Author Topic: Should the world phase out (or at least massively reduce) meat-eating?  (Read 1021 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Paul Blevins Jr.

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 379
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!

As for myself, I haven't had a bite of beef or pork in over thirty years. I've greatly reduced my consumption of poultry, but still eat a turkey sandwich for lunch at work everyday. But that's really the only meat I do eat right there.

If people have to eat meat, let them eat crickets. I tried a cricket granola bar and liked it.

Offline Paul Blevins Jr.

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 379

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4841
  • mooh
I don't have it in me to go vegetarian, so my vote goes to investing heavily in lab grown meat. I want my frankenburger and I want it now!

(Really bummed I can't remember that comedic horror movie with the throbbing ball of meat sitting in a petri dish so that I can add a gif of it here.)
Mooohn!

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2701
Also, I do wonder what will happen to many of the species we've bred specifically to eat if we no longer use them for food.  Many, if not all, may not have the ability to survive in the wild or could harm any environments they breed into.

None of them should exist in the wild, they're invasive species wherever they go. Including where they are now.

But if we can reduce them from the billions or hundreds of millions to the hundreds of thousands, that's almost as good as getting rid of them. We can have agriculture preserves as a historical curiosity if nothing else. Or maybe we need to keep them around as a base for cloned meat cells, or as a reserve source of bacterial colonies that are incorporated into artificial meat, milk and cheese production, etc.

Offline Tassie Dave

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2261
We meat eaters could still eat the meat of animals that are culled. No need to go full vegetarian.

Millions of kangaroos, wallabies, and wild non-native species like goats, pigs & camels are killed each year in Australia. It could be a lucrative business in the future.

I doubt anyone, (reasonably), would object to wild rabbits being on the menu. Cutting down their numbers, even to zero, would only be a positive for this country.

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2701
Lucrative as in sold for a much higher price, because of there being less meat in total. And because that's the kind of meat that wouldn't have to have a land use emissions tax. Unless people started trying to farm wild species to circumvent regulations.

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8750
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
I think ultimately we should start building life cycle costs into everything we consume. We're doing that now with things like electronics, appliances, and tires (at least in Canada). We should be doing that with paper cups (tim hortons, starbucks) and of course meat. Raise the price of meats that have the largest carbon footprint and you'll see a reduction in consumption and people shifting to alternatives. No matter how much you educated smokers, there are always going to be a sizeable number that are immune to health horror stories. But they will respond to price signals. A habit that gets too expensive finds people super motivated to stop or switch to alternatives.

And think about vaping. People are leap frogging smoking and going straight to vaping. Some people are leap frogging buying a gas powered car and going straight to electric. Most people don't even get landline phones anymore.  This may well happen with meat in the near future. I love that beyond meat burger. I ordered it not because of the health of the planet but because I actually like the way it tastes. I think as things like good non meat "meats" start to come online, they taste good, and they're competitively priced, people will stop eating meat.
"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 15844
The problem is that doing so would reduce all but the wealthiest in society to the kind of poverty not seen in western countries since around WW1.
If the price of everything goes up and so does the basic wage then really its like nothing went up.

If everything goes up and wages stay the same then basic amenities of modern life are suddenly beyond most peoples ability to afford. The poor no longer get access to computers (or replacements once the one they have breaks) get locked out of certain cultural experiences due to not being able to afford to consume contempory art in the medium it gets legally distributed, would be limited in how many sets of clothes they could own, even things like refrigeration or air con may not be as affordable.

If the bump is big enough to make a difference then its too big for our most vulnerable. If it isnt, whats the point?

I think we need to start shaping our systems of government with the acceptance that 50 years from now, liberal capitalism will not support the majority of the population and they will need to be supported by the state or fight to survive in a climate producing less and less food and materials.

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4925
Also, I do wonder what will happen to many of the species we've bred specifically to eat if we no longer use them for food.  Many, if not all, may not have the ability to survive in the wild or could harm any environments they breed into.

None of them should exist in the wild, they're invasive species wherever they go. Including where they are now.

But if we can reduce them from the billions or hundreds of millions to the hundreds of thousands, that's almost as good as getting rid of them. We can have agriculture preserves as a historical curiosity if nothing else. Or maybe we need to keep them around as a base for cloned meat cells, or as a reserve source of bacterial colonies that are incorporated into artificial meat, milk and cheese production, etc.

