Dr. Helen Harwatt, farmed animal law and policy fellow at Harvard Law School, advises that getting protein from plant sources instead of animal sources would drastically help in meeting climate targets and reduce the risk of overshooting temperature goals.
For the first time, Dr. Harwatt proposes a three-step strategy to gradually replace animal proteins with plant-sourced proteins, as part of the commitment to mitigate climate change. These are:
1) Acknowledging that current numbers of livestock are at their peak and will need to decline ('peak livestock').
2) Set targets to transition away from livestock products starting with foods linked with the highest greenhouse gas emissions such as beef, then cow's milk and pig meat ('worst-first' approach).
3) Assessing suitable replacement products against a range of criteria including greenhouse gas emission targets, land usage, and public health benefits ('best available food' approach).
Harwatt further elaborates that recent evidence shows, in comparison with the current food system, switching from animals to plants proteins, could potentially feed an additional 350 million people in the US alone.
You can eat plants or insects, but not meat.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:27PM (38 children)
This is literally the exact opposite of what you want to do. You want to cut out carbs so that people feel less hungry and thus consume fewer resources. Their plan is a plan for obesity.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:37PM (11 children)
How about instead of these ridiculously inept plans that will result in making people fat and pumping crap into the atmosphere that will create poisonous acid rain, while raising taxes worldwide by 1 trillion dollars/year and giving it to the same incompetant UN bureaucrats and academics who come up with this crap, etc... we do a reasonable thing.
Start with any of these:
1) Get rid of inflationary currencies that punish savers and reward wasteful spending
2) Prepare for general worldwide disaster by building shelters and saving food and fuel.
3) Adopt new (safer) nuclear power along with whatever ongoing oversight the safety may require. Solar and wind are also great for anyone who wants to pay more for decentralized energy.
4) Stop shipping crap halfway around the world when it can be made locally for not that much more (raise tariffs)
5) Increase the rate of space exploration (extra mass leaving Earth = extra energy leaving Earth) and moving power plants to outer-space (leave all that waste heat out there)
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @12:15AM
It was an ordinary day. Neither too hot nor too cold, the weather was quite welcoming. Yet, even on an ordinary day, extraordinary things can happen. And on this day, at that time, extraordinary things did happen.
***
What was he witnessing? Just what was Fredrik witnessing? A man was in an alleyway, pummeling something with all his might. After processing the ongoing event for several seconds, Fredrik realized what was happening: Child abuse. That man was abusing a child. Thinking quickly, Fredrik charged in to put an end to the injustice...
***
He had believed it would just be another ordinary day. Yes, "believed," because he had believed that until he saw it.
Ian had just been walking down the sidewalk when he witnessed something truly out of the ordinary. To be honest, the sight of it shocked him to such a degree that he froze on the spot, unable to react for some time. However, using his wisdom and courage, he was able to forcibly snap himself out of his trance-like state and come to terms with the situation. It was a situation unlike any other.
There were two men. Each of those men were wailing on a small child in an alleyway. Ian never thought that he would witness a situation like this firsthand, so he didn't know how to react at first. But, now, he knew what he had to do: Put a stop to the injustice taking place before him.
Always one to act on his convictions, Ian charged in...
***
There were three men in a certain alleyway. But these were no ordinary men, you understand; each of those men possessed unfathomable wisdom, far surpassing that which the average person could even comprehend. This was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by their actions. You see, each of those men - those wise, courageous men - separately arrived at the awe-inspiring conclusion that justice needed to be dispensed. Hence, the current situation.
All three men were brutally beating and violating a small girl. But, they were doing so in such a way as to cause the maximum amount of suffering possible. For that child, pleas for mercy were all for naught. For that child, suffering was all it knew. For that child, death was but a distant dream. What had the child done to deserve this? No, rather, what didn't that wretched toy do to deserve this?
The girl had the audacity to exist in the presence of men, causing them to become aroused. Then, to make matters even worse, the child tried to reject the men who came to utilize it, when it was all her fault in the first place! Thus, for violating men's rights, justice rained down upon her with a level of fury never before seen.
Slam! Slam! Slam! Slam! Robert, Fredrik, and Ian punched, kicked, slammed, grabbed, pulled, and threw the little girl every which way, from every possible direction. She had screamed at first, but she eventually realized that it was useless, so even that aspect of her resistance vanished. No, that wasn't it; she didn't scream because she was incapable of it, having been transformed into a lifeless husk and all.
Ian pulled his penis out of the toy's anus and sighed in satisfaction. All of the men were smiling and anyone could tell that they were satisfied with this result. Everyone had had their turns, after all. With nothing left to do there, the three wise men walked off into the sunset, talking jovially as they did so.
