This is the one that will define the contours of this century
May 25, 2017 11:49 PM Subscribe
On food & climate change: "We can still act and it won’t be too late" (The Long Read - The Guardian) If people feel as if they don’t have control over their lives, or that their children don’t have a good future, then they will resist efforts to deal with climate change because right now they’re concerned about feeding their child. It’s a luxury to worry about climate change; you have to have enough to eat before you start worrying about what’s going to happen to the planet 30 years from now. If we do not pay attention to increasing inequality – and the fact that technology and globalisation are accelerating – there will be a backlash.
by Barack Obama
by Barack Obama
Snark aside, 7segment is correct: if you genuinely care about the environment, then you should drastically cut your intake of animal products for food. The best option is none but even if you aren't going to be a vegan, being a vegetarian is a good start.
posted by koavf at 12:09 AM on May 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by koavf at 12:09 AM on May 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
I miss him a lot. I could hear his voice as I read this article. It feels like playing a tape with your dad's voice on it, from before he died and your family had to move out of the house.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 12:28 AM on May 26, 2017 [40 favorites]
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 12:28 AM on May 26, 2017 [40 favorites]
I miss him a lot. I could hear his voice as I read this article. It feels like playing a tape with your dad's voice on it, from before he died and your family had to move out of the house.
I saw him speak in Berlin yesterday. It was surprisingly easy to get close to the stage, and so I was about 100m away. The largely German crowd around me seemed happy enough to see him, but personally, I was in tears for the first ten minutes. I can't really say if I was happy or sad, but just that I was feeling something, private and detached. It was perhaps an emotion that I hadn't felt strongly before, and I don't have a name for it.
posted by tillermo at 1:58 AM on May 26, 2017 [18 favorites]
I saw him speak in Berlin yesterday. It was surprisingly easy to get close to the stage, and so I was about 100m away. The largely German crowd around me seemed happy enough to see him, but personally, I was in tears for the first ten minutes. I can't really say if I was happy or sad, but just that I was feeling something, private and detached. It was perhaps an emotion that I hadn't felt strongly before, and I don't have a name for it.
posted by tillermo at 1:58 AM on May 26, 2017 [18 favorites]
The gulf between Obama and Trump is truly extraordinary. Obama is the kind of president we usually only see in the movies. Trump is his own Spitting Image puppet.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 2:05 AM on May 26, 2017 [26 favorites]
posted by Ursula Hitler at 2:05 AM on May 26, 2017 [26 favorites]
if you genuinely care about the environment, then you should drastically cut your intake of animal products for food.
This is overly simplistic, far too simplistic to be accurate. Cattle here in Australia for example is predominantly grass, not grain fed,largely in areas that are not practical for other types of farming. Sustainable aquaculture with tilapia and seafood harvesting in general can be very low carbon. My backyard chickens subsist primarily off food scraps and grass.
But all that is beside the point, this focus on individuals and individual action through consumerism is just noisy distraction - we cannot buy, eat or wear our way out of climate change.
The technology and resource exists to tackle climate change now. This is a political problem, and it will be solved with political, regulatory, action, followed (though atm sadly led) by markets with individuals a very distant last.
I buy only green power etc, but don't be fooled by blunt exhortations: Doing These Five Things won't stop climate change, though they may assuage some of your guilt and horror at what is happening.
Political action is what will address climate change.
PS would be awesome if mefites could focus on the content of this, rather dip into Obama nostalgia. Im sorry for your loss, but this article is not about Obamas' continued presence in the world.
posted by smoke at 2:14 AM on May 26, 2017 [88 favorites]
This is overly simplistic, far too simplistic to be accurate. Cattle here in Australia for example is predominantly grass, not grain fed,largely in areas that are not practical for other types of farming. Sustainable aquaculture with tilapia and seafood harvesting in general can be very low carbon. My backyard chickens subsist primarily off food scraps and grass.
But all that is beside the point, this focus on individuals and individual action through consumerism is just noisy distraction - we cannot buy, eat or wear our way out of climate change.
The technology and resource exists to tackle climate change now. This is a political problem, and it will be solved with political, regulatory, action, followed (though atm sadly led) by markets with individuals a very distant last.
I buy only green power etc, but don't be fooled by blunt exhortations: Doing These Five Things won't stop climate change, though they may assuage some of your guilt and horror at what is happening.
Political action is what will address climate change.
PS would be awesome if mefites could focus on the content of this, rather dip into Obama nostalgia. Im sorry for your loss, but this article is not about Obamas' continued presence in the world.
posted by smoke at 2:14 AM on May 26, 2017 [88 favorites]
It was perhaps an emotion that I hadn't felt strongly before, and I don't have a name for it.
I'm sure the Germans have a word for it. They have a word for everything.
posted by Silentgoldfish at 2:42 AM on May 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
I'm sure the Germans have a word for it. They have a word for everything.
posted by Silentgoldfish at 2:42 AM on May 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
Cattle here in Australia for example is predominantly grass, not grain fed,largely in areas that are not practical for other types of farming.
ok but isn't the issue cow farts?
(not kidding, like, even outside factory farming situations I thought cows produced a lot of methane)
posted by Anonymous at 3:16 AM on May 26, 2017
ok but isn't the issue cow farts?
(not kidding, like, even outside factory farming situations I thought cows produced a lot of methane)
posted by Anonymous at 3:16 AM on May 26, 2017
My guess is that, ultimately, what is going to happen is that everybody is going to have to work a little bit less, and we’re going to have to spread work around more. But that’s going to require a reorganisation of the social compact. That requires that we change our mindset about the link between work, income and the value of people in the teaching profession, or healthcare, or certain things that cannot be done by AI or a robot. And one of my goals as president – one of the goals of every leader of every country right now – was thinking about that time 20 years from now, or 30 years from now, when technology will have eliminated entire sectors of the economy.
