What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Riggerjack
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by Riggerjack »

No. In actuality, different lists from different sources always disagree. When I started digging into extinction numbers, about 10 years ago, wikipedia tied to an organization that had been tracking this for centuries, and had a number of 585, going back to early Extinctions like Dodo birds.

In the years since, the page has been completely reworked several times, and the numbers change every time. Last time, they started listing extinctions by areas a species could no longer be found. So the same species of salmon would be extinct in 74 rivers or streams, yet still being commercially fished.

The other area of confusion is that we have extended the endangered species act to enforce protections of endangered behaviors. Deer living on an island in the river? There aren't many on that island, better protect that "subspecies" not enough native rainbow trout are going into saltwater, endangered. Yup rainbow trout, north America's most popular and common freshwater game fish, some are endangered, some are not, from the same clutch of eggs.

So the numbers will always be squishy, as there is concentrated effort at one end to massage the numbers to extend legal protections, and at the other to maximize the storyline of Extinctions.

I am sympathetic to the cause of environmental health, but the actual work is at best, dishonest. I don't think our real effects on the environment need to be exaggerated for narrative purposes.

Reality is bad enough to justify action, environmental Apocalypse folklore is there so people with little justification can feel superior to the average human. Good for recruitment, not good for actually fixing anything.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by Riggerjack »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b ... ns_by_year
1970
Molokai 'Alauahio (subsp. flammea)[1]
1971
St. Lucia Wren (subsp.)[1]
1981
Bachman's Warbler
Eskimo Curlew[1]
Mariana Mallard
1987
Kauai Oo
1988
Maui 'Akepa (subsp.)[2]
1990
Borreo's Cinnamon Teal
Hooded Seedeater
'O'u
O'ahu 'Alauahio
Dusky Seaside Sparrow
1995
Maui Nukupu'u
1998
Kauai Nukupu'u
21st century[edit]
2004
Po'ouli
that is every bird that has gone extinct in my lifetime. how many are a subspecies that only lived on one island? All of them that aren't controversial subspecies. Most of that list is variations of the Hawaiian honey creeper.
Before the introduction of molecular phylogenetic techniques, the relationship of the Hawaiian honeycreepers to other bird species was controversial. The honeycreepers were sometimes categorized as a family Drepanididae,[3] other authorities considered them a subfamily, Drepanidinae, of Fringillidae, the finch family. The entire group was also called "Drepanidini" in treatments where buntings and American sparrows (Emberizidae) are included in the finch family; this term is preferred for just one subgroup of the birds today.[4][5] Most recently, the entire group has been subsumed into the finch subfamily Carduelinae.[2][6]


So you can see how soft these numbers are. It's not all agenda driven, the science of species identification is developing, and this will also affect the numbers.

is it 585? 946? 61? it hardly matters, as the numbers from any source will not back up the general knowledge that we are wiping out biodiversity in wholesale numbers. so if the science doesn't back the story, either change the story, or ignore the science. So far, we seem to be comfortable ignoring the science.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15906
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by jacob »

@Riggerjack @Ego - There seems to be a bunch of concepts needed [be agreed on] to have this discussion. What comes to mind are

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species%E ... area_curve --- which goes something like #species = c*Area^z, where c and z are constants particular to the type of species, e.g. frogs have different parameters than flowers. This gives fair estimate of how many species of a given kind a given habitat area can sustainably support. Use z<1... the curve will look like a plotting a [square]-root.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_debt --- which counts those species which will eventually be extinct but aren't yet. This is the origin of those large numbers (like 10-30% of all species---keep in mind that these mostly include things like worms, parasites, fungi, insects, ... and not lovable creaturs like polar bears and direwolves).

How does this work? You take the species-area curve which works pretty good e.g. plotting #species of a given ind vs area shows a reliable functional relationship. (curve-fitted phenomenologically by e.g. S=cA^z). Then you look to areas where you know there's been historically known changes. For example, you might know that a big forest of area A was divided into two forests of areas 1/2 by building a big city in the middle 200 years ago. Measuring those halves, you note that they have more species than expected by the species-area curve. You have a similar situation that is 700 years old. Or maybe you know that half of an island was flooded in the interrim since the last ice age. By considering the time-dimension, you get a species-area-time functional relation. This allows you to predict when [and how many] species are terminally irrecoverable. Such as e.g. the salmon or whatever. Even if they're still around---if they can't functionally reproduce themselves "in the long run", they are deemed extinct.

