Rethinking the Meat Guzzler- article on meat consumption

[Civil War Man]

World population is decreasing.

Bit of a nitpick, but judging from what that graph says, it looks more like the population is still increasing, but that the expected rate of increase will decrease. Pesky derivatives.

[Darth Wong]

I've been saying for a long time that the most environmentally destructive side-effect of human civilization is not cars; it's agriculture. Unfortunately, people don't want to hear that message because farming is considered to be a rustic, "natural" way of life. As if there's anything "natural" about obliterating forests, flattening and tilling and fencing ground, growing monocultures, dousing them with chemicals to kill pests and accelerate growth, and then washing these chemicals into the rivers and lakes.

[Admiral Valdemar]

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.

How silly of me. I forgot you can't point out a problem unless you have a solution at hand.

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.

So? You think people think war through? The biggest wars are down to the dumbest reasons and historical precedent does not mean anything in the future will not dent population growth. War, combined with famine, pestilence and the wonders of climate change, will easily kill off a few billion and level the playing field somewhat.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that what I say goes. I'm pointing out what is likely to happen and what the state of play is. If you have a problem with it, tough.

[J]

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.

Did you say "bird flu"?
I don't think it's quite "gotten its shit together" yet as it hasn't started killing people, but who knows...

[Ma Deuce]

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.

That's one reason the US method of using CAFE standards for regulating vehicular fuel economy are retarded and doomed to fail. We can see this in the way the increases in efficiency of the average North American car since the '60s have been totally offset by the fact that more people in the US and Canada are driving than ever before, and they're driving longer and farther than ever before because it is cheaper to do so, which is also the reason public transit has been so neglected over here. Gas taxes and higher licence plate renewal fees for larger or thirstier vehicles are the only way to go. But of course, raising personal and consumption taxes doesn't win you many votes.

[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.

Who said anything about hating people who are trying to be more efficient?

AV did, in a sense, by arguing that efficiency actually results in more consumption.

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.

If billions of people are going to die either way (which I agree will most likely be the case), wouldn't it be better to spread the idea of sustainability in the meantime? Frankly, there's not a whole fuck of a lot we can do about the impending depopulation. Might as well have people start to understand why it will happen so we can avoid it if we reach the other side.

How silly of me. I forgot you can't point out a problem unless you have a solution at hand.

No, jackass, you can point out the problem. As you've done in every single fucking thread that has anything to do even remotely with energy, or resources, or farming, or war, or the financial world in the last, say, year. I'm addressing a particular strategy to help mitigate the effects and prepare people for the long term. You just want to stamp your feet and say "wah, that won't save everyone!" Well no shit, sherlock.

So? You think people think war through? The biggest wars are down to the dumbest reasons and historical precedent does not mean anything in the future will not dent population growth. War, combined with famine, pestilence and the wonders of climate change, will easily kill off a few billion and level the playing field somewhat.

Right, and the US is going to start rolling around the globe killing off third worlders by the millions with... what gas in their tanks? War will be a drop in the bucket compared to the rest -- again, short of a nuclear exchange.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that what I say goes. I'm pointing out what is likely to happen and what the state of play is. If you have a problem with it, tough.

Get off your high horse. I know what the fucking problem is, and how dismal it looks. And yes, I "have a problem with it." But I know there's not a whole fuck of a lot I can do about it, so maybe I should just blow my brains out now, right?

[Admiral Valdemar]

AV did, in a sense, by arguing that efficiency actually results in more consumption.

No. I pointed out efficiency leads to higher consumption. If that means "I HAETZ EFFIEICNT PEOPLES!11" in your book, then so be it.

No, jackass, you can point out the problem. As you've done in every single fucking thread that has anything to do even remotely with energy, or resources, or farming, or war, or the financial world in the last, say, year. I'm addressing a particular strategy to help mitigate the effects and prepare people for the long term. You just want to stamp your feet and say "wah, that won't save everyone!" Well no shit, sherlock.

Actually, it'll be a year in March.

Oh, and fuck you. I've pointed out PLENTY of times ways of getting around these problems. Someone hasn't been paying attention. I do tend to find I have to repeat myself because, sadly, most people are idiots.

Right, and the US is going to start rolling around the globe killing off third worlders by the millions with... what gas in their tanks? War will be a drop in the bucket compared to the rest -- again, short of a nuclear exchange.

Yeah, it's sure not like the US has invaded any oil rich nations lately.

Get off your high horse. I know what the fucking problem is, and how dismal it looks. And yes, I "have a problem with it." But I know there's not a whole fuck of a lot I can do about it, so maybe I should just blow my brains out now, right?

