Discussion in 'Science' started by hlokk, Feb 12, 2007.
Sounds like you live in some kind of religious vegan echo chamber to me.
Be quite interesting if they can make predictions on a reasonably short period based on that modelling. What I liked most was their ability to use transport models.
So tell me, what efforts do you make during your day to day shuffle to make this world a better place for the next generation? Or what else can you bring to today's discussion apart from snide remarks? ... or are you simply posting to help me prove my earlier point.
I don't shuffle. I'm not some city dweller being force fed bad research "studies" and negative propaganda around animal agriculture.
Yes we eat too much meat, but it doesn't take a vow of penitence and self-declared martyrdom to make a difference.
Raise cattle. Build major IT infrastructure. Try to use up fossil fuels by implementing WOT. Travel. Recycle.
I really DGAF after my nieces/ nephews generation. That'll probably change when/ if they have kids but certainly no further. I simply don't believe people really care about the state of things a century after they're dead.
how about caring about the state of things right now?
it is also about noticing the effects and changes occurring and whether they are better than or worse than previously and whether changes are desirable or less so.
but if one is born into a sewer (ie. a degraded environment), then there is nothing else to compare it with. unless historical data is observed.
perhaps a bit less cattle. asian diet is healthier anyway with less meat.
"City dweller", "force fed", "negative propaganda"... I checked a couple of your previous posts from this thread, and you come across as intelligible with your thoughts, so am disheartened at your current frame of mind (I dare say, close minded) towards what I bring to the table. And confusingly you then admit that "we eat too much meat" - we, meaning society?
Here is a thought; Take someone who is sick for years, not sick-sick, but generally unwell and unfit. And as they value their health they finally come to the conclusion that with a few dietary tweaks, such as no meat and no dairy, that their health clears up and they're as good as gold, better than ever. And now think of an alcoholic and how they abstain from grog once they commit to staying sober. The same theory applies to many plant based individuals, they discover life is actually better once they go "vegan" and thus reject their old lifestyle completely.
There is no silver bullet to correcting climate change, it's a multifaceted problem. And those involved in mass scale animal husbandry can't hide, nor the industries and government subsidies involved in propping it up. I'll end with asking if you've actually watched any of Prof. Will Steffen's talks, and if so, what were your take away points?
Keep in mind that with climate change, we're inherently talking about the next mass extinction event which is absolutely imminent, and is slightly more concerning than the future of your grand kids. Thanks to 9 billion other people not giving a fuck about anything but their grand kids, we're now in the age of Anthropocene. I ask myself - Is there a magic switch to make everyone start giving a fuck? ... Nope!
Absolutely. However, the science is pointing more and more to a real shit storm, unfortunately.
That depends upon each individual and their circumstances.
Like Kagoshima Wagyu?
Because I'm not suggesting that what you bring to the table wrt to climate change is wrong. I'm suggesting that it's unworkable on a whole bunch of levels, and that the vegan propaganda machine draws on mistruths and a mix of good and very very bad science to state its case.
The oft-cited land use studies are fundamentally flawed, because I've never seen one take account of land class, often just "arable" And "non-arable. Even on a global scale analysis that isn't useful.
Furthermore, the claims around grain use neglect to mention that virtually all of the grain used for livestock, other than F1 class isn't useful for humans as it requires a ruminant gastric system to actually process it due to the grain size and quality.
The fact is that if we mandated what vegans want, you would probably starve a billion people in the first 5 years.
Nice anecdotes. Maybe those people could have just eaten better rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water?
Maybe you should do some research on the local industries. Like how our government gives the lowest support of any OECD country to agriculture for starters.
Or how our "staple" meats of beef and lamb, and our dairy industry is largely pasture based, meaning that CO2 emissions are 24% lower on average than our northern hemisphere counterparts using high energy diets in housed environments.
Or how that pasture based system in the dairy industry results in a life that closely resembles their existence in the wild, yet without predators, and they have less calves, longer lifespans and better health.
No, but I'll watch it and get back to you.
generally, the asian diet is starch and vegies, fish and less meat than western diet.
two periods (dependent on the scientific accuracy of the temp data which has been 'derived' and not taken directly) i've just noted 2 hotter periods compared to the relatively cool current period.
another period was around 1200BC at 3C hottter than 1880.
the one linked above is 4-8C (accuracy?)
Other sources have stated that 3-5C average global temp above 1880 levels will have 'significant impact' . some ecosystems no doubt will be adversely affected. others will take their place. humans will need to adapt their agriculture to suit. i'd imagine that where now x,y,z, crops are grown will change significantly in locations of suitability. shifting where they are grown.
the climate of the dinosaur was supposedly 10-15C hotter than today on average. also the co2 levels were higher than today say 65million years ago...global temps no human has experienced.
do we want to find out? what 3-5C hotter will be like? It spells the doom of many ecosystems. and the doom of some humans who are not evolved to cope with extremes of heat that occur outside of average temperatures.
it is unknown to me what the overall climate effect will be as larger amounts of water vapour in the atmo. may result in higher rainfall in some areas...perhaps it will extend the tropics? i really dont know. will deserts and aridity increase in some areas? my opinion/guess is that extremes (as distinct from average temp and weather) will become more extreme....(some weather events already in evidence)
i doubt ill live long enough to see 2C rise in global average. it may not even happen...
Climate Refugees in China
Not only global climate change but local/micro-climate change. it is all one big picture.
more good sounding news from China and Xi. re the environment.
recycling water in Israel.
Israel; clean and green
Africa Green Belt.
It is the type of garden that can solve all the problems. - efficient use of water and permaculture methods.
interesting post. i agree with the sentiment.
add some ecological zones to the mix. we could have a paradise of biodiversity aswell.
the extinctions data just for Australia is quite depressing. i looked into this a number of years ago. ...the data is easy to find, like many other data with the internet. i dont use the printer anymore except on rare occasions but when years ago i printed out the extinctions list it was a thick sheaf of paper listing all of them. it's horrendous. and makes me truly ashamed of a self-centred species. Of course when you step back and look at homo sapiens as just another species scuttling around on the planet, then it is as clear as day, from an ecological perspective, what it represents.
"Climate Change Way Worse Than We Thought"
The Billionaire Class is Not Fit to Rule - Paul Jay
some good news, still lots of bad news.
South America is an ecological disaster zone, in progress.
There are cultural changes and changes of habit that are fundamental to sustainable ecological systems. they arent particularly radical. Easily within our current scope if only people would do it. Just a different form of humanism that is more ecologically aware.
Which goes to the point I made in a different thread; if it's as bad as they say, we might as well party while the Titanic sinks. Because there's no possible way people are going to accept the reduction in living standard necessary.
The Real News. Like all those great countries that proclaim their democratic credentials in their name...
And Paul Jay is wrong. Most people are fucking dumb.
Living standards improve with systemic infrastructure improvements.
Some folks would argue that not being able to eat meat at will is a reduction in living standards.
And building infrastructure emits anthropogenic greenhouse gases...
....obviously the wrong type of infrastructure.
eat less. asians do. healthier aswell.