This that "extinction" in the ecological [mass statistics] sense here is typically considered at the local level. This means that a particular species can be extinct in Chicago even if some phenotype is still wandering into Chicago on occasion or if there's still a viable population in NYC. Conversely, extinction in the vernacular sense typically means that there's no living DNA left anywhere on the planet of a particular genotype that is identified and well-known (and it's typically pretty hard to verify that due to lack of time and resources of keeping track of all those millions of species).

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6357
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by Ego »

Okay, but the arguing over the accuracy of the number of extinctions is a tactic used to distract from the main point.... which is.... discontinuing the consumption of meat is a (the?) large(est?) impact any of us can have. Every day we see new evidence of this fact. Is that right?

Riggerjack
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by Riggerjack »

discontinuing the consumption of meat is a (the?) large(est?) impact any of us can have.
Well, we have disagreed on this before, and it's too late for either to choose a better path.

I would say that not having children would be the biggest impact, from a sustainability standpoint. 7 billion people. We either need to be more efficient, and get comfortable as the last species, or we need fewer people. I chose to eat chickens, and not have kids, but neither choice is a signal of my virtue. I just like my chickens dead and on a plate, and children in someone else's house. Mainly because I am familiar with both, and that's the arrangement that works best for me.

@ Jacob, I am familiar with the math, not familiar enough to do it, but familiar enough to see the many ways the mathematical answer can differ from the survey answer. It's also part of the way they generate nonsensical statements like "40 percent of the insect species of the Amazon rainforest remain undiscovered by humans." Could certainly be true, or it could be off by a lot.

I only bring up Extinction numbers, because I was caught so off guard when I ran it down. We have been talking about "one hour from now, another species of life will be wiped off the face of the Earth, and the rate is accelerating. Accelerating." for so long, I assumed it was based on fact. Or math. Or at least assumptions. Turns out to be complete fiction.

When you count behavior as a means to divide a species, that species just became more endangered. Both (or more, should you decide to go with more than 2 subspecies) groups now contain fewer members, thus they are more endangered. This isn't science, this is politics. When you find that a species can be further divided because of a genetic variation, maybe that's science, I'll leave that up to the biologists. I used to think the definition of species was already defined. If 2 subjects can "breed true" they are the same species. So horses can breed to donkeys, but you get mules, that can't breed with each other or horses, or donkeys, was the classic example. Thus horses are a different species than donkeys, even though they can interbreed, they don't breed true. Nowadays, they seem to want to redefine species. There could be a good, scientific reason for this, besides better tech.

But anyone with half a brain knows that even the mossiest permaculturist leaves a footprint. Humans seem to be pretty bad at a low impact life. So, it doesn't take much to see the many ways life would be easier, with fewer people.

We have locked in climate change. Even if a genie came along and made every internal combustion engine on the planet rust to dust, we already have enough warming to release CO2 and methane from the permafrost to keep up the trend. Tofu ain't gonna fix this.

The humane way to make the world a better place is to make far fewer people. Anything else is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic to cut wind resistance. That this matches my own preference is merely coincidence. Really. ;-)

Riggerjack
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by Riggerjack »

And while I did go off on a tangent, I wasn't trying to distract from your main point, that meat equals bad.

I'm fine with folks making concious dietary decisions. Even vegans.

But when dietary choices virtue signalling substitutes for real virtues, well that's just embarrassing.

Maybe I would feel different if I lived in a less blue area, or more vegans could eat their diets rather than preach endlessly about them. Partly it's that I'm tired of being preached to by guys eating junk food that doesn't contain eggs, and partly because I believe that defining yourself by what you DON'T do, rather than what you actually do, is a loser's game.