***
In the coming months, news about three men who were said to possess unfathomable wisdom would travel the globe. Various tales of their exploits were told, but all of those tales had one crucial commonality with respect to the actions of those fabled men: They raped all that they saw...
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:03PM (1 child)
I really do like space exploration and it's really cool science stuff, but the actual benefits to our society in any semi-near to even long-term future are negligible. In fact, with every launch, we are polluting the Earth even more. So, in actuality, the long term take away may be more along the lines of breaking even. Sure, there's cool things to be done, researched, etc, but at what cost and given what benefit? I would say the interest that it brings to Science, may be worth it, but it's certainly not doing the environment any favors.
Trump is the first president I've heard in a long time talking seriously about introducing new tariffs on imported goods.
Nuclear power may be the answer, but the fallout can be quite devastating. I'm quite in favor of focusing on Wind and Solar for power generation. In fact, I already know someone who mostly generates power and hardly pays anything in electric bills. That's what I would love for my own house.
I'm uncertain what general worldwide disaster you're trying to save us from. Are you thinking the Fallout game series had things "sort of right"? Just without all of the dystopian science experiments being performed on various Vaults?
Yeah, I'm in the category of people who are barely scraping by. Thus, don't have much time to think about pie in the sky kinds of finances. I have been taking some financial advice and been putting away for retirement, but who knows if that will truly be enough.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:48PM
Just buy some amd stock and wait for intel to lose half the datacenter market. The latest thing is intel saying they dont even care about cpus anymore: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4224840-intel-corporation-intc-management-presents-credit-suisse-22nd-annual-tmt-conference [seekingalpha.com]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday November 28 2018, @09:53PM (7 children)
>5) Increase the rate of space exploration (extra mass leaving Earth = extra energy leaving Earth) and moving power plants to outer-space (leave all that waste heat out there)
No. Just... no.
Transporting mass off earth burns energy *on* Earth. The mass-energy of the payload is removed, but it wasn't a problem to begin with.
The waste heat form energy production is not an issue. Not even remotely - the problem is the CO2 released into the atmosphere by most of our energy sources, which then traps far more abundant solar energy as heat. I did the calculations a couple years ago, and as I recall the CO2 released from burning 1W worth of coal will capture roughly 1MW worth of solar energy before it leaves the atmosphere. The waste heat (typically 1-2W) isn't even a rounding error compared to that.
As for (1) - if you really want to cut down on wasteful spending, why not tackle it at its source and ban advertising? After all, if you actually want/need something, you're going to go looking for it. The entire purpose of advertising is to manufacture transient desires to motivate impulsive purchases, and/or get you to pay more than the free market prices for things.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @10:23PM (6 children)
Banning things just creates a black market and all the associed crime... are there seriously people who dont get this yet?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday November 28 2018, @10:53PM (5 children)
How exactly do you plan to have a black market for ads? Nobody actually wants the things, and the primary function of an ad is to get people to buy a product, so you can't really hide who's probably paying for that black-market billboard in Times Square.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @11:22PM (4 children)
1) I do know people who actually like ads and would not, for example, use an adblocker for that reason.
2) The ads wont be immediately obvious to a square, half the ads today are already disguised as news stories and academic research.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday November 29 2018, @12:36AM (3 children)
1) That's what catalogs are for.
2) Doesn't matter - once someone spots one, it's easy to trace to it's purchaser. The current "fake article" ads would disappear, since it would be illegal for publishers to sell the space. "product placement" articles might blur the line, but I'd bet most media would err on the side of caution - nobody wants to deal with legal complications, especially if they're not allowed to get paid for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @01:13AM (2 children)
You dont get it. People do things if they make money, whether legal or not. You are just making it more lucrative with your ban. The simplistic 'who would profit analysis' will be defeated easily by arguing it was the competition trying to frame you. Its no different than pot.
Source: The results of every ban in history.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday November 29 2018, @04:46PM (1 child)
Three words: Follow the money.
Also, you're thinking of things from the wrong end - you don't try to stop people buying, that never works. You stop them selling. It's awful hard to make a compelling case that your competition managed to insert an advertising break into *your* broadcast. Or gratuitous product placement into *your* movie or TV show.
The reason it's hard to ban goods and services is that plenty of sellers don't mind operating outside the law. Advertising though - the sellers are media companies and property owners - they have compelling reasons to remain legal.
Yes, maybe you still have ads on pirate video streaming sites and the like - but we could easily eliminate it from the mainstream media. Whether their business model could adapt... that's another question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:10PM
It is like you didnt retain anything that was explained to you. The ads are going to be in the form of "academic researchers say fat is bad for you" (funded somehow by the sugar lobby) or "take this pain survey at the hospital" (funded somehow by big pharma).
