SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Evan Halper writes in the LA Times that with efforts to reduce carbon emissions lagging, researchers, backed by millions of dollars from the federal government, are looking for ways to protect key industries from the impact of climate change by racing to develop new breeds of farm animals that can stand up to the hazards of global warming. "We are dealing with the challenge of difficult weather conditions at the same time we have to massively increase food production" to accommodate larger populations and a growing demand for meat, says Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. For example a team of researchers is trying to map the genetic code of bizarre-looking African naked-neck chickens to see if their ability to withstand heat can be bred into flocks of US broilers. "The game is changing since the climate is changing," says Carl Schmidt. "We have to start now to anticipate what changes we have to make in order to feed 9 billion people," citing global-population estimates for 2050.
Warmer temperatures can create huge problems for animals farmed for food. Turkeys are vulnerable to a condition that makes their breast meat mushy and unappetizing. Disease rips through chicken coops. Brutal weather can claim entire cattle herds. Some climate experts, however, question the federal government's emphasis on keeping pace with a projected growing global appetite for meat. Because raising animals demands so many resources, the only viable way to hit global targets for greenhouse gas reduction may be to encourage people to eat less meat and point to an approach backed by Microsoft founder Bill Gates that takes animals out the process altogether. "There's no way to produce enough meat for 9 billion people," says Bill Gates. "Yet we can't ask everyone to become vegetarians. We need more options for producing meat without depleting our resources."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Konomi on Tuesday May 06 2014, @01:39PM
That sure addresses the issue good work! Though I have another suggestion. How about we stop warming up the planet in the first place! First space ship that can get me out of here I am so on it, the stupidity it burns.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday May 06 2014, @03:27PM
Impossible unless you want to make money illegal and roll the tanks like the crazy Austrian did back in the late 30s. the reason why should be obvious as there will ALWAYS be a poor country that is willing to sell away their environment in return for a buck and there will be the so called "free trade" supporters willing to export misery to that country. Look at what is happening to China right now, 30% of farmland poisoned? People having a fit and government starting to crack down on polluters? Just move to Malaysia or Vietnam! Look in your dollar stores at the small plastic items and see where it comes from, you'll see the move is already in progress and within the decade all those cheapo toys and other low tech junk will have all moved there and if they refuse to clean up they'll have the electronics in 20.
the ONLY WAY to stop global warming is to take over the planet, banning the ability to simply move the pollution around, and while you are at it you'll probably have to pull a Stalin and kill a good chunk of the 1% because otherwise they will use the wealth they accumulated to bribe themselves a right to pollute. This is why stupid ideas like crap and trade won't work, because as long as you have free trade I have ZERO reason to stay in a country that won't let me pollute and several billion reasons why i should go to a country that can. Have you seen ANY penalty for all those companies that USED to be in the USA and which are now cranking their electronics out in china and dumping the waste in the river and letting the smokestacks bellow garbage to the heavens? I rest my case.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @05:31PM
> there will be the so called "free trade" supporters willing to export misery to that country
So, your contention is that emulating hitler on a world wide basis is possible, but over-ruling the "free trade" supporters in the handful of countries that buy the majority of exports is not?
(Score: 2, Troll) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday May 06 2014, @06:16PM
Frankly the former is more possible than the latter thanks to the fact you can move trillions in seconds, which means that the wealthy can turn your handful of countries into third world hellholes literally in an afternoon. After all all they have to do is say "there is no more confidence in (insert country)" and start a selling frenzy on their currency, within a few hours the money would be worthless and you'd be in the same place where Zimbabwe is now, with nobody you can trade with and goods that require a wheelbarrow full of money to buy.
As for emulating Hitler? That really isn't hard, all you need is a cult of personality and a leader that can really pump up the masses. choose an "other" as the enemy, say Mexicans or brown people in general or Arabs or what have you and tell the public "See them? THEY are why things are bad here!" and get the crowd in a lynching mood. Once you have the ball rolling you can then use the momentum to keep it going, see eastern Europe for how that works. Hell I would argue the only reason we haven't already had a WWIII is the nuke and since there is only a handful of countries with nukes it really wouldn't be hard to carve up the planet between them. Imagine if you got the Russians, Chinese, and Americans together as your new Axis powers? It wouldn't be hard, I'm sure Putin would like the old USSR back, China can have NK, Taiwan, and Africa for "living space" and the USA can have the Americas and a good chunk of the Pacific. Can you imagine the US,Russian, and Chinese military joined together? I have a hard time seeing as how anybody would be able to stand up to that, and you can use AGW as the cause to make the whole thing just.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday May 07 2014, @03:03AM
Then overrule the free trade freaks with extreme prejudice. Once the first few go, the rest will get the message.