All of the above is frustrations of real life, I'm not talking about anyone here.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6357
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by Ego »

Riggerjack wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:51 pm
Maybe I would feel different if I lived in a less blue area, or more vegans could eat their diets rather than preach endlessly about them. Partly it's that I'm tired of being preached to by guys eating junk food that doesn't contain eggs, and partly because I believe that defining yourself by what you DON'T do, rather than what you actually do, is a loser's game.
You would feel differently if the people doing the talking actually walked the talk? I get that. It is something that is perplexing for me as well.

The most ecologically minded people I know are right here on this board. They know far more about it than I do. Yet they continue to consume meat. I simply don't understand how that can be. That's why my posts in this thread are full of question marks. It is one of the highest impact choices a person can make.... next to not having kids.... which, by the way, is the ultimate in defining yourself by what you don't do.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by Riggerjack »

next to not having kids.... which, by the way, is the ultimate in defining yourself by what you don't do.
And this is where I should quote dragline's line about consistencies and hobgoblins, but my mind is too small, and I don't remember what he said, exactly. But yes, defining myself as childfree would be defining in the negative, a trait that I am prone to, and also dislike (maybe even that's why I dislike it).

I never would have pushed it, or at least not so much, if there weren't so much pressure going the other way. Not the sort of thing I notice much, but my wife is active on a few childfree forums, where lots of folks vent about all the pressures they get to breed. And she was raised in a cult, so it's interesting to see how they dismiss her as a lesser human for not having more kids than she can effectively raise.

Again, I am childfree because I like it like that, not out of any virtue I wish to signal. I talk about it in terms of virtue to give pause to anyone not certain of their desire and ability to parent. I do think children are something to be undertaken with intent and forethought, and there is less of that than there are children, so the correction should move that way.

As for why I eat meat? Besides the flavor, and nutrition, and the way it makes even my cooking better? Well, first, through childhood experiences with livestock, especially chickens, they are better on my plate than in the barn. They may like it less, but I like em on a plate.

Second, as someone who lives with nature, I respect her. And her ability to adapt and overcome any minor annoyance I may introduce, so long as I don't keep it up.

We spent the summer in Marysville, cleaning up a rental to sell, and our property on Whidbey has gone wild again. We couldn't drive up the driveway without plants scraping both sides of the car. That was a 40 foot wide road scraped down below topsoil so we could move a house up it 8 years ago. In 40 years, if I did no maintenance, all that would be left of my house is a foundation and some toilets in the tree duff. With nature encroaching on all sides, I have no illusions on how long my footprint will last without maintenance. I look at my food the same way. I may not be the lowest impact human, but there is a definite end to how long me and mine will stand athwart nature and demand our due. That's good enough for me.

ebast
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:42 pm

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by ebast »

Extinctions are rare events (well, not at all, but within human lifespans, let's hope) so instead of having to fight over all the usual statistical and measurement problems associated with that, if you legitimately wanted a feel for the impact of livestock and humans you could also look at the head of the distribution which is probably less controversial to ballpark.

Putting aside extinction, what is the ratio of wild animals compared to humans and their livestock?

You could also ask: what percent of the available energy produced by photosynthesis over the entire globe is consumed by humans and their animals?


Here is a paper with partial answers to both: Harvesting the Biosphere. (Also check out Collapse of the world's largest herbivores.)

Ok so full disclosure,
  • (undercounting the wild side) He only includes wild terrestrial mammals because that's what he's able to count I assume thanks to economic statistics. God does have an inordinate fondness for ants which I'm told outweigh humans several x, but at least we can get an idea what sort of impact humans are having on their nearest competitors. If this really bothers you, the phytomass measurement is a better angle on this.
  • (undercounting the domesticated side) As far as I could tell in this analysis at least he is not directly including cats & dogs, which I'm told outnumber children in some neighborhoods now. They would indirectly contribute to the biomass inasmuch as there is actually any actual meat in pet food.
  • "calculations of global anthropomass must take into account differences in age compositions and average body weights of constituent populations." yes, fatter americans = more biomass!
There are pie graphs of this on the web; if you go to the paper in table 2 you'll see that in Mt of carbon:

1900: Humans (13 Mt), Wild Mammals (10 Mt), Livestock (35 Mt) [Cattle (23 Mt)]
2000: Humans (55 Mt), Wild Mammals ( 5 Mt), Livestock (120 Mt) [Cattle (80 Mt)]

So wild mammals are down to 3% of this universe. There's no wild animals anymore, just cows in all directions. And the fat people who love them.

