Rethinking the Meat Guzzler- article on meat consumption

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about all of the devastation wrought by the inefficient behaviour of our world's enormous population. Is it not obvious that virtually all of the environmental problems people talk about would be solved if people told the Bible thumpers and Koran huggers to shut the fuck up about being "fruitful"?

No matter how efficient we make ourselves, it will all come to naught if the human population of this planet continues to increase. We could all ride in electric buses, shack up in efficient apartment buildings with solar heating, and cut out meat consumption to 10% of what it currently is, and we would STILL fuck up the environment in short order if we don't do something about the population explosion.

[Broomstick]

Less meat consumption in the US is necessary for health issues as well as energy. The use of mycoprotein fortified with necessary nutrients would help too, assuming the FDA gets a clue and legalises it

You mean Quorn? It's legal here - I had some during Christmas dinner at a friends house

[TithonusSyndrome]

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about all of the devastation wrought by the inefficient behaviour of our world's enormous population. Is it not obvious that virtually all of the environmental problems people talk about would be solved if people told the Bible thumpers and Koran huggers to shut the fuck up about being "fruitful"?

So John Gibson doesn't have America's best long-term interests at heart?!??

[Turin]

No matter how efficient we make ourselves, it will all come to naught if the human population of this planet continues to increase. We could all ride in electric buses, shack up in efficient apartment buildings with solar heating, and cut out meat consumption to 10% of what it currently is, and we would STILL fuck up the environment in short order if we don't do something about the population explosion.

I think the argument is that we're already close enough to "carrying capacity" that efficiency becomes paramount. At this point, unless you decide "we're going to condemn the third world to mass die-offs," there's no way to suddenly stop the global population growth. The developed world already is barely above replacement rate. We need to bring the developing world up to the same standard of living as the developed world while becoming more efficient world wide.

Yeah, obviously that's a tall order. But the alternatives involved that gloomy statistic "Total Number of Humans" to drop pretty rapidly, and that means a lot of suffering.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about all of the devastation wrought by the inefficient behaviour of our world's enormous population. Is it not obvious that virtually all of the environmental problems people talk about would be solved if people told the Bible thumpers and Koran huggers to shut the fuck up about being "fruitful"?

No matter how efficient we make ourselves, it will all come to naught if the human population of this planet continues to increase. We could all ride in electric buses, shack up in efficient apartment buildings with solar heating, and cut out meat consumption to 10% of what it currently is, and we would STILL fuck up the environment in short order if we don't do something about the population explosion.

This quintessential missing clue that so many haven't caught on to. Breeding is the problem; religious people are the worst.

Maybe after oil when the ME starves and murders itself to death, the camel drivers left over (assuming they didn't eat all the camels) will toss the Qur'an. Probably not though.

[Darth Wong]

No matter how efficient we make ourselves, it will all come to naught if the human population of this planet continues to increase. We could all ride in electric buses, shack up in efficient apartment buildings with solar heating, and cut out meat consumption to 10% of what it currently is, and we would STILL fuck up the environment in short order if we don't do something about the population explosion.

I think the argument is that we're already close enough to "carrying capacity" that efficiency becomes paramount.

Which is a futile argument because the world population is increasing too quickly to be offset by any remotely plausible efficiency increases.

Let's put this in perspective. In 1990, the world population was estimated at roughly 5.3 billion. In 1995, it was already up to 5.7 billion. In 2000, it was 6.1 billion. In 2005, it was 6.5 billion. We added a population the size of China to the world in just 15 years. Far from worrying about how efficient China's population should be, think about the prospect of adding another China in the next 15 years. It's completely absurd to think that you can somehow overcome this trend by making people drive more fuel-efficient cars.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Like any good Spaniard, I'm happy with cheese, fresh bread, some pork derivatives, and a dry wine. Except for the last one, that's usually what I snack on, bread, cheese, and ham/salami/sausage/bacon. Oh and almonds, I down about two buckets of almonds a month.

I spent 3 weeks in spain and almost died from the food. Its delicious, but I'm positive you could take over spain with a pair of squeak-free shoes and an air horn to induce heart attacks. Seriously how do y'all eat like that and not have strokes?