(Score: 1) by jelizondo on Wednesday May 07 2014, @03:38AM
Hello hairyfeet.
You been modded troll and I don't have points to undo the moderation, so I'm posting this message instead, to tell you your scenario is far for being far-fetched; a bit incredible, yes; totally out of your mind, no.
Indeed, we know for sure that only international confidence on the U.S. Dollar has kept the government from collapsing but past performance is not indicative of future performance, as they write in the prospectus. So anyday, we might find the dollar worthless just because Russia [bloomberg.com] maybe China moved a few billion dollars around.
From a man in the street perspective, Russia, China and the U.S. are unlikely allies, but then their elites are more similar to each other than we are, individually, to the elites.
Also, Germany, Japan and Italy (throw in Franco's Spain too!) we unlikely allies and see where that got us!
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday May 07 2014, @08:15AM
I'm being modded down by the FOSSie faction because I dared to post The Hairyfeet Challenge when they started throwing around their anecdotes, its no different than Slashdot where I'd be modded down on several topics, no matter what I said, if I dared point out that a FOSSie's bullshit and anecdotes were just that.
As for my frankly not that unreal scenario? lets see...what do those 3 countries have in common? A hell of a lot more than the Axis of WWII that is for sure and they stayed together until the end. All three have fascist leanings, all three have nukes, all three have extremely powerful military industries, all three have a history of empire, have a history of making friends of opportunity (hell they were allies in WWII and they couldn't have been more different then), honestly if all three countries had their lifestyle threatened I could easily see them making a backroom deal. As for the bankers? Unless you could manage to catch them all in a room and execute them it would take them only a few hours to completely shit all over the economy. Hell they nearly cratered the US economy in 07 and I would argue all we did was delay the inevitable [youtube.com] because they have gotten the governments of the world to put SOOOO much of the money into their wall street gambles that it WILL collapse. Of course they will have cashed out and slinked off, probably figuring a way to bleed a few more pieces of silver out before they bail, but it WILL fall. Look at the graph at around 3.30 mark, see how much money was in the market when the 29 crash hit? About 125% of th USA GDP...now? Its at 435%! and climbing.
So don't feel bad for me, I'll call them the way I see 'em, karma be damned, and I have a feeling when that bubble bursts we'll see who ends up being friends with whom.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 06 2014, @04:15PM
stop having babies. solves all of the problems.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday May 06 2014, @05:04PM
So, you are blaming chicks for the problems of the world?
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter!
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 06 2014, @04:58PM
You can get on if you want, but the first ship to leave is Ark B.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday May 06 2014, @09:50PM
Because a frozen planet is so much better, amirite?
More seriously, you are suffering from the over-optimization problem. As Hairyfeet noted, the easiest solution to global warming is killing off most people. If you keep those billions of people around, then you need to consider their priorities as well, many which make global warming somewhat worse. China isn't going to stop being the major current contributor to growth in CO2 atmospheric concentration just because.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Horse With Stripes on Tuesday May 06 2014, @10:07PM
So it's one or the other? It seems to me that the planet was a good temperature before we started fucking it up. And if we start freezing we can just burn the bodies of the other people that some seem to advocate killing en mass.
Hairyfeet didn't mention that killing off most people is what global warming will do on its own. We are just fleas on the back Mother Nature's dog named Earth.
We will need to consider other people ... kind of like we expect others to consider us. And China already has such a serious pollution problem that they will have to do something within the next decade or so, unless they want their workforce to start consuming healthcare at record levels and dying off in their 40's and 50's. Their economy will collapse under the weight of caring for the seriously ill.
Affecting the environment (for good or bad) is like stopping a tanker. It takes a long time for things to happen and you just need to keep hoping it eventually does what you need it to do. Doing nothing doesn't seem to be much of an option. Either curtail the activities that are destroying the environment or go full steam ahead and prove the alarmists right or wrong. Sitting back as spectators is kind of like being on the Titanic and waiting to get wet before you believe that there is a problem.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:43AM
So it's one or the other?
The phrase you seek is "reductio ad absurdum" - reduction to absurdity. If warming is bad, then what isn't? A frozen planet.
And China already has such a serious pollution problem that they will have to do something within the next decade or so, unless they want their workforce to start consuming healthcare at record levels and dying off in their 40's and 50's. Their economy will collapse under the weight of caring for the seriously ill.
Like every civilization on Earth prior to 1950 collapsed due to the health care burden? The kind of health care problems that historical societies had were when lots of their people ended up suddenly dead, say from the Black Death or a Mongol horde. I think China can avoid that.
Doing nothing doesn't seem to be much of an option.
To the contrary, it's quite a viable and attractive option. It's not like global warming is the only thing we do or think about. So when we're doing nothing about global warming, we can be doing lots of other, high value stuff in its place.