5 ms·

Humanity would rather go to war to thin our numbers than give up eating meat. The only viable method is lab grown meat that tastes exactly the same, same textu

Humanity would rather go to war to thin our numbers than give up eating meat. The only viable method is lab grown meat that tastes exactly the same, same texture, and is cheaper. That's it. People have real stuff in their lives - they're not worried about planetary survival in 100 years, they're worried about next months rent, etc.

toss1 3y ago
Perhaps note that only 12% of Americans eat 50% of the beef. That group is men between 50-66 years old. The remaining half is spread among the other 88%. Convince that 12%, or let them age out, and half the problem goes away. [0] https://phys.org/news/2023-08-mere-americans-nation-beef-significant.html https://phys.org/news/2023-08-mere-americans-nation-beef-sig... Edit: Fixed link — Thx myshpa! (still looks truncated, but seems to work now)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Mountain_Skies 3y ago
  >on a given day That conditional statement should set your skeptic sense to Defcon one.
- ifdefdebug 3y ago
  > let them age out Doesn't work. A long time ago I thought when all the old farts are gone, everything is going to be better. Had to have faith in my own generation right? You know what happened... Humanity just grew a new set of old farts.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    This, and so much this. "The hope of the world is in our generation". No, it really isn't. Any given generation is, statistically, a lot like every other generation (certainly over spans of 4-6 generations).
    - labster 3y ago
      So basically we have no hope then?
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        Hope is fine. Hope based on "the kids today will do right by the world", not so much.
        labster 3y ago
        So hope based on eucatastrophe then? Works for me.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        hope based on (a) there are always some number of people at a given point in time working toward the goals you want to be hopeful about (b) there's always some non-zero chance that they may be successful. but hope somehow contigent or predicated on the age of those people? nah.
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      Exactly: look at what happened with the Hippies in the 1960s. They turned into the "Me Generation" of the 1980s.
mistrial9 3y ago
Hindus and Buddhists have developed vegetarian diets alongside architectural and intellectual accomplishments, for more than a thousand years.
myshpa 3y ago
> Humanity would rather go to war to thin our numbers than give up eating meat We're using up resources at a pace that outstrips Earth's ability to replenish them. For instance, we're already consuming 1.7 times the Earth's available resources. https://www.overshootday.org/ https://www.overshootday.org/ If everyone were to adopt a diet similar to the American diet, we would require more than five Earths to sustain it. https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability-indicators/us-environmental-footprint-factsheet https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability... > The only viable method is lab grown meat Achieving the required scale and price point may take decades, potentially leading to the collapse of biodiversity long before that occurs. > that tastes exactly the same, same texture, and is cheaper Is our love for the taste really worth destroying the planet? What will we say to our grandchildren? "Sorry, I couldn't give up those burgers. Now, go play in a desert." https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/uk-news/meat-veggie-sausages-burgers-environment-impact-vegan-b2142366.html https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/uk-news/mea... Veggie sausages and burgers up to ten times better for environment than meat, study finds > they're worried about next months rent Vegan diets are typically the most economical choice, even in first-world countries. The affordability of animal products is primarily a result of significant subsidies, without factoring in the negative externalities. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-chea... Sustainable eating is cheaper and healthier - Oxford study
- labster 3y ago
  I don’t think our grandchildren are going to care what we say. They’ll be too busy scavenging the scorched ruins of our cities for the last cans of refrigerant so they can survive another month on our doomed planet.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    >They’ll be too busy scavenging the scorched ruins of our cities for the last cans of refrigerant so they can survive another month on our doomed planet. Don't be silly. Our grandchildren won't need refrigerant to survive a hot Earth; they can just live underground. Caves stay cool year-round. Or they could dig a bunch of silos, 144 levels deep, and live in those, sending outcasts to the "outside" to die in the poisoned air.
jgraham 3y ago
> The only viable method is lab grown meat I suspect it's true that the only way to substantially cut animal-based protein consumption at scale is some technological alternative that offers a comparable culinary experience but with a lower cost (and lower impact). Although as another poster notes, it's also true that — like many resource consumption issues — the distribution isn't flat, but shows the majority of consumption coming from a relatively small fraction of the population. However, what I wanted to point out is that "lab grown meat" is not the only possibility in this general area. Precision fermentation of proteins (e.g. https://gfi.org/science/the-science-of-fermentation/ https://gfi.org/science/the-science-of-fermentation/) is another approach that seems to have potential. Although I note that I don't have a specific horse in this race, and would be delighted to see anything that can reduce the overall environmental impact of food production at a global scale take off.
toss1 3y ago
>>they're worried about next months rent, etc. If you are actually worried about next month's rent, then going mostly vegetarian is FAR cheaper than eating beef Plus, only 12% of the people eat 50% of the beef in the US. That is a group of 50-65 year-old men. Change their habits to match the normal population (or let them age out) and 50% of the problem disappears. [0] https://phys.org/news/2023-08-mere-americans-nation-beef-significant.html https://phys.org/news/2023-08-mere-americans-nation-beef-sig...
Asooka 3y ago
I definitely would not eat lab grown meat. My own meat consumption is less than 200g per day. I eat one hamburger a month at most, as a treat. I want it to be the best hamburger from the happiest free range cow ever. I'm not going to eat some synthetic imitation, I'll just have bean stew with the occasional piece of chicken. The way the vegan movement has weaseled its way into the discussion on climate change has been frankly horrifying to watch. As you said, people will not stop eating meat. Tell them that going vegan is the only way and they'll just say "fuck the planet" and not bother with it. Like, the worst that could happen is humanity going extinct. The Earth itself will be fine. Put that way, well, if we can't figure out how to run our farms more optimally, we should go extinct. Chickens don't contribute to atmospheric changes by themselves.
- ifdefdebug 3y ago
  > My own meat consumption is less than 200g per day You think that is little? 200 g per day would be 80000 tons of meat for a 400m population (EU) - let's generously account for the less hungry babies and we'd maybe have 60000 tons. How many cows and pigs are we talking about here daily? > The Earth itself will be fine. Sure. Earth will be fine even if we are hit by a megathingy that rips apart the entire lithosphere. Nature will be fine even if our sun blows up tomorrow. But what has that to do with anything? PS My own meat consumption is down to 2-3 meat dishes per month. Don't know if that helps...
- drekk 3y ago
  Who is people? I've been a vegetarian for half a decade now on account of a family history of cardiovascular disease. People lack discipline and imagination, but it's not exactly rocket science to have a plant based diet. The largest obstacle is the large swathes of food deserts and the subsidizing of junk food. If people had to pay the real price of meat with environmental externalities factored in most people would consume at a level you've described or even less. My issue with that is it doesn't address how most lifestyle emissions are attributable to the wealthiest economic class. It's still a better alternative to the system we have now, which is clearly unsustainable. A 1/3rd pound burger takes 660 gallons of water to produce, or about 2500 liters. That's not even getting into any of the typical inputs like antibiotics which have their own collection of problems. Say what you will about vegans, it's impossible to talk about the environment without bringing up the impacts of industrial agribusiness and factory farming. While we're talking about efficiency, you gain an order of magnitude improvement by farming crops for humans to eat rather than farming crops for animals to eat for humans to eat. Only about 55% of the crops we go are directly consumed by humans, the rest is used for feed and biofuels. It would take a tenth of the land area to feed the same amount of people plant-based vs an omnivorous diet. We should absolutely be pushing for less centralized food production, and chickens are a useful part of that. They turn food waste into new food and deal with several pests. That's very different from slaughtering them wholesale for cheap dinosaur nuggets.

