Do you want to discuss boring politics? (28 Viewers)

[COV]

You and your mum, and your neighbours, and their neighbours can stop eating meat - that's 15% net C02 reduction straightaway. We could all also choose to reduce our consumption of things we want but don't actually need.

I suspect that of those that do protest, most still eat meat, consume all forms of tech gadgets, sit on their social media driven computers helping burn energy, and will walk into jobs and professions that support unnecessary (but nice) consumption.

I'm confident that nature will take care of things however, through ever greater natural disasters and loss of land. So, everybody just chill (buy an C02 producing air con system) - Nature's got this one.

I don’t think he’s saying that we shouldn’t bother, more that the people who could make serious changes for the better are unwilling/ unable to do so

Then again when you have Branson asking for emergency loans but then bragging about trips to space a few months later it shows how fucked up the world really is, nobody will do anything until it’s too late.

 

---

[Deleted member 4439]

How do we grow enough fruit and veg to cope with the world not eating meat?

Stop use agricultural land for growing meat. which is between 4-7 times less efficient at producing calorific input per acre. So you could feed more, not less. It is this inefficiency when combined with other destructive acts associated with growing meat, such as deforestation, that amounts to the C02.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Meat eating is nothing like that number. The figures used to get there are wildly off. Electricity production is governments responsibility. We could easily be carbon neutral there by now if we hadn’t had the silly aversion to wind while being probably the best country on the planet for wind power.

Consumption and carbon footprint are ideas spread by fossil fuel lobbies to dodge their responsibility. And the green lobby and it’s penchant for telling people off so they can feel virtuous fell for it hook line and sinker. Thankfully it’s not just the crusties that are working on this now.

Simple things we could do: insulate homes, move to renewables and nuclear, decarbonise most transport, all doable today with little impact.

Pretending we can change human nature en masses is just delusional. That’s not how people work.

We didn’t stop smoking indoors by asking nicely. We didn’t remove toxic substances by asking manufacturers nicely. We didn’t stop single use plastic by asking nicely. You set regulations and people adapt.

Sadly we’ve got a government who doesn’t believe in government and is ideologically bent on doing nothing in response to any issue.

To be fair though we do have an economy that's based almost entirely on consumption and growth of that consumption over time. This is because the metrics governments use to measure 'success' are based around them and so therefore have to promote them to be seen to be successful and achieving economic growth.

We need someone brave enough to say there's more to it than that and introduce more indicators to determine success. Sadly, we all know anyone that did would get destroyed in the media by those with a lot of influence doing very nicely out of the current set-up.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

As an aside, a plant based diet is probably better for the environment until the whole world tries to do it. Then, in trying to serve the exponential increase in demand, I suspect we'd find it would be pretty bad for the environment, too!

Conclusion? Too many humans are bad for the environment(!)

Sadly, when you look at any of the problems facing the world and trace them back, almost all of them start because there's too many of us around to be sustainable.

It's something that could be sorted in a generation if we could get rid of the cultural and religious ideologies around the world that promote having lots of children.

But we won't and eventually nature will sort it for us and it will not be pretty. Coronavirus is little more than nature shaking its head and tutting at us compared to what will happen eventually if we don't reel ourselves in.

 

[COV]

Sadly, when you look at any of the problems facing the world and trace them back, almost all of them start because there's too many of us around to be sustainable.

It's something that could be sorted in a generation if we could get rid of the cultural and religious ideologies around the world that promote having lots of children.

But we won't and eventually nature will sort it for us and it will not be pretty. Coronavirus is little more than nature shaking its head and tutting at us compared to what will happen eventually if we don't reel ourselves in.

I agree win this 100%. Covid is just the beginning. When you have fires in Siberia that’s another way of nature asking “are you really sure about this folks?” Saw quite a few articles projecting what is coming our way, chilling stuff. As with all things there will be hyperbole in there, but underneath it is the truth that we’re heading for a huge wake-up call at some point.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Nope, that's the whole point of the many analyses that have been undertaken. Making meat is inefficient and very destructive of the environment as a whole, not just is creating C02. It's a 15% reduction if all stopped eating meat. Easiest single thing we can do and which is in our hands.

It would be better, as plant crops take up less space than that needed for animals to produce the same amount of food. If we switch to stuff like insects as an alternative it would be an improvement.

Trouble is a lot of pastoral land isn't suitable for arable farming due to soil, location etc so we'd have to take land from somewhere else to meet demand. I think we could have vertical farming in large skyscrapers using hydroponics but that also uses loads of resources to create the structure.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Stop use agricultural land for growing meat. which is between 4-7 times less efficient at producing calorific input per acre. So you could feed more, not less. It is this inefficiency when combined with other destructive acts associated with growing meat, such as deforestation, that amounts to the C02.

Do those figures include the fact that agricultural land can't be used every year for growing fruit and veg? Or areas of the world that struggle immensely to grow fruit and veg?