[Illuminatus Primus]

They like walk, and shit.

[His Divine Shadow]

The population explosion problem seems it's gonna solve itself though, brutally and horribly so. Infact I do not think there is anything that can be done about it anymore.

[His Divine Shadow]

Like any good Spaniard, I'm happy with cheese, fresh bread, some pork derivatives, and a dry wine. Except for the last one, that's usually what I snack on, bread, cheese, and ham/salami/sausage/bacon. Oh and almonds, I down about two buckets of almonds a month.

I spent 3 weeks in spain and almost died from the food. Its delicious, but I'm positive you could take over spain with a pair of squeak-free shoes and an air horn to induce heart attacks. Seriously how do y'all eat like that and not have strokes?

This does remind me of what I've read in the paper recently, that even fat people (but not morbidly so) who excersize can be quite healthy. Infact far healthier than people who do not excersize.

[Justforfun000]

Darth Wong Wrote:

Let's put this in perspective. In 1990, the world population was estimated at roughly 5.3 billion. In 1995, it was already up to 5.7 billion. In 2000, it was 6.1 billion. In 2005, it was 6.5 billion. We added a population the size of China to the world in just 15 years. Far from worrying about how efficient China's population should be, think about the prospect of adding another China in the next 15 years. It's completely absurd to think that you can somehow overcome this trend by making people drive more fuel-efficient cars.

Which is why I've been baffled by this shit I keep reading about our population 'crisis' in places with low birth rates. Also it keeps being driven home that homosexuals are so bad because they are impeding the procreation rate. Isn't this a good thing if we're getting to be too populated?

[Korto]

Which is why I've been baffled by this shit I keep reading about our population 'crisis' in places with low birth rates. Also it keeps being driven home that homosexuals are so bad because they are impeding the procreation rate. Isn't this a good thing if we're getting to be too populated?

The main problem that I can see is that the population decline strikes the working population well before the retired population (it has to work its way up the line), meaning each productive person has to support more and more unproductive.
Population needs to decline, but slowly and steadily; some places (Japan) seem to be crashing, and that'll leave them with more people to support than there are to support them. How many old farts (my apologies to old farts everywhere) can you support on your pay-cheque?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Way before the old people literally collapse the system their benefits and retirement will be stripped from them and they'll be worked til they drop. Problem solved.

[Korto]

Way before the old people literally collapse the system their benefits and retirement will be stripped from them and they'll be worked til they drop. Problem solved.

Maybe, but it wont be easy. They'll have a hell of a lot of votes. Really bad decisions get made by politicians hunting for votes.
I agree with you benefits will be stripped, because they'll have to be. But it's like global warming, how bad will it be allowed to get before election-losing decisions are made?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well the good news is all the volatile members of society - workers, youth, soliders, business people are the ones who stand to lose if the oldocracy literally starts strangling the productivity society. They will only take so much, and what will the old people do about it? They certainly are not going out in the woods and fighting the army.

[Winston Blake]

Let's put this in perspective. In 1990, the world population was estimated at roughly 5.3 billion. In 1995, it was already up to 5.7 billion. In 2000, it was 6.1 billion. In 2005, it was 6.5 billion. We added a population the size of China to the world in just 15 years. Far from worrying about how efficient China's population should be, think about the prospect of adding another China in the next 15 years. It's completely absurd to think that you can somehow overcome this trend by making people drive more fuel-efficient cars.

Which is why I've been baffled by this shit I keep reading about our population 'crisis' in places with low birth rates. Also it keeps being driven home that homosexuals are so bad because they are impeding the procreation rate. Isn't this a good thing if we're getting to be too populated?

I don't understand the concern about a population explosion.


Graph from Wikipedia, but subsection cites UN figures.

World population is decreasing. As I understand it, the majority of population growth comes from developing nations, while most developed nations have zero or negative population growth (excluding immigration). There's athread here in N&P about Japan's future economic woes due to losing a third of its population in 50 years. This isn't because of catastrophic resource shortages, its apparently because people don't want to start families plus a lack of immigration.