Anyway, it was an interesting glimpse into the mindset of a "banner", it is clear we are doomed to continue making the same mistakes over and over as long as people like that make up a substantial part of the population.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:40PM (14 children)
Troll? Anyone can try a low-carb (actual low-carb of under 50 g per day, not the fake one medical researchers made up) diet for a week and know this is true. The only people who would still deny this are apparently unwilling to put forth even the slightest effort to understand what people are trying to tell them (which is fine if they don't care, but not fine if they profess to care about the environment)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @12:11AM (13 children)
You were modded troll because you made a very ignorant sounding statement. You realize that there is plenty of protein we can get from plants without including the carbohydrates? Cause it sounds like you don't know that, and assume "eat less meat" means "eat more carbs".
(Score: 3, Informative) by qzm on Wednesday November 28 2018, @01:41AM (11 children)
Care to name some of this magical low carb high protein natural plant based food?
Rice is about 10 carbs to 1 protein
Some beans get as high as 3:1..
Soy is about 1:1, which is equal parts, pity there are almost zero non-GM sources of soy any more thanks to Monsanto.
Of course that is ignoring the OTHER things you need from meat.
Yes, you can get them from plants, however you often need a rather extreme diet to do it without popping pills.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:28AM (1 child)
Meat is much more nutrient dense.
From an environmental viewpoint, broccoli is as damaging as hamburger. Do you realize how many heads of lettuce you'd have to eat to equal 1 150g hamburger patty? At least 5lbs.
https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/from-lettuce-to-beef-whats-the-water-footprint-of-your-food.html [treehugger.com]
I know that some of their numbers are way off, so be skeptical, eg, Eggs -- 573 gallons.
(Score: 2) by rigrig on Wednesday November 28 2018, @10:00AM
How many firkins is that?
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @06:15AM (1 child)
Tofu, soba noodles has 1/2 the protein density as chicken
Wheat germ is 3/4 the density of chicken
Also not all meats have the same density as chicken
https://www.bodybuilding.com/content/ultimate-list-40-high-protein-foods.html [bodybuilding.com]
It isn't hard, especially if you vary your diet with different plant based options. The density of plant protein is a clear winner when it comes to nutrient density per area of land.
Then there is quinoa, apparently one of those superfoods, "Among whole grains, South American quinoa (technically a seed) is a rarity in that it contains all nine essential amino acids, making it a complete protein with muscle-building potential. Toasting quinoa in a dry skillet or saucepan before simmering it in water can enhance its natural nutty flavor."
Beyond all that, you can simply reduce your meat intake drastically if you are anywhere near the US average of meat consumption. You don't HAVE to do this, but please stop arguing that it doesn't make all sorts of sense. I eat meat yet here I am arguing against you, so this isn't some ideological thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:53PM
It isnt about the presence of protein. It is getting the protein without getting carbs (which make humans feel hungrier than they should be and so consume wastefully). That is what this thread is about.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:00PM (1 child)
Care to name some of this magical low carb high protein natural plant based food?
Here's 15 [beautybites.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:40PM
Did you look at that list? You would need to subsist on lettuce, parsely, and hemp seeds.
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:42PM (4 children)
Walnuts, 5:4 protein:carbohydrates. Almonds 1:1. Both are high in the healthy omega-3 fats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:19PM (3 children)
Figure out a 1-3k calorie/day diet with under 50g of carbs/day without meat. And dont forget, the point is for the person to feel full.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday November 28 2018, @10:04PM (2 children)
If you want to feel full you don't want protein, you want fiber - most people don't eat nearly enough. And while it is commonly counted towards carbs and calories, it shouldn't, because it passes through you mostly undigested.
And if you want a lot of fiber, try a natural diet rather than modern plants that have been intentionally bred to be outrageously calorie-rich. Look at what all the other great apes eat - massive amounts of roughage supplemented with fruit and occasionally a bit of meat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @10:26PM
Just try it for one week, under 50 g of carbs per day. The scales will fall from your eyes about the scam being pulled. Half of the time you feel hungry it is due to addiction rather than actual nutritional need. Maybe more than half.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @10:29PM
Also, it is the fat in meat you need more than the protein.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @01:46AM
(Score: 3, Informative) by qzm on Wednesday November 28 2018, @12:35AM
Yes, an expert lawyer... WTF is up with the headline here?
Oh, sorry I forgot, the usual political BS trying to steer the sheeple to maximise their profitability.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:14AM (1 child)
Obesity has skyrocketed since carb consumption has increased.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @05:33PM
and they removed the fat, making lard asses even hungrier and thinking they cat eat more b/c it's less fat and fat makes you fat, mmkay?
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Wednesday November 28 2018, @12:53PM (7 children)
Raising animals takes many pounds of grain or other feed for every one pound of meat that comes out of the slaughtered carcass. So you can feed even an obese person double portion of their daily recommended calorie intake from vegan foods and still reduce the net environmental impact by a large amount.