This sounded a little bit like he was hinting at the idea of a Universal Basic Income, which surprised me a bit. Is this something Obama has publicly supported before?
posted by lollusc at 3:18 AM on May 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
This sounded a little bit like he was hinting at the idea of a Universal Basic Income, which surprised me a bit. Is this something Obama has publicly supported before?
posted by lollusc at 3:18 AM on May 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
(not kidding, like, even outside factory farming situations I thought cows produced a lot of methane)
Eating red meat is one of those things that, for some, seems to be so core to self-identity that it can feel really threatening to challenge it, but as far as I know, looking at the big picture, I think this is right--meat in general can be produced sustainably, but beef in particular is tough to produce on large scales without big-time externalities and hidden subsidies. That's part of why the beef lobby is so aggressive and active in the U.S. The industry depends on political support and marketing to justify its costs. Pasture-grazed meat is especially hard to do well without causing environmental harm; even analysis that ignores ethical concerns about animal treatment completely tends to support the idea, that at the bigger picture level, we need to reduce and slow rates of especially red meat consumption as we move into the future even if we don't become strictly vegetarian.
In America at least I think our puritanical streak makes this more complicated as people tend to take their meat eating not just as a dietary habit or consumer preference but as something connected to a particular lifestyle or view of themselves and the world that puts humanity at the top of a pyramid as an apex predator in its rightful place, as a point of personal pride or something. I think that's partly just a reflection of the successful marketing efforts of industry lobbyists, but then, I can't deny that back when I still ate red meat, I could empathize with anyone who couldn't imagine giving it up. I still remember how delicious a good beef pot roast used to be, though it's not tempting anymore to me personally due to a complex set of conditioning factors in my personal history that left me with a physical aversion to the stuff. I was more or less traumatized into giving up red meat, lol, but I don't want to fix that because it helps keep me from craving it, which aligns well with my personal values.
And yeah, cows do personally put out a lot of methane and that's part of it, but the biggest reason is, they are big animals that require a lot of resource inputs to grow and keep alive.
posted by saulgoodman at 3:48 AM on May 26, 2017 [10 favorites]
Eating red meat is one of those things that, for some, seems to be so core to self-identity that it can feel really threatening to challenge it, but as far as I know, looking at the big picture, I think this is right--meat in general can be produced sustainably, but beef in particular is tough to produce on large scales without big-time externalities and hidden subsidies. That's part of why the beef lobby is so aggressive and active in the U.S. The industry depends on political support and marketing to justify its costs. Pasture-grazed meat is especially hard to do well without causing environmental harm; even analysis that ignores ethical concerns about animal treatment completely tends to support the idea, that at the bigger picture level, we need to reduce and slow rates of especially red meat consumption as we move into the future even if we don't become strictly vegetarian.
In America at least I think our puritanical streak makes this more complicated as people tend to take their meat eating not just as a dietary habit or consumer preference but as something connected to a particular lifestyle or view of themselves and the world that puts humanity at the top of a pyramid as an apex predator in its rightful place, as a point of personal pride or something. I think that's partly just a reflection of the successful marketing efforts of industry lobbyists, but then, I can't deny that back when I still ate red meat, I could empathize with anyone who couldn't imagine giving it up. I still remember how delicious a good beef pot roast used to be, though it's not tempting anymore to me personally due to a complex set of conditioning factors in my personal history that left me with a physical aversion to the stuff. I was more or less traumatized into giving up red meat, lol, but I don't want to fix that because it helps keep me from craving it, which aligns well with my personal values.
And yeah, cows do personally put out a lot of methane and that's part of it, but the biggest reason is, they are big animals that require a lot of resource inputs to grow and keep alive.
posted by saulgoodman at 3:48 AM on May 26, 2017 [10 favorites]
If we do not pay attention to increasing inequality – and the fact that technology and globalisation are accelerating – there will be a backlash.
This is ..... ironic, coming from a guy who let Wall Street design his economic policies. If he had actually seriously addressed income inequality when he was President, and done less bailing-out of banks, I would be more inclined to care about a nice essay.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:10 AM on May 26, 2017 [12 favorites]
This is ..... ironic, coming from a guy who let Wall Street design his economic policies. If he had actually seriously addressed income inequality when he was President, and done less bailing-out of banks, I would be more inclined to care about a nice essay.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:10 AM on May 26, 2017 [12 favorites]
ok but isn't the issue cow farts?
Well, firstly its burping, not farts. But secondly, it's complicated.
Where does the methane cows emit come from? The grass, and the grass acts like a carbon sink.
There's two important things to note, here: grass is part of a natural carbon cycle - theoretically this cycle is carbon neutral, as opposed to fossil fuels which are adding to the cycle. (cows also lock carbon through manure etc, sometimes)
But smoke, you say, forget the cows and leave the carbon in the ground! Ah, but it doesn't work that way: most grasses have evolved to be eaten in a sense. When they aren't, they rot, they lose efficacy as a carbon sink, they catch fire etc. And, of course, they get eaten by something else.
Termites, for example, may be bigger methane emitters in Australia than cattle.
In short, it's not a very simple calculus when compared to the brutal maths of oil and coal.
posted by smoke at 4:40 AM on May 26, 2017 [19 favorites]
Well, firstly its burping, not farts. But secondly, it's complicated.
Where does the methane cows emit come from? The grass, and the grass acts like a carbon sink.
There's two important things to note, here: grass is part of a natural carbon cycle - theoretically this cycle is carbon neutral, as opposed to fossil fuels which are adding to the cycle. (cows also lock carbon through manure etc, sometimes)
But smoke, you say, forget the cows and leave the carbon in the ground! Ah, but it doesn't work that way: most grasses have evolved to be eaten in a sense. When they aren't, they rot, they lose efficacy as a carbon sink, they catch fire etc. And, of course, they get eaten by something else.
Termites, for example, may be bigger methane emitters in Australia than cattle.
In short, it's not a very simple calculus when compared to the brutal maths of oil and coal.
posted by smoke at 4:40 AM on May 26, 2017 [19 favorites]
smoke, you are leaving out that grass takes up CO2 but that cows emit methane which on a per molecule basis is considerably worse. On a molecular basis you can argue its carbon neutral as the CH4 will end up back as CO2 but in the meantime it will contribute to climate change.
posted by biffa at 5:02 AM on May 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by biffa at 5:02 AM on May 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: It's not a very simple calculus...
posted by lazycomputerkids at 5:03 AM on May 26, 2017
posted by lazycomputerkids at 5:03 AM on May 26, 2017
Smoke, the impact of biogenic methane is something I've wrestled with based on my job. It's true that the grass is a carbon sink and in a natural "equilibrium" things would be carbon neutral. However, to the extent that herds keep growing there's not an equilibrium. More important, the cows aren't acting like Jody another carbon store; they're converting atmospheric CO2 into methane (via the grass). So when the carbon gets released into the air, it's in a much more potent form from a warming standpoint. It's still not as bad as fossil fuels, you're right, but I don't think we can just say "it's biogenic so it's carbon neutral " as we might with (say) the use of sustainability-produced biofuels for home heating.
posted by nickmark at 5:09 AM on May 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by nickmark at 5:09 AM on May 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
Or, what biffa said, except that it's not that CH4 is worse on a per-molecule basis but on a mass basis.
posted by nickmark at 5:11 AM on May 26, 2017
posted by nickmark at 5:11 AM on May 26, 2017
Oh indeed, Nickmark - I'm not trying to argue that cattle, goats, or any other kind of ruminant are carbon neutral, I'm just saying that the prescription to stop eating meat masks a very complicated reality where science is if not in flux but investigating and there are a host of unknowns, currently.