So if another China gets added to the world's population in 15 years, it'll be added to the developing world, which has only a minor impact on greenhouse gases. Over 50% of CO2 emissions come from the U.S., the E.U. and China alone. By these figures, increases in efficiency are more important than population growth.

[Turin]

No matter how efficient we make ourselves, it will all come to naught if the human population of this planet continues to increase. We could all ride in electric buses, shack up in efficient apartment buildings with solar heating, and cut out meat consumption to 10% of what it currently is, and we would STILL fuck up the environment in short order if we don't do something about the population explosion.

I think the argument is that we're already close enough to "carrying capacity" that efficiency becomes paramount.

Which is a futile argument because the world population is increasing too quickly to be offset by any remotely plausible efficiency increases.

Let's put this in perspective. In 1990, the world population was estimated at roughly 5.3 billion. In 1995, it was already up to 5.7 billion. In 2000, it was 6.1 billion. In 2005, it was 6.5 billion. We added a population the size of China to the world in just 15 years. Far from worrying about how efficient China's population should be, think about the prospect of adding another China in the next 15 years. It's completely absurd to think that you can somehow overcome this trend by making people drive more fuel-efficient cars.

I wouldn't argue it's a matter of overcoming that trend through efficiency, as that's probably impossible. Instead, I would argue we have a lot better chance of actually being able to do something about efficiency, whereas population isn't really something people think they can get a handle on.

As I mentioned earlier, in the West we're generally at or around the replacement rate. So what do you do about it in the developing world? Sure, you can send aid out there in the form of birth-control education (if the fundie retards in your particular nation will allow it). But at the end of the day, development is pretty much the best indicator for low birth rates; people have less babies when they're educated and relatively well off.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Broomstick: Quorn is legal in the States now? News to me.

Everyone Else: What Mike talks of is a very real phenomenon: Jevons Paradox. No matter how efficient we get, it will never replace sustainable living.

A good illustration is a hybrid car. You go from a 30 MPG vehicle to a 60+ MPG one. Because it now costs you less per unit fuel per distance travelled to use, you can use it twice as much without breaking the bank, all else being equal. Ergo, efficiency simply leads to higher consumption in the end.

The real message we need is "Stop fucking breeding and consuming like there's really an afterlife", but of course that would be terribly unkind. Having reality hit someone in the face like that isn't good etiquette when so many people have a total reality disconnect syndrome.

[Turin]

Everyone Else: What Mike talks of is a very real phenomenon: Jevons Paradox. No matter how efficient we get, it will never replace sustainable living. <snip> The real message we need is "Stop fucking breeding and consuming like there's really an afterlife", but of course that would be terribly unkind. Having reality hit someone in the face like that isn't good etiquette when so many people have a total reality disconnect syndrome.

Okay, then in order to avoid a false dilemma, what would you propose to do this? Tell the Third World: "hey, stop fucking please?" This is my point. I live in the most absurdly consuming nation in the world. I can have influence on that consumption by changing my own habits and influencing those around me. I can't affect the birth rate in India, except very very indirectly.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

More or less, you all are going to have to adapt to my patterns of consumption rather than your own. Meat production will quite likely fall to one-eighth of what it currently is as the effects of peak oil propagate through society.

:lol:

Or I could just go hunting. There's a glut of deer, feral pigs and wild turkeys in my neck of the woods (my 12-year-old nephew bagged a turkey a couple of months ago). People like meat and will find ways to get it. The price of fuel will only cause people to hunt more on each trip, and raise their own animals. If it gets too bad, all those zoning laws will go up in smoke and city dwellers will have chickens in their yards.

So if anything, it's the other way around.

Yeah, that'll work for a while, and everyone will have a few chickens, use them for eggs and occasionally for meat, but potatoes will need space in those yards, too, and the population of game animals will plummet. To prevent their total extinction, even stricter controls will ultimately have to be implemented.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Broomstick: Quorn is legal in the States now? News to me.

Everyone Else: What Mike talks of is a very real phenomenon: Jevons Paradox. No matter how efficient we get, it will never replace sustainable living.

