To save the planet - make more meat!

(⚕ ⚕) #21

Yep, that’s the cow bell I’ve been striking.

Yea, which is why the EAT-Lancet recommendations are so infuriatingly inconsistent.


This is the real problem, too many people to feed. Even tho in some places like Europe the original population is decreasing heavily, theres continents where it just keeps growing up uncontrollably.

The planet is not going anywhere, we are. Overpopulation paired with possible major climate change equals chaos for us, any damage to the planet will be healed overtime by itself once we are gone. :grin:

Imo humanrace is too self-centered to survive for very long time with the level of technical achievements we have made, 7mins flat from a press of a button we can turn everybodys reality into a microwave.

(Karim Wassef) #23

I have to disagree on the overpopulation argument.

By the way, I think it’s healthy to respectfully disagree in these forums since it reduces the risk of become an echo chamber and keeps the group’s thinking more critical and vital.

The overpopulation fear is one that I believed for decades. I come originally from a poorer Mediterranean country and the resources don’t line up with the population or its growth. However, the prediction of overpopulation extremes and the “rat model” of self destruction is a simplistic linear model that doesn’t take into account the evolution of human behavior across socioeconomic and cultural lines.

I believed that the explosive rate in poor countries and slowing rate in rich countries was a downward spiral.

But the thinking here is changing too:

The process is nonlinear and human behavior is not arbitrary. Mothers always control birth rates in every society. I think that their empowerment and education (not government enforcement) will allow them to feel safe enough to choose fewer babies.

Poverty, child mortality, poor women’s health, education and lack of empowerment to achieve economic freedom … those are the real enemy.

Linear thinking would say improving child mortality will make the population growth worse. Linear thinking would say that raising cattle will destroy the environment. Linear thinking would say that eating fat makes you fat. I think linear thinking is the root of the problem. We should think critically about “how” and “why” to get to the real solutions. It’s possible to raise cattle AND be destructive… but raising cattle is not inherently destructive.

Personally, I like Occam’s Razor but it can easily be misapplied. Einstein’s paraphrasing of Occam’s Razor is much better “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"… that last little bit is crucial.

(Doug) #24

We’ve got 38.5% of habitable land going for livestock already. By itself, that can support:

2.5 billion people, on the basis of protein.
1.3 billion people, on the basis of calories.

Hypothetically, let’s do away with all cropland, as far as growing human plant-based food. Now we can support:

3.2 billion people, for protein.
1.7 billion people, for calories.

Now let’s cut down all the forests, get rid of all the trees and shrubs:

6.4 billion people, for protein.
3.3 billion people, for calories.

(Karim Wassef) #25

Where does that math come from? How are we not in famine today if that’s the case?

Are you saying the art we need grain to sustain our population?

(Doug) #26

Karim, it comes from the chart I posted, above. We’re not in overall famine now because of the cropland being used for growing human plant-based food.

I definitely think that animal husbandry is more natural and better for the earth than intensively growing crops. Yet there’s not much slack in the system - the carrying capacity of the earth is probably only 3 or 4 billion people, if we look at sustainability - I’ve seen some good analyses based on all pertinent factors, not just food.

As far as just “making more meat” - I’m all for it, but in practice and over the long term I’d say the whole thing would only work well with about half the people on earth we have now, and about one-third as many as we’ll soon have.

(Karim Wassef) #27

So here’s what I’ve experienced. Eating animals without grains is substantially less food. I think the math assumes that we need xx calories but if that’s based on our current overconsumption and poor satiation, we are eating ourselves sick. I went from eating 4500 calories every day to 3500 for 4 days. So 31k to 14k a week. That’s a 65%% reduction… and I’ve stopped losing weight so it’s sustainable.

I’m not pure carnivore … need my avocados, macadamia, olives and coconut fats.

And I think better eggs, seaweed and maybe insect protein are solutions to look at.

I don’t think it’s linear. If we change how we eat, we can enjoy eating less but better.

Out societies were built on the back of grain farming starting with Egyptian wheat & Babylonian barley in antiquity… it’s now an addiction that is making us unhealthy … it’s tome for a change. We need enough fat sources - and then some protein…

(Doug) #28

It’s based on an average from the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization - it does include us “overconsumers,” but also many countries where they ain’t eatin’ very much at all.

In reality, I think it would be a hard sell to convince people to give up cropland for animals. Not that there’s not a lot of pressure for the other side, too - countries like China, India, Brasil, Russia and quite a few others really only developing middle classes recently; huge new demand for stuff that’s above life’s bare necessities, certainly including meat.

There’s a big difference within “meat” as far as land use requirements - cows and sheep take a LOT of land, while pigs take about 1/8 as much, and chickens take roughly 1/13 as much. Here’s the webpage I was looking at:


100% agree with this.

These are sure problems as well but i consider them as problems that are out of the majorities reach without an revolution. Specially poverty and economic freedom. Todays goverment wants obedient workers/consumers, that have just enough money to survive on the crumbs for a month, so they are eternally inside the hamster wheel. Its an exact copy of Caesar’s way of getting votes, when u give people enough something to lose, they will accept being governed.

