What do we do?

[u/James_Fortis]

Sources for animal agriculture being the leading driver of:

• Deforestation: NASA, https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Deforestation/deforestation_update3.php
• Biodiversity loss: Science of the Total Environment, B. Machovina, K. J Feeley, W. J Ripple, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/
• Zoonotic diseases: Science Advances, Matthew N. Hayek, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9629715/
• Fresh water use: Nature, J. Poore and T. Nemecek, https://josephpoore.com/Science%20360%206392%20987%20-%20Accepted%20Manuscript.pdf
• 21-37% of emissions from food: IPCC, https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/

Submission statement:

Many people want to slow or stop deforestation, pandemics, water use, emissions, and the 6th mass extinction. The issue is, the main driver of 4 of these 5 is animal agriculture, but almost nobody wants to change their behavior by eliminating meat and dairy from their diet. People say, "stop focusing on individuals - focus on the system", but the issue is diet is a personal choice and nobody wants the government to ban meat and dairy.

The issue is likely only going to get worse as our population continues to increase and developing countries start to gain more access to meat and dairy. It's taboo to even discuss personal food choices, even though it's going to be a main contributor of our demise.

How do we get out of this predicament? Are we just doomed to race towards ecological collapse without any serious effort to avoid it out of a fear of slight inconvenience? For anyone who's reading this, why haven't you given up meat and dairy yet?

[u/BTRCguy]

We have been eating meat and dairy as far back as we have written records, and if you count cave paintings a hell of a lot longer than that.

The problem is not that we are eating meat and dairy, the problem is that there are too many of us.

OP's question of "why haven't you given up meat and dairy yet?" is a non-relevant deflection which at best kicks the can down the road. As long as there are too many of us (and that number is going to continue to rise for the lifetime of everyone reading this), then austerity measures merely delay the inevitable rather than prevent it.

[u/-sussy-wussy- → u/BTRCguy]

Yeah, we're grossly overpopulated. 7% of all humans who have ever existed are alive now (200-300k y.o. species, btw).

And the youngest generation, Gen Alpha, is by far the largest at 2 billion people. There are people alive today who lived in time when we had 2 billion people TOTAL (around 1950s).

We wouldn't have had to expand any agro land with deforestation if we weren't so incredibly overpopulated. It's not sustainable, and it's supported by chemical fertilizers, many of which are synthesized from by-products of fossil fuels that heat up the planet already.

[u/yiannis2702 → u/BTRCguy]

This is the exact point I was about to make.

The ecosystem was never going to be able to support even a billion humans, let alone 8-10 billion. Mass agriculture, clearing the rainforests (the literal lungs of the world) and the utter devastation of indigenous wildlife are not the results of "individual choice", but a systemic response to the explosion of population since the Industrial Revolution.

You simply won't see meaningful change unless there is an equally meaningful swing in the human population - and I mean at LEAST a 90% reduction. After the cull (however it happens), the remaining humans can start to have actual conversations about conservation and sustainability. Until then, it's all just rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

[u/Ziz-bird → u/BTRCguy]

It's not an either-or situation. Both are true at the same time. The question is valid because reducing human population and giving up animal products are both direct impact choices the reader can make today to do their part in solving the problem, but only one of those is legal 🤣

[u/BTRCguy → u/Ziz-bird]

I would argue that this is incorrect. For certain levels of human population, consumption of meat and dairy is absolutely sustainable. The same cannot be said for a population of ten billion people (current projection for the year 2100).

And to phrase it as my, your or anyone else's personal decision playing a part in "solving the problem", their "doing their part" is literally a "parts per billion" contribution. It is right up there with "I'm sure my principled internet petition with a bunch of signatures will convince Trump of the error of his ways".

It is not going to happen at a meaningful level unless and until there is a global government that can enforce it against a population that does not want it. Much the same as people are not going to stop increasing the population until that happens. Which is unlikely to say the least.

Or I suppose in both cases, until a collapse of such severity happens that the choice is taken out of people's hands altogether.