With all the numbers like this, though, it's no exaggeration to say that comfortable parts of the world are being rapidly converted to planetary feedlot.

On the percent of total energy question, tl;dr, people estimate the Human Appropriated Net Primary Production which is the amount of phytomass taken by humans. Different models on this - see the paper for references- but they come up with numbers in the range of humans taking 20-30% of available terrestrial phytomass. It is admitted that through intelligent management humans can increase the denominator as well as the numerator here but it is probably also true that humans have taken all the low hanging fruit already. Very unlikely on the way to planet cow-borg we have the headroom to scale this up another 4x..



tl;dr: This must be the end of the world! All the people turning into pigs and ponies I can't let it happen to me!

batbatmanne
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:35 pm

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by batbatmanne »

Ego wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:28 pm
The most ecologically minded people I know are right here on this board. They know far more about it than I do. Yet they continue to consume meat. I simply don't understand how that can be. That's why my posts in this thread are full of question marks. It is one of the highest impact choices a person can make.... next to not having kids....
I completely agree and am also sometimes confounded that members of the forum fall prey to the mental gymnastics that are part and parcel for meat eaters everywhere. That being said, I have noticed that there is a higher representation of veganism here compared to a ton of communities that otherwise claim to be full of free thinkers, so I think this bodes well. I also am glad that most meat eaters on the forum just admit that they don't care about animals and don't think they have any moral worth. Most of the mental gymnastics I see here are of the form:

"Well, hypothetically, we [who?] could have a polycultural rotating crop eco-optimized blah blah blah where we eat animals that have a "good life," so it's not really so bad that I buy meat at the supermarket, plus, I don't do all of this other bad stuff!"

I much prefer the honesty of nihilism.

User avatar
GandK
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by GandK »

Ego wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:28 pm
The most ecologically minded people I know are right here on this board. They know far more about it than I do. Yet they continue to consume meat. I simply don't understand how that can be. That's why my posts in this thread are full of question marks. It is one of the highest impact choices a person can make.... next to not having kids.... which, by the way, is the ultimate in defining yourself by what you don't do.
I'm probably just at the beginning of the ecological part of my education. But as to why I eat meat:

1. Habit. Both my grandfathers raised beef cattle, so I grew up eating meat raised by my own family. Today I still prefer buying from those who raise their own animals.
2. Taste. Meat is very good, when prepared by someone who knows what he's doing. This taste is probably cultivated, so again see #1.
3. I was vegan for about 3 years, vegetarian for 2 more. But either because of habit (!) or from biology or both, I discovered to my financial chagrin that my body and brain respond better on a diet that has occasional, high quality, hormone-free meat. So I reintroduced it.

So, yeah. Habit. Culture. Inertia, even.

Fire away... 🔥

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Ego:

The reason why I neither practice nor preach "no meat" is because I honestly believe it is not sufficient or necessary as solution.

Another rule of thumb that might be applied would be to simply note that money spent on anything, including food, is fairly accurate reflection of footprint. Let's call that the Jacob Rule. However, there is also the Michael Pollan Rule that states that people (Americans in particular) should spend more money on food. The reasons why I believe both of these superficially completely contradictory rules are quite valid are the same reasons why I think some people eating some meat is likely best equilibrium solution towards MY ideal which would include preservation and expansion of wilderness areas, libraries, art districts, and symphonies, and human beings enjoying and thriving on varied delicious, nutritious meals shared with others.

