9 ms·

> not many care about the responsibilities like taking care of nature Our farming practices (deforestation, pesticide/herbicide use, insect die offs ...) and d

by myshpa 3y ago

> not many care about the responsibilities like taking care of nature Our farming practices (deforestation, pesticide/herbicide use, insect die offs ...) and diet preferences are driving many species, including birds, to extinction. We could significantly reduce the damage by restructuring our diets; however, not many people seem to care about that. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption https://www.birdlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/SOWB2022_EN_compressed.pdf https://www.birdlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/SOWB2022... 1 in 8 bird species is facing extinction https://www.salon.com/2020/08/18/the-pesticide-that-caused-bee-colonies-to-collapse-is-killing-birds-now/ https://www.salon.com/2020/08/18/the-pesticide-that-caused-b... The pesticide that caused bee colonies to collapse is killing birds now https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2023/april/almost-half-of-all-uk-bird-species-in-decline.html https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2023/april/almost-half-o... Almost half of all UK bird species in decline https://emagazine.com/bird-population-declines/ https://emagazine.com/bird-population-declines/ Bird Populations Declining Fast Across North America https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/2-out-of-3-north-american-bird-species-face-extinction-how-we-can-save-them https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/2-out-of-3-north-american-... 2 out of 3 North American bird species face extinction https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2216573120 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2216573120 Farmland practices are driving bird population decline across Europe

ETH_start 3y ago
We could raise consumption while expanding the area of protected wetlands by building more nuclear power plants to power vertical farms, and expanding industry and energy harvesting outside of Earth. This avoids having to convince people to deny themselves their preferred foods, and arguably, reduce their quality of life, to protect natural habitats. It's a better strategy for both humanity and nature.
- vegetablepotpie 3y ago
  Someone posted a research paper [1] a few months ago that says that due to energy consumption, the use of vertical farming doesn’t provide a net space savings for caloric dense foods. I’m curious what you think of that paper and what it would change about your suggested solution. [1] https://raghavan.usc.edu/papers/smartfarm-limits21.pdf https://raghavan.usc.edu/papers/smartfarm-limits21.pdf
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    It seems that paper is based on the assumption that energy costs the same as it does now. I'm assuming we can make energy much more abundant with nuclear power.
- martin_a 3y ago
  This is, by far, the strangest way to promote nuclear power.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  This response bewilders me: the GP presents something with immense political and practical challenges, and the response is to ask us to consider an even harder set of political and practical problems?
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    Mass-producing nuclear power plants is very difficult, but a much more viable plan than limiting human consumption.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      We would need add 20000+ of them, give or take.
      - ETH_start 3y ago
        A few trillion dollars and some standardization around components should do it. At civilizational-scales, it's doable.
goda90 3y ago
Better than asking everyone to change their diets would be to change government subsidies and other agriculture programs to encourage regenerative agriculture practices. Sure it might impact diet via a change in prices, but the goal should be to reduce harm first, not force a particular diet.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  We don't even need to do that. We could just stop massively subsidizing things like corn and meat.
  - goda90 3y ago
    Stopping subsidies outright could lead to a famine. We need to shift agriculture, not cut off an entire industry.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      You can wean off subsidies pretty easily, if you give enough time. The easiest way is to just freeze them and let inflation remove them; nobody will intentionally start farming corn if the subsidy remained at the original dollar amount.
      - sulam 3y ago
        The rural/urban :: Republican/Democrat split combined with our less than representative democracy means the farm lobby is pretty damn powerful. It'll be real hard to lower subsidies, more likely would be to subsidize different activities. Paying farmers to not farm is pretty common now, but God forbid someone be on welfare without looking for a job.
        onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
        > Paying farmers to not farm is pretty common now How so??

by myshpa 3y ago

ETH_start 3y ago

We could raise consumption while expanding the area of protected wetlands by building more nuclear power plants to power vertical farms, and expanding industry and energy harvesting outside of Earth. This avoids having to convince people to deny themselves their preferred foods, and arguably, reduce their quality of life, to protect natural habitats. It's a better strategy for both humanity and nature.

vegetablepotpie 3y ago
Someone posted a research paper [1] a few months ago that says that due to energy consumption, the use of vertical farming doesn’t provide a net space savings for caloric dense foods. I’m curious what you think of that paper and what it would change about your suggested solution. [1] https://raghavan.usc.edu/papers/smartfarm-limits21.pdf https://raghavan.usc.edu/papers/smartfarm-limits21.pdf
- ETH_start 3y ago
  It seems that paper is based on the assumption that energy costs the same as it does now. I'm assuming we can make energy much more abundant with nuclear power.
martin_a 3y ago
This is, by far, the strangest way to promote nuclear power.
woodruffw 3y ago
This response bewilders me: the GP presents something with immense political and practical challenges, and the response is to ask us to consider an even harder set of political and practical problems?
- ETH_start 3y ago
  Mass-producing nuclear power plants is very difficult, but a much more viable plan than limiting human consumption.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    We would need add 20000+ of them, give or take.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      A few trillion dollars and some standardization around components should do it. At civilizational-scales, it's doable.

goda90 3y ago

Better than asking everyone to change their diets would be to change government subsidies and other agriculture programs to encourage regenerative agriculture practices. Sure it might impact diet via a change in prices, but the goal should be to reduce harm first, not force a particular diet.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
We don't even need to do that. We could just stop massively subsidizing things like corn and meat.
- goda90 3y ago
  Stopping subsidies outright could lead to a famine. We need to shift agriculture, not cut off an entire industry.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    You can wean off subsidies pretty easily, if you give enough time. The easiest way is to just freeze them and let inflation remove them; nobody will intentionally start farming corn if the subsidy remained at the original dollar amount.
    - sulam 3y ago
      The rural/urban :: Republican/Democrat split combined with our less than representative democracy means the farm lobby is pretty damn powerful. It'll be real hard to lower subsidies, more likely would be to subsidize different activities. Paying farmers to not farm is pretty common now, but God forbid someone be on welfare without looking for a job.
      - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
        > Paying farmers to not farm is pretty common now How so??