Biodiversity conservation The key, reducing meat consumption

Latest Articles

Biodiversity conservation The key, reducing meat consumption
Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment

Author

Message

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 15 3:32 pm Post subject: Biodiversity conservation The key, reducing meat consumption

Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption.

Quote:

The consumption of animal-sourced food products by humans is one of the most powerful negative forces affecting the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and biological diversity.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 15 3:46 pm Post subject:

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15382
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 15 4:05 pm Post subject:
If everybody farmed like you Rob, could current meat demand be satisfied?

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 15 4:20 pm Post subject:

Hairyloon wrote:

If everybody farmed like you Rob, could current meat demand be satisfied?

Probably not, given the proportion of pork and chicken that makes up that 'meat', but we could sure as anything produce an awful lot more without impacting upon the production of other foods, and help biodiversity in the process.

Unfortunately the article suggests the direct opposite - replacing cattle with pigs & poultry as solution 2).

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15382
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 15 4:40 pm Post subject:
You expect me to read the article when you've distracted me with pretty pictures of greenery?!

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 15 4:54 pm Post subject:

Is my paraphrasing not sufficient?

I think solution 3 is suggesting that we eat more meat from people like me, but as it is third in line and uses rather ambiguous language, I doubt most people will get to solution 3. In my view the solutions should be reversed and we should start by switching consumption to people producing like I do and then, if we can't keep up with demand, start to consider cutting down, not vice versa which just harms the viability of our solution, along with the biodiversity, and means that it isn't available when you need/want it.

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15382
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 15 5:17 pm Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

Is my paraphrasing not sufficient?

Is good enough for me.
I had inferred a criticism that may not have been there, that I had failed to be disagreeing with the article.

Ty Gwyn

Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4319
Location: Lampeter

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 15 7:19 pm Post subject:
(2) replacing ecologically-inefficient ruminants (e.g. cattle, goats, sheep) and bushmeat with monogastrics (e.g. poultry, pigs), integrated aquaculture, and other more-efficient protein sources; That kind of sum`s up these people,nuff said.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 15 8:31 pm Post subject:
I don't really know why Tav has posted this here - we're not exactly oversubscribed by the chinese & african bushmeatmeat consumers. It's got about as much relevance to Downsizer as the biodiversity levels on the moon.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 11546

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 15 6:42 am Post subject:

Tav, you aren't trying to wind Rob up are you? Naughty.

I think that the third point is saying that we should increase grazing like yours Rob, but it would be a lot better in plain English.

Our Parish Council has re-introduced grazing onto several places within the Parish to help the biodiversity. The have had to use cows and horses as the sheep really needed are too vulnerable to out of control dogs. I suggested Soays, but they think it would upset the dog walkers too much.

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 15 8:46 am Post subject:

Just another scientific paper that says we need to eat less meat.

Ty Gwyn wrote:

(2) replacing ecologically-inefficient ruminants (e.g. cattle, goats, sheep) and bushmeat with monogastrics (e.g. poultry, pigs), integrated aquaculture, and other more-efficient protein sources;

That kind of sum`s up these people,nuff said.

Why.
What evidence do you have to dispute that?
'These people' are concerned scientists trying to save endangered species & habitat.
Where's your evidence they are wrong?

& no I'm not having a wind up.

There's enough science that proves the damage livestock farming as a whole (or in general terms) is doing to the planet.
It's not sustainable using current production methods.
I personally don't think we should be replacing ruminants with pigs & poultry.
I think we should limit production of all livestock only to systems proved to be sustainable & non destructive.
I'm not attacking individuals & their methods here, just highlighting another scientific paper that says we should eat less meat.
This time not from the climate change perspective, but habitat loss & species destruction.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 15 8:53 am Post subject:
Nope, you've very much focussed on the reducing solution which is only one of three - you should be writing headlines for the national press with a bias like that. I suggest that you read the link, all the way to the end, that you posted in the capitalism thread.

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 15 9:07 am Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

Nope, you've very much focussed on the reducing solution which is only one of three - you should be writing headlines for the national press with a bias like that. I suggest that you read the link, all the way to the end, that you posted in the capitalism thread.

I'm not promoting.
I'm highlighting a peer reviewed scientific paper.
If you don't want to believe it that's your prerogative.
I fail to see why you wouldn't agree as it's your kind of system that will survive & prosper.
If highlighting science is bias then I'm as biased as hell.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 15 10:19 am Post subject:

Tavascarow wrote:

I fail to see why you wouldn't agree as it's your kind of system that will survive & prosper.

As I have pointed out above, and numerous times in the past, so you are only pretending to be ignorant here, the message as conveyed in the paper does nothing to ensure that happens.

The entire message is based around the theory that sustainable food production cannot compete with industrial food. If you genuinely believe this to be the case then there is no need to reduce consumption, as the limitations of production will limit consumption. If you're wrong then nature can only benefit even further.

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 15 5:28 pm Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

Tavascarow wrote:

I fail to see why you wouldn't agree as it's your kind of system that will survive & prosper.

That sounded more like political doublespeak than anything I've heard from Westminster in a long while.
& (if you don't mind me saying) is 'your' interpretation.
I don't see that at all.
This

Quote:

and (3) reintegrating livestock production away from single-product, intensive, fossil-fuel based systems into diverse, coupled systems designed more closely around the structure and functions of ecosystems that conserve energy and nutrients.

is IMHO exactly what you are striving for so why condemn it?

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment	All times are GMT Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 1 of 9

View Latest Posts