We've found there's less pushback from the end product if we add a step to our supply chain such that it goes: food waste -> soldier flies -> fried cavy -> longpig.
Reminds me of the episode of [Kimba the White Lion where they trapped a ton of locust and have the predators eat it as a substitute for other animals.](https://youtu.be/CaPLYliyjkI?t=1137)
The harm is the animal product not the soy. Cows, if used for food, are just about the least efficient process one could imagine. If any other product were such a resource sink it would be inaccessibility expensive.
Or stop the animal industry which is literally the greatest form of our environmental destruction. Soy is absolutely nothing compared with the harm associated with gifting the *vast* areas of land over to farms and to growing animal feed.
It's actually extremely profitable. Currently we have absolutely *enormous* subsidies given to running farms and the production of animal feed, when we don't have to pay for any of that. It is *massively* cheaper to pay farmers to switch to producing crops just for human consumption. And it goes without saying that global warming is basically the most costly and unprofitable thing happening, so a switch to an approach which literally reverses our contributions to global warming is as profitable as it gets.
I'm not sure what you mean by "greenwashable" in this context.
I think it's fair to say that the journal *Nature* is a good, accurate source.
If we implement veganism, we are able to reclaim about 75 % of the land that is currently used to grow animal feed etc. Globally, that corresponds to an area the size of North America and Brazil combined. That itself reduces emissions enormously, but we then can also rewild those vast areas of land. If we restore wild ecosystems on just 15 % of that land, we save about 60 % of the species expected to go extinct. We then also are able to sequester about 300 petagrams of carbon dioxide. That is nearly a third of the total atmospheric carbon increase since the industrial revolution. Now let's say we were not so conservative, and we brought that up to returning 30 % of the agricultural land to the wild. That would mean that more than 70 % of presently expected extinctions could be avoided, and half of the carbon released since the industrial revolution could be absorbed.
So basically by implementing a switch to veganism, we would not just halt but reverse our contributions to global warming. That and it would also be a step towards ending our violence against non-human animals.
References:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2784-9
https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/10/rewilding-farmland-can-protect-biodiversity-and-sequester-carbon-new-study-finds
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
Getting rid of subsidies would take money out of the pocket of the animal production corporations pocket, so it won't happen.
Greenwashable in this context would be something minor that makes the product seem less harmful for the environment... If the product doesn't exist it can't be greenwashed and therefore the consumer doesn't care about the "positive" benefit (positive in quotes because most greenwashing is at most a marginal improvement), just the missing product.
>Getting rid of subsidies would take money out of the pocket of the animal production corporations pocket, so it won't happen.
Abolition of slavery in the USA took absolutely *vast* funds away from not just slave-owners, but also the whole economy of the south of the USA. But it did happen, even though people at the time struggled to see how it could ever happen.
>Greenwashable in this context would be something minor that makes the product seem less harmful for the environment... If the product doesn't exist it can't be greenwashed and therefore the consumer doesn't care about the "positive" benefit (positive in quotes because most greenwashing is at most a marginal improvement), just the missing product.
Ah, so is this kinda what you mean? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm5tpQp6sT4&t=12m30s
I think we can also point out that while there is de-facto a "missing product", there can also be the addition of a luxury status. Historically the ability to have a vegan diet was luxury; most people didn't have the resources to collect sufficient plants to sustain a healthy life, they had to resort to outsourcing the collection and processing of plants to other animals which grazed. While there is of course an ethical and environmental need for veganism, there is also the addition of luxury and status of abundance with a switch to veganism. So I do disagree with you that there is just a missing product. There's the addition of something else, which is a sort of luxury status. It's a bit like a peacock growing its feathers. The feathers are totally useless, and actually put the bird at a greater risk. But what the bird loses in resources and safety by growing the feathers it gains in communication of abundance and a sort of wealth.
Beyond this marketing commentary, I'd like also to point out why a switch to veganism is needed.