The very important, very energy intensive processes that are frequently ignored in these types of simple analyses are harvest, transportation, storage and preparation for eating. For instance, we understand that preservatives and over-processing can render food unhealthy or less nutritious, yet not taking measures to process and preserve foods will result in much waste, and also inability for humans to survive anywhere crops can not be grown year round. The Native Americans of my cold fertile region practiced sustainable hunting and agricultural practices at population density of approximately 1 human / square mile prior to arrival of European settlers. They preserved venison from bacterial growth by "salting" it with maple sugar, since they only had access to fresh water. I highly doubt they suffered from a diabesity epidemic during this era.

Whether or not you consider yourself to be a global citizen, I think you have to recognize that the ideal would be a global set of regional solutions, because the planet we inhabit is not a uniform blank slate with all places being equally suitable for growing soybeans or grazing cattle or preserving owl habitat. For instance, it would be absolutely senseless for my BF to attempt to either grow soybeans or graze cattle on his dunes/forest climax acreage which is covered with three layers of edible wild berries and wintergreen, mature white oak, and inhabited by red fox, bear in newly recovered Southern range, and many species of birds which follow the coastline in their yearly migration. It would, obviously, be equally senseless for me to attempt to graze cattle or bother to grow and process soybeans on my small urban garden site (nobody chooses to grow icky soybeans in small garden given so many other more delectable varieties of legumes.)

Anyways, I am far from living my own ideal, because it is complex and difficult to achieve, but given the particularities of my region and projects, it would include eating some venison, rabbit, domestic fowl and eggs. This is because,IMO, the best solution is for everybody to engage more directly in growing, hunting, gathering, transporting, processing, storing, and preparing their own food (inclusive of sharing and trading with known others .) I would also note for the record that advanced medical costs put aside, riding an exercise bike to nowhere in order to burn x calories/day is equivalent to carrying around x lbs of extra human flesh in your person which is the equivalent of supporting one dependent unit of dog flesh which is the equivalent of supporting 1 four year old child which is the equivalent of burning x calories of your own labor towards food production vs. substituting petroleum powered machines.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@batbatmanme:

Given complete conversion of humanity to veganism, how many Rhode Island Reds, Water Spaniels, and heads of Angus do you think we should preserve as zoo specimens fed on texturized vegetable protein? I personally think it is more shameful to keep a working breed of dog as a pampered pet in a small apartment than to hunt a moose in the wild. Domestic species and varieties of animals and plants will only survive with human support. Essentially no different than the symbiotic relationship between legumes and the soul bacteria which they lure with sugar into providing them with nitrogen.

batbatmanne
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:35 pm

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by batbatmanne »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:38 am
The very important, very energy intensive processes that are frequently ignored in these types of simple analyses are harvest, transportation, storage and preparation for eating. For instance, we understand that preservatives and over-processing can render food unhealthy or less nutritious, yet not taking measures to process and preserve foods will result in much waste, and also inability for humans to survive anywhere crops can not be grown year round.
But these things aren't ignored. In our contemporary form of petroleum-based industrial monoculture, the net effect of these energy intensive processes for plants pales in comparison to animals. This is a rather obvious point to grasp when you consider the large fraction of our intensively farmed plants that we feed to animals and how much food energy we lose in the process. We could rather easily feed all humans if, hypothetically, the world went vegan and we diverted all plant production to humans. It is better for the environment for me to ship plants halfway across the world than it is for me to buy even locally raised meat, unless I am buying a surplus from some uber-permaculturalist (never).
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:38 am
Whether or not you consider yourself to be a global citizen, I think you have to recognize that the ideal would be a global set of regional solutions...
Political veganism is definitely globalist, but I would push on the last two points here. First of all, it's not entirely clear that the ideal is anything like practically every country being agriculturally self-sustained. The transportation of food goods internationally need not be heavily polluting or otherwise ecologically intrusive. For example, we could feasibly transport food internationally using nuclear-powered ships and railways with the right infrastructure, and such an infrastructure could be "sustainable" for centuries, leaving plenty of time for some real energy innovation to come along. I do agree that regional solutions for less ecologically intrusive production is in order, but this can be done with the goal of producing a surplus for export as well.

