https://www.yahoo.com/news/farmers-warn-food-aisles-soon-023000986.html?guccounter=2
"There is a concern that we won't ever have the volumes we had in the past in the future."
"Fortunately, we know many ways we can make the food system more resilient while reducing food emissions. The biggest opportunity in high-income nations is a reduction in meat consumption and exploration of more plants in our diets," said Dr. Paul Behrens, an associate professor of environmental change at Leiden University in the Netherlands.
Honestly, most people in the modern West eat more meat than is healthy anyway.
Turns out hunter-gatherers haven't evolved to eat meat every meal, three meals a day, all their lives.
I'm Latino and I've gone vegetarian, and to my father this is completely inconceivable. He's used to having meat every meal, and is convinced that I'm going to fall ill if I don't eat meat. I eat so many damn beans anyways that I'm good without it.
This whole eating meat every day, thing, seems pretty new right? Like industrial revolution forward. Most people in history weren't expecting meat all the time
Only because they couldn't afford it...lol
Protein has always been the most desirable and most expensive part of any meal.
The fact that Americans eat so much meat is a testament to wealth not simply bad eating behavior.
That's because the general population tried to imitate the rich when the standard of living increased, and the rich in general loved to hunt and eat lots of meat.
I didn't, I disregarded it. Tell me the name of a MY ancestor who started that trend and where they were born.
What a strange assertion to make as if you and your predecessors somehow remained separate from everyone else.
Exactly. You should really be eating a lot of roots, nuts, leaves, and berries then occasionally catch something that can run from you.
I'm a vegetarian but my wife calls me an opportunistic meat eater, like a horse. I don't eat meat, except when it's Christmas and my mom makes her turkey, or the one time a year I allow myself to have a big Mac.
I don't think my system could handle a steak, or pork anymore, it would probably destroy me.
Said no one ever before 1900.
You people are so goddamn spoiled and you have no clue.
Eating meat is the only way our species has survived and now that we've evolved past it you act like it was never even a factor.
There's a reason tribes move with animal herds and not due to which berries are in season.
Yes yes, fire and meat. That works fine when you’re a roving tribe and humans number in the hundred thousand range. That destroys the planet when you live in houses and there will be 10 billion by the year 2050. But go on.
to be fair they only had to work four to six hours a day so they needed less calories
eat more meat than is healthy
What is considered healthy in your opinion?
As someone who lost 40kg by just eating mostly meat (one year meat for lunch, salami for dinner), I'd argue it's healthier than the stuff that's advertised to be healthy.
wanna build muscle? well, eating pasta and salad every day won't get you very far.
Sure, there are other protein sources, but let's be honest, nothing is more nutritional, efficient (and delicious) than meat.
I think we should really focus on the truely unhealthy shit that's out there in the supermarkets, and not on meat.
You should study up on that vegan body builder, though I'm afraid that I don't recall his name. Remember that when you digest the meat, you are reducing back to its amino acids which your body can put back together into new proteins. The same thing happens when you digest plant matter--you reduce the plant proteins into amino acids which your body then puts back together into its own proteins.
Sure, but there's the thing called PDCAAS, kind of a digestibility index for protein sources. in other words, how much of that protein can the body actually digest, the rest of it just gets pooped out.
And many plant based sources have a lower score, with a few exceptions.
Then, there's the cost factor too, best bang for the buck.
While I'm sure it's possible, the fact that it's "that vegan body builder" instead of the norm should be a clue on how generally effective it is. Personally I don't eat a lot of meat, and of the meat I do eat, most is seafood, but I won't deny that meat is the easiest way to get the nutrients you need. It's also a lot more filling than carbs.
There's one dude who made a big youtube channel on the topic. Don't know if he's still around. His whole shtick was helping obese people get into shape by teaching them his diet and workout routines.
Honestly, most people in the modern West eat more meat than is healthy anyway.
Visit non-India Asia and get back to me. I don't know how anyone can be vegetarian there just as a general practice.
In my experience yes. I can't describe the joy of the experience of being baked out of your mind buying way too much meat on a stick, going a stand over to get a thing of sticky rice in a bag, then the next stand a bubble tea, and finally devouring it on a random folding chair with a crate as a table.
"Crushing conditions" and "not in a good place" does make me think it's about the US though.
Yeah, I was thinking X to doubt. Honestly still am, because they can import as well as the next place, and some areas are only getting more productive.
The last time this was posted it specifically mentioned Brexit complications for importing.
I admit, I didn't actually read it. Oops.
I'd be shocked if importing at all wasn't possible, though. Food is the first thing people buy.
The problem is regulations that are different in the UK compared to those in the EU. It makes it complicated to import food.
Are these the same farmers who were protesting regulations meant to stave off these “crushing conditions?”
Are these the same farmers who were protesting regulations meant to stave off these “crushing conditions?”
If you're referring to the recent protests in Europe I'd say that you missed the mark. The recent changes would have done nothing but put European farmers out of business while moving production to South America. So in addition to creating more food insecurity it would have also done more environmental damage as things would have still have been grown / raised and then required trans-Atlantic shipping!
The EU was trying to sell it as an environmental bill but it was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to do with food production what's been done with manufacturing; outsource the messy environmentally destructive part to somewhere else in the world so we can pretend it's not happening.
Dont forget your also De valueing the land so you can then come in and pick up huge swaths of land on the cheap when the farmers go bust.