I apologise if I gave a sense of false certainty with my rebuttal. To clarify: I feel that methane emitted through ruminants is a troubling source of pollutants, and as a driver of climate change they deserve to be examined and proper policy responses and farming practices developed. Currently I feel our knowledge in this particular area is still developing in part because of the complex environmental interactions at play and the diversity of ecosystems, grass and ruminant species, farming practices, consumption patterns and alternatives. Compared to our consumption of fossil fuels through driving and electricity, methane emissions from ruminants are harder to measure and to respond to - though not eating meat is certainly one response. One I have myself pursued for some years, though not currently.
posted by smoke at 5:23 AM on May 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
I apologise if I gave a sense of false certainty with my rebuttal. To clarify: I feel that methane emitted through ruminants is a troubling source of pollutants, and as a driver of climate change they deserve to be examined and proper policy responses and farming practices developed. Currently I feel our knowledge in this particular area is still developing in part because of the complex environmental interactions at play and the diversity of ecosystems, grass and ruminant species, farming practices, consumption patterns and alternatives. Compared to our consumption of fossil fuels through driving and electricity, methane emissions from ruminants are harder to measure and to respond to - though not eating meat is certainly one response. One I have myself pursued for some years, though not currently.
posted by smoke at 5:23 AM on May 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
On the animal protein thing, I would love to see more people engaging with the concept of carnism and the "four Ns" that underpin meat-consumption-as-default: the idea that eating meat is inherently natural, normal, necessary and nice.
Honestly I think the last one is the biggest sticking point - the amount of people who seem to take huge pride in meat consumption purely because it's very enjoyable for them; for whom the argument begins and ends at "yeah but I like meat too much". Fuck you, I've got my steak, etc.
I'm extraordinarily glad that eating dead stuff very viscerally lost its appeal for me fairly early in life; I got out by choice and my life is better for it. It's going to be much more difficult for the die-hard carnists to enjoy the tinned-soy-hotdogs future that Margaret Atwood has promised us.
posted by terretu at 5:24 AM on May 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
Honestly I think the last one is the biggest sticking point - the amount of people who seem to take huge pride in meat consumption purely because it's very enjoyable for them; for whom the argument begins and ends at "yeah but I like meat too much". Fuck you, I've got my steak, etc.
I'm extraordinarily glad that eating dead stuff very viscerally lost its appeal for me fairly early in life; I got out by choice and my life is better for it. It's going to be much more difficult for the die-hard carnists to enjoy the tinned-soy-hotdogs future that Margaret Atwood has promised us.
posted by terretu at 5:24 AM on May 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
On *either* basis of mass or per molecule, surely?
"it is initially far more devastating to the climate because of how effectively it absorbs heat. In the first two decades after its release, methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide." "Releasing 1 kg of CH4 into the atmosphere is about equivalent to releasing 25 kg of CO2."
That's more than the difference in mass between C+O2 (6+16=22) and C+H4 (6+4=10).
posted by sourcejedi at 5:26 AM on May 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
"it is initially far more devastating to the climate because of how effectively it absorbs heat. In the first two decades after its release, methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide." "Releasing 1 kg of CH4 into the atmosphere is about equivalent to releasing 25 kg of CO2."
That's more than the difference in mass between C+O2 (6+16=22) and C+H4 (6+4=10).
posted by sourcejedi at 5:26 AM on May 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
Yes, agreed. The 25 times worse number gets thrown out a lot, and often applied to molecules rather than mass - that's all I meant to be objecting to. I agree that a single molecule of methane has a higher GWP than a single molecule of carbon dioxide; it's just not 25 times worse.
posted by nickmark at 6:02 AM on May 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by nickmark at 6:02 AM on May 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
Here in the US, people are superweird about meat. I've been a vegetarian or pescatarian for the majority of my life and a lot people (mostly men) are just straight-up hostile towards the idea that anyone could be a vegetarian. I mean, beyond being asked to do it themselves, the very existence of people who don't eat meat is offensive to these people on a deep, deep level.
It's absolutely about identity. Meat is masculine, American, patriotic, individualistic (for some reason), rugged, violent, bloody. Vegetarianism is feminine, suspicious, foreign, weak. Americans take pride in being selfish and self-centered. Doing something for the good of the many isn't just something we unthinkingly forget about--we consciously reject it, with pride.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:10 AM on May 26, 2017 [34 favorites]
It's absolutely about identity. Meat is masculine, American, patriotic, individualistic (for some reason), rugged, violent, bloody. Vegetarianism is feminine, suspicious, foreign, weak. Americans take pride in being selfish and self-centered. Doing something for the good of the many isn't just something we unthinkingly forget about--we consciously reject it, with pride.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:10 AM on May 26, 2017 [34 favorites]
sourcejedi: you've used the atomic number rather than the mass number for C and O there, so should be C+O2 (12+32=44) and C+H4 (12+4=16) I think, but the general point holds.
I've even come across the oddly defensive meat eaters in AskMe, I remember someone asking for tips for reducing food costs and I suggested less meat and someone having a pop over proselytising vegetarians despite me being neither.
Me and my partner have recently cut back to 1 meat meal per week, and 1-2 fish and are feeling fairly good about it.
posted by biffa at 6:17 AM on May 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
I've even come across the oddly defensive meat eaters in AskMe, I remember someone asking for tips for reducing food costs and I suggested less meat and someone having a pop over proselytising vegetarians despite me being neither.
