Sean M
Level 7 Valued Member
@Steve Freides Beware the “hockey-stick scare chart” effect. Here is another look at the same growth:
Another:
Another:
The inefficiency of animal agriculture means most crop land goes to feed livestock. Eliminate livestock, especially on the industrial level currently practiced, and you free up a tremendous amount of land that would no longer need to be cultivated. It could be put to other uses.
The ethical criticism of farming's collateral damage of animals is just silly. It in no way compares to the industrial scale production of billions of animals solely for the purposes of slaughter when a better alternative is available.
I doubt that motorsports are on the same scale as animal agriculture for impact, but I'm pretty sure many of our 1st World pursuits will become elitist to the point of obsolescence.Not to sound too nit picky or standoffish, but if I can't have a steak because of climate change maybe do away with nascar and all the other "sports" like it. How much fuel and tires and oil are wasted in a single race? Multiply that by how many races are held each year from around the world. And that's just stock car races.
That does not reflect the farming and ranching operations I've seen in the American West, particularly California, but it does resemble what I've seen in Switzerland.What is silly is arguing about farming without setting foot on one. I have been to a few, and in all of them cows and bulls are grazing on the land not suitable for cultivating crops.
This study supports my impression:
Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate - ScienceDirect
What is silly is arguing about farming without setting foot on one. I have been to a few, and in all of them cows and bulls are grazing on the land not suitable for cultivating crops.
This study supports my impression:
Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate - ScienceDirect
That does not reflect the farming and ranching operations I've seen in the American West, particularly California, but it does resemble what I've seen in Switzerland.
Perhaps because I wasn't required to take a course in statistics in the course of my otherwise musical education, I would appreciate an explanation. I understand a linear scale; I don't understand altering that.Logarithmic scale is used to demonstrate the rate of change. Relevant for this discussion.
If we all become vegetarian, the world could support maybe 20.000.000.000 humans instead of the 7 billion we are now. More of us will certainly make a more beautiful planet.
The climate change issue, at its heart is this - acceptance of it or denial of it. And indifference spanning both.
And that is framed by 'don't trust the experts'.
That, despite hard nosed skeptical, objective scientists reviewing data and reaching consensus there is skepticism by non-experts of their claims.
Similar to diet and nutrition, especially related to carbohydrate consumption. There is overwhelming evidence that a diet consisting of 40-50% of calorie from carbohydrate, across many populations, is the most healthy in terms of all cause mortality risk. A classic Gaussian curve of general distribution. Slap bang in the middle for most people. Blue zone data - the King of longevity diets and lifestyle for health conscious bio hackers and longevity code crackers - reveal more or less the same thing, with added sunshine and community. And on balance, the one thing that all accountable dieticians, medics, nutritionists and scientists can agree on in the food quagmire of competitive nutrition food wars is to add more fruit and vegetables because most people lack them! Yet, yet, still, many, many people do not accept this. And at its heart is this - acceptance of it or denial. And indifference spanning both.
So climate and health share a similar theme - denialism. For a hotch-potch of entwined variables, from many inputs, the result is 'don't trust the experts' - the skeptical view of skeptics who do not trust the trained, objective skills of skeptical science.
It is then a polarised view of evidence v belief. Fact v alternative fact.
Part of the problem of course is science does get things wrong. Some of the greatest science a result of error leading to new discovery and knowledge and/or a re-thinking of current models and adjustment of understanding. That's part of the scientific process.
Science and scientists are for the most part humble and acknowledge their *uck ups, however trivial or insignificant they maybe. So when a consensus is obtained, when the vast majority of scientists agree - and there will are debates and fights along the way - then surely, surely there comes a point where non experts should take notice? And that's where we are with climate change and nutrition, belief it or not.
That's been a problem since Galileo. Darwin? Still is.
Flat earthers? And, anti vaccine? It's always a problem, always will be. Only now there are 'tools' and ways to disseminate views countering and questioning everything and anything. Quickly avoiding politics...
It seems then both the climate change emergency and the diet and health issue - which some may argue is also an emergency - arrive at more or less the same position: less carbon, more fruit and veg. And depending on your current diet that may mean less meat.
So you could argue that the less red meat thing from a health viewpoint is not agreed, the evidence put forward that red meat is carcinogenic etc with poor health outcomes was misinterpreted, gained from dodgy questionnaires, the data sets misrepresented and as meat eaters that is not conclusive enough to switch to full on veganism. Absolutely. And put that together with the outright propaganda of the game changing nonsense then, in conclusion, it's all bollocks.
And I get that, to a point.
But, adopting both the health and climate change view that by virtue of adding more fruit and vegetables to your diet at the expense of something else is evidence backed that is both good for your health and the planet.
Is that view radical?
Perhaps because I wasn't required to take a course in statistics in the course of my otherwise musical education, I would appreciate an explanation. I understand a linear scale; I don't understand altering that.
-S-
Actually, the second graph I posted (rate of change) shows what’s happened, which is that population growth peaked in the early 60s and has been plummeting since then. World population will level off by mid-century and then actually decline unless the fertility replacement rate goes up (~2.2, enough to replace the two parents and account for deaths before reproduction).@Van Der Merve, thank you. For you and @Sean M, I read the article. I remain unconvinced and I'll try to explain why. If I mangle how this works, please feel free (you and anyone else) to correct me.
I sit in my car and put my foot on the gas pedal. The car moves faster and faster. One could graph the car's speed, or one could graph the car's rate of acceleration. The log-based graphical representation, as I understand, shows the rate of change while the linear graph shows the changes themselves. The linear representation, in both cases, seems fine, does not seem exaggerated, and makes perfect sense to me. In the case of population growth, I believe the "hockey stick" graph is a more accurate representation of my understand of what's happened.
-S-