Sure, if it helps with your posting quality.

[Turin]

AV did, in a sense, by arguing that efficiency actually results in more consumption.

No. I pointed out efficiency leads to higher consumption. If that means "I HAETZ EFFIEICNT PEOPLES!11" in your book, then so be it.

I said "bitching about", DW said "hate", and I said "in a sense." Seeing as how you're saying higher consumption will kill us all anyway, you might as well "hate." The exact words crept a little, but I shouldn't have to spell everything out for you in crayon.

Oh, and fuck you. I've pointed out PLENTY of times ways of getting around these problems. Someone hasn't been paying attention. I do tend to find I have to repeat myself because, sadly, most people are idiots.

Excuse the fuck out of me for not knowing everything you've ever posted on the subject (or having my eyes glaze over when I see your posts). Let's see, in the Positive Solutions thread you... didn't post. Hm. Nor did you post in the Peak Oil and the Magic Free Market thread. In the We're all Fucked thread you... posted that dead humans don't use resources. That's helpful. In Will Peak Oil See the End of My Town you posted:

It's already too late.

and then finally got around to some post-oil solutions for individuals. Fascinatingly enough, they all involve more sustainable means of living. I guess efficiency is useless, right?

Right, and the US is going to start rolling around the globe killing off third worlders by the millions with... what gas in their tanks? War will be a drop in the bucket compared to the rest -- again, short of a nuclear exchange.

Yeah, it's sure not like the US has invaded any oil rich nations lately.

Good point. All those tanks roared across the desert in 2003 on ethanol. And caused a massive depopulation of Iraq which lead to less resources being used. Oh, wait...

[Broomstick]

Right, and the US is going to start rolling around the globe killing off third worlders by the millions with... what gas in their tanks? War will be a drop in the bucket compared to the rest -- again, short of a nuclear exchange.

Yeah, it's sure not like the US has invaded any oil rich nations lately.

Nor have they ever dropped an atomic bomb on anyone. Oh, wait ---

Do not underestimate how ugly a war for the resources necessary for survival can become. It's NOT just about oil - the world is running or soon will run short of a LOT of very basic things.

(and mind you - this is coming from the person who started the "Positive Solutions" thread...)

[Admiral Valdemar]

I said "bitching about", DW said "hate", and I said "in a sense." Seeing as how you're saying higher consumption will kill us all anyway, you might as well "hate." The exact words crept a little, but I shouldn't have to spell everything out for you in crayon.

Semantics. I was stating a point. Infer what you will. The idea that we should all drive 10 MPG cars and have 100 Watt incandescents in our houses because efficiency leads to more of the same is retarded. Efficiency and sustainability work wonders. If you only have one without the other, things still go downhill.

Excuse the fuck out of me for not knowing everything you've ever posted on the subject (or having my eyes glaze over when I see your posts). Let's see, in the Positive Solutions thread you... didn't post. Hm. Nor did you post in the Peak Oil and the Magic Free Market thread. In the We're all Fucked thread you... posted that dead humans don't use resources. That's helpful. In Will Peak Oil See the End of My Town you posted:

It's already too late.

and then finally got around to some post-oil solutions for individuals. Fascinatingly enough, they all involve more sustainable means of living. I guess efficiency is useless, right?

No. Please learn to read. Incidentally, it is actually too late to really make this a less than nasty crash. Had we been talking about this two decades ago, I'd be more optimistic. The various other factors involved make things more chaotic and less likely to turn up rosy. Oil running out is not the only problem here.

A solution is less people using less stuff. That's simple, so much so, you don't need your crayons to spell it out. But here's the kicked: no one likes that idea. So what do you do? I've tried setting up PO awareness groups in my former village and the one I live in now. No one wants to know. At least, not until fuel prices go up again, but we all know it's Big Oil price gouging or the government robbing us via tax. It's a religious ideal; the concept of oil depletion doesn't factor into it because you don't learn that in school, it doesn't make you money and therefore it is irrelevant.

Good point. All those tanks roared across the desert in 2003 on ethanol. And caused a massive depopulation of Iraq which lead to less resources being used. Oh, wait...

That zooming noise, people, is the point flying over Turin's head. For a cookie, can anyone point out what concept of obviousness he's missing?

[Turin]

I've snipped together some of your post into one idea for brevity's sake. Please let me know if you think I've misrepresented you at all. If so, I'll try to fix it.

