Would you eat less meat to save the world ?

[belamyi]

Do you mean ANY animal meat, such as beef, chicken or fish. Typically, fowl is not considered meat, although it sure tastes like meat. I eat very little red meat, mostly chicken. Occasionally fish.
To save the next generation, would I eat less if I KNEW it would save them? YES.

I've read about the greenhouse emissions from the livestock growers, since they use machines for their animals. (Another source of toxins: what they put INTO the animal food to fatten them.)

Will YOU stop drinking bottled water, which is filled with micro plastics, tot he point where tap water has 4,000 units of micro plastics, but bottled water has 90,000 units? Not good that we're also now breathing plastics. No wonder 13 year old are dying in the summer under a hot sun: they're being poisoned by water they drink and foot they eat. And their immune systems clearly can't cope. Those of us who are older got a break: we had out air as a child 50-60 years ago, (and without plastic in the water supply, food, and oh - did I mention the air itself? Yes, we're breathing micro plastics.
So, which'll kill us first: breathing micro plastics or not eating meat? I'm opting for number 1, since we breath every 20 seconds, and drink water several times a day. That'll do us in faster than the climate change.

Does this tie in to the cows farting?

The point is not deciding who is the biggest sinner, but dispensing with the most dispensable sins ... ignoring that so sin is dispensable

 

[rareboy]

No and how would that save the world?

The inputs into meat are much more carbon and energy intensive than into grains, legumes, vegetables and fruit.

Cattle use up vast amounts of land that could be planted with harvestable crops.

It isn't about cows farting.

 

[belamyi]

^ Since there hasn't been a war on American soil for the past 150 years, people down there have a hard time figuring out how, for example, lentils (about which around 150% of Americans don't know anything, not even the name) are a cheaper and perfect substitute por meat protein.

It is not the Star Trek universe that is waiting for us in the "21st" century... nor the 23rd one.

 

[HoodedRat]

No and how would that save the world?

Watch this: "Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret"

https://putlocker9.ru/film/cowspiracy-the-sustainability-secret-2014-1080p/watching.html

Note: Don't bother searching for the video on Youtube they keep taking it down; I guess the truth is too controversial.

For those who can't be bothered to watch it (which I guess would probably almost anyone on JUB) the short message is that the single most important thing you can do to fight climate change is to give up meat. Meat production creates vast amounts of greenhouse gasses, uses massive amounts of water, and is totally unsustainable for a planet with such a huge population.

But I really doubt that even if everyone were to become totally vegan (which of course will never happen; people really don't seem to care enough) it still would not be enough to save our doomed planet this late in the day.

 

[belamyi]

^ Indeed, the worst part is that the sustainibility problem is not even mainly about meat production and consumption.

In five years our whole unsustainable system (like all systems are...) would be blowing up section by section, and over the ext decade and beyond people will be too busy surviving and being out loud and bloody against the people they are only resentfully and quietly hating today, while eating meat for dinner, so who cares about UN plans or advices, when the UN will be one of the first ones to be run over in the near future.


It is not just mansonian apocaliptic talk: you swell systems because you have to care about the present, not the tomorrow. Once everything is blown up, there is no need to maintain the costly and unefficient system and, after the initial "helter skelter" transition period period, you can start building the next unsustainable system.


Indeed, terrorists are wasting their time and efforts vainly trying to provoke and spread terror and confusion all over: they only need a little patience, and reality will surpass even their stupidest dreams, by letting "The System" follow its own course: great wars and epidemics are never the result of a terror plan, or of an entertaining Hollywood script... well, at least never so far At any rate, it is never the result of a "switch point" applied over a perfectly good system: in "the real world", the Cassandra Crossing is aimed at from the very depart of the train.

 

[belamyi]

^ ok, "departure" ... and it doesn't need to be a dark plan perfectly configured from the start, merely a logic that, taking due time, and given all the elements implied, leads to the consequences that nobody ever wanted to accept as possible: people never consider history as a process, but as a succession of punctual states.. they already have a hard time accepting people age and die, they get absoultely baffled by the existence of crime, mortal accidents and illnesses (let alone when those illnesses derive from your own shape and being, not as any sort of external "invader") ... but they will never accept that what they perceived as perfect at one given point in history, was bound to rot or explode the way it ends up doing, by the very logic of its own being.


Ok, that's that

 

[belamyi]

Social strategist #1 rule:

Things, processes ("the world") are never "changed", they are just "diverted" from one direction into another. And NEVER, EVER is that achieved from below, at most, using those below.

You change what is still, but you can only divert a course.