Me and my partner have recently cut back to 1 meat meal per week, and 1-2 fish and are feeling fairly good about it.
posted by biffa at 6:17 AM on May 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
Doing something for the good of the many isn't just something we unthinkingly forget about--we consciously reject it, with pride
soren_lorenson, I think that might be the most succinct distillation of the american psyche that I've seen in a long time
Food is intrinsic to the way many people identify themselves. It's hardly ever just about sustenance; there's a lot of emotional complexity tied up in it. I think it will be orders of magnitude harder to change that than the energy luddites
posted by trif at 6:22 AM on May 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
soren_lorenson, I think that might be the most succinct distillation of the american psyche that I've seen in a long time
Food is intrinsic to the way many people identify themselves. It's hardly ever just about sustenance; there's a lot of emotional complexity tied up in it. I think it will be orders of magnitude harder to change that than the energy luddites
posted by trif at 6:22 AM on May 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
It might be possible to slowly undermine meat-primary meals with beans. A little BBQ pork (or sausage) in good BBQ beans isn't something that can be classed as froofy and foreign. Unless the southern states break off into the sea suddenly.
posted by Slackermagee at 6:23 AM on May 26, 2017
posted by Slackermagee at 6:23 AM on May 26, 2017
Have there ever been studies on how much various meats would cost with taxes that roughly reflect the negative externalities of production? Seems like that would be a pretty reasonable (ok, still incredibly hard to sell) path to reducing meat consumption and Americans' attitude toward What A Meal Is fast.
posted by R a c h e l at 6:24 AM on May 26, 2017
posted by R a c h e l at 6:24 AM on May 26, 2017
I mean, I've been vegetarian for five years now and I still deeply crave fried chicken once in a while. It's tasty, ok? Super-expensive chicken would help me find a path to moderate consumption, I think, that (as a person who works best with dietary absolutes) I just can't hold myself to otherwise.
posted by R a c h e l at 6:27 AM on May 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by R a c h e l at 6:27 AM on May 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
But all that is beside the point, this focus on individuals and individual action through consumerism is just noisy distraction - we cannot buy, eat or wear our way out of climate change.
~smoke
THIS. THIS. THIS. It's a pretty neat trick corporations and Congress have pulled on us. Make the people believe its up to them individually to solve this problem. Oh no, no,no - the GOP will never allow new laws and legislation to be passed that presents the least hinderance to any type of industry anywhere. And if America can derail any global plan to combat climate change just by refusing to participate, the rest of the world is f*cked.
posted by pjsky at 6:33 AM on May 26, 2017 [18 favorites]
~smoke
THIS. THIS. THIS. It's a pretty neat trick corporations and Congress have pulled on us. Make the people believe its up to them individually to solve this problem. Oh no, no,no - the GOP will never allow new laws and legislation to be passed that presents the least hinderance to any type of industry anywhere. And if America can derail any global plan to combat climate change just by refusing to participate, the rest of the world is f*cked.
posted by pjsky at 6:33 AM on May 26, 2017 [18 favorites]
Have there ever been studies on how much various meats would cost with taxes that roughly reflect the negative externalities of production would cost?
I don't know, but given the amount of corn used to feed animals in the US, simply ending corn subsidies would do a lot to push up meat prices. "Simply" of course being a relative term in a political context.
posted by nickmark at 6:57 AM on May 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
I don't know, but given the amount of corn used to feed animals in the US, simply ending corn subsidies would do a lot to push up meat prices. "Simply" of course being a relative term in a political context.
posted by nickmark at 6:57 AM on May 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
Smoke's comment above says two things: (a) beef doesn't clearly contribute to global warming and (b) policy matters more than individual action.
The first is simply incorrect. This is pretty well established by now, and denying it makes about as much sense as denying climate change.
The second is correct. In fact, the first comment on the thread did not say individuals need to eat less meat, but rather "we could stop expending 80% of our agricultural output on the production of animal protein", which in the US is something heavily driven by US governmental policy - the subsidizing of corn and soy and the coddling of factory farms.
And if individuals in the Western world were to eat less meat too, that probably wouldn't be such a bad thing either.
posted by splitpeasoup at 7:00 AM on May 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
The first is simply incorrect. This is pretty well established by now, and denying it makes about as much sense as denying climate change.
The second is correct. In fact, the first comment on the thread did not say individuals need to eat less meat, but rather "we could stop expending 80% of our agricultural output on the production of animal protein", which in the US is something heavily driven by US governmental policy - the subsidizing of corn and soy and the coddling of factory farms.
And if individuals in the Western world were to eat less meat too, that probably wouldn't be such a bad thing either.
posted by splitpeasoup at 7:00 AM on May 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
I was talking with a friend about her experience growing up in Germany in the 1940's... she said at that time everyone in her area had chickens and one or two pigs/cows. People didn't eat a lot of meat, but when one family killed a pig or cow they would preserve the meats into dried meats that would last a long time and share with others. The food scraps all went to compost and feeding the animals. The AMOUNT of animals and animal consumption sounded drastically different, not to mention a good deal better situation for the animals.
I think when people argue that meat eating COULD be balanced out, it's true if it were drastically reduced and done completely differently. But that's not usually what the average person debating the issue is choosing between. I try to avoid mass produced animal products and the ones from little local farms or friends who have chickens and share eggs essentially results in a lot less meat consumption especially since I can't afford the better quality products.
No matter what I do think we need to rethink mass production of living beings, it's disturbing on an ethical level (and ultimately so is slaughtering itself but I'm a harm reductionist and take small steps forward). Indigenous communities who have a certain reverence for living beings (albeit acknowledge the messy and painful cycles of violence much of survival on this planet has become reliant on) are leading the way on climate change and there may some values others among us could learn about reverence for life and seeing the system as having it's own presence and worth. We need to change not only our way of living but our values about life beyond what is human and our place within this web both at the policy AND individual level. Seeing a field of trees as "a resource" denies these ancient beings their true worth and that they don't innately exist just to give us things. None of life does even though we pretend this is an innate truth. We are thieves. We have to face this to change. Of course theft and brutality are common to many creatures of earth, but so too are creatures that create their own resources and do not innately kill to live... like for example, the plants we treat as such inferior lifeforms despite their superiority to us at peaceful living (and yes plants battle for resources too but they have achieved far superior ability to live without killing than we have).
posted by xarnop at 7:16 AM on May 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
I think when people argue that meat eating COULD be balanced out, it's true if it were drastically reduced and done completely differently. But that's not usually what the average person debating the issue is choosing between. I try to avoid mass produced animal products and the ones from little local farms or friends who have chickens and share eggs essentially results in a lot less meat consumption especially since I can't afford the better quality products.