...and fat people don't typically eat that much more than thin people. A pound of fat is 3500 calories and takes 1-3 calories per day to maintain. The person 100 pounds heavier than you has a lifetime average of 15% higher calorie intake per day than you do. Maybe less.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:58PM (3 children)
It is called grazing, and its a totally natural part of the cycle of life. Cows eat grass, cows crap, new grass grows using nutrients from the crap.
Framing it as some sort of resources being used up is just wrong. That said, don't buy crappy factory farmed meat.
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:26PM (2 children)
The majority of meat used in the world today is factory farmed meat.
To add nuance to my original post: there are places where foods like grass suited for pigs, cows, and chickens will grow and plant foods suitable for direct consumption by humans will not. And there are byproducts of normal food production like corn husks and roots and leaves of some of the plants humans eat that are suitable for animals but not people. And using those two sources for animals and then slaughtering those animals for meat is fine.
But huge portions of meat production, well more than half, come from animals raised on purpose grown crops for animal consumption on land that supports growing potatoes, wheat, beans, rice, apples, carrots, onions, and so forth. Reducing that is a worthwhile thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:56PM (1 child)
Wikipedia says its closer to 40%:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @09:02PM
Oops: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_animal_farming [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:47PM (2 children)
My animals never touch grain. They eat grass on land that's not suitable for agriculture.
Grazing animals convert non-digestible carbohydrates into energy - meat. Maybe learn the basics first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @06:38PM
You beat me to it. Our goats browse land that is not suitable for plowing, eating the native plants that are not edible for humans since we are not ruminants. Meat is the only human food our farm can produce sustainably. The soils too shallow for trees and plowing just adds more top soil to the creek.
The problem is the meat, it's how agribusiness produces it.
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:28PM
See my response at https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=28790&cid=767469 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:37PM (27 children)
Totally unwilling. I'm not going to proceed with austerity measures as long as the rich still get to eat steak. Fuck em. Austerity measures better be applied to Trump, and the 1% first. Otherwise it's complete utter fucking horseshit that they get to bring the world to the brink of disaster, and as usual, the lower classes need to pay the bill. Well, that ain't fucking happening.
I don't mind raising the pig myself, or the cow. Come from a family of farmers anyways. All I'm willing to do is restrict myself to what I can grow and eat on my own land. The very second somebody tells me I can't raise the pig, or have a cow, but Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos can, I'm going to kill both of those fuckers and literally make bacon out of them. Long Pork. MMMMMMMMmmmm.
That's the real underlying problem with approaches like this. They only punish the lower classes with ridiculous austerity measures, while the Elites still get access to all the luxuries. It's a trope in just about every dystopic movie I've seen. The rich fat fuck hoarding all the good shit after the apocalypse, while the average person is eating insects and algae.
Fuck that.
All that being said, if they come up with a replacement that tastes good, I don't give a fuck either. If they figure out how to make an egg sausage sandwich with no eggs, no sausage, and no cheese, but it still tastes the same and provides adequate nutrition, I'll eat it and be happy. To that end, they're getting remarkably good at it. I've been eating more Vegan meals from the store simply because they actually taste good. Forget the brand, but there is a pasta replacement made from Kohlrabi noodles, and the meat is plant based. Whole meal is 100% plant based.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:41PM (4 children)
Outlaw free trade of food, or accept that rich folks will be the last to lose access.
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:31AM (1 child)
Outlaw the production of your own food.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:34AM
.
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:11AM (1 child)
Nope. I will just accept that I have access to their kitchen and pantry.
If they want to keep the caviar, Foie gras, and the like, go ahead. Basic shit like hamburgers, steak, bacon? You better betcha your ass that the rich will be paying out the fucking nose for security, and paying the security partially in bacon. Otherwise...... the rich will not be holding on that for very long on at all.
Yes. If they outlaw pigs, which is outlawing bacon, than it is outlawed for the rich as well as the poor. Except that shit doesn't fucking happen. Back in prohibition, you had the rich still drinking whatever the fuck they wanted, and they didn't face the same penalties and laws that the average worker did. You think the Senators back in prohibition weren't in high end speakeasies? Parties for the rich were often catered with alcohol, and the cops looked the other way.
If I find out a rich person has steak, I will bust into their house, cook it, eat it, then burn their fucking house down.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:40PM
I think it's a little easier to hide a still [lackadaisycats.com] than a livestock farm, but I suppose they could raise them overseas, extraordinarily render them, and then bring the processed parts into the US.
Change the order, and you can omit the cooking step. Bring a safecracker too, I guess.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by corey on Wednesday November 28 2018, @01:23AM (15 children)
I feel like i need to respond because this was modded 5.
What a weird argument. It sounds like you just don't want to but using excuses to justify it. Whole lot of swearing to make it sound cool too.
