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

[C40]

So.... how likely is it that having children (particularly having more than one or two per couple) will be seen as a shameful thing in the future? Especially world-wide? When will the pope tell the Catholics to stop having so many kids? And the mormon leaders? And so on.. And will/would the ideal of unending maximum economic growth prevent this from happening?

Side note - 7w5 - I think you and Vicki Dominguez would get along extremely well (If you haven't heard it, she was on a Podcast recently.. she's essentially transitioned her life's work to focus on regional agriculture and tighter-knit (smallish) communities.)

[C40]

..I could quote a dozen experts who say it is the change any one individual could make that would have the greatest impact.

They're wrong. Maybe they know it, and are making the best possible suggestion to drive the kind of change that can actually happen now. Maybe some of them are actually that short-sighted.

But they're clearly wrong. The impact of living vegan has only a tiny fraction of the impact of having no children. And then, having all of us 7 billion people stay alive is infinitesimally smaller than 3/4 of the population just killing ourselves. Of course that last one isn't going to be presented as an option, but the problem is: where do you make the cutoff of what is considered an option? ~10 years ago, the option was having a Prius in your driveway instead of a Suburban. Now, it's being vegan. Meanwhile, (I believe/assume) the population is growing much faster than our green efforts, and we're getting more and more fucked.

Your questions and challenges of why more people are vegan are still just as valid.

I think the framing is important. To try to answer your question, it's a simple variance of what factors influence a person's decisions. Those factors/priorities then apply to multipliers. For an individual who's very self-centered (like me and a lot of other INTJs), our personal preferences/health/etc. has a higher weighting than environmental concerns. Or, essentially, we don't care.

A big problem here is that being vegan is being framed as the one thing to do to check the box of "I'm saving the world". When, if I understand correctly, it won't, it will just make it so the world could support, what, 25% more human vegan population than meat-eating. But, at our other rates of environmental impact, and with them growing rapidly worldwide, we're already way past either of those population numbers.

It seems to be a strategy of expecting that the next steps and next steps will be ones that have more and more impact. And it seems that in reality, the growth of impact of next steps would need to be a very unlikely amount of exponential.. unless huge population reduction comes up very soon.

This all is part of why when SOME of us meat eaters are challenged by vegans, including that assumption/message of veganism being the one box a person has to check to save the world, our reaction is along the lines of "ohhh, fuck off". (especially for me, where I believe, even while eating a lot of chickens, that my current environmental impact is about 1/10th of the average American... So, when someone who owns both a big house AND a van they could live in, drives a ton, was about to book a helicopter to shorten a hike, and so on said to me "A person can't call themselves an environmentalist if they aren't vegan", I #1-get annoyed and #2- questioned their ability to think clearly, and became dismissive of their opinions.



Anyways, aren't these types of things already quantified? For example, starting from a basis of exactly zero (ie vs. killing oneself right now or having never been born):
- eating meat vs being vegan adds X tons of ghg emissions per lifetime
- driving a car ## miles/year ads Y
- Living in a house or apartment ads...
- Working certain types of jobs ads...
- having a child ads... (using expected birth rates, expected changes in impact, etc)

As a self-centered INTJ meat eater, knowing these kind of numbers is more or less the only thing that could tip the scales and convince me to become vegan (if they get to a point where their multiplier of my environmental concern overrides the reasons I want to eat meat).

[Ego]

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.

I wonder what the carbon footprint calculator would say about the woman driving a G-class Benz to Whole Foods in perky yoga tights, ¡Ay Chihuahua!, to buy a veggie burger with plump Venezuelan avocados for lunch vs. the one riding a bike to the farmers market food stall in drab overalls, ¡Ay, caramba!, to buy a beef burger with a slab of cheddar cheese for lunch. Who would have the larger carbon footprint?

[C40]

Producing a car like a G-wagon requires a very very large amount of raw materials and energy (partly because they have a make a bunch of them for crash testing, and make a lot of specialized equipment to build each model, and those things don't average out well on small-production vehicles). Comparing that to a lady buying a cheeseburger, how often, weekly? I'd love to see the numbers.

anyways.. I'll take the curvy gals in overalls with bicyclist's legs and higher sex drive from eating beef every day.

[Ego]

As a self-centered INTJ meat eater, knowing these kind of numbers is more or less the only thing that could tip the scales and convince me to become vegan (if they get to a point where their multiplier of my environmental concern overrides the reasons I want to eat meat).

Understood. I guess that info has been flooding my world in the past year and I assumed it was the same for everyone. First page of google produced this....

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-top- ... int-2015-9

Beef is 30 times more polluting than lentils by weight and roughly 15 times by calories.