If you pretend to stop a course, or try embank it to make it a still thing, you must take into account that the system you want to impose to counter that natural force must be bigger and stronger an, most important, more lasting. So there's a whole range of longer or less-lasting, from peace periods, to patriarchates...

 

[nycguydowntown]

don't think anything will save the world but giving up meat would be easy

 

[belamyi]

^ If prayers work, why not advising

 

[belamyi]

... from peace periods lasting, at most, a few decades, through centuries-old religious faiths, to patriarchates arching over millennia...

 

[peeonme]

The inputs into meat are much more carbon and energy intensive than into grains, legumes, vegetables and fruit.

Cattle use up vast amounts of land that could be planted with harvestable crops.

It isn't about cows farting.

I really in an effort to maintain what ever bit of sanity that I have left have learned to laugh at all of this. It's like the race card, if you argue it gives it life. Hell no I won't give up meat. Not the kind that I eat nor the one that I was born with. This is all about how to control others thru fear. What nonsense. If mankind dies off, life of some sort will survive, look at the cockroach. For all of the self hatred people express for just existing and ruining the planet by doing so it seems to me that those who see man as an invasive species should seek to expedite our self annihilation, not postpone it.

Yes the sooner we are gone the better! Eat, drink, for tomorrow we die! I am doing my part, tonight it's cheese burgers

 

[Alistair]

I couldn't give up beef. I have to have my tacos.

 

[belamyi]

I really in an effort to maintain what ever bit of sanity that I have left have learned to laugh at all of this. It's like the race card, if you argue it gives it life. Hell no I won't give up meat. Not the kind that I eat nor the one that I was born with. This is all about how to control others thru fear. What nonsense. If mankind dies off, life of some sort will survive, look at the cockroach. For all of the self hatred people express for just existing and ruining the planet by doing so it seems to me that those who see man as an invasive species should seek to expedite our self annihilation, not postpone it.

Yes the sooner we are gone the better! Eat, drink, for tomorrow we die! I am doing my part, tonight it's cheese burgers

Right. But that argument is the same that is creating the problem because, you know, it is not what you typed there but, rather, "if billions of people die off, civilization of some sort will survive: look at us".

What we are dealing here with is not this or that particular problem, but with the scale perception paradox: people would either show more concern about chaos at the scale of their backyard lawn, and laugh off the destruction of mankind or, conversely, fight for "the survival of the planet", while leisurely let their neighborhoods rot off.

- - - Updated - - -

I couldn't give up beef. I have to have my tacos.

 

[belamyi]

Campaigns work better when they are not campaigns against or for whatever, in the name of whatever, but simply making plain business at the expense of the semidiscerning masses being able to buy and eat just anything and call it food, even good ole food... it's so funny when people used to guzzling shit would get so fancy-fartsy about [what they take for] "good real meat"

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/busi...-business/video/playlists/business-fast-food/

 

[belamyi]

^ I love how they talked environmental, impact, taste and appearance, and cost, but skimmed over the nutritious part, and that towards the end...

 

[Alnitak]

It looks like this will be a necessary measure. There are ways to farm sustainably, but sustainability is expense; abstinence is free.

 

[belamyi]

^ No measure is "necessary". If it is so, "necessary" for what? The survival of the masses the avoidance of a revolution? for business efficiency?
The necessity is to eat. Efficiency (sustainability) is always optional and deffered, especially when you can start ditching out people's "necessities" that do not fit in your balance or system in general, because there can always something else, anything "after", sustainable or not, and always at whose or what "expense"?

 

[Alistair]

People (Nations) are doing very little to combat global warming and polluting fresh water. Changing the way we eat would be a drop in the bucket.

What damage would we be doing when we make crops more sustainable so we can feed the world's population?

We're already killing off 40% of the world's insect population due to mostly pesticides, herbicides and habitat removal.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...opulations-are-plummeting-and-why-it-matters/

 

[rareboy]

People (Nations) are doing very little to combat global warming and polluting fresh water. Changing the way we eat would be a drop in the bucket.

What damage would we be doing when we make crops more sustainable so we can feed the world's population?

We're already killing off 40% of the world's insect population due to mostly pesticides, herbicides and habitat removal.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...opulations-are-plummeting-and-why-it-matters/

And the way we farm crops matters too. We need to go back to the notion of lower yields by eliminating the pesticides and herbicides that are literally destroying the food chain. So ore arable acres farmed organically. This doesn't mean clearing the Brazilian rainforest like is happening right now so that they can meet China's demand for soybeans...this means devoting less land to meat.

 

[rareboy]

Of course...we could go the soylent green route.