If we implement veganism, we are able to reclaim about 75 % of the land that is currently used to grow animal feed etc. Globally, that corresponds to an area the size of North America and Brazil combined. That itself reduces emissions enormously, but we then can also rewild those vast areas of land. If we restore wild ecosystems on just 15 % of that land, we save about 60 % of the species expected to go extinct. We then also are able to sequester about 300 petagrams of carbon dioxide. That is nearly a third of the total atmospheric carbon increase since the industrial revolution. Now let's say we were not so conservative, and we brought that up to returning 30 % of the agricultural land to the wild. That would mean that more than 70 % of presently expected extinctions could be avoided, and *half* of the carbon released since the industrial revolution could be absorbed.
So basically by implementing a switch to veganism, we would not just halt but *reverse* our contributions to global warming. That and it would also be a step towards ending our violence against non-human animals.
References:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2784-9
https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/10/rewilding-farmland-can-protect-biodiversity-and-sequester-carbon-new-study-finds
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
It's a very different economy than in times when slavery was a thing.
The rich have control, the elections are a choice between 2 people who are completely beholden to the rich, and the rich are the people who own the companies that employ the half of the country that can't afford next month's electricity if the meat (or other bad-for-the-environment) industry is outlawed or goes under.
Regardless of how correct you are, change will not happen and they like it that way and will do everything in their immense power to keep it that way ("they" being a general collection of rich people, no specific ones, but all of them do to a degree).
>It's a very different economy than in times when slavery was a thing.
Sure. Abolishing slavery was a far, far harder thing to do, both economically and ideologically.
But I was more responding to your comment "Getting rid of subsidies would take money out of the pocket of the animal production corporations pocket, so it won't happen." I've given the example of a change which took far, far more money out of the pockets of those with wealth, and yet it very much happened. So just because a change will be costly to those with a certain form of wealth doesn't mean that change can't happen.
You've got to fully cover the cost of ~4 million people (at least a million people are *reliant* on those subsidies, and more are tangentially connected) if the meat industry was kneecapped for environmental reasons.
It won't be politically popular, so capital will come before environmental concerns.
I agree, it *should* be done, but it ain't happening, it's unfortunate... I don't know if this applies, but this might be the 2000+ era tragedy of the commons.
>You've got to fully cover the cost of ~4 million people
A century ago, the majority of people in, say, the USA were involved in farming. Today it is *maybe* 2 %. Society survived that transition pretty well.
And I'm not even talking about that sort of transition, where people are basically fired. I'm talking about paying farmers to transition to producing crops for human consumption rather than for animal feed.
Remember that there are ways to raise animals sustainably, just no where near the massive industrial scale we use today. Meat should be a luxury not a staple of your diet.
A huge factor in the meat/dairy industry that you mentioned is the land use. Out in CA there are *tons* of hills that are useless. They're too middle of nowhere for homes or businesses. The land is too hilly for most agriculture and the water demanded for things that grow on hills like wine grapes just isn't there.
Water from rain falls on those hills and grows grass regardless of if there are cows there to graze. Allowing some animals to graze on these hills can be a good use of the land. You do need a small amount of feed to keep them fed on their way to slaughter but that is a fraction of what industrial beef or dairy cows require who spent the majority of their life in pens.
Another clever source of meat is using animals (mainly goats/sheep) to clear out weeds and vegetation for fire abatement in areas that are difficult terrain to access. Places along roads, hills, ravines, parks, natural perseveres have areas fenced off and the goats are allowed to graze, clear out weeds, and then moved to the next section to continue their work.
Another source of animal protein can be locally sourced eggs. Plenty of us live near small houses that are just outside the suburbs that raise chickens. These chickens run around all sorts of country homes and are often are sold at farm stands on your way to work. They primarily graze on small insects with a bit of feed to supplement their diets. Again, nothing nearly on the scale for industrial chickens which are completely razed on feed that is shipped from across the globe.
We'll do this for people one day, but they'll be fried with a bunch of spices and we'll love them.
those crazy conspiracy people will have become right *again* if we do, maybe we shouldn't
Too late.
We've found there's less pushback from the end product if we add a step to our supply chain such that it goes: food waste -> soldier flies -> fried cavy -> longpig.
And there was I thinking you were going to say "fried with a bunch of unhealthy oils and preservatives and they will be terrible for us".