The second point that I would push on is your use of the ideal as meaningfully engaging with the real-world problem at all. We could argue about whether my ideal solution just proposed is more realistic than your decentralized, self-sufficiency-aspiring agrarianism, but even that argument would not, on its own, shed light on what is expedient for us as individuals and communities in the present. In the present, one of the most expedient things that we can do is to boycott the animal agriculture industry and to advocate that others follow suit.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:05 am
Given complete conversion of humanity to veganism, how many Rhode Island Reds, Water Spaniels, and heads of Angus do you think we should preserve as zoo specimens fed on texturized vegetable protein?
I don't expect the world to convert to veganism anywhere outside of my star trek fantasies. I don't think that vegans should politically advocate for anything close to making animal husbandry illegal, although the removal of agricultural subsidies and possibly the implementation of Pigouvian taxes is in order. I'm not really sure how to answer this question, since the issue is so far removed from my political interests. I personally wouldn't care if the answer was very few or zero. I am much more interested in conserving wild animals than domesticated ones.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:05 am
I personally think it is more shameful to keep a working breed of dog as a pampered pet in a small apartment than to hunt a moose in the wild.
I agree, that's why I do neither of these things.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:05 am
Domestic species and varieties of animals and plants will only survive with human support. Essentially no different than the symbiotic relationship between legumes and the soul bacteria which they lure with sugar into providing them with nitrogen.
Well, I have no ethical objection to domesticated plants, since they are not sentient. There may be some ecological problems with them, but I'm not very knowledgeable about that. I reject "parasitic" forms of symbiosis with sentient beings as far as possible and practicable. I use quotation marks because parasitism is technically defined by biological fitness, whereas I am more interested in harm in an existential or phenomenological sense.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6357
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by Ego »

GandK wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:39 am

So, yeah. Habit. Culture. Inertia, even.

Fire away... 🔥
I can't fire away because I use a similar rationale to rationalize my airline flights every few years.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6357
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by Ego »

Riggerjack wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:11 pm
Again, I am childfree because I like it like that, not out of any virtue I wish to signal.
I agree that there are plenty of people in the world who do things (like become vegan) for no other reason than - as you say - to virtue signal. You've taken pains to show that your decision to be childfree is not a virtue signal in part I assume because virtue signaling is rather shallow. I agree, it is.

But refusing to do something worthwhile because shallow people use it as a virtue signal is.... well... not much different from virtue signaling itself.

I am not saying you are doing that. You've made your reasons clear. But I think there are many who are.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6357
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by Ego »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:38 am
@Ego:

The reason why I neither practice nor preach "no meat" is because I honestly believe it is not sufficient or necessary as solution.
Insufficient? Unnecessary? Really?

Insufficient: If you mean that it won't fix all of the problems that we have, then I agree. It won't. But I could quote a dozen experts who say it is the change any one individual could make that would have the greatest impact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_i ... my_of_good

Unnecessary: How so, in the context of this thread about the things we will be ashamed of in sixty years?

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15906
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by jacob »

Ego wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:59 am
I can't fire away because I use a similar rationale to rationalize my airline flights every few years.
Ah, I see how you are ;-)

Here's a good example/discussion of the difficulty in aligning behavior, knowledge, and values. It's not easy at all. I present this more in the spirit of understanding the psychology of "shame", which one can define as not living according to one's values, than to argue what one ought to feel more, less, or most ashamed about according to other people's values.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDtaYqioug0 [6:18+]

Riggerjack
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by Riggerjack »

But refusing to do something worthwhile because shallow people use it as a virtue signal is.... well... not much different from virtue signaling itself.
True. I guess I should make my position a bit clearer. I am fine with veganism. Just as I am fine with folks going gluten free, or Paleo, or all Oreos, all the time. Eat what you like, or if that's a problem, eat what works for you. What you eat is literally your business.

Where it gets to be a problem for me, is when you MAKE it a problem for me. Strangely, gluten free folks, and Paleo folks can pretty much do their thing, and not make it my problem. Vegans, on the other hand, seem constitutionally incapable of this. So much so, that in my experience, vegans don't seem to be eating vegan for themselves, rather they act as if it were a piece of very dreary performance art.