A good illustration is a hybrid car. You go from a 30 MPG vehicle to a 60+ MPG one. Because it now costs you less per unit fuel per distance travelled to use, you can use it twice as much without breaking the bank, all else being equal. Ergo, efficiency simply leads to higher consumption in the end.

The real message we need is "Stop fucking breeding and consuming like there's really an afterlife", but of course that would be terribly unkind. Having reality hit someone in the face like that isn't good etiquette when so many people have a total reality disconnect syndrome.

It's going to happen naturally, Valdemar, as we revert to a medieval social state during the crash. Medieval society was eminently sustainable, well, as long as you had a plague every so often to keep the system in equilibrium.

I trust you can provide us with one of those?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Okay, then in order to avoid a false dilemma, what would you propose to do this? Tell the Third World: "hey, stop fucking please?" This is my point. I live in the most absurdly consuming nation in the world. I can have influence on that consumption by changing my own habits and influencing those around me. I can't affect the birth rate in India, except very very indirectly.

Not a whole lot you can do, unless you give up on charity aid to such nations, which let's face it, tends to exacerbate the situation in most cases where handouts should be replaced with education.

I hear war helps. It's tried and tested.

It's going to happen naturally, Valdemar, as we revert to a medieval social state during the crash. Medieval society was eminently sustainable, well, as long as you had a plague every so often to keep the system in equilibrium.

I trust you can provide us with one of those?

Sorry, the only business I'm in is chasing the almighty (LOL) dollari via Big Pharma trampling on people for a percentage. I'll let you know when bird flu gets its shit together, though.

[Turin]

Not a whole lot you can do, unless you give up on charity aid to such nations, which let's face it, tends to exacerbate the situation in most cases where handouts should be replaced with education.

Okaaay... so you don't have any other solution. Then maybe you shouldn't be bitching about people trying to do something to improve the situation instead of sitting around in their imaginary bunkers crying themselves to sleep at night. Look, I don't think my eating more local foods, riding a bike to work, and reducing consumption is going to stop the worst from happening. But at least I'll be able to say I've tried to do something, and it might help prepare me for a world with a lot more privation.

I hear war helps. It's tried and tested.

Even ignoring the moral implications of that, it's still nonsense. Short of a nuclear exchange, war doesn't have the effect of massive depopulation to the scales required, and uses up a ton of those oh-so-scarce resources to boot.

[Darth Wong]

World population is decreasing.

I don't know where the hell you learned to read graphs, but that's totally wrong. World population is increasing, rapidly. In fact, that graph projects world population to hit 9 billion by 2050 even if the growth rate flattens out.

As I understand it, the majority of population growth comes from developing nations, while most developed nations have zero or negative population growth (excluding immigration). There's athread here in N&P about Japan's future economic woes due to losing a third of its population in 50 years. This isn't because of catastrophic resource shortages, its apparently because people don't want to start families plus a lack of immigration.

So? That only means our problems are going to be in the rest of the world. It's not if we're not connected to the rest of the planet.

So if another China gets added to the world's population in 15 years, it'll be added to the developing world, which has only a minor impact on greenhouse gases. Over 50% of CO2 emissions come from the U.S., the E.U. and China alone. By these figures, increases in efficiency are more important than population growth.

Of course, because the rapid deforestation and animal mass extinction event associated with feeding an outlandishly expansive human population is not a problem, right?

[Darth Wong]

Not a whole lot you can do, unless you give up on charity aid to such nations, which let's face it, tends to exacerbate the situation in most cases where handouts should be replaced with education.

Okaaay... so you don't have any other solution. Then maybe you shouldn't be bitching about people trying to do something to improve the situation instead of sitting around in their imaginary bunkers crying themselves to sleep at night.

Who said anything about hating people who are trying to be more efficient? I have no problem with people like that. What I have a problem with is the mass self-delusion propagated by the people who try to tell us that if we just buy solar panels and hybrid cars, everything will be OK. It won't. Billions will die, one way or another, and they're going to take a lot of the biosystem with them.