Efficiency and sustainability work wonders. If you only have one without the other, things still go downhill. <snip> A solution is less people using less stuff. [bolding mine]That's simple, so much so, you don't need your crayons to spell it out. But here's the kicked: no one likes that idea. So what do you do? I've tried setting up PO awareness groups in my former village and the one I live in now. No one wants to know

"No one likes that idea" because there's no way to do it. You can use less stuff -- that is, be more efficient. But you can't also have less people unless they start dying. It isn't necessarily that people don't realize that would solve the problem, it's that it's an unpalatable solution and is going to happen either way. Unless you're seriously suggesting we deliberately depopulate? I assume you understand what that means on the scale we're talking about? It's not "hey more condoms and pills for the Third World!"

Good point. All those tanks roared across the desert in 2003 on ethanol. And caused a massive depopulation of Iraq which lead to less resources being used. Oh, wait...

That zooming noise, people, is the point flying over Turin's head. For a cookie, can anyone point out what concept of obviousness he's missing?

Oo! Oo! I know, pick me! The point is that AV doesn't remember why the fuck we started talking about war in the first place? I.e. as AV's "solution" to cause depopulation?

[Surlethe]

World population is decreasing.

Bit of a nitpick, but judging from what that graph says, it looks more like the population is still increasing, but that the expected rate of increase will decrease. Pesky derivatives.

Not quite. The vertical axis is not linear; every unit distance up the y-value doubles. So as far as growth of population, you're looking at population doubling in eighty years, not slowing down.

[Admiral Valdemar]

"No one likes that idea" because there's no way to do it. You can use less stuff -- that is, be more efficient. But you can't also have less people unless they start dying. It isn't necessarily that people don't realize that would solve the problem, it's that it's an unpalatable solution and is going to happen either way. Unless you're seriously suggesting we deliberately depopulate? I assume you understand what that means on the scale we're talking about? It's not "hey more condoms and pills for the Third World!"

I've never once seriously suggested genocide (see below), I've merely pointed out that such actions will be an inevitable consequence of resource depletion and climatological shifts. As energy, water, food and living space become compromised, people will fight tooth and nail for survival, even those who should know better. Darfur, you should remember, is as much about oil as it is water. A shit storm in Africa is like a Catholic in the Vatican. No one notices that. When it spreads to nations where such destabilisation can end in tears on a global scale, say, Pakistan who have nuclear capability, then heads turn. Iraq was a move on behalf of the US and UK to secure the world's third largest oil deposits and form, in essence, a fortress forward base in the ME to complement the military presence already there "policing" such foreign interests.

China moving into Africa is a similar stratagem.

So while it may be difficult to tell people to drop dead and have less sex, regardless of what they do instead, people will be culled somewhere down the line indirectly anyway. Right now it's Third World shitholes taking the brunt of it. In a decade or two, it may be us.

Oo! Oo! I know, pick me! The point is that AV doesn't remember why the fuck we started talking about war in the first place? I.e. as AV's "solution" to cause depopulation?

An entirely tongue-in-cheek comment. Anyone who says "I hear war helps" isn't going to vote we break out the PAL codes and lob ICBMs at random foes to "save the planet". I fear that is where it will lead when the bigger boys on the block figure out they can't sate their citizens' needs with their portion of the pie only.

[Turin]

Okay, it seems I took some tongue-in-cheek comments too directly. Apologies.

So while it may be difficult to tell people to drop dead and have less sex, regardless of what they do instead, people will be culled somewhere down the line indirectly anyway. Right now it's Third World shitholes taking the brunt of it. In a decade or two, it may be us.

I don't think anyone in this thread is disputing that (well, I'm not in any case). My original post was only in response to the Mike's rather understandable frustration that ultimately population control, rather than efficiency, is the long-term solution. I don't see any way of mitigating that problem except adopting more efficient lifestyles that will let a greater portion of our population survive long enough to die of old age. There is an alternative, but that pretty much involves deliberately killing off or letting die a large portion of the populace and stealing their shit. It might happen anyway (and probably will if I know humanity at all), but I'd rather make a go at the former.

Is that maybe a drop in the bucket? I don't know. I know I was certainly laughed at over a decade ago when I was making Malthusian arguments about fossil fuels and water resources as part of the environmental & social activism I was involved in while in college. Well now here we are. Being "right" about it isn't particularly satisfying. Nothing else to do but keep going for it, is there?

[Adrian Laguna]

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?

That had me laughing so hard and for so long other people started looking at me weird (I was at college when I read it).

A big part is that it's less unhealthy than it looks like. The methods of preparation tend to be different, so there are less saturated fats and stuff. Also, as IP said, people rely less on motor transport, which really helps with health. You can see the effect in the US too, lardasses tend to be more common in places where people drive everywhere. I think there is also a genetic component, possibly due to the warmer climate. Since the winters aren't so harsh, fat conservation isn't quite as important.