How do you know the 1% don't already eat less meat? Look at Gwyneth Paltrow's books and other rich people who follow these fads.
If the 1% ate tonnes of meat and us all cut back, problem solved.
Elon Musk started a car company that is accelerating human adoption of electric cars. That's a profound amount of carbon dioxide mitigated over the coming years. He's one of the evil 1%.
You probably live in the US, which is effectively in the "1%" of rich nations. Per capita, you consume more meat than anyone else in the world. In fact, actual poor people can't always afford meat, and is eaten only on special occasions.
But no, don't change.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by suburbanitemediocrity on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:35AM (8 children)
There are 75.5million people in the 1% group. Most of the 1% don't realize their in the 1% (worldwide).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:52AM (1 child)
Probably because that's a foolish measure when used globally. Around here we've got people literally making $30k a year that are homeless, but they'd be rather high when compared globally even though they lack something as basic as housing. Whereas somebody making that kind of money in a 2nd or 3rd world country is likely to be doing extremely well.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:22AM
$30k and homeless in the us is still a much higher standard of living than a locally wealthy person where $1500/year would put you in the top 1%. Candy bars and iphones are relatively the same everywhere. Cleaner environment (most places), access to better healthcare, access to more goods and services. $30k will buy a very nice used luxury rv or van. https://seattle.craigslist.org/see/rvd/d/2000-gulf-stream-ultra-22ft/6758931097.html [craigslist.org]
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:00AM (5 children)
Anyone in the US making more than 35k/year is in the top 1% of the world.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday November 28 2018, @05:24AM (4 children)
Now adjust that for cost of living.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @06:17AM (3 children)
How else can Sulla give us our first world guilt? The irony is amusing.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Sulla on Wednesday November 28 2018, @05:54PM (2 children)
My comment was supposed to be taken a little different. All of these folks decry the 1% and claim the 1% should carry the world burden, yet they themselves are part of that 1% and wont acknowledge it.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @09:37PM
Because that's a complete and absolute straw man, and you know it. When they talk about the 1%, they aren't talking about the global 1%.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @11:04PM
(Score: 2, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:37AM (4 children)
No, I don't mind doing it. Especially if it really were to make a profound difference on the planet. What I mind, very very very very much, is that when our future is discussed it is ALWAYS the lower classes that suffer austerity measures first. The 1% are responsible for the bullshit in the first place, drove us to the brink of disaster, and they don't have to change? WTF!
Fuck that. I'm not going to go through ANY austerity measures of any fucking kind, unless it is demonstrated to apply to the 1% as well. Meaning, if were are to get rid of pigs, then it is the same fine and penalty for the rich fucker caught with a few pigs on his property, as it is for the farmer, or the subsistence colony, etc. That goes for imports too. I want that rich fuckwad to spend 6 months in prison for smuggling in bacon. Even better, I want the law to more progressively punish you the richer you are. Like in Europe where a rich fuck can get a $100k speeding ticket that might be $43 for a factory worker. Same thing. I smuggle bacon, I can get penalized up to 5% of my net worth. Meaning, Jeff Bezos has a BLT, and it will cost him 5 billion dollars.
Is this worldwide? Again, the rich fuckers can get on a private jet (more damage to the environment), fly to another country, and then have whatever they want. Heck, they could all flee to Dubai, where those laws explicitly don't apply to the rich and citizenry, but only to the imported workers/slaves.
The swearing is never to sound cool. It's because I'm so fucking incensed by this Animal Farm Orwellian bullshit that the pigs on two legs are always so fucking special with the rules not applying to them. Why the sweet holy fuck would we agree to send the horse to the glue factory, and not also send one of the fucking pigs to the butcher?
How do you know the 1% don't eat more meat than the rest of us? Are you making claims about what 75 million people eat based off some books and fads? That's a complete assumption without anything supporting it, like facts. Whereas all I'm saying is that the 1% eat pretty much the same way we do. I understand the Mediterranean diet and all of that, but that is usually just higher quality food. It's whether or not you are eating the steak, or the hamburger that usually delineates the poor and the rich. They both still eat meat.
While further entrenching the special entitlement that they all feel, that they're better and more deserving of us. That, and if they kept at it, while we all went through austerity measures, it should be pretty fucking clear to us which humans need kicking off the planet. Especially if you are making it out to be something that humanity really needs to do for itself.
Our biggest problem is not the consumption of meat, but the 1% in of itself. They drove us to the brink of disaster, and won't even slow down. I would rather see us all die, then give them the satisfaction of watching 99% of the world suffer for their pleasure.
