation is population reduction of the 2nd and 3rd world to density and intensity levels seen in the 1st world, or perhaps even lower seeing as housing is typically unaffordable in most 1st world countries. This would suggest a sustainable population of India of about 650 million - which was the population of the country as recently as 1977 [4]. [1] https://www.natureindex.com/country-outputs/generate/All/global/All/score https://www.natureindex.com/country-outputs/generate/All/glo... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/india https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/india [3] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/italy https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/italy [4] https://www.populationpyramid.net/india/1977/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/india/1977/
  - snarf21 6y ago
    It is such an unpopular opinion but this is the answer. Humans are selfish. The earth can't sustain 8B+ people. Maybe 2B max with some technological advances for cleaner cars and other renewables.
    - rocknor 6y ago
      It is rightfully unpopular, because it's not based on facts. The earth could easily sustain 8B+ people if certain countries do not over-consume as they are currently. But you are right, people are selfish, especially these over-consumers.
      - kazinator 6y ago
        I think it's better for 2B billion to enjoy life, than for 20B to live under some miserable constraints.
        rocknor 6y ago
        Pretty stupid thing to say. UN predicts 11B humans at peak. Certain new studies predict 9.7B. Global average birth rate is already close to replacement levels. The earth population that can enjoy life is not fixed at 2B, that's very myopic thinking. We should fund science & tech so that it's possible for 11B people to enjoy life without damaging the planet, instead of blaming the "others" based on racist anti-science attitudes and deliberately keeping them poor by punishing them economically. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzBAxcJDSsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzBAxcJDSsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348 http://www.overpopulation.world/ http://www.overpopulation.world/ https://overpopulationisamyth.com/ https://overpopulationisamyth.com/ https://www.gapminder.org/ https://www.gapminder.org/
    - Tepix 6y ago
      It's a very arrogant comment indeed. A human's permitted CO2 output should not depend on how much she/he contributes to science or even the GDP. Anyway, earth could very well sustain even 20 billion people according to Martin Rees (in "On the Future"). It does require that we really reduce our resource usage, however. Going vegan, using virtual reality instead of travelling etc. Luckily the trends seem to indicate we won't reach more than 11 billion (which is still way too much at today's resource usage) before the numbers go down.
- Tepix 6y ago
  According to https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=booklet2018&dst=CO2pc https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=booklet2018&ds... 1.83 tons of CO2 per capita for India 15.74 tons of CO2 per capita for the USA
samatman 6y ago
India isn't a great place to be looking if you don't want to see a bunch of cows.

toiletfuneral 6y ago

I agree, we've created a culture where even smallest of inconveniences is literally impossible for anyone. Anyway lets just finish destroying the planet because of bacon memes or whatever.