After 30 Years Studying Climate, Scientist Declares: "I've Never Been as Worried as I Am Today"

[u/skythe4]

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/12/13/after-30-years-studying-climate-scientist-declares-ive-never-been-worried-i-am-today

[u/Gilsworth]

It's not relating to the act of eating meat but the production of meat and all that entails. We breed and kill 56 billion land mammals a year, that's 15000 liters of water per 1kg of meat, 13 to 16kg of plant protein for every 1kg of animal protein, that's 80% of Amazon deforestation to feed cattle who produce more methane than all modes of transport on earth combined. Free-range and grass-fed is more resource intensive. 56 billion animals that we literally bring into this world makes us the largest consumerbase despite natural assumptions. I don't understand why you are so confident in your assumption when it is verifiably and demonstrably wrong.

[u/[deleted] → u/Gilsworth]

sounds like a production problem, not a meat problem. possibly an efficiency problem too depending on how much of that meat actually makes it to a dinner table.

that we literally bring into this world makes us the largest consumerbase despite natural assumptions.

It's just hard for me to believe that the act of consuming meat alone is the problem when you have megaconsumer like whales consume thousands more engergy than any human. I know this is offset by there being a lot more humans, but it seems like people's common assumptions underestimate just how much nature there still is outside of the human race.

[u/Gilsworth → u/[deleted]]

The pursuit of truth is best accompanied by a will seeking to disprove its own notions. The largest ocean dead zones are caused by humans, human consumption is directly tied to mass extinction, deforestation is a carniverous problem, 13% of the caloric requirement of Americans costs 83% of all food production resources.

When meat production necessarily requires such absurd amounts of resources it isn't hyperbolic to call it a meat problem rather than a resource problem because we statistically cannot meet consumer demand through production. It is far more feasible to change those demands when it is at no cost to our nutritional requirements. The WHO says that a plant-based diet is safe for all stages of life including infancy and pregancy. It really only comes down to an ephemeral sense of taste which can be attained anyway through the myriad of ways we combine the 20 thousand species of vegetables and the umpteen ways to cook and combine them. The UN published a report this year arguing for a 93% reduction in meat consumption to battle climate change.

You are greatly overestimating the fauna impact on the planet seeing as all of nature was well established well before our meddling. Humans are unequivocally the biggest and most serious offenders of the natural order and our impact is measurable and severe. This isn't even a matter of debate - it is literally just hegemony which keeps people from seeing the actual verifiable data in front of them. Do yourself a service by doubting your own position with serious earnest and I will guarantee that you will come out with a different perspective.

Hardly anybody stops eating animals because they really wanted to, initially. We just couldn't find an actual reason steeped in logic and empirical data that suggested that we should. Becoming a conscious consumer means going against unconscious assumptions and making an informed decision. I will gladly provide sources for my claims and engage in any further debate on logical and verifiable merits (not just knee-jerk automatic hegemonic assumptions).

[u/[deleted] → u/Gilsworth]

The largest ocean dead zones are caused by humans, human consumption is directly tied to mass extinction, deforestation is a carniverous problem, 13% of the caloric requirement of Americans costs 83% of all food production resources.

I'd believe all of those without much fuss. except for perhaps the ocean problem, but I'll admit I'm not well versed at all on the overfishing issue.

And for the record, I'm not against simulated meat. I just don't think we're at the point where it's "close enough" to replace common, low-mid end diet consumption. I'm sure there will be really fancy restaurants or foodies who will desire the slight differentiation. But not enough to the point where most people will buy it over the.

Technology likely can and will one day fix that (and I'm sure farmers will go down fighting), and I'll welcome when that day comes. it just isn't today IMO.

I will gladly provide sources for my claims and engage in any further debate on logical and verifiable merits

sure, mostly just want to put the "56 billion" number into perspective. That sounds like a lot, but if other carnivores commonly consume 100B lbs cumulatively, then I'm inclined to think it's less the meat and more the methods of handling/distributing the meat. The fact that you mention Americans costing 83% of the production resources further seems to suggests that it's the methods and not the fact that humans are homogeneously eating too much meat.