No matter what I do think we need to rethink mass production of living beings, it's disturbing on an ethical level (and ultimately so is slaughtering itself but I'm a harm reductionist and take small steps forward). Indigenous communities who have a certain reverence for living beings (albeit acknowledge the messy and painful cycles of violence much of survival on this planet has become reliant on) are leading the way on climate change and there may some values others among us could learn about reverence for life and seeing the system as having it's own presence and worth. We need to change not only our way of living but our values about life beyond what is human and our place within this web both at the policy AND individual level. Seeing a field of trees as "a resource" denies these ancient beings their true worth and that they don't innately exist just to give us things. None of life does even though we pretend this is an innate truth. We are thieves. We have to face this to change. Of course theft and brutality are common to many creatures of earth, but so too are creatures that create their own resources and do not innately kill to live... like for example, the plants we treat as such inferior lifeforms despite their superiority to us at peaceful living (and yes plants battle for resources too but they have achieved far superior ability to live without killing than we have).
posted by xarnop at 7:16 AM on May 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
Interestingly when thinking about a criminal, we don't usually use "but they are very intelligent and have superior capacity to built tools with which they destroy, enslave, torture for their own gain, and exploit those around them" as proof they are superior to all others and deserve to prey on the vulnerable, yet that is what our bases of human superiority often amounts to.
It is not ones intelligence or power that determines ones character but what one does with those things. If we are parasites of the earth, our ability to build tools is as relative to our greatness as a demons power to summon impressive feats to destroy and torment. We could use our skills to be servants of each other and all living beings on earth... or.... to enslave the planet for our gain at the expense and suffering of any non human beings (and of course this mentality adds to the idea that some humans are more worthy of exploiting and preying on other humans as well). We are clever monsters. But I hope... with potential for better things.
posted by xarnop at 7:26 AM on May 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
It is not ones intelligence or power that determines ones character but what one does with those things. If we are parasites of the earth, our ability to build tools is as relative to our greatness as a demons power to summon impressive feats to destroy and torment. We could use our skills to be servants of each other and all living beings on earth... or.... to enslave the planet for our gain at the expense and suffering of any non human beings (and of course this mentality adds to the idea that some humans are more worthy of exploiting and preying on other humans as well). We are clever monsters. But I hope... with potential for better things.
posted by xarnop at 7:26 AM on May 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
It was perhaps an emotion that I hadn't felt strongly before, and I don't have a name for it.
I'm sure the Germans have a word for it. They have a word for everything.
Tiefe Verbundenheit
posted by NotSam at 7:34 AM on May 26, 2017
I'm sure the Germans have a word for it. They have a word for everything.
Tiefe Verbundenheit
posted by NotSam at 7:34 AM on May 26, 2017
Have there ever been studies on how much various meats would cost with taxes that roughly reflect the negative externalities of production would cost?
Instead of taxing meat or ending corn subsidies, my solution would be to introduce stricter animal-welfare legislation. Disincentivise and desubsidise intensive farming, write new free-range standards and make it compulsory to meet them. Greater subsidies for small farms, organic farms and those that meet a certain standard of welfare.
More space per animal (plus the slightly greater losses associated with free range) = less production = more expensive meat.
posted by Pallas Athena at 7:55 AM on May 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
Instead of taxing meat or ending corn subsidies, my solution would be to introduce stricter animal-welfare legislation. Disincentivise and desubsidise intensive farming, write new free-range standards and make it compulsory to meet them. Greater subsidies for small farms, organic farms and those that meet a certain standard of welfare.
More space per animal (plus the slightly greater losses associated with free range) = less production = more expensive meat.
posted by Pallas Athena at 7:55 AM on May 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
THIS. THIS. THIS. It's a pretty neat trick corporations and Congress have pulled on us. Make the people believe its up to them individually to solve this problem.
I don't think Congress and corporations had to trick us at all. There is a natural human tendency to shift the blame for widespread issues down the socioeconomic ladder until it can be firmly pinned on the poor.
Who was responsible for the water crisis in California? Was it the agribusiness megacorps growing crops outside their natural habitat that represented 80% of the water use in the state? Nah, it was people taking showers and flushing their toilets. Even criticism of millionaires keeping their huge ornamental lawns watered has fallen out of fashion.
Take this conversation, too. Who is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions? Let's skip right to the end; it's obviously those people eating McDonalds. If only they bought more organic GMO-free vegan foods everything would be solved.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:03 AM on May 26, 2017 [12 favorites]
I don't think Congress and corporations had to trick us at all. There is a natural human tendency to shift the blame for widespread issues down the socioeconomic ladder until it can be firmly pinned on the poor.
Who was responsible for the water crisis in California? Was it the agribusiness megacorps growing crops outside their natural habitat that represented 80% of the water use in the state? Nah, it was people taking showers and flushing their toilets. Even criticism of millionaires keeping their huge ornamental lawns watered has fallen out of fashion.
Take this conversation, too. Who is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions? Let's skip right to the end; it's obviously those people eating McDonalds. If only they bought more organic GMO-free vegan foods everything would be solved.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:03 AM on May 26, 2017 [12 favorites]
THIS. THIS. THIS. It's a pretty neat trick corporations and Congress have pulled on us. Make the people believe its up to them individually to solve this problem.
It's not corporations and Congress who have done it. The way those on the left, and indeed some people in these and other MeFi threads, talk about climate change is often very similar to how conservatives talk about poverty: a structural and political issue discussed in terms of personal failings. If only the poor worked a little harder, saved a little more, they'd be okay. If only people chose to eat less meat and recycle more, things'd be okay.
The way a lot of people talk about the environment is almost religious: we are sinners, born as flawed humans and choosing to sin further in our lives, but the Day of Reckoning is coming when the wicked will be punished for their misdeeds.
It's really strange to read these kinds of discussions, and it just hinders the kind of policy considerations we should be having, instead of condemning individuals for their failings or even celebrating the coming End Times as just deserts.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:28 AM on May 26, 2017 [11 favorites]
It's not corporations and Congress who have done it. The way those on the left, and indeed some people in these and other MeFi threads, talk about climate change is often very similar to how conservatives talk about poverty: a structural and political issue discussed in terms of personal failings. If only the poor worked a little harder, saved a little more, they'd be okay. If only people chose to eat less meat and recycle more, things'd be okay.