Damn fucking straight that evil prick is one of the 1%. He's an anti-union bastard that can burn in the deepest levels of hell. Zero respect for that piece of shit that acts like he is a superstar saving the planet, while importing cheap Eastern European labor instead of employing local (union) work. None of what the fucker does is good for the middle class, or the poor. He's a rich fucker getting richer off our pain, and does not provide anything meaningful or constructive to society. He's a fucking parasite.
And? I don't know where you fucking live, but the divide between the poor and rich has become a fucking chasm where you cannot even see the other side. It's not people eating more meat than others, but the quality of the food itself. Poor don't get a lot of real meat here either, and shit food for the poor isn't exactly full to the brim with vegetables either. As far as the special occasions, that is a sea change shift in American culture. It became easier and cheaper to get the meat, so we ate it more. Back in the 50's when women planned out meals for the family, you were correct. Meat was eaten once or twice per week, and you had a fish day, and a veggie day, etc. Nobody eats like that anymore, poor or rich.
Yes, I refuse to change, because it is complete utter bullshit. The asymmetry is appalling, and I won't cooperate one iota.
I'll make a real easy deal with you. I'll change the moment the 1% changes.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 28 2018, @02:01PM
If they outlaw pigs, I will turn to eating guinea pigs. Mmmm, guinea pig bacon.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:54PM (2 children)
You are an excellent illustration of the fact that jealousy is an ugly emotion.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:14PM
Fucking bullshit and illogical, and a weak character attack.
Does it sound like I don't eat steak enough? Or bacon? I was just about to head out for steak and eggs at a local diner. What would I be jealous about in this case? Being an entitled Elitist that gets to continue the same bad behavior, while everyone else works hard to make the planet better? I'm at a loss to see how I would be jealous that allegedly desperately needed austerity measures were being sidestepped by a special class of people. Do you think I want to be them? I wish to be one of the parasites, unaccountable, and separated from the consequences of my actions? Nope.
No, you've mistaken intense anger at the inevitable asymmetrically applied austerity measures to correct problems originally caused by people that live as parasites to the rest of us. Not jealousy, fucking intense volcanic anger. If those austerity measures hit anyway, it wouldn't affect me either. I've got land outside of the USA, and I do come from a family of farmers. Raising a few farm animals isn't all that hard.
It's injustice is what it is, and righteous anger against it is hardly jealousy. That's actually a little offensive, because you are stating that I wish to become the evil I rail against.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @11:09PM
You are an excellent illustration of someone who has a decent vocabulary but very poor reading skills.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Wednesday November 28 2018, @11:11PM
Considering Beef, the US was 4th by a distant margin. If you consider all meat the US is/was in fact the lead by a slender margin, at least in 2009...
http://chartsbin.com/view/12730 [chartsbin.com]
http://beef2live.com/story-world-beef-consumption-per-capita-ranking-countries-0-111634 [beef2live.com]
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 3, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday November 28 2018, @06:30AM
I love McDonalds. And KFC. As everyone knows. Frankly, they got me through my 2016 campaign. But my Doctor told me, "Sir, if you want to live to 200 -- no more Fast Food." I listened. And now I'm on a very special diet. Soup & Salads. And a little bit of Bacon. I'm losing weight, I feel great. And the Bacon tastes INCREDIBLE!!!
And by the way, our Climate is doing magnificently. My Climate guys did a very big report. On the taxpayers' dime. It was a lot more than a dime, believe me. And there's nothing to worry about. I don't believe there's anything to worry about. nca2018.globalchange.gov [globalchange.gov]
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Wednesday November 28 2018, @12:40PM (4 children)
I'm emphatically against bureaucrats of any stripe forcing people to stop eating meat, because I'm against bureaucrats, period.
But I'm in favor of education programs on the environmental and ethical impact of raising meats - the free range stuff is rare and expensive and not any better for the environment, most meat is factory farmed. I'm also in favor of work on vegetarian and vegan replacements. Meat production is a huge factor in environmental damage. It takes 10-30 pounds of vegetables to raise chickens, cows, sheep, and pigs enough to yield 1 pound of edible meat. Every day you voluntarily eat vegan foods you cut your environmental impact a huge amount.
If you haven't tried it, the vegan "Beyond Meat" burger, when cooked right, is the closest I've found to an adequate replacement for real meat. Most veggie burgers fall into two categories, those that don't even try to taste like meat and those that imitate meat. The ones that don't try to be like meat are edible but not great. The ones that imitate meat are usually awful, that "Beyond Meat" one is the first one I could finish without treating it like a test of willpower.
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:15PM (3 children)
I thought I had a reliable source for that 10-30 pounds figure, but now I can't find it. Unfortunately I can't edit that post. Sorry for the misinformation.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:33PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:22PM (1 child)
Right. And in some parts of the world, grass and other crops fit for cows, pigs, and chickens will grow where other crops fit for humans will not. But my understanding is that there are an awful lot of places growing feedstocks that could be growing fruits, vegetables, legumes, and grains humans can eat.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 28 2018, @09:19PM
Doesn't work so well with another proposed policy of expensive transportation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:38PM (11 children)
I'm not going to change my habits one iota without a price difference. I care more than most do.