Deforestation also happens for produce that takes a higher profit anyway, so if that's not a cow, it'd be something else... a yam, say.

I appreciate this reads slightly confrontationally, and I don't necessarily mean it to (give me the answers to the questions, and I'll look into it / test it out as a hypothesis), but I am struggling to get my head around how scaling things up works. Hunter / gatherers augment what they farm (limited) with meat, after all, with no real detrimental effect, but they're not doing it as a mass-market industry.

 

[skybluetony176]

How do we grow enough fruit and veg to cope with the world not eating meat?

We use the land currently used to grow animal feed to grow human feed.

The two biggest causes of deforestation in the world are clearing land to grow animal feed and then clearing land for pasture. Not only we do have enough land to feed the world without meat eating we would also have enough spare land to start planting trees and re-wilding land.

 

[shmmeee]

To be fair though we do have an economy that's based almost entirely on consumption and growth of that consumption over time. This is because the metrics governments use to measure 'success' are based around them and so therefore have to promote them to be seen to be successful and achieving economic growth.

We need someone brave enough to say there's more to it than that and introduce more indicators to determine success. Sadly, we all know anyone that did would get destroyed in the media by those with a lot of influence doing very nicely out of the current set-up.

This is classic left wing thinking. “First change all of human civilisation”. OK good luck with that.

 

[Deleted member 4439]

Do those figures include the fact that agricultural land can't be used every year for growing fruit and veg? Or areas of the world that struggle immensely to grow fruit and veg?

Deforestation also happens for produce that takes a higher profit anyway, so if that's not a cow, it'd be something else... a yam, say.

I appreciate this reads slightly confrontationally, and I don't necessarily mean it to (give me the answers to the questions, and I'll look into it / test it out as a hypothesis), but I am struggling to get my head around how scaling things up works. Hunter / gatherers augment what they farm (limited) with meat, after all, with no real detrimental effect, but they're not doing it as a mass-market industry.

The analyses looks at permutations of meat, dairy, veg and fruit production and their effects on C02 with the available land. And you are right, deforestation occurs due to non-meat production, notably wheat and soya, used extensively meat and dairy substitutes. But, again, the efficiency of non-meat production is 4-7 times greater, so one forest for every 4-7 forests as now.

 

[skybluetony176]

The analyses looks at permutations of meat, dairy, veg and fruit production and their effects on C02 with the available land. And you are right, deforestation occurs due to non-meat production, notably wheat and soya, used extensively meat and dairy substitutes. But, again, the efficiency of non-meat production is 4-7 times greater, so one forest for every 4-7 forests as now.

Just to put that into context 80% of world soya production is used in animal feed.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

We use the land currently used to grow animal feed to grow human feed.

The two biggest causes of deforestation in the world are clearing land to grow animal feed and then clearing land for pasture. Not only we do have enough land to feed the world without meat eating we would also have enough spare land to start planting trees and re-wilding land.

Sadly we wouldn't, because like all species as soon as we have enough to be comfortable all we do is reproduce until we've got a larger population that's hungry.

 

[skybluetony176]

Sadly we wouldn't, because like all species as soon as we have enough to be comfortable all we do is reproduce until we've got a larger population that's hungry.

The world fertility rate has been declining for decades. So that’s not even remotely true. It currently averages at about 1.1, any less than 2.1 populations begin to decline.

 

[clint van damme]

Stop use agricultural land for growing meat. which is between 4-7 times less efficient at producing calorific input per acre. So you could feed more, not less. It is this inefficiency when combined with other destructive acts associated with growing meat, such as deforestation, that amounts to the C02.

Isn't there a theory that switching something like 30 percent red meat consumption to poultry would have a huge effect on carbon omissions

 

[Evo1883]

The world fertility rate has been declining for decades. So that’s not even remotely true. It currently averages at about 1.1, any less than 2.1 populations begin to decline.

 

[shmmeee]

View attachment 21056

Getting there then.

Wonder what we do economically when constant population expansion isn’t happening.

Interesting times.

 

[Evo1883]

Getting there then.

Wonder what we do economically when constant population expansion isn’t happening.

Interesting times.

Well there's one positive.

Zero hour contracts might be put on the back-burner

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Well there's one positive.

Zero hour contracts might be put on the back-burner

Nah, it'll be pension age of 80

 

[shmmeee]

Nah, it'll be pension age of 80

Thats gonna happen anyway.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Thats gonna happen anyway.

tbf, isn't our country's birth rate below 2 anyway?

 

[shmmeee]

tbf, isn't our country's birth rate below 2 anyway?

Think so. Certainly among “native” Brits. Recent immigrants might be higher.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

There you go. And it's gone down since then:

‘It’s a national crisis’: UK’s birth rate is falling dramatically

The UK is facing a population crisis with birth rates at an all-time low.

theconversation.com

(I feel obliged to point out this was what came up in Google, so I have no idea if they're lefty, righty, clown-faced doggy, whatever!)