I don't know the details about the situation in other parts of the world, but I think that in Sweden and Norway, our cattle (cows, pigs, sheep, goats) would die off pretty quickly if we released them into nature on their own. Wolves and bears would eat many, and the winters would kill more still. Imagine yourself, a cow against even a lone wolf would not stand a chance. The properties our ancestors artificially selected for are not the properties nature would select for.

I don't think releasing them into nature like that would be a good idea. It would be cruel, and upset the balance in nature. Better to slaughter them, and eat the meat, in a well-managed phase-out.
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline Igor SMC

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
When I was researching for ways for individuals to most effectively reduce their carbon footprint... Becoming a vegetarian seems to be the first choice, by far. I've taken the decision to become one... I'm struggling with the transition at the time, but I think it would be just a matter of months before I complete my diet change. We must avoid meat as much as we can.
"Knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable"

Offline Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13209
Should have been a pole, has anyone said, no we shouldn't try to reduce meat consumption?

Online gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2759
CarbShark is too busy arguing in the climate change thread about how meat contributes only 1/5 or 1/6 as much GHG as any reliable source actually supports.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4841
  • mooh
Should have been a pole, has anyone said, no we shouldn't try to reduce meat consumption?

I wouldn't go that far, but I'd prefer to just have the same amount I eat now, grown in a petri dish, preferably by fixing CO2 from the air, maybe using some sort of freakish plant-animal hybrid. I can see fields vertical farms full of meat trees in my mind's eye. Basically, just replace the apples on an apple tree or the tomatoes on a tomato plant with throbbing meatballs. }|;o)
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 01:55:24 PM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8414
  • I'd rather be paddling
I think ultimately we should start building life cycle costs into everything we consume. We're doing that now with things like electronics, appliances, and tires (at least in Canada). We should be doing that with paper cups (tim hortons, starbucks) and of course meat. Raise the price of meats that have the largest carbon footprint and you'll see a reduction in consumption and people shifting to alternatives. No matter how much you educated smokers, there are always going to be a sizeable number that are immune to health horror stories. But they will respond to price signals. A habit that gets too expensive finds people super motivated to stop or switch to alternatives.

I agree 100% with the above: Things we consume should be priced to include their externalities.


The problem is that doing so would reduce all but the wealthiest in society to the kind of poverty not seen in western countries since around WW1.
If the price of everything goes up and so does the basic wage then really its like nothing went up.

If everything goes up and wages stay the same then basic amenities of modern life are suddenly beyond most peoples ability to afford. The poor no longer get access to computers (or replacements once the one they have breaks) get locked out of certain cultural experiences due to not being able to afford to consume contempory art in the medium it gets legally distributed, would be limited in how many sets of clothes they could own, even things like refrigeration or air con may not be as affordable.

If the bump is big enough to make a difference then its too big for our most vulnerable. If it isnt, whats the point?

I think we need to start shaping our systems of government with the acceptance that 50 years from now, liberal capitalism will not support the majority of the population and they will need to be supported by the state or fight to survive in a climate producing less and less food and materials.

We need to raise the minimum wage to a dignified, living level. This does not mean making everybody richer to compensate for a increase in the cost of commodities that are harmful to the environment. Meat and fossil fuels and one-use containers, etc., should be expensive to discourage overconsumption. And everybody should be paid enough for their labor that they can live a dignified life and participate fully.

One of the many problems of capitalism is that there's too much wage disparity. People are not paid according to how hard they work. They're paid according to their class in society. The people who do the hardest, most backbreaking work get paid the least. Celebrities and the CEOs of big business get paid millions or hundreds of millions while the people who spend 12 hours every day in the hot sun growing the food we eat don't make enough money to pay for health insurance.

Fix the wage disparity and we can tax meat and carbon and paper cups.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2701
The problem is that doing so would reduce all but the wealthiest in society to the kind of poverty not seen in western countries since around WW1.
If the price of everything goes up and so does the basic wage then really its like nothing went up.

Which is why alongside an emissions tax you need to refund some or possibly all the money to the people, but as a fixed sum per person* which will mean the most for those who have the least money, and be a net gain for those who pollute below the average or whatever the bar is set at.

Basically you can be paid back your emissions quota, and make a profit if you don't use all of it.

*I would make it a payment per adult person, to avoid the scheme becoming an incentive for people to have children, which would be counterproductive.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 03:58:09 PM by 2397 »

 

personate-rain
personate-rain