The way a lot of people talk about the environment is almost religious: we are sinners, born as flawed humans and choosing to sin further in our lives, but the Day of Reckoning is coming when the wicked will be punished for their misdeeds.
It's really strange to read these kinds of discussions, and it just hinders the kind of policy considerations we should be having, instead of condemning individuals for their failings or even celebrating the coming End Times as just deserts.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:28 AM on May 26, 2017 [11 favorites]
The activism on these issues I think tries to simplify the idea that widespread demand for options other than red meat will drive industry change, but that conveniently ignores that industrial farming and commodities markets are, by design, meant to be opaque and to treat industrial inputs as outside the scope of market demand pressures. The rationale for that is the idea that only the industry has the practical expertise to understand what the most efficient ways to organize those sorts of pre-consumer markets are. Remember "pink slime"? The defense for its use was, why should consumer care as long as they're getting some kind of nutritional equivalent to red meat protein. From a purely industrial perspective, how to organize the raw material inputs to their business processes is supposed to be all that matters. Without market regulation and oversight, there's no simple mechanism for consumers to express their consumption preferences without government intervention. That creates one of those market failure situations where the only real answer is public policy, but the industry has a disproportionate influence and will tend to prioritize operational efficiency and profit maximization in what they want from public policy if their influence isn't checked by an equally powerful consumer/environmental lobby of some kind, in the current finance-centric, political party based model we use.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:30 AM on May 26, 2017
posted by saulgoodman at 8:30 AM on May 26, 2017
FakeFreyja, both those examples you've given are a direct result of the demand for more food. You can legitimately blame the supplier or the consumer and I don't think you'be be wrong.
The consistent failure to legislate is the problem. Only government has the power to change these things, and in the US there is no way they will do it. Career politicians will be the death of us all.
posted by trif at 8:31 AM on May 26, 2017
The consistent failure to legislate is the problem. Only government has the power to change these things, and in the US there is no way they will do it. Career politicians will be the death of us all.
posted by trif at 8:31 AM on May 26, 2017
I think it would be great for climate change if states like mine stopped growing monsoon crops in a desert. Step one.
Another thing that would be great would be if, similar to the way other countries have compulsory military service for a year or a few years, if everyone in this country (the US) had to do a compulsory year somewhere within the industrial food production complex. I don't mean a Mc-job doing "food distribution". I mean on a real honest-to-god farm.
It could create awareness and a new way of thinking for our citizens on a host of topics, from climate change to food production to access to clean water to labor rights, fair wages, affordable housing, access to affordable health care...
Those topics may sound like "duh" to those who grew up in areas where farming is more visible on a daily basis, but city kids have to take field trips to see a farm, and then it's all about getting the goat to eat pellets out of your hand. We don't grow up with an awareness of what it really takes to first grow food and then to get food to people. I mean, here in the SoCal region we're talking about roughly 30 million people who don't have a solid understanding of where our food comes from.
posted by vignettist at 8:42 AM on May 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
Another thing that would be great would be if, similar to the way other countries have compulsory military service for a year or a few years, if everyone in this country (the US) had to do a compulsory year somewhere within the industrial food production complex. I don't mean a Mc-job doing "food distribution". I mean on a real honest-to-god farm.
It could create awareness and a new way of thinking for our citizens on a host of topics, from climate change to food production to access to clean water to labor rights, fair wages, affordable housing, access to affordable health care...
Those topics may sound like "duh" to those who grew up in areas where farming is more visible on a daily basis, but city kids have to take field trips to see a farm, and then it's all about getting the goat to eat pellets out of your hand. We don't grow up with an awareness of what it really takes to first grow food and then to get food to people. I mean, here in the SoCal region we're talking about roughly 30 million people who don't have a solid understanding of where our food comes from.
posted by vignettist at 8:42 AM on May 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
Isn't the real problem --the problem that is too inhumane to discuss-- that there are too many humans?
I am not advocating culling the herd in any way shape or form. But the debate always seems to run right past that. Maybe it's because it's the variable that's too monstrous to change. I don't know.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 8:44 AM on May 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
I am not advocating culling the herd in any way shape or form. But the debate always seems to run right past that. Maybe it's because it's the variable that's too monstrous to change. I don't know.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 8:44 AM on May 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
The way those on the left ... talk about climate change is often very similar to how conservatives talk about poverty: a structural and political issue discussed in terms of personal failings.
That's not true at all. The left focuses on structural effects; in fact that's pretty much the basis of all leftist thought. It is centrist capitalism-friendly liberalism that frames this in terms of individual contributions.
I'm getting weary of the constant (and often pretty clearly unfounded) attacks on the left that I see on this site...
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:46 AM on May 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
That's not true at all. The left focuses on structural effects; in fact that's pretty much the basis of all leftist thought. It is centrist capitalism-friendly liberalism that frames this in terms of individual contributions.
I'm getting weary of the constant (and often pretty clearly unfounded) attacks on the left that I see on this site...
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:46 AM on May 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
Isn't the real problem --the problem that is too inhumane to discuss-- that there are too many humans?
And that's how we got modern farming techniques to begin with - to not have to suffer seeing your children starving. It's the same with modern medicine. To prevent suffering. But then it turns out that there are consequences to our actions that we cannot foresee when we first intervene.
We can look at countries where there is drought and famine and see that it's not possible to stop the snowball of intervention. But we do need to reign in capitalism a bit and demand responsibility. We need to stand up and say things like, for example, it's not reasonable to produce water-heavy crops in a desert, regardless of the costs of moving water to the desert, in order to create a profit where once there was none. You can just as easily create that profit in a wetter climate, with less overall collateral damage to our earth in both the short run and the long run. Our interventions need to be more thought-out, more big picture, and less about short-term profits.
posted by vignettist at 8:57 AM on May 26, 2017
And that's how we got modern farming techniques to begin with - to not have to suffer seeing your children starving. It's the same with modern medicine. To prevent suffering. But then it turns out that there are consequences to our actions that we cannot foresee when we first intervene.