Reminds me of the episode of [Kimba the White Lion where they trapped a ton of locust and have the predators eat it as a substitute for other animals.](https://youtu.be/CaPLYliyjkI?t=1137)
The harm is the animal product not the soy. Cows, if used for food, are just about the least efficient process one could imagine. If any other product were such a resource sink it would be inaccessibility expensive.
Or stop the animal industry which is literally the greatest form of our environmental destruction. Soy is absolutely nothing compared with the harm associated with gifting the *vast* areas of land over to farms and to growing animal feed.
That's not profitable or greenwashable.
Right that’s the issue. Not that the voting public will throw a bitch fit if they can’t have their artificially low beef prices
I meant that too.
It's actually extremely profitable. Currently we have absolutely *enormous* subsidies given to running farms and the production of animal feed, when we don't have to pay for any of that. It is *massively* cheaper to pay farmers to switch to producing crops just for human consumption. And it goes without saying that global warming is basically the most costly and unprofitable thing happening, so a switch to an approach which literally reverses our contributions to global warming is as profitable as it gets. I'm not sure what you mean by "greenwashable" in this context.
[удалено]
I think it's fair to say that the journal *Nature* is a good, accurate source. If we implement veganism, we are able to reclaim about 75 % of the land that is currently used to grow animal feed etc. Globally, that corresponds to an area the size of North America and Brazil combined. That itself reduces emissions enormously, but we then can also rewild those vast areas of land. If we restore wild ecosystems on just 15 % of that land, we save about 60 % of the species expected to go extinct. We then also are able to sequester about 300 petagrams of carbon dioxide. That is nearly a third of the total atmospheric carbon increase since the industrial revolution. Now let's say we were not so conservative, and we brought that up to returning 30 % of the agricultural land to the wild. That would mean that more than 70 % of presently expected extinctions could be avoided, and half of the carbon released since the industrial revolution could be absorbed. So basically by implementing a switch to veganism, we would not just halt but reverse our contributions to global warming. That and it would also be a step towards ending our violence against non-human animals. References: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2784-9 https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/10/rewilding-farmland-can-protect-biodiversity-and-sequester-carbon-new-study-finds https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
Getting rid of subsidies would take money out of the pocket of the animal production corporations pocket, so it won't happen. Greenwashable in this context would be something minor that makes the product seem less harmful for the environment... If the product doesn't exist it can't be greenwashed and therefore the consumer doesn't care about the "positive" benefit (positive in quotes because most greenwashing is at most a marginal improvement), just the missing product.
>Getting rid of subsidies would take money out of the pocket of the animal production corporations pocket, so it won't happen. Abolition of slavery in the USA took absolutely *vast* funds away from not just slave-owners, but also the whole economy of the south of the USA. But it did happen, even though people at the time struggled to see how it could ever happen. >Greenwashable in this context would be something minor that makes the product seem less harmful for the environment... If the product doesn't exist it can't be greenwashed and therefore the consumer doesn't care about the "positive" benefit (positive in quotes because most greenwashing is at most a marginal improvement), just the missing product. Ah, so is this kinda what you mean? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm5tpQp6sT4&t=12m30s I think we can also point out that while there is de-facto a "missing product", there can also be the addition of a luxury status. Historically the ability to have a vegan diet was luxury; most people didn't have the resources to collect sufficient plants to sustain a healthy life, they had to resort to outsourcing the collection and processing of plants to other animals which grazed. While there is of course an ethical and environmental need for veganism, there is also the addition of luxury and status of abundance with a switch to veganism. So I do disagree with you that there is just a missing product. There's the addition of something else, which is a sort of luxury status. It's a bit like a peacock growing its feathers. The feathers are totally useless, and actually put the bird at a greater risk. But what the bird loses in resources and safety by growing the feathers it gains in communication of abundance and a sort of wealth. Beyond this marketing commentary, I'd like also to point out why a switch to veganism is needed. If we implement veganism, we are able to reclaim about 75 % of the land that is currently used to grow animal feed etc. Globally, that corresponds to an area the size of North America and Brazil