Very insightful article! There's an upwing / techno-optimist response to animal welfare as well, although it's not yet as common. Advancements in agricultural technology can vastly improve the lives of farm animals, without sacrificing efficiency, or pushing degrowth solutions like vegetarianism or small-scale farming. Those interested might enjoy my article in Asimov Press about new technologies in the poultry industry:
Beef production does not have to go along with deforestation. You can graze cattle on land not well suited to crops. Also, I do not see the COs addition from beef as a problem. Further increases in CO2 will have a tiny and shrinking effect on temperature. They will also continue to increase agricultural productivity. The anti-beef people should also look at beef's nutritional profile, which is excellent.
Excellent article. We've cut beef consumption dramatically --to once every month or two. Seemed like a relatively easy way to help emissions plus saving a fair amount of money.
Zero mention of letting human population numbers decline. We've gone from 2.5 billion in 1950 to over 8 billion today, with no end in sight. Why isn't this huge human increase part of the discussion??
There is an end in sight. Population growth is slowing in developing countries and populations are actually declining in developed countries. (That's one reason you're hearing so much about childless cat ladies.) The more people escape poverty, the fewer children they have, for good or ill.
Actually, the US population will continue huge growth through high levels of immigration. Mexico's birth rates have come down, but Mexicans still want to go to the US...the same for so many other countries. Just the facts.
The UN's projects have tended to be too high and get revised down over time. Other top projections -- such as the IMHE and Wittgenstein Center see global population peaking earlier, perhaps in the 2060s. Of course, population has already peaked in many parts of the world.
On e thing though - you'll have a hard time with Ohio ranchers - convincing them that their cows are not atmosphere cleaners -- because some one has been putting that b.s in the rancher's drinking water - and they've been drinking it -- stating that position on national cable TV.
Like many issues we need to apply the Tinbergen principle: one needs at least as many instruments as objectives. The lowest cost way of reducingnet CO2 emissions, a tax on the same, will not necessarily reduce cruelty to animals raised for food or even less reduce consumption of animal protein to zero (if that is the objective of veganism). BTW, depending on the cost of CCS, getting to net zero CO2 emissions, may not entail total elimination of even beef production.
People should be allowed to follow the path they prefer but they should not be allowed to tell other people what they can or cannot eat and how they should live their lives.
If you don't get "central system", as in nervous, it's a doggone good thing you're not feeding the world! Not much in here about the human system that lives healthier, longer and better with more protein; how many lives have been saved by this fact, how much poverty has been reduced by better food.... do you care? Thought genetic engineering and additives were anathema to the eco crowd. Hard to compete with all the overarching climate change panic, searching for "stable" climate. You're kidding, right? Sadly, no. The earth and humanity cry out for your superior management skills. Without you, it'll all go to hell, huh.
Centralized mass production of beef is a horror that can be addressed by slowing down the assembly lines and reducing the throughput and raising prices. This will decrease the amount of cheap meat fed into the burger business if we also limit imports to prevent deforestation. We should also be encouraging local farms to raise more product through education and financial benefits. More people should be raising their own food. Immigrants should be self-sufficient as they once were.
Very insightful article! There's an upwing / techno-optimist response to animal welfare as well, although it's not yet as common. Advancements in agricultural technology can vastly improve the lives of farm animals, without sacrificing efficiency, or pushing degrowth solutions like vegetarianism or small-scale farming. Those interested might enjoy my article in Asimov Press about new technologies in the poultry industry:
https://press.asimov.com/articles/before-they-hatch
Beef production does not have to go along with deforestation. You can graze cattle on land not well suited to crops. Also, I do not see the COs addition from beef as a problem. Further increases in CO2 will have a tiny and shrinking effect on temperature. They will also continue to increase agricultural productivity. The anti-beef people should also look at beef's nutritional profile, which is excellent.
Excellent article. We've cut beef consumption dramatically --to once every month or two. Seemed like a relatively easy way to help emissions plus saving a fair amount of money.
Zero mention of letting human population numbers decline. We've gone from 2.5 billion in 1950 to over 8 billion today, with no end in sight. Why isn't this huge human increase part of the discussion??
There is an end in sight. Population growth is slowing in developing countries and populations are actually declining in developed countries. (That's one reason you're hearing so much about childless cat ladies.) The more people escape poverty, the fewer children they have, for good or ill.
I'm skeptical of projections this far out, since population growth has already slowed faster than expected, but the UN projects it will peak in the 2080s: https://www.un.org/en/UN-projects-world-population-to-peak-within-this-century
"The size of the world’s population in 2100 is now expected to be six per cent lower—or 700 million fewer—than anticipated a decade ago."
Actually, the US population will continue huge growth through high levels of immigration. Mexico's birth rates have come down, but Mexicans still want to go to the US...the same for so many other countries. Just the facts.
The UN's projects have tended to be too high and get revised down over time. Other top projections -- such as the IMHE and Wittgenstein Center see global population peaking earlier, perhaps in the 2060s. Of course, population has already peaked in many parts of the world.
Thank you for liking my comment Ted. Could you comment on the overshoot of human population?
Great article and extremely informative.
On e thing though - you'll have a hard time with Ohio ranchers - convincing them that their cows are not atmosphere cleaners -- because some one has been putting that b.s in the rancher's drinking water - and they've been drinking it -- stating that position on national cable TV.
Like many issues we need to apply the Tinbergen principle: one needs at least as many instruments as objectives. The lowest cost way of reducingnet CO2 emissions, a tax on the same, will not necessarily reduce cruelty to animals raised for food or even less reduce consumption of animal protein to zero (if that is the objective of veganism). BTW, depending on the cost of CCS, getting to net zero CO2 emissions, may not entail total elimination of even beef production.
People should be allowed to follow the path they prefer but they should not be allowed to tell other people what they can or cannot eat and how they should live their lives.
If you don't get "central system", as in nervous, it's a doggone good thing you're not feeding the world! Not much in here about the human system that lives healthier, longer and better with more protein; how many lives have been saved by this fact, how much poverty has been reduced by better food.... do you care? Thought genetic engineering and additives were anathema to the eco crowd. Hard to compete with all the overarching climate change panic, searching for "stable" climate. You're kidding, right? Sadly, no. The earth and humanity cry out for your superior management skills. Without you, it'll all go to hell, huh.
Centralized mass production of beef is a horror that can be addressed by slowing down the assembly lines and reducing the throughput and raising prices. This will decrease the amount of cheap meat fed into the burger business if we also limit imports to prevent deforestation. We should also be encouraging local farms to raise more product through education and financial benefits. More people should be raising their own food. Immigrants should be self-sufficient as they once were.
People raising their food will increase emissions and create poverty. People need to get over this mad hippie delusion.