[BRUTE]

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.

brute doesn't think no animals have any moral worth. but moral worth is in the eye of the beholder, and brute seems to give moral worth closely related to how well he knows entities, not their categorization. for example, brute seems to care very little for children in Africa that he's never seen, ever, and never will. he cares to a degree about humans he meets every week, and more so for ones he's known a long time.

thus, brute doesn't care for the animals he's never met, except in that he likes how they taste.

if veganism was an option in terms of taste and health, brute would consider it (again, he's tried it). but vegan food doesn't taste nearly as good, and most vegan diets are not sustainable from a health perspective. for brute, health and taste easily outweigh distant moral worth of some animals.

[C40]

@Ego - That's not what I'm looking for though.

I'm looking for the impacts of different types of things like I listed above, with a zero-emission starting point.

Part of the problem is, I don't care quite enough about environmentalism to find the exact data that I'm talking about. (and you don't have any need to find it for me)

Edit - to add - actually, that chart makes me feel a bit 'less bad' about the eggs, sardines, and chicken I eat, as their impact compared to other things I'll always eat a lot of - like brocolli, aren't all that crazy (3x the impact per kg, but the eggs and meat have way more calories per kg)

[C40]

BRUTE - your statement/reminder of not caring much about people on the other side of the world reminded me of a fun thought game I play with people sometimes - present some kind of ultimate prize (whatever they want - living forever, infinite wealth, having some god powers) and then figure out how many people in China or India they'd be willing to cause to die by pushing a button in order to get that ultimate prize. (it's usually quite a lot of people)

[Ego]

Hum. I was pulling 7wanns leg in the same way she does with me and tofu dogs. I hope she knows that.

I get the feeling you guys are not joking. I hope I'm wrong.

[C40]

not joking here.. (except for the the mass-death button comment to BRUTE)

[BRUTE]

if veganism is the ultimate sacrifice, by sacrificing one's own health for the health of an animal, brute has too much ego to do it.

[GandK]

So.... how likely is it that having children (particularly having more than one or two per couple) will be seen as a shameful thing in the future?

As any mom with more than 1 in her family - bio, steps or even adopted I've been told - can tell you, some people try to "shame" you for this now. Even ten years ago, when my (6) stepkids were young and visiting Dad on the weekends, I got all kinds of remarks when I took them places. Especially without him. I wasn't about to either go off on strangers in front of the kids, or be disrespectful to my family by asserting to the speaker that they weren't actually mine, so I had to bite my tongue and lump it. The occasional 65+ person would complement me on their manners, but overall, most passers-by noticed us, and most resultant vocalizations that reached my ear were condemning. "That's so sad." "Don't you know by now what causes that?" "Must be Catholic." "Soon there won't be any air left to breathe around here!" You name it. Occasionally the kids would hear their snidery, too. "K, what does prophylactic mean?" Ha! Ask your father.

Lab assignment: arrange with some friends of yours to herd 3+ children of different ages into or out of any store, restaurant or - if you want to be sure to catalogue a full range of verbal reactions instead of just ocular - a movie theater.

[7Wannabe5]

@Ego:

Well, in the interest of full disclosure I would note that I rarely purchase beef, the reason being I do not like it enough to pay for it. Although my nature seethes upon hearing the word "never", some modest sum proffered would likely serve to secure a vow of beef abstinence from me, because it would just amount to me saying "No" to suggestion from my BF to split order of chili fries at some rough diner in downtown Flint.

The first problem with the Business Insider chart is it comparing kilograms consumed, not kilocalories consumed. This is obvious when you look at milk vs cheese. The second problem with the chart is that the whole notion of human beings consuming kilo-anything is not more ideal to the practice of people caring for crops and livestock, and preparing and sharing meals. Intimate knowledge trumps statistics every time. For instance, hand-knit wool sweater your friend offered as gift vs. polyester sweat-factory produced is not taken into account in cost of lamb.

The problem with any exercise that attempts to calculate the carbon footprint of an individual human is that it does default to suicide, unless you recognize that you are part of a variety of interdependent economic, social and ecological systems.

Of course, you can design a system, like Dick Proenneke's, which includes only 1 human, with very little engagement with other humans on a social or economic basis at the boundary. However, if that is not how you choose to live out your entire life, then even if you do not choose to have children yourself, or even if you do not choose to pay taxes to construct pavement on which you pedal your bicycle, when you play with your systems design software, like a child with a dollhouse, you will have to include other people's children and other people's tax payments in the design.

That said, on the level of K.I.S.S., the largest component of carbon footprint of any human residing in civilization is the construction and maintenance of the shared infrastructure of civilization. This accounts for the majority of the footprint of any human living anywhere there are modern amenities.

[Seppia]

An old style farm is mostly self sustaining and doesn't add to pollution because it's a system in equilibrium that needs very few inputs from the outside.
The environmental issue with meat consumption today comes from the way it's produced and general overconsumption.