If only someone had listened to scientists in the late 1800’s who correctly predicted carbon dioxide would lead to the greenhouse effect. People haven’t been listening for over a century. https://folk.universitetetioslo.no/roberan/t/EarlyEstimates1.shtml
If only we hadn't stopped building Nuclear Power plants because of a movie and the fucking hippies voting.
Because of course there are concentrations. Eugene Oregon is one of the places where communes still exist with original members. Don’t extrapolate to the populace just from an example like that.
Seems pretty stupid for the owning class to let the working class starve. I guess we'll have to find another source of food…
No snowflake ever feels responsible for the avalanche.
People in general act in their own self interest, and have trouble seeing the wider influence of their decisions.
That's why good government is so important, because establishing rules and regulations should be a dedicated job done by people committed to seeing the big picture.
But that ain't the government we got.
I'm tired of hearing that "the people" are responsible.
Companies are responsible. You walk into a grocery store and 90% of the products are packaged in plastics. Most of the products are not produced in a sustainable way. But it's the only options we have. Most people want to help the planet, but don't have the option.
And no matter who anyone votes for, governments around the world are too concerned with the economy (read: helping companies make more money) to take any real concrete action and implement laws to help the environment.
I stopped taking my private jet for trips under 1 hour and instructed the staff not to use air conditioning on the yachts unless notified I’ll be there 8 hours in advance.
No need to thank me. We all have to do our part.
Not everyone has options, but a lot of people likely have more options than they think they do.
Especially when it comes to meat. Very few people live in a place or situation where they "must" get their protein or certain vitamins exclusively from meat.
I think you misunderstood what I meant.
Yes we can all do our own collective part with our individual choices. We can all make sacrifices. Cut down on luxuries and comforts and what have you.
But what is the fucking point when you have millionaires and billionaires and companies who are responsible for the vast majority of the environmental disaster that's happening right now? And government who enable them? They're not making any fucking sacrifice.
And, as I said, they're the ones providing us with all the plastic wrapped, pfas-filled, and unsustainable products that we need to survive. We often have no choice, but to buy these products because that's all that's available. What do we do then?
All the sacrifices we make gives them more room to pollute even more to cut costs anyway.
We often have no choice, but to buy these products because that's all that's available.
This is the point that I'm arguing, which seems to be the foundation of your defeatist stance.
Companies have money because we give them money. Companies are allowed to pollute because we don't really care that they do. Otherwise, we'd be voting differently, protesting differently, and so on.
I'm suggesting that it's not often that we have no choice. Most of us have plenty of choices with each product we buy. But we'll often buy the disposable one made in China because it's 20% cheaper than one made more sustainably, for instance.
With the way people are strapped for cash in this economy, we don't have a choice.
You think I want to buy fruits and vegetables that came all the way from Chile during the winter time because they don't grow here in Canada under the snow?
You want me to eat less meat? Ok. But that bloc of tofu was produced in China and came all the way here on a big container boat.
Yes I want to buy that local handmade sweater, but it's 200$. Walmart has sweaters made in Bangladesh for 1/10th of that price and I need to pay my increasingly high rent.
We're being strangled financially and forced to make these choices.
You think I want to buy fruits and vegetables that came all the way from Chile during the winter time because they don't grow here in Canada under the snow?
Guess Canada was unpopulated before it could trade with Chile...or maybe what was grown and eaten in Canada centuries ago might still be grown there?
Yes, things are expensive. I'm not saying the choices are always easy to make. But I am saying that a defeatist attitude is generally just a way of saying "It's too hard and I don't wanna". And if someone doesn't wanna, that's fine. There are options, and it's not all black and white.
Why do you need a new handmade sweater? First of all, how often do you buy sweaters? They usually last years. Second of all, buying one used is more environmentally friendly than buying a brand new one.
Why are you buying the Tofu from China? This is a product of Canada. And even if it's coming from elsewhere, reducing meat consumption likely outweighs the impacts of shipping. And hey, Canada can likely grown and produce its own legumes!
Again, I'm not saying the choices are easy, clear, obvious, or intuitive. I'm saying they're probably there for most people.
"For the people, by the people" has morphed into "For the corporations, by the corporations" in this dystopian timeline I don't want to be a part of anymore.
I think a more useful way to look at it is that the government represents the people who control more resources. If we assume that, then democracy has to extend beyond the voting booth, into the realm of resource surplus accumulation and distribution. Ultimately it's in the hands of labor. If labor doesn't allow for few to accumulate and control most of the surplus, then that surplus will be spread out among more people and thus the government would represent a wider group of people. Unionize, take the surplus and force the government to represent your unions. This is actionable.
All governance is based on balances of power, both real and perceived. Only by empowering and acknowledging the power of the people can democracy truly flourish.
I want proof that a ban on animal products will be first rolled out on the super wealthy and then on the rest of us
I'm convinced the owning class has divorced the working class.
The lie is that it was ever a marriage.
Marriages are partnerships. No masters, no slaves.
No equality under capitalism.
Marriages are partnerships. No masters, no slaves.
Isn't trad marriage just toned down master-slave relationships?
Bullshit article from greedy rich Tories but it doesn't matter because everyone just went off on their own rant regardless and didn't even try and engage with any part of it beside the headline.
Good thing they are part of a massive single market which can absorb regional disasters oh wait.
Family of four needs about ~44 acres of growing space to be self sufficient. That includes needing chickens and dairy animals.