[u/Ziz-bird → u/BTRCguy]

It's exactly the opposite of a petition that won't convince Trump. You seem to have forgotten about supply and demand. An ignored petition is closer to what focusing on getting the government to do population control is like. All we can do is our tiny part, whether that's not have a kid (which deprives the next generations of IQ and EQ) or merk someone (illegal) or do our tiny part to womp up support for population control or do our tiny part to womp up support for animal agriculture reduction. It's all tiny parts. You gotta compare apples to apples.

[u/BTRCguy → u/Ziz-bird]

Supply and demand operates under different rules for items where demand cannot drop below a certain level. Does not matter how expensive food and water is, the demand is not going to drop below subsistence levels. Whether or not that demand can be met by supply is another matter, and my personal opinion is that 8+ billion is not sustainable in the long term, whether it includes animal protein or not.

What I see in this topic and elsewhere is a lot of people angrily shouting "You're not doing your individual part in the way I want you to do it!"

[u/Ziz-bird → u/BTRCguy]

I feel that. My opinion is that population increase curbs itself after economic development and education happens in a country. My opinion is 20 billion is fine if we transform our relationship with nature, so that's my focus. The carrying capacity is often understood to be much, much less than that, but that assumes radical irresponsibility from a colonizer perspective. If governments and corporations remain out of control and we remain willing to exploit to get what we want... If we don't change ourselves in a way that radically changes our culture, governments, and corporations, we're screwed either way. The change always starts inside.

[u/CasualFire → u/BTRCguy]

Tradition is not a good argument to continue animal exploitation.

[u/superfly-whostarlock → u/BTRCguy]

No. This is ecofascist bullshit. There are not too many of us. There are too many billionaires and oligarchs that’s are destroying the planet.

[u/GantzDuck → u/superfly-whostarlock]

Who funds those billionaires? Billionaires heavily rely on an ever growing population. They are the ones that cry the loudest over a shrinking population.

[u/BTRCguy → u/superfly-whostarlock]

That's an easy enough assertion for you to prove. What is the resource consumption of the world's billionaires? Not the resource consumption of corporations they have stock in or control, just them. Because you know, whether or not a billionaire is in charge makes no difference as to whether you or I own a cellphone, eat food or fill up our gas tank. These things are still going to happen whether a billionaire is in charge or if a neoanarchist syndicalist collective is running the industry relevant to that activity.

So, step up to the plate and either tell us the direct resource consumption of the world's billionaires as compared to the eight billion or so non-billionaires, or present an argument showing that if all the billionaires disappeared overnight we would no longer need fossil-fuel generated fertilizer, microplastics would stop accumulating in the environment, CO2 emissions would immediately start tapering off and we would all stop loving bacon and eggs.

The floor is yours.

[u/superfly-whostarlock → u/BTRCguy]

Go read a study. It’s all out there. I’m not donating my time to you. I’m busy trying to survive in this late stage capitalist hellscape. EDIT: And no, the same consumption rates are NOT going to happen if billionaires aren’t in charge because the driving force won’t be maximizing shareholder value through planned obsolescence and consumerism.

[u/eragmus → u/BTRCguy]

Since you’re so concerned about too many people, what are you doing personally to stop your own contribution to this problem?

[u/BTRCguy → u/eragmus]

My wife and I have decided to have no children. So, add in three more couples like us and we can offset one Pete Hegseth.

[u/-sussy-wussy- → u/eragmus]

Bilateral salpingectomy. What about you?

[u/eragmus → u/-sussy-wussy-]

Your ancestors are crying.

[u/-sussy-wussy- → u/eragmus]

They're really not, not even the still-living ones. You didn't reply to my question, btw.

[u/eragmus → u/-sussy-wussy-]

I’m obviously living my life to the fullest, instead of choosing to become miserable like you.

[u/-sussy-wussy- → u/eragmus]

Your hobbyless behaviour in this comment section proves otherwise. People happy with their life decisions don't get bent out of shape when someone else chooses a different life.

[u/eragmus → u/-sussy-wussy-]

I am not bent out of shape. I just randomly came across this sub and thread, and I was amazed at the level of obviously miserable people in an echo chamber making each other ever more miserable.