There's only so much BS I am willing to tolerate from some self righteous Oreo eating vegan. And I'm certain that not all vegans are like this, but functional vegans disappear into the crowd, as functional people of all stripes do. It's the problem vegans who feel the need to make their choices my business, but there sure are a lot of them.

So, while I am sure there are plenty of good, capable, healthy vegans out there, the one who make an issue of it are the ones I see. And I have every incentive to not join that group.

Of course the other side of it is I don't find diet something to be "worthwhile", as you put it. I have no moral qualms with eating something with a face, as one vegan put it. The closest I come to that is hunting. I have been hunting (deer) once. I feel like hunting and snaring are skills I should have, and I keep getting invited, but I'm not very comfortable with it. No moral quandry about the deer, more that I am not in need of the meat, and I really don't want to screw that up. Nobody should suffer for my mistake, not even the deer eating my garden. I honestly don't know if that is morals or squeemishness.

While I understand that you feel you are making the world a better place by eating as you do, I don't. You chose to eat plants. Me too, just not exclusively. You think veganism is sustainable. I don't. Yes, we could feed more people if we all chose as you did. But your decision to trim your toenails hardly decreases your footprint. All the vegans I know still use all the same resources as the rest of us, which are all still being used at completely unsustainable rates.

There is only one decision we make that has a real environmental impact. Everything else is just window dressing. I made the right decision for me, without factoring in the environment. I expect you made the right decision for you. If you are happy with your choice, I am happy with your choice. I harp on about not having kids to remind people that it IS a choice. I really like parents who go into it with eyes open and with intent. And the folks who choose not to. It's the folks in between that I am talking to. If you aren't certain you want kids, with a plan to make it work, and the resources to do it well (more mental/emotional than financial, there's ways around the financial) you are better off delaying the decision, or just finding other things to do. And the rest of us are better off, too.

There is no part of being human that is aided by having 7 billion other humans on the planet. And there is no offsetting that fact by abstaining from eating things with faces.

None of us chose to add ourselves to the 7 billion, but each of us chooses to add to the total, or not. It looks like "not" is getting more popular. So I rather imagine the thing we are most likely to be embarrassed by is trying to explain to world with far fewer children, is going to be why we let this go on as it has, despite all that we know and all our capabilities.

Or, I'm wrong, and I will have to explain in embarrassment why 7 billion seemed like so many, before we had 14 billion...

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: What aspects of today's society will we be ashamed of in sixty years?

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Ego:

The reason "no meat" is an insufficient solution is that you have to include preferred densities of various species populations, including humans, in your model. You also have to include flows of consumption and predation, migration and reproduction, etc. etc.

The reason why it is not a necessary solution is because some, although almost certainly less, meat consumption might be a better solution.

@batbatmanme:

One common method of harvesting garden greens is referred to as "cut and come again." Instead of cutting the whole head, you just pull or tear some of the leaves, and allow the plant to keep growing so you can harvest more later.

Recently, I learned that some species of greens emit a chemical signal when they are torn that communicates to other nearby members of their species that they should change their chemical composition to cause a more bitter taste. This "green scream" ability evolved due to predation by herbivores.

When previously undisturbed soil is plowed, an extremely complex under ground ecosystem is destroyed and rendered asunder. All the carbon that was sequestered underground is exposed to the atmosphere and starts burning. It is a process very analogous to cutting the skin of an animal in order to feed a horde of small creatures on its blood.

In order to acquire the energy a complex living creatures needs to maintain its boundaries and complexity, it must ingest other living things that are more complex than what it excretes. Law of the jungle.

The reason I promote personal production and regional agriculture is that it makes it easier to have some level of knowledge and stewardship. My crappy thrift store bike was the only one on the rack located between a Whole Foods and an REI this morning, and the parking lot was filled with cars. I don't want to put my trust in the likes of some J. Bozo to eco-efficiently robo-ship me a box full of tofu dogs, almond-carob-flax crunch bars and always-fresh-in-Venezuela avocados.

Locked