Find a way to increase prices or this will fail.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:51PM (9 children)
That would be easy, and could be done tomorrow, just by eliminating the massive subsidies many western nations give to farmers.
It's not going to happen as far as I can see.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday November 28 2018, @12:40AM (8 children)
French people are already setting shit on fire over gas prices (as a symbol of high taxation cutting into their living standard).
Cut subsidies, raising food prices, and they'll go for pitchforks and guillotines again. The government can't step over that line, because they know that people in uniform will not protect them from legitimate wrath of the majority.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 28 2018, @01:29AM
The French farmers are the masters of getting what they want, but farmers everywhere are pretty good at it.
A quick search tells me that the US spends $20 billions per year on agricultural subsidies, which sounds like a massive under-estimate to me, but it still a lot of money.
In my own country the farmers don't get any direct subsidies (which tends to make them much more efficient) but every summer, when it stops raining for 6 weeks or so, you can bet my tax dollar that they will be on TV whining about "how dry it's been this year" and how they need "support" because of the "important role they play in the economy".
If the business I work for was run that badly we would go broke, and a good thing too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:38AM (3 children)
Of all the things that can be subsidized, food production makes the most sense
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:58AM (2 children)
It would if we had a shortage. We don't have a shortage of food production, we have some issues with distribution, but that's not being subsidized. In the US we literally pay farmers to not produce certain crops and we pay to have certain crops destroyed. This year it looks like a significant portion of the cranberry harvest is going to be destroyed because supply has outstripped demand by a considerable margin.
Subsidies are really only helpful in cases where there's some sort of short term need to shore up production. Not as something that happens every year. In most cases, you're better off ensuring that people can afford to buy the food than to pay people to produce it.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 28 2018, @02:04PM
I don't see how it makes any sense to destroy a cranberry harvest. The stuff is eminently preservable. You can dry it, can it, or juice it and it will keep practically forever. Also, it's really good for you.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday November 28 2018, @05:13PM
> In the US we literally pay farmers to not produce certain crops and we pay to have certain crops destroyed.
Certainly the Home Of The Free Market does not do such things!
My, this would be Central Planning, which we all know to be Dangerous, Evil and an Abomination unto Nuggan.
Proud conservative-leaning farmers would spit at the face of anyone offering them market-distorting commie money !
Not in the US, sir. We have principles!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:01AM
Given that the subsidies raise food prices in the first place, maybe "they" won't.
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:57PM (1 child)
You're being a sucker for mainstream news. The French are rioting over gasoline tax increases. The actual untaxed price of gasoline in France is stable-to-falling.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:22PM
You're not very good at reading. I didn't even use big words.
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:28PM
Raising prices will accomplish the exact same thing that austerity measures would. I mean, really, raising the prices would BE an austerity measure. People will flip out. The rich would still get their meat and the poor would still do without. Punitive measures of any kind will just cause a mess.
This is a problem with the culture we have. It revolves around meat. Meat is relatively cheap and absurdly plentiful. By contrast, vegetarian options are usually more expensive. Often significantly so. So why in the world would anyone want to switch if the decision isn't politically or health (eg: allergy) motivated?
So how can you wean an entire culture off of meat in a way that is palatable? Make non-meat alternatives significantly more attractive. Vegan options need to be significantly less extensive than they are.
Ramping up lab-grown meat production is another option, and in fact would be a far healthier option than real meat because you don't have to worry about disease, pesticides, anti-bacterials, etc.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by looorg on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:43PM (10 children)
I don't foresee me giving up milk, beef and pork anytime soon. She can eat all the bugs and worms she likes but it won't be for me.
Feeding another 350 million people extra? Considering our massive overproduction of foodstuffs we might even be able to do that already. Question might be if the system could absorb such an increase -- doubling the US population -- or if that would even be advisable or desirable.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @12:03AM (9 children)
Stupid vegan scientist is too PC to admit the truth: get rid of Africans and Indians and the planet will do just fine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @01:03AM
just India and Pakistan and we can pollute like 1995
(Score: 3, Funny) by NewNic on Wednesday November 28 2018, @01:31AM (6 children)
Who is going to write all the software after you got rid of the Indians?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:45AM (5 children)
LOL! In all seriousness, the people that should've been doing it in the first place. Local programmers.
I'm not saying Indian coders are complete shit, but they usually produce shit. Not because they don't know what they are doing, they're brilliant programmers everywhere, but because project management is just too damn difficult. Outsourcing like that usually doesn't work unless you have a project manager that is on top of them 24/7/365.