For the food issue, i dont think its a bad thing to have large ammounts of cattle and wheat either. But what i believe speaks serious volumes is pumping our food with steroids, chemicals and genetically altering it to grow faster and bigger. Creating huge fish farms with water tanks filled with gmo fish cause our seas are so overfished that they are already pretty much on non-reversible levels. Cutting down way too many forests and destroying the enviroment. I think all these steps are preperations to keep businesses/corporations capable of providing food for the overpopulation to overconsume to ensure profits are made and none of the deals/sales in food industry gets canceled cause of lack of food.

Theres a lot of elements to that as well, for example it takes huges ammounts of water and wheat to first feed that animal for years. Where in comparison the same ammount of wheat, it barely needs anything.

(Karim Wassef) #30

This is where grasslands naturally reach balance. The water use requires better smarter management but natural grasses that are drought tolerant and ruminants that feed on them can work. Some herders have stopped making hay… avoid the waste. Let the herds graze and let the grasses build deep roots to hold the water.

As far as population control in poor countries… social media has changed the dynamic between rulers and populace. The historical hierarchy is becoming diffuse as more people gain access to the truth. It doesn’t need a physical revolution … it’s a revolution of thought supported by micro-investment from people to people.

(Omar) #31

there will be massive destructive wars over natural resources.

poor countries can not manage by themselves. rich countries becoming greedier.

superpowers compete in striping poor countries out of their resources and when mega scale migration world wide take place, populations of rich countries wonder what bring this people to us.

what people miss is that the power of socioeconomy is superior to ideology and to ethics. That is if you have a factory, you would get cheap labor if you can. Basic human psychology.

(Doug) #32

I’ve heard it said that things are rarely really as bad or as good as they appear, especially in the beginning. However - yes - energy, water… Going to be big trouble.

(Omar) #33

not good or bad

it is natural auto propels

(Karim Wassef) #34

this ties into the larger socieconomic drivers. I personally like the way Jordan Peterson frames the question of giving people purpose derived from meaning. The socialist views including universal income, equality of outcome, etc… are self-destructive. We need equality of opportunity and judicious investment in talent globally. Meritocracy and opportunity to optimize the outcomes of the Pareto curve and Price’s Law:

(Omar) #35

too ideal

the big person implementing justice simply does not exist.

human race is victim of natural laws.

I wish my English help me to express my views properly but does not look that it does


Meritocracy is inherently ableist, as is capitalism, because it puts all of a human’s worth in what they’re able to produce, and leads to nothing but exploitation of human labor to give to the “elite.” Humans are worth more than what they produce, even our cavemen ancestors knew this shit. Not to mention that every time in America we’ve tried to make things more equal, people start crying that “more deserving” people got shafted. Affirmative Action is always under fire by mostly white people because they think it stands in the way of “true meritocracy,” when it’s in actuality just a small way of evening the playing field.

People call us socialists dreamers but capitalists are the real ones in denial about how completely self-destructive their systems are.

(Karim Wassef) #37

There is no perfect king - totally agree. The growth of communication and education peer to peer will change the distribution of power over time. Competing ideas should be in conflict and the free market of ideas should decide the winners.

Human value is not measurable, but when it comes to resources, we need to decide where to invest. Socialism only works in artificial environments where natural resources vastly outweigh the needs. The idea that someone should benefit intrinsically from the labor of others is the key to massive human waste and has failed every time it’s been tried. Accepting human nature and working with it has worked.

Those that contribute more should receive more. Trying to fight this has proven disastrous. Government’s attempts to equalize outcome drive real inequality. Equality of opportunity is fair.

I grew up in a socialist country that was economically broken - because it was socialist. No opportunities - no growth… it’s not about being dreamers - it’s that socialism destroys dreams when your dreams benefit noone but the socialist elite - there are always “elite”.

These discussions don’t need to be resolved - just agree that the incompatible philosophies exist. It’s like religion… so we can move back to MEAT!

Ok… back to beef. We need real comparisons of the ability to feed the world with meat sources vs. crops. I can’t find an independent study showing this yet but I keep looking.

(Doug) #38

Well said. I see it as somewhat similar to Keto or not, for many of us. Capitalism isn’t “perfect,” and for various reasons we may become disenchanted with ketogenic eating to some extent, but what’s the alternative, going back to the ‘Standard American Diet’?

(Give me bacon, or give me death.) #39

Except that, according to Peter Ballerstedt, the grasslands on which cows and sheep do best is not suitable for human crops, anyway.

(Give me bacon, or give me death.) #40

Depends on how you define “contribute.”

Let me just note that “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need” has deep roots in the world’s scriptures. In the Christian tradition, the economic model for the community is found in Acts 2:43, and it is worth noting that in the Hebrew Scriptures, God’s most frequent complaint against the people of Israel is how they have grown rich by abusing the poor, the powerless, and the foreigners who live among them.

It is also worth noting that capitalism without restraint is nothing more than unbridled greed. A sane mind is capable of satiation. The gods of capitalist philosophy, Locke, Hobbes, and Smith, all assumed that there would be some moral restraint on the capitalists, that some amount of wealth would be enough. That does not appear to be the understanding of the capitalists of our time.