 

[shmmeee]

There you go. And it's gone down since then:

‘It’s a national crisis’: UK’s birth rate is falling dramatically

The UK is facing a population crisis with birth rates at an all-time low.

theconversation.com

(I feel obliged to point out this was what came up in Google, so I have no idea if they're lefty, righty, clown-faced doggy, whatever!)

Makes the two child benefits policy even more nuts.

Can’t wait for us to become Japan. Robot carers here we come!

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Makes the two child benefits policy even more nuts.

Can’t wait for us to become Japan. Robot carers here we come!

Some of the figures are unbelievable like China from 2bn to 750m or something like that. Some countries have way less than keeping their numbers up

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The world fertility rate has been declining for decades. So that’s not even remotely true. It currently averages at about 1.1, any less than 2.1 populations begin to decline.

Well if that were true why is the population continuing to increase? Currently by around 80m people per year (which is lower than its peak around 1990 of around 90m but still 80MILLION extra people to feed and provide for EVERY YEAR. UN expects it to keep growing and likely to be beyond 11billion people by the turn of the century.

Not sure where you got your figure from. Current fertility rate I can find is around 2.4. Only thing I can find matching what you put is the GROWTH rate. i.e. the population getting bigger.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

There you go. And it's gone down since then:

‘It’s a national crisis’: UK’s birth rate is falling dramatically

The UK is facing a population crisis with birth rates at an all-time low.

theconversation.com

(I feel obliged to point out this was what came up in Google, so I have no idea if they're lefty, righty, clown-faced doggy, whatever!)

And this reporting is part of the problem. It describes the population going down as a crisis. Not that it would give more resources per person, or that it could improve wages and working conditions due to reduced competition, but as a crisis.

In history things have got better for the average person/poorer after incidents involving large loss of life such as the plague or massive wars because these people are in a better bargaining position.

So is it any wonder the ones that promote growth have always been those in charge, whether it be through royal decree, government or religious texts.

 

[Philosoraptor]

Great video from the late Hans Rosling about population. Quite entertaining.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

The one I read

World population likely to shrink after mid-century, forecasting major shifts in global population and economic power

With widespread, sustained declines in fertility, the world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100 -- about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates, according to a new study.

www.sciencedaily.com

China down from 1.4bn to 740m

 

[Grendel]

The one I read

World population likely to shrink after mid-century, forecasting major shifts in global population and economic power

With widespread, sustained declines in fertility, the world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100 -- about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates, according to a new study.

www.sciencedaily.com

China down from 1.4bn to 740m

Whereas India

India’s Population Will Be 1.52 Billion by 2036, With 70% of Increase in Urban Areas

The five southern states will account for only 9% of the growth. Put together, they will see a population increase of 29 million – half the increase of UP alone.

m.thewire.in

 

[skybluetony176]

View attachment 21056

Ahh. OK. Maybe I was looking at project fall in fertility rates.

 

[shmmeee]

Whereas India

India’s Population Will Be 1.52 Billion by 2036, With 70% of Increase in Urban Areas

The five southern states will account for only 9% of the growth. Put together, they will see a population increase of 29 million – half the increase of UP alone.

m.thewire.in

Is also growing slower than expected?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Is also growing slower than expected?

View attachment 21060

But still growing. Massively. 8.4% growth of a billion people is still an awful lot more people.

It may seem that very long term signs are encouraging and maybe they'll come down even more in that time but it's still a massive crisis in the short to medium term

 

[COV]

But still growing. Massively. 8.4% growth of a billion people is still an awful lot more people.

It may seem that very long term signs are encouraging and maybe they'll come down even more in that time but it's still a massive crisis in the short to medium term

People are getting this wrong- it’s not that populations are declining. Two things are happening.. 1- the rate of increase is slowing in some places but not others, meaning that 2- there is a redistribution of population happening. By 2100 the 10 most countries are predicted to include Ethiopia, Congo and Tanzania- the world will be a very different place. The worlds biggest cities are forecast to be Lagos, Dar Es Salaam and Kinshasha, all of which will have more people living there than all of the UK.

2100 and population forecast to level off, but there’s a long time between now and then and by that time there will be 40% more people than there are now

 

[shmmeee]

I think any prediction of what’s happening 80 years from now needs a whole lot of salt.

The third world will industrialise quicker than the first world did and like everywhere else where living standards have risen birth rates will fall.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I think any prediction of what’s happening 80 years from now needs a whole lot of salt.

The third world will industrialise quicker than the first world did and like everywhere else where living standards have risen birth rates will fall.

This is true but it will take time, like it did here, to filter through, We had a big population explosion post-industrialisation as infant mortality fell and life expectancy increased but the old habits and beliefs kept going.

Hopefully they would move to the lower birth rates quicker than us as they'll also have access to the information, contraception etc more quickly than we did but I expect it to increase before it goes down.