At home we try eat as little meat as possible, and aside from the half slice of pancetta/bacon we use to add flavor to soups or pasta, we probably consume it once every two weeks at most.
In terms of food related environmental impact I would bet we are much lower than the average vegetarian household (I have worked as a cook so we buy zero packaged foods, and we have almost zero waste).
I don't completely understand why being mindful about this issue has to translate into complete elimination of an aliment?

I mean I know heating pollutes, but my reaction is to try limit it, not eliminate it completely.

My idea is to try to be in the 75th percentile of environmentally conscious people in all aspects of life (meat, packaging, fuel, heating, etc), as I believe this will lead me into the 99th percentile overall, as opposed to being a vegan that drives 70 miles per day on a pickup truck to get to work.

As in everything in life, I believe being "pretty good" at a lot of things is better than being excellent in one or two. I'll never play in the NBA or become a CEO, but it will most probably lead to a fairly decent outcome.

[Riggerjack]

My idea is to try to be in the 75th percentile of environmentally conscious people in all aspects of life (meat, packaging, fuel, heating, etc), as I believe this will lead me into the 99th percentile

Wait. So you didn't go Vegan (TM, R, Patent Pending), to form a more perfect union with more perfect people, to signal to the world your moral superiority? How is that supposed to work? Don't you feel like you are cheating?

@ ego

On a serious note, we live in a land of plenty. Some people use their resources to further their goals, and some just spend their lives complaining that other people have the gall to use their resources in ways not meant to garner the approval of the complainers. In other words, be the change you want in the world.

If you want to protect the environment, buy a piece and protect it. I judge the depth of conviction by the effort and sacrifice actually made to the cause. Most "Environmentalists" are all talk. Most vegans are in that same group.

If you don't like how chickens are farmed, buy a chicken farm, and convert it to soybeans.

If you don't care enough about your cause to put the effort and money into it, why should I?

[jacob]

I'd love to see the numbers.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 326/aa7541 (see paper for methods)

All impacts are in tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year.

Each child: +58.6
Driving a car: +2.4
Transatlantic flying (once annually): +1.6
Eating a meat-based diet: +0.8
Not recycling: +0.2
Using incandescent lights: +0.1

[C40]

ahhh come on, Rigger. Not every vegan is doing so for virtue signaling. Many do it because it's cheaper. Many do it because it's simpler. Many do it because (they think) it's healthier. Many do it because (they think) it will help them lose weight. Don't base your view of the whole group on just the annoying vocal ones.

The thing about vegans proselytizing is, when it comes to environmental improvements, proselytizing is needed.

They can't just buy and shut down a chicken farm. The one next door will simply ramp up production. Within the realm of stopping chicken consumption, they need to get closer to the root cause - to convince individual people to stop eating chicken. (I think) The annoyance I have with them is that many of them do it in a very un-persuasive and unreasonable way.


@GandK (K) - it seems like you just can't win. People get tons of pressure (and shame) from their family for not having kids. But, anyways, I guess those annoying comments you get are a good sign that overpopulation shaming is starting. (aside from the fact that they aren't your kids of course and in your case it doesn't make sense, but they don't know that)

[C40]

@Jacob - ahhh thank you, thank you. I'm saving that list and article.

[Fish]

I’m not interested in disputing methodology, but here is additional context for those too lazy to click Jacob’s link:

For the action ‘have one fewer child,’ we relied on a study which quantified future emissions of descendants based on historical rates, based on heredity (Murtaugh and Schlax 2009). In this approach, half of a child’s emissions are assigned to each parent, as well as one quarter of that child’s offspring (the grandchildren) and so forth.

And then from the abstract of Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals:

Under current conditions in the United States, for example, each child adds about 9441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions.

[Ego]

@Ego...

I have given my in-laws grief (in a kidding sense) for years about their vegan diets and at no point did they reference any of this. They approached it from a personal preference standpoint (which I think they did so as not to offend me) but I almost want to say "Why didn't you mention this?", because when I discussed this with them recently they were well aware of the research.

Crosspost... Perhaps this thread will give you some insight into your in-laws reasoning.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 326/aa7541 (see paper for methods)

Jacob, that's a great study. I had no idea the impact of an additional child was so large. And air travel. I knew there was an impact.... but ....yikes!

I've got some areas to work on.

Here is the conclusion.

We have identified four recommended actions which we believe to be especially effective in reducing an individual's greenhouse gas emissions: having one fewer child, living car-free, avoiding airplane travel, and eating a plant-based diet. These suggestions contrast with other top recommendations found in the literature such as hang-drying clothing or driving a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Our results show that education and government documents do not focus on high-impact actions for reducing emissions, creating a mitigation gap between official recommendations and individuals willing to align their behaviour with climate targets.