Human carnivory as a major driver of vertebrate extinction (1 Viewer)

[dantheman]

Another aspect to this thread is something akin to discussion of guns in US threads on here.

'They're gonna take our guns away/ They're gonna take our meat away' ...

That isn't really the case though. A rational discussion on the topic isn't about taking away an individuals rights, but looking at the overall picture.

 

[THE_FERN]

If the majority of meat production was done through grazing it would be much more beneficial for the environment

You could not sustain that level of beef production through grazing alone—well perhaps you could if you were prepared to devote every single inch of the country to it.

As I understand it, much of US cattle production is via feedlots with fodder delivered to the cattle in the feedlot. This is by far the most concentrated solution: the sum of the land for cattle feed + feedlots for the cows is far less than would be required for extensive grazing. A problem with the latter is that you can't ensure graze quality in the same way.

 

[THE_FERN]

Another aspect to this thread is something akin to discussion of guns in US threads on here.

'They're gonna take our guns away/ They're gonna take our meat away' ...

That isn't really the case though. A rational discussion on the topic isn't about taking away an individuals rights, but looking at the overall picture.

You grow the meat in a lab. Then everyone's happy

 

[THE_FERN]

Oh, no you're far worse than any vegan even if eating British beef - the volume of land needed to produce beef is absolutely huge. To produce the same amount of protein from peas, pulses etc. takes a tiny amount of land. You could grow those crops as monoculture and leave acres upon acres wild compared to beef farming: Land use per 100 grams of protein

Australia, Canada, South America are large beef consumers, Southern Asia consumes very little.

And let's not view grazing as benign. We've seen what ivermectin and associated have done to yellow dung flies and other dung feeding insects, with consequent collapse in bat populations. Most farmers will treat their (extensively grazing) livestock with drugs like these.

 

[dantheman]

You grow the meat in a lab. Then everyone's happy

That's one option. Insect protein is another. (There are of course some issues with both).

But in many respects it's becoming a null reality. Vegetarian/vegan products as alternatives to meat* are so much better than they were - proliferating. (There is an aspect of still being 'bad' for you as highly processed foodstuffs if not careful though). This is to fit our 'western' dietary expectations.


*(except bacon of course)


I believe the number of vegetarians in the UK has suddenly expanded from c2% to c8% of the population of late? So much more mainstream than was.

 

[THE_FERN]

That's one option. Insect protein is another. (There are of course some issues with both).

But in many respects it's becoming a null reality. Vegetarian/vegan products as alternatives to meat* are so much better than they were - proliferating. (There is an aspect of still being 'bad' for you as highly processed foodstuffs if not careful though). This is to fit our 'western' dietary expectations.


*(except bacon of course)


I believe the number of vegetarians in the UK has suddenly expanded from c2% to c8% of the population of late? So much more mainstream than was.

More importantly, and miraculously, it's possible to get vegetarian food in Asuncion, Paraguay. Never saw that one coming.

[An important driver there is that takes few people to run cattle ranch. Middle classes invest in cattle ranch then can spend most of their time in the cities. Not true for plants.]

 

[pbjosh]

Yeah, more vegan propaganda. It is still the case that a meadow full of cows = biodiversity and a field full of carrots doesn't and can't if you want a useful yield.

If you want to talk about human population, fine, too many humans is the real threat and within the human species the insistent whine of "I want to be a grandparent" is death to the wild world, but agricultural monoculture is a greater threat to biodiversity than meat-eating will ever be.

John

Most meat is produced by feeding cattle soy or maize, which are among the most intensive agriculture practices there are. The world cannot be fed by free range beef, there is not enough land to do it. Feeding soybeans or maize to humans is 6-10x more efficient (land, water, greenhouse gasses) than to cattle which are later fed to humans.

I agree with your points about population. But putting a carrot monoculture up again at an idealized view of free range meat production is a false dichotomy that conveniently sidesteps reality.

Feeding plants to people, regardless of how many people there are, is inherently more efficient than first feeding plants to animals and then animals to people. No amount of careful argument / anecdote selection can change the fact that animals are far less than 100% efficient at turning calories consumed into calories of meat.

None of this is a defense of, say, almond milk production or any other particular veggie / vegan product. There are tons of poor efficiency / ecologically damaging veggie products.

But, on the whole, vegan / veggie diets require far fewer natural resources than meat based. Within that, eating less processed locally sourced foods is generally better than eating things highly processed from another continent. Yes, a huge pastoral landscape with limited intensity grazing can support a small number of people in a sustainable way. But almost no one actually eats this way and most of the meat that western nations consume comes from Brazil or from feedlots. Barring infinite grazing land, it’s a lot easier abd politically/morally more acceptable to reduce meat consumption than forcibly reduce human population.

 

[Andy Lakin]

Wether you are a meat eater or not it has to be said that how we do things in the U.K is to some of the highest standards in the world. We've all heard about the goings on in America to produce meat as cheaply as possible i.e routinely dosing them with antibiotics as they are so tightly packed in the feed lots. One of the books I've read discussed the old tradition of feeding livestock on food waste. This would be a start but apparently is illegal in the U.K, but is sometimes done in the U.S and other countries

We need to make full use of the technology available, but this is often controversial for various reasons. Some of the things they are doing to farm animals is horrendous I.e creating the massive beef cattle that look like Arnold Schwartzeneger and the chickens that can barely walk due to their bulk..On the other hand they are doing some fantastic work by gene editing and selective breeding of plants. I totally appreciate people's reluctance to consume G,M