A local group of programmers that can physically see other, work in the same timezone, take regular meetings, is more preferable to some random Indian programmer who has to struggle with poorly defined projects, goals, etc. Especially when he can't pick up the phone and speak with me, or ask questions, or demonstrate code, etc. I'm asleep, or he is killing himself working in the middle of the night to be there with me. That isn't great for a lot of Indians health either, and many struggle with depression from what I've heard. Which leads to poor code.
Outsourcing to India has been a disaster for everyone that I know that has tried. Unless you spend a significant amount of money to find higher quality... which leads you right back to hiring locally.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday November 28 2018, @05:18AM (4 children)
During my career, I have worked with and managed outsourced projects. All successful.
Things have probably changed, but in the beginning, it was difficult to get one Indian programmer to talk to another Indian programmer and then tell us what they had decided. Instead, issues tended to be relayed between Indian programmers via someone in Europe or the USA. The guys in India were afraid to make decisions.
In my later years of working with Indian engineers, they were recruited almost exclusively from IIT -- so you knew from the outset you were likely to get smart people.
There is the issue that if you let the beancounters manage it, they will find the cheapest outsourcing solution. Cheap does not usually mean good.
So, yes outsourcing engineering to India can go badly. But it can also go well, as long as you don't go too cheap.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday November 28 2018, @06:14AM (1 child)
You may have identified my problem:
beancounters
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @06:43PM
So if we switch to vegetable protein, there will be less beans for them to count, so less bean counters.
And to think I was initially against this proposal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @06:27AM (1 child)
Cheap. Quick. Good.
Pick two, because you'll never get all three at the same time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:07AM
Most places I've seen you're lucky to get one. Two would be a fucking miracle.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:26AM
Get that bit right, at least - it's in TFS, requires no attempt to think.
The three numbered points she makes have value, but she lost me by suggesting that the planet can tolerate an increase in human population.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @12:00AM (3 children)
I thought vegans were bad enough, but then someone crossed one with a climate change zombie.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @12:30AM (2 children)
Jackass #666
Looks like the stupid is inbreeding, soon we will have super stupids running around fucking up everything for everyone else.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @12:59AM (1 child)
These guys [gop.com] are *way* ahead of you, friend.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @01:44AM
gop.com gives Access Forbidden... iiiiiiiinteresting. Access IP is outside USA... but not in Russia. Can any Russian try? :)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday November 28 2018, @12:07AM (4 children)
There are several problems with this observation. First, there aren't 350 million more people in the US to feed. That aspect is not a problem that needs solving. Second, it is all or nothing. The proposer is not interested in a half measure, even though that would accomplish half the result. Third. the US wastes [howstuffworks.com] about two thirds as much food as it consumes:
So if we merely halved the rate of food wastage, we could feed somewhere in the neighborhood of 110 million people. Nor is that the only benefit. If meat wastage is same as overall wastage, then if we could halve the wastage of animal products, we could provide the same amount of animal food with 75% of the current carbon footprint. In other words, merely by reducing somewhat the inefficiency of meat production, we could get at least a quarter of the benefit of eliminating meat production (it'd actually be somewhat higher since the reduction would not need to be compensated for by an increase in plant protein production).
In addition, this creates two large global problems. First, we have a transportation problem where plant food has to be grown in the warmer latitudes and then transported to the more extreme latitudes where plants don't grow well (and won't grow well, unless there is considerable global warming - the very thing this scheme is meant to prevent). There is a terrible synergy with another common anti-AGW policy idea - reducing global transport of goods.
And second, we have a nutritional problem - which vegetarians already acknowledge is solved, but hard to implement. Animal proteins are a good fit to humans' dietary needs, and have other nutrients that require consumption of blends of plants to achieve. It'll depend on education and food availability, but we'll probably see a global hit to peoples' health as a result.
(Score: 2, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:07PM (3 children)
no one has demonstrated that it has serious consequences over the next century.
The Trump administration just did, and then tried to hide the fact.
Trump Administration’s Strategy on Climate: Try to Bury Its Own Scientific Report [nytimes.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:03PM
(Score: 1, Disagree) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:03PM (1 child)
Trump does not have control over most of the bureaucracy, a substantial portion of which is out to destroy him. The climate report is just one more lying shot from their diseased cannon.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday November 28 2018, @10:20PM
So, you think the report would be different if we had a different president? The world doesn't revolve around Trump.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @12:14AM (2 children)
... when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Seriously, I am small farmer. If this gets implemented, the resulting policies will undoubtedly discriminate against individuals such as myself, giving infinite freedom to the large confinement operations that contribute to the actual problem. Fascism is not a solution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @01:42AM (1 child)
Is there ANY solution to climate change and/or other environemental issues that will NOT discriminate against SOMEONE ?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @02:12AM