We can look at countries where there is drought and famine and see that it's not possible to stop the snowball of intervention. But we do need to reign in capitalism a bit and demand responsibility. We need to stand up and say things like, for example, it's not reasonable to produce water-heavy crops in a desert, regardless of the costs of moving water to the desert, in order to create a profit where once there was none. You can just as easily create that profit in a wetter climate, with less overall collateral damage to our earth in both the short run and the long run. Our interventions need to be more thought-out, more big picture, and less about short-term profits.
posted by vignettist at 8:57 AM on May 26, 2017
Released four days ago: ...if Americans would eat beans instead of beef, the United States would immediately realize approximately 50 to 75 percent of its GHG reduction targets for the year 2020
Full text article can be had on Researchgate.
posted by bonehead at 9:07 AM on May 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
Full text article can be had on Researchgate.
posted by bonehead at 9:07 AM on May 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
Isn't the real problem --the problem that is too inhumane to discuss-- that there are too many humans?
I am not advocating culling the herd in any way shape or form. But the debate always seems to run right past that. Maybe it's because it's the variable that's too monstrous to change. I don't know.
It's brought up in literally every discussion of this topic, especially every discussion I've ever seen on MeFi, and makes no sense or is outright kind of racist each time. The countries that do all the polluting, the rich ones, have low to negative population growth. The countries that feel the brunt of climate change's effects, the poor ones, are where the growth is. The populations of the people causing the problems are already slowing or even shrinking but the problem isn't getting better. It's not some poor villager in Bangladesh or Chad causing this, but they're going to get the worst of it.
The issue isn't too many people, it's some people using too many resources, or using them in a harmful way. All this "too many people" talk usually means "cull the hordes of poor brown people" who aren't responsible for the problem.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:07 AM on May 26, 2017 [21 favorites]
I am not advocating culling the herd in any way shape or form. But the debate always seems to run right past that. Maybe it's because it's the variable that's too monstrous to change. I don't know.
It's brought up in literally every discussion of this topic, especially every discussion I've ever seen on MeFi, and makes no sense or is outright kind of racist each time. The countries that do all the polluting, the rich ones, have low to negative population growth. The countries that feel the brunt of climate change's effects, the poor ones, are where the growth is. The populations of the people causing the problems are already slowing or even shrinking but the problem isn't getting better. It's not some poor villager in Bangladesh or Chad causing this, but they're going to get the worst of it.
The issue isn't too many people, it's some people using too many resources, or using them in a harmful way. All this "too many people" talk usually means "cull the hordes of poor brown people" who aren't responsible for the problem.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:07 AM on May 26, 2017 [21 favorites]
Y'all can start with the bible, and the story of Cain and Abel. Abel's gift of meat was more pleasing to their god, than Cain's gift of produce. Meat is set in the tradition as more godly. Also the fat from meats until the last 100 years was the fuel for the human internal combustion engine, for energy and warmth. Now we largely use fossil fuels to keep warm, in the climates that require it; and to keep cool in the climates that require it. The fact is we are being sold on survival of the fittest right now, and the fittest take the most, take what they want, have made what they want, and the rest of us will be lucky to live long lives, if that turns out to be lucky at all.
The grinning, violent, tech entrepreneur who just won the Montana house race, he is the poster child for what is on the desired plate. Don't try to convince people like him, or them, with any facts. They have to be chained by the rule of law. Then, when looking at the whole thing, it is hard to chain money, you'd have an easier time chaining a river, or the even the air, if it gets much thicker.
posted by Oyéah at 9:14 AM on May 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
The grinning, violent, tech entrepreneur who just won the Montana house race, he is the poster child for what is on the desired plate. Don't try to convince people like him, or them, with any facts. They have to be chained by the rule of law. Then, when looking at the whole thing, it is hard to chain money, you'd have an easier time chaining a river, or the even the air, if it gets much thicker.
posted by Oyéah at 9:14 AM on May 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
We can both demand governmental change and make changes in our personal lives. I still recycle, for instance, even though my footprint isn't what's causing global environmental problems.
posted by tofu_crouton at 10:50 AM on May 26, 2017
posted by tofu_crouton at 10:50 AM on May 26, 2017
: (a) beef doesn't clearly contribute to global warming and
Please don't put words in my mouth, that is not what I said. I was responding to a comment asserting that if you care about the environment, you should not eat animal products.
I refute that statement and further disagree with its position as a moral and individual argument.
I'm not denying anything; but it's complicated and deserves nuance.
posted by smoke at 3:20 PM on May 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
Please don't put words in my mouth, that is not what I said. I was responding to a comment asserting that if you care about the environment, you should not eat animal products.
I refute that statement and further disagree with its position as a moral and individual argument.
I'm not denying anything; but it's complicated and deserves nuance.
posted by smoke at 3:20 PM on May 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
Okay sure but please tell me it's okay to murder and eat the geese that chase me when I'm jogging
posted by Automocar at 4:28 PM on May 26, 2017
posted by Automocar at 4:28 PM on May 26, 2017
...if Americans would eat beans instead of beef, the United States would immediately realize approximately 50 to 75 percent of its GHG reduction targets for the year 2020
Have you not seen Blazing Saddles?
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 4:50 PM on May 26, 2017
Have you not seen Blazing Saddles?
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 4:50 PM on May 26, 2017
Does anyone have an idea how other livestock (raised for meat) compare to cattle as far as global warming potential goes? Is "eat different meat" worth anything? That seems like a pretty gentle message to start with. I know there's a case that meat is always going to be an inefficient food though, and there are plenty of other ecological issues.
On the animal protein thing, I would love to see more people engaging with the concept of carnism and the "four Ns" that underpin meat-consumption-as-default: the idea that eating meat is inherently natural, normal, necessary and nice.
I can only speak for myself obviously but as someone who is not easily convinced that meat-eating is inherently morally wrong - and I'm not trying to be an asshole about it, just honest about my personal lack of emotional engagement with this perspective - I do find the environmental arguments against persuasive, certainly sufficient to influence my consumption if not to cut it straightaway to zero.
posted by atoxyl at 5:02 PM on May 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
On the animal protein thing, I would love to see more people engaging with the concept of carnism and the "four Ns" that underpin meat-consumption-as-default: the idea that eating meat is inherently natural, normal, necessary and nice.