[Darth Wong]

Well now here we are. Being "right" about it isn't particularly satisfying. Nothing else to do but keep going for it, is there?

Just be glad you live in a country where the Africans can't walk across your borders. As the Malthusian pressures increase, I'm afraid that all of the developed countries are going to have to start looking at ways to close their borders. The US military might end up spending less time defending "freedom" in foreign countries and more time keeping unwanted immigrants out of the country.

[Turin]

Well now here we are. Being "right" about it isn't particularly satisfying. Nothing else to do but keep going for it, is there?

Just be glad you live in a country where the Africans can't walk across your borders. As the Malthusian pressures increase, I'm afraid that all of the developed countries are going to have to start looking at ways to close their borders. The US military might end up spending less time defending "freedom" in foreign countries and more time keeping unwanted immigrants out of the country.

Fuck that shit. Joke's on you -- if things keep going the way they have been around here much longer, you'll have a bunch of "unwanted immigrants" (i.e. people like me) headed your way!

[Darth Wong]

Well now here we are. Being "right" about it isn't particularly satisfying. Nothing else to do but keep going for it, is there?

Just be glad you live in a country where the Africans can't walk across your borders. As the Malthusian pressures increase, I'm afraid that all of the developed countries are going to have to start looking at ways to close their borders. The US military might end up spending less time defending "freedom" in foreign countries and more time keeping unwanted immigrants out of the country.

Fuck that shit. Joke's on you -- if things keep going the way they have been around here much longer, you'll have a bunch of "unwanted immigrants" (i.e. people like me) headed your way!

The US is not likely to suffer from overall overpopulation if current trends continue. As far as global warming goes, Pennsylvania's environment isn't going to change so drastically that its habitability will be impacted. Your climate is not much different from ours (Toronto is actually farther south than many portions of the US northeast). If anything, the northern US states are going to have to deal with an exodus from the southern US states.

[Turin]

The US is not likely to suffer from overall overpopulation if current trends continue. As far as global warming goes, Pennsylvania's environment isn't going to change so drastically that its habitability will be impacted. Your climate is not much different from ours (Toronto is actually farther south than many portions of the US northeast).

Well, sure. I grew up just north of the Syracuse (NY) region, only a stone's throw from Lake Ontario. With some 400-500cm of snow fall a year, we could have used some global warming up that way! And right now I live in a major city with a lot of green space. In the long run, I think Philadelphia is a good place to keep my roots in order to take advantage of the concentration of population, energy resources (nearby nuclear/coal), local farms, etc. On top of it, there's already a certain social conscious in some areas (like West Philadelphia, where I live) that may be ready to tackle these issues before they become utterly disastrous.

If anything, the northern US states are going to have to deal with an exodus from the southern US states.

Yeah, why else did you think I was considering heading north?

[Simplicius]

Going back to the veeeeeeery top of the thread, I don't see what the big screaming deal is. It's my understanding that for most of humanity's agricultural/settled history, meat made up the lesser portion of people's diets - to the point of being a luxury - and high meat consumption is a pretty modern development. If that's the case, you'd have to be a moron not to realize that the situation could easily reverse.

[Winston Blake]

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.

Besides the fact that I simply missed the word 'growth' in that sentence, I admit that I didn't realise the vertical scale wasn't linear. I fucked that up badly.

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.

That was just to set up the point that the areas where population growth is a problem aren't the areas responsible for screwing up the climate.

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

On re-reading your posts in this thread, I've realised you said nothing about climate change, but instead talked about damage to the environment in general. Setting aside my earlier blunder, all I can say is that the current focus on 'efficiency' is a response to the 'new' problem of climate change. If climate change was the only problem, my reasoning would be right, but it isn't.

Anyway, I can see where you're coming from. Nothing pisses me off more than feel-good smug young greenies on TV yapping about how a damn half-flush toilet helps 'save the environment', or smug assholes carrying fabric grocery bags with 'This is NOT a plastic bag' written on the side in big letters. I knew it was all feel-good bullshit, but I took some consolation in the idea that at least we're entering the upper part of the logistic curve, instead of exploding exponentially like the old 70s predictions. Now it appears that population is like a train driver hitting the brakes on a rainy night - the point where things are OK is going to be a long walk past the 'catastrophe' point.

Sometimes I wonder if a controlled nuclear holocaust might do the world some good.

[Setzer]

Meh. I like meat, but I can live without it.