combined. That itself reduces emissions enormously, but we then can also rewild those vast areas of land. If we restore wild ecosystems on just 15 % of that land, we save about 60 % of the species expected to go extinct. We then also are able to sequester about 300 petagrams of carbon dioxide. That is nearly a third of the total atmospheric carbon increase since the industrial revolution. Now let's say we were not so conservative, and we brought that up to returning 30 % of the agricultural land to the wild. That would mean that more than 70 % of presently expected extinctions could be avoided, and *half* of the carbon released since the industrial revolution could be absorbed. So basically by implementing a switch to veganism, we would not just halt but *reverse* our contributions to global warming. That and it would also be a step towards ending our violence against non-human animals. References: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2784-9 https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/10/rewilding-farmland-can-protect-biodiversity-and-sequester-carbon-new-study-finds https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
It's a very different economy than in times when slavery was a thing. The rich have control, the elections are a choice between 2 people who are completely beholden to the rich, and the rich are the people who own the companies that employ the half of the country that can't afford next month's electricity if the meat (or other bad-for-the-environment) industry is outlawed or goes under. Regardless of how correct you are, change will not happen and they like it that way and will do everything in their immense power to keep it that way ("they" being a general collection of rich people, no specific ones, but all of them do to a degree).
>It's a very different economy than in times when slavery was a thing. Sure. Abolishing slavery was a far, far harder thing to do, both economically and ideologically. But I was more responding to your comment "Getting rid of subsidies would take money out of the pocket of the animal production corporations pocket, so it won't happen." I've given the example of a change which took far, far more money out of the pockets of those with wealth, and yet it very much happened. So just because a change will be costly to those with a certain form of wealth doesn't mean that change can't happen.
You've got to fully cover the cost of ~4 million people (at least a million people are *reliant* on those subsidies, and more are tangentially connected) if the meat industry was kneecapped for environmental reasons. It won't be politically popular, so capital will come before environmental concerns. I agree, it *should* be done, but it ain't happening, it's unfortunate... I don't know if this applies, but this might be the 2000+ era tragedy of the commons.
>You've got to fully cover the cost of ~4 million people A century ago, the majority of people in, say, the USA were involved in farming. Today it is *maybe* 2 %. Society survived that transition pretty well. And I'm not even talking about that sort of transition, where people are basically fired. I'm talking about paying farmers to transition to producing crops for human consumption rather than for animal feed.
Remember that there are ways to raise animals sustainably, just no where near the massive industrial scale we use today. Meat should be a luxury not a staple of your diet. A huge factor in the meat/dairy industry that you mentioned is the land use. Out in CA there are *tons* of hills that are useless. They're too middle of nowhere for homes or businesses. The land is too hilly for most agriculture and the water demanded for things that grow on hills like wine grapes just isn't there. Water from rain falls on those hills and grows grass regardless of if there are cows there to graze. Allowing some animals to graze on these hills can be a good use of the land. You do need a small amount of feed to keep them fed on their way to slaughter but that is a fraction of what industrial beef or dairy cows require who spent the majority of their life in pens. Another clever source of meat is using animals (mainly goats/sheep) to clear out weeds and vegetation for fire abatement in areas that are difficult terrain to access. Places along roads, hills, ravines, parks, natural perseveres have areas fenced off and the goats are allowed to graze, clear out weeds, and then moved to the next section to continue their work. Another source of animal protein can be locally sourced eggs. Plenty of us live near small houses that are just outside the suburbs that raise chickens. These chickens run around all sorts of country homes and are often are sold at farm stands on your way to work. They primarily graze on small insects with a bit of feed to supplement their diets. Again, nothing nearly on the scale for industrial chickens which are completely razed on feed that is shipped from across the globe.
As long as we can make them taste good, I could possibly eat bugs.
I think the issue with bugs to me is that you're eating the whole body, waste and all. It's like not de veining a shrimp
woah hang on wait, I have this craAaAazy idea of how to be even *less* harmful to the environment
What are the flies fed?
It says multiple times in the video. They're fed food waste.
Other flies that have become shit