I can only speak for myself obviously but as someone who is not easily convinced that meat-eating is inherently morally wrong - and I'm not trying to be an asshole about it, just honest about my personal lack of emotional engagement with this perspective - I do find the environmental arguments against persuasive, certainly sufficient to influence my consumption if not to cut it straightaway to zero.
posted by atoxyl at 5:02 PM on May 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
I would have probably caved to peer pressure and tried to take up eating red meat to be polite if I hadn't been persuaded by the arguments on its environmental impact. It also helped being ringside when the mad cow scare swept through Europe and cows were just being burned in the streets. And having a co-worker who died of CJD soon after I returned to the states under a mysterious cloud, and my own nagging guilt over eating cows when my wife (now ex) adored cows and taught me to enjoy cow watching as a leisuretime activity all converged to make me invincible to peer pressure. Beef seemed to be getting gristlier anyway the last couple of years I still ate it, and I always hated gristle.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:44 PM on May 26, 2017
posted by saulgoodman at 8:44 PM on May 26, 2017
Does anyone have an idea how other livestock (raised for meat) compare to cattle as far as global warming potential goes? Is "eat different meat" worth anything?
Ruminants are significantly worse than any other kind of meat, regardless of any tinkering you might want to do around the edges, so yes definitely eating other meat can be a valid choice - esp if, for example, your beef is coming from fromer Brazilian rainforests or feedlots.
posted by smoke at 8:52 PM on May 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
Ruminants are significantly worse than any other kind of meat, regardless of any tinkering you might want to do around the edges, so yes definitely eating other meat can be a valid choice - esp if, for example, your beef is coming from fromer Brazilian rainforests or feedlots.
posted by smoke at 8:52 PM on May 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
If you have cows for dairy, you will also have calves, and those calves will become veal or beef in countries were the economy isn't up for oxen in front of plows and carts.
IMO, strict animal protection laws are our best bet, and that will be hard and take a long time. Eliminate food lots and permit only grass-fed livestock with enough space, and the price of beef will go way up, which in itself will limit our intake and the "production" of livestock. The thing is, I don't think this can happen top-down, even though it would be faster and maybe better. All revolutions start with food prices rising, and I don't think average Americans are prepared for higher prices on meat. Even though there is a lot of talk about better eating and eating more pulses and vegetables among the elite, most people I know still do the protein + starch + veggie thing, with meat at the centre of the meal. I understand that, I find it really hard to change that habit I grew up with, even though my family loves all veggie or veggie + a tiny bit of meat meals.
On the other hand, I do think a rising awareness of animal rights and animal welfare can change attitudes. Here, a big (food) fight is going on. Our right-wing government wants to help out the agricultural industry with phony animal welfare stickers, where a pig raised in a overfilled sty with just a bit more hay will get a green heart. Half of the retail stores are having nothing of it and have created their own stickers where the animals have to have actual good living conditions in order to get a commendation. The fight in the media in itself contributes to public awareness of the issue. A big organic dairy company formerly just sold of their calves for conventional production — now they have created their own organic farms for grass-feeding calves and young steers in ethical ways. Just the other day, I drove through that area, and it is quite striking how the landscape has changed back towards what it was in my childhood, before industrial farming caught on here. It's not the same, because farms and pastures are bigger now, but it is literally greener.
In other areas, the same is happening with pigs, all based on consumer demand, created through public awareness.
(Yes, I love doing road trips)
posted by mumimor at 1:31 AM on May 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
IMO, strict animal protection laws are our best bet, and that will be hard and take a long time. Eliminate food lots and permit only grass-fed livestock with enough space, and the price of beef will go way up, which in itself will limit our intake and the "production" of livestock. The thing is, I don't think this can happen top-down, even though it would be faster and maybe better. All revolutions start with food prices rising, and I don't think average Americans are prepared for higher prices on meat. Even though there is a lot of talk about better eating and eating more pulses and vegetables among the elite, most people I know still do the protein + starch + veggie thing, with meat at the centre of the meal. I understand that, I find it really hard to change that habit I grew up with, even though my family loves all veggie or veggie + a tiny bit of meat meals.
On the other hand, I do think a rising awareness of animal rights and animal welfare can change attitudes. Here, a big (food) fight is going on. Our right-wing government wants to help out the agricultural industry with phony animal welfare stickers, where a pig raised in a overfilled sty with just a bit more hay will get a green heart. Half of the retail stores are having nothing of it and have created their own stickers where the animals have to have actual good living conditions in order to get a commendation. The fight in the media in itself contributes to public awareness of the issue. A big organic dairy company formerly just sold of their calves for conventional production — now they have created their own organic farms for grass-feeding calves and young steers in ethical ways. Just the other day, I drove through that area, and it is quite striking how the landscape has changed back towards what it was in my childhood, before industrial farming caught on here. It's not the same, because farms and pastures are bigger now, but it is literally greener.
In other areas, the same is happening with pigs, all based on consumer demand, created through public awareness.
(Yes, I love doing road trips)
posted by mumimor at 1:31 AM on May 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Y'all can start with the bible, and the story of Cain and Abel. Abel's gift of meat was more pleasing to their god, than Cain's gift of produce. Meat is set in the tradition as more godly.
Ah yes, this exact scripture was used to vilify vegetarianism when I was a child in Southern Baptist sunday school. I grew up a vegetarian, since my parents are vegetarians, and every six months or so I had to sit through a lesson about how eating meat is pleasing to god and vegetables are just not good enough, haha, not tryin' to pick on you little Lolly McCatburglar, but why don't you ask your momma if you can come over for lunch and get some REAL food.
It's so ingrained in my part of the country that God n' country n' barbecue are basically synonymous.
posted by lollymccatburglar at 5:55 AM on May 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
Ah yes, this exact scripture was used to vilify vegetarianism when I was a child in Southern Baptist sunday school. I grew up a vegetarian, since my parents are vegetarians, and every six months or so I had to sit through a lesson about how eating meat is pleasing to god and vegetables are just not good enough, haha, not tryin' to pick on you little Lolly McCatburglar, but why don't you ask your momma if you can come over for lunch and get some REAL food.
It's so ingrained in my part of the country that God n' country n' barbecue are basically synonymous.
posted by lollymccatburglar at 5:55 AM on May 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
« Older Goonfish is evolving! | We're Closer Than Ever Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I mean, we could try the unleashing the creative power of our best scientists, and engineers and entrepreneurs, backed by public and private investment, to deploy new innovations in climate-smart agriculture thing, or we could stop expending 80% of our agricultural output on the production of animal protein.
Like, I'm pretty sure at least one of those two options would work.
posted by 7segment at 12:04 AM on May 26, 2017 [24 favorites]