I agree. That’s why I said it’s the way we produce it which is the problem It’s the scale of it that is out of proportion. As you point out, it’s an inefficient use of land on that scale and contributes to Co2 emissions, because not only do we cut down forest and use land to graze animals, we also cut down forest and use land to grow food to feed to animals, that we then kill to eat. This was the question I was posing to Slurps. Wouldn’t it be more efficient to simply use that land to grow food for human consumption ? On a small scale though, an individual farm that raises animals for meat on pasture can be really beneficial for the soil, the microbiome and thus the wildlife right up from the bottom of the food chain to the top. It’s more about land and natural resource management, than simply a question of whether to eat meat or not. And yes, if we want to continue to consume meat in the quantities we currently do, then things like lab grown meat will be something we’ll have to embrace
Some interesting counter arguments to the 'overpopulation' issue. 'In reality, the global human population is not increasing exponentially, but is in fact slowing and predicted to stabilise at around 11 billion by 2100. More importantly, focusing on human numbers obscures the true driver of many of our ecological woes. That is, the waste and inequality generated by modern capitalism and its focus on endless growth and profit accumulation. In 2018 the planet’s top emitters – North America and China – accounted for nearly half of global CO₂ emissions. In fact, the comparatively high rates of consumption in these regions generate so much more CO₂ than their counterparts in low-income countries that an additional three to four billion people in the latter would hardly make a dent on global emissions.' https://theconversation.com/why-we-...-overpopulation-for-the-climate-crisis-130709 'There is no environmental reason for people to go hungry now or in the future. There is no need to use any more land to sustain humanity — increasing land productivity using existing technologies can boost global supplies and even leave more land for nature — a goal that is both more popular and more possible than ever.' https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem.html
Don't agree with this, again it's humans intefering in nature, not only intefering in nature but thinking themselves superior once again, just by doing this. As for taking land for solar power, again destructive to nature. Man killed animals to survive, as I explained earlier in the thread, wild animals eat their prey while alive and conscious, they are not the cuddly furry bundles of joy, you see at a zoo or in a wildlife park, if they are hungry they will eat you. Humans are no different. As for being vegan, vast swathes of land could never support crops, that's nature, nature doesn't recognise what we call the global economy all EU imports and exports. Supermarkets don't exist in nature. We survived by fishing and hunting animals, via lines, spears, rocks, stealing the kill of other animals. All that has happened is we have got out of control, we now eat meat for the sake of it and pleasure, rather than quantities of actual need. As for our cattle destroying the planet, it was no different to what the dinosaurs were doing, probably ten fold on their size, if it weren't for the meteorite, they would have experienced global warming themsleves, and nature would have dealt with them, the same way it will deal with humans.
We are a superior species who have it in our ability to protect the environment and species around us. To blindly rip up endless parts of the Amazon rainforest is beneath us.
But the reason we have to do it at that level is because of the global population we have and the global demand for that meat. It's only an inefficient use of land because there is potentially a better solution out there (artificial meat) and if we really want to stop using fossil fuels we can better use the land for energy generation. Growing crops is a great way to make the land more efficient, while reducing our carbon footprint. The plants we grow actually fix CO2 from the atmosphere and don't generate large amounts of methane. Use of artificial meat means we can still go on eating it, but apparently the main issue there is getting the price down and scaling up production.
That’s how the meat industry works currently. Because like most other things, we’ve contracted out small scale local production to massive conglomerates that produce stuff on an industrial scale. Theoretically you could still produce the same amount with lots of small scale producers, but the issue really is about less consumption, or like you switching to another form of meat. 100% agree about the land being better purposed for growing crops and food though. And again it doesn’t have to be done on industrial monoculture scales. The most efficient farms are based on permaculture, that increase biodiversity rather than strip it away. It’s not an insurmountable problem to produce what we need, without generating huge amounts of co2 or destroying nature in the process. It all comes down to the will to change our current practices.
We have been interacting with nature though since we first started up. We quickly realised that it was easier and more effective to farm animals rather than kill them. Meant we exploited them better, for milk, wool, leather and meat, without having to spend our time hunting, freeing us up to find other ways to fill our time inventing things, leading to the industrial revolution and other scientific/medical advancements, almost all, except weapons, resulting in population growth. We couldn't support the global population without the intensive farming and food production processes we have now. Our constant need for more energy, to produce food and to produce goods for that population is what has got us to this point. There are some difficult choices to make now as the increasing population makes it extremely difficult to balance the requirement for energy, the need to produce food, the increasing requirement for space to grow into, with the requirement to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. Something has to change or we have to just say **** It - let's let nature sort it out, which it probably will, as it always has in the past. Unfortunately it could lead to some fairly severe geo-political pressures as countries fight over reduced amounts of useable land and other natural resources as sea levels rise. Species die out as climate changes but mass extinctions are normally caused by catastrophic events (meteorite impacts, periods of major volcanic activity etc). The earth seems to have a great ability to sort itself out so that whole cycle can start again. Cattle aren't destroying the planet, neither did Dinosaurs - they are changing/changed it. If it hadn't been for that meteorite impact the Dinosaur population would have been controlled by the available vegetation. We introduced the cattle problem so if we need to interfere with nature again to find a solution, why not?
But presumably we did it because the small scale farming practice wasn't efficient enough, even for our own consumption, let alone to be able to export to those countries where it is much harder to produce crops and raise cattle. I thought intensive farming came about because we needed a better way of feeding a population growing exponentially due to the Industrial Revolution.