toss1 3y ago

Perhaps note that only 12% of Americans eat 50% of the beef. That group is men between 50-66 years old. The remaining half is spread among the other 88%. Convince that 12%, or let them age out, and half the problem goes away. [0] https://phys.org/news/2023-08-mere-americans-nation-beef-significant.html https://phys.org/news/2023-08-mere-americans-nation-beef-sig... Edit: Fixed link — Thx myshpa! (still looks truncated, but seems to work now)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Mountain_Skies 3y ago
>on a given day That conditional statement should set your skeptic sense to Defcon one.
ifdefdebug 3y ago
> let them age out Doesn't work. A long time ago I thought when all the old farts are gone, everything is going to be better. Had to have faith in my own generation right? You know what happened... Humanity just grew a new set of old farts.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  This, and so much this. "The hope of the world is in our generation". No, it really isn't. Any given generation is, statistically, a lot like every other generation (certainly over spans of 4-6 generations).
  - labster 3y ago
    So basically we have no hope then?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      Hope is fine. Hope based on "the kids today will do right by the world", not so much.
      - labster 3y ago
        So hope based on eucatastrophe then? Works for me.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        hope based on (a) there are always some number of people at a given point in time working toward the goals you want to be hopeful about (b) there's always some non-zero chance that they may be successful. but hope somehow contigent or predicated on the age of those people? nah.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    Exactly: look at what happened with the Hippies in the 1960s. They turned into the "Me Generation" of the 1980s.

mistrial9 3y ago

Hindus and Buddhists have developed vegetarian diets alongside architectural and intellectual accomplishments, for more than a thousand years.

myshpa 3y ago

> Humanity would rather go to war to thin our numbers than give up eating meat We're using up resources at a pace that outstrips Earth's ability to replenish them. For instance, we're already consuming 1.7 times the Earth's available resources. https://www.overshootday.org/ https://www.overshootday.org/ If everyone were to adopt a diet similar to the American diet, we would require more than five Earths to sustain it. https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability-indicators/us-environmental-footprint-factsheet https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability... > The only viable method is lab grown meat Achieving the required scale and price point may take decades, potentially leading to the collapse of biodiversity long before that occurs. > that tastes exactly the same, same texture, and is cheaper Is our love for the taste really worth destroying the planet? What will we say to our grandchildren? "Sorry, I couldn't give up those burgers. Now, go play in a desert." https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/uk-news/meat-veggie-sausages-burgers-environment-impact-vegan-b2142366.html https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/uk-news/mea... Veggie sausages and burgers up to ten times better for environment than meat, study finds > they're worried about next months rent Vegan diets are typically the most economical choice, even in first-world countries. The affordability of animal products is primarily a result of significant subsidies, without factoring in the negative externalities. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-chea... Sustainable eating is cheaper and healthier - Oxford study

labster 3y ago
I don’t think our grandchildren are going to care what we say. They’ll be too busy scavenging the scorched ruins of our cities for the last cans of refrigerant so they can survive another month on our doomed planet.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  >They’ll be too busy scavenging the scorched ruins of our cities for the last cans of refrigerant so they can survive another month on our doomed planet. Don't be silly. Our grandchildren won't need refrigerant to survive a hot Earth; they can just live underground. Caves stay cool year-round. Or they could dig a bunch of silos, 144 levels deep, and live in those, sending outcasts to the "outside" to die in the poisoned air.

jgraham 3y ago

> The only viable method is lab grown meat I suspect it's true that the only way to substantially cut animal-based protein consumption at scale is some technological alternative that offers a comparable culinary experience but with a lower cost (and lower impact). Although as another poster notes, it's also true that — like many resource consumption issues — the distribution isn't flat, but shows the majority of consumption coming from a relatively small fraction of the population. However, what I wanted to point out is that "lab grown meat" is not the only possibility in this general area. Precision fermentation of proteins (e.g. https://gfi.org/science/the-science-of-fermentation/ https://gfi.org/science/the-science-of-fermentation/) is another approach that seems to have potential. Although I note that I don't have a specific horse in this race, and would be delighted to see anything that can reduce the overall environmental impact of food production at a global scale take off.

toss1 3y ago

>>they're worried about next months rent, etc. If you are actually worried about next month's rent, then going mostly vegetarian is FAR cheaper than eating beef Plus, only 12% of the people eat 50% of the beef in the US. That is a group of 50-65 year-old men. Change their habits to match the normal population (or let them age out) and 50% of the problem disappears. [0] https://phys.org/news/2023-08-mere-americans-nation-beef-significant.html https://phys.org/news/2023-08-mere-americans-nation-beef-sig...

Asooka 3y ago

I definitely would not eat lab grown meat. My own meat consumption is less than 200g per day. I eat one hamburger a month at most, as a treat. I want it to be the best hamburger from the happiest free range cow ever. I'm not going to eat some synthetic imitation, I'll just have bean stew with the occasional piece of chicken. The way the vegan movement has weaseled its way into the discussion on climate change has been frankly horrifying to watch. As you said, people will not stop eating meat. Tell them that going vegan is the only way and they'll just say "fuck the planet" and not bother with it. Like, the worst that could happen is humanity going extinct. The Earth itself will be fine. Put that way, well, if we can't figure out how to run our farms more optimally, we should go extinct. Chickens don't contribute to atmospheric changes by themselves.

ifdefdebug 3y ago
> My own meat consumption is less than 200g per day You think that is little? 200 g per day would be 80000 tons of meat for a 400m population (EU) - let's generously account for the less hungry babies and we'd maybe have 60000 tons. How many cows and pigs are we talking about here daily? > The Earth itself will be fine. Sure. Earth will be fine even if we are hit by a megathingy that rips apart the entire lithosphere. Nature will be fine even if our sun blows up tomorrow. But what has that to do with anything? PS My own meat consumption is down to 2-3 meat dishes per month. Don't know if that helps...
drekk 3y ago
Who is people? I've been a vegetarian for half a decade now on account of a family history of cardiovascular disease. People lack discipline and imagination, but it's not exactly rocket science to have a plant based diet. The largest obstacle is the large swathes of food deserts and the subsidizing of junk food. If people had to pay the real price of meat with environmental externalities factored in most people would consume at a level you've described or even less. My issue with that is it doesn't address how most lifestyle emissions are attributable to the wealthiest economic class. It's still a better alternative to the system we have now, which is clearly unsustainable. A 1/3rd pound burger takes 660 gallons of water to produce, or about 2500 liters. That's not even getting into any of the typical inputs like antibiotics which have their own collection of problems. Say what you will about vegans, it's impossible to talk about the environment without bringing up the impacts of industrial agribusiness and factory farming. While we're talking about efficiency, you gain an order of magnitude improvement by farming crops for humans to eat rather than farming crops for animals to eat for humans to eat. Only about 55% of the crops we go are directly consumed by humans, the rest is used for feed and biofuels. It would take a tenth of the land area to feed the same amount of people plant-based vs an omnivorous diet. We should absolutely be pushing for less centralized food production, and chickens are a useful part of that. They turn food waste into new food and deal with several pests. That's very different from slaughtering them wholesale for cheap dinosaur nuggets.