3 ms·
Saying "inefficiency only matters if we reach system collapse" is like saying you don’t need brakes until you’re already flying off the cliff.
by peterashford 1y ago
Saying "inefficiency only matters if we reach system collapse" is like saying you don’t need brakes until you’re already flying off the cliff.
- dijit 1y agoHow can inefficiency lead to systemic collapse in a way that cannot be reversed inside of a year? We're not talking about contributing to the carbon cycle anymore, we're talking specifically about converting rays from the sun into human consumable matter. I think you've come into a reasoned conversation with an idealised take that meat consumption is inherently stupid, and this doesn't not necessarily make sense because inefficiency is totally acceptable as long as the needs of the system are met. People use python for making websites, after all, one of the least efficient languages available. People move to higher efficiency languages when the system begins to demand it.
- peterashford 1y agoYou have heard climate scientists talk about tipping points, right? Methane is short lived but extremely potent. Its warming effect can push systems (ice melt, permafrost thaw, ocean circulation) past irreversible thresholds. Deforestation to support meat production isn’t easily undone. Regrowing forests takes decades to centuries.
- dijit 1y agoOk, so you're continuing to push the topic in a direction of methane and not inefficiency as we were discussing. I think I'll conclude the conversation here as it's clear you're just conversing from an ideological point of view. Methane is a problem, as discussed elsewhere in the thread, but the largest issue continues to be the fact we're digging up oil and feeding it to herds, you've not convinced me that this is not the largest issue, or not a larger issue than: air travel, cars etc;
- peterashford 1y agoEnjoy your ad hominems