4 ms·

No, we can't keep current consumption patterns, if we want our civilization to survive. Animal ag is driving us towards its collapse, and fast. We could switch

by myshpa 3y ago

No, we can't keep current consumption patterns, if we want our civilization to survive. Animal ag is driving us towards its collapse, and fast. We could switch to plant based diets and free upto 80% of all agriculture lands, some 35% of habitable earth, the area a size of Africa, and reforest/rewild that. That's probably the only feasible option we have at this moment to stop us from environmental collapse. Your solution is technological in nature. While theoretically possible, it doesn't meet the timescale and amount required. 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 hectare. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63657-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63657-6 Calculations show that, maintaining the actual rate of population growth and resource consumption, in particular forest consumption, we have a few decades left before an irreversible collapse of our civilisation. Making the situation even worse, we stress once again that it is unrealistic to think that the decline of the population in a situation of strong environmental degradation would be a non-chaotic and well-ordered decline. This consideration leads to an even shorter remaining time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population) Climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, pollution, overpopulation, soil erosion, and overfishing are all symptoms of ecological overshoot. Soil erosion -> agriculture Pollution -> farm runoff, eutrophication, pesticides/herbicides, greenhouse gases ... Climate change -> CO2 + methane + N20 -> 15-26% from agriculture Overfishing -> Empty seas in 2040's -> veganism Deforestation & biodiversity loss -> mainly driven by agriculture -> 80% of agriculture is animal ag (pastures) -> veganism

ETH_start 3y ago
Technological solutions are far more realistic than effecting a global shift to a plant-based diet. People choose meat, and people in the developing world are consuming more meat as their incomes rise. Mass-production is something human civilization has proven adept at, and mass-deployment of nuclear power plants and vertical farms requires only that.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > Technological solutions are far more realistic This could easily be solved by removing animal ag subsidies and with taxing of negative externalities. That's one law, the market (= higher prices) will take care of the rest. > people in the developing world are consuming more meat as their incomes rise I'm aware :) However, that made sense when there were 1 B of humans, not when our needs overshoot the environmental capacity of our environment. If everyone ate like we westerners do (and they will want to, when we still do) then we'd need something like 4-5 earths to sustain everyone. > mass-deployment of nuclear power plants and vertical farms requires only that Sure, but that means a lot of resources (oil, for example) and further destruction of the environment (mining, built-up areas), and a large timescale. Abolishment of animal ag subsidies is a piece of paper and few signatures.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    >>This could easily be solved by removing animal ag subsidies and with taxing of negative externalities. Considering how strong people's preference for meat are, you could raise prices and inevitably demand will start growing again when incomes rise sufficiently. >>Sure, but that means a lot of resources (oil, for example) and further destruction of the environment (mining, built-up areas), and a large timescale. The resources needed to build those out will be more than made up for by the resources saved from switching to an abundant non-CO2/pollutant emitting energy system.

by myshpa 3y ago

ETH_start 3y ago

Technological solutions are far more realistic than effecting a global shift to a plant-based diet. People choose meat, and people in the developing world are consuming more meat as their incomes rise. Mass-production is something human civilization has proven adept at, and mass-deployment of nuclear power plants and vertical farms requires only that.

myshpa 3y ago
> Technological solutions are far more realistic This could easily be solved by removing animal ag subsidies and with taxing of negative externalities. That's one law, the market (= higher prices) will take care of the rest. > people in the developing world are consuming more meat as their incomes rise I'm aware :) However, that made sense when there were 1 B of humans, not when our needs overshoot the environmental capacity of our environment. If everyone ate like we westerners do (and they will want to, when we still do) then we'd need something like 4-5 earths to sustain everyone. > mass-deployment of nuclear power plants and vertical farms requires only that Sure, but that means a lot of resources (oil, for example) and further destruction of the environment (mining, built-up areas), and a large timescale. Abolishment of animal ag subsidies is a piece of paper and few signatures.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  >>This could easily be solved by removing animal ag subsidies and with taxing of negative externalities. Considering how strong people's preference for meat are, you could raise prices and inevitably demand will start growing again when incomes rise sufficiently. >>Sure, but that means a lot of resources (oil, for example) and further destruction of the environment (mining, built-up areas), and a large timescale. The resources needed to build those out will be more than made up for by the resources saved from switching to an abundant non-CO2/pollutant emitting energy system.