On one level that is true, but it has got to a point now where it's completely unsustainable. You could theoretically have a massive increase in small scale farming, that incorporates regenerative practices and works with nature and still produce enough. But that concept of 'enough' is not the way that the Western world consumes meat currently. Part of the problem is the way we have set up our industrial scale farming practices, has depleted the natural world to the point where climate change is now making it harder for some countries to produce what they need for themselves, so they rely more and more on imports. Even in the UK we import a staggering 80% of our food, including things like carrots, potatoes and meat, which could easily be produced here. And that's before you even factor in the huge energy consumption from shipping, transport, storage and refrigeration to move that food around the world There's no way you could replicate what we currently consume in the West by switching to small scale farming, so it would take a big shift in behaviours and folk generally are resistant to change, especially if it means they have to consume less and it would cost more. But as mentioned, the current model is ****ed and it's leading to catastrophic climate issues, that may well in the end, force us to produce our food locally and on a small scale.
There's a good article here @JakartaToon @brb about how we're going to meet the need to feed 9bn people by 2050 And a lot of it is about using our resources in a smarter way https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/ (you have to scroll down past the pictures to get to the text)
Good write up. We don't need lab meat, we need to be controlling the consumption, to return it to sensible levels. First thing first though, we can't control the world, we can only control what we do in the UK, and lead the way (I know you are overseas btw). We could start by shutting down and banning every McDonalds and KFC in the UK. There's supposed to be a labour shortage in the UK, and if you are prepared to work for McDonalds, then you'll probably not have an issure taking a job elsewhere. We control other consumption, such as via the Supermarket through price, as we do with everything else in life. If the farmer is getting twice the price for his meat, then surely he only needs half the cattle. Oh and before people start what about the poor, they are already going to food banks and probably not eating much meat. These big companies are getting away with murder, quite literally when it comes to animals. Slightly astray from topic, but to demonstrate the mentality, one of the big soft drinks companies annouced recently it would reduce plastic by 25% by 2030, and yet, it's already claimed they are reducing it by 16%, so in real terms they are only reducing it by another 9%, not good enough! IF we fail to control this meat consumption, then we need to start controlling the population, give people the choice.
lots of problems with the food industry, its not just meat. The biggest problem, however, is the sheer amount of mouths that need feeding.
Check out the article I posted above from Nat Geo Technically not a population problem (in terms of sheer numbers) More a problem of how we use (misuse) our resources and how we can utilise them better to feed 9bn on the planet by 2050.
It would be great to see countries becoming self-sufficient in food production and stop exporting and importing foodstuffs. It would probably reduce our carbon footprint dramatically. I guess we might have to change our food tastes but I think it was you that pointed out how many different veggies and fruits can actually grow in UK. Was watching BBC world and they were pointing out that the job market in UK was as tight as it had been for 30years. It varied though by area and sector. Can’t see there being much support for banning KFC and MacDonalds but it would also be beneficial for public health as well. Don’t how you would sort out the meat/population issue - only Vegans have a license to have children?
This is what I mean by ramping up small scale regenerative farms. We have more than enough space in the UK to do this. Something like 63% of our land use is what's called low grade agricultural land, which means it's grassland for livestock. We actually use more land to grow crops to feed animals than we do to feed humans. Something like 22% used to feed animals and only 16% to feed humans. So we could change that land use to grow more crops for humans (instead of importing Carrots in from Spain, or worse still Asparagus from Peru !) and cut down the need to import food. And we could incorporate animal husbandry into regenerative farming, so that we use some land to graze animals (pasture fed rather than growing corn and maize etc to feed them) and then rotate the land to grow crops. This also ensures good soil health boosts the biodiversity of the area. But whatever way you look at it, we're not going to be able to produce the amount of meat that we do now if it's going to be done sustainably. So people are going to have to change their habits, diets and behaviour.
I have done a list of Veg the UK can produce before, especially with us now having places such as Thanet Earth, but that was a long time ago I did that list, so it might have been Piskie more recently. In my list there was only around two months of the year we have a problem, it's when we come out of Winter into Spring, maybe March/April, but not certain on that. Now I don't want to kick off a political argument, but it was one of my gripes about the EU, but not the reason i voted the way I did. I think every country should be self sufficient, except in those months that I've already mentioned, that we need support. I've no idea though of the feasability in this day and age of us being able to be self sufficient. Also I would look to stopping imports from China....I know, I know! But this is my ideal world and it's just never going to happen, but as a small Island, let's face fact we are small in comparison to some others, we could at least try to lead the way. In regards to banning McDonalds and KFC, I do remember from many years ago, where there was someone like South Beach, that stopped all well known chains from opening up business. Before anyone says anything if it was that area, it's bloody expensive, so there are many hurdles to overcome, but we never used to have McDonalds and KFC restaurants, so why can't we revert back to the model before them....I know, I know...Fish! From my part, my logic means well, but whether we are prepared to make these changes or enforce change in reality, well sadly, I just don't see it, but I'd certainly be up for it. If we don't do something, then population control may be the only other answer.
The difficulty would be trying to persuade people that giving something up is good for them and good for the planet. We've become far too accustomed to having food from around the world, on demand, at any time of the year. The Asparagus example I gave above is a good indicator. It grows in the UK for a short window in the Spring, but people want it year round. So we import if from Peru. It goes on a truck to a port, on a ship that sails 8100 NM and takes 33 days to get to the UK, then goes onto another truck, to a warehouse, then on another truck to a supermarket and finally to somebody's home. A lot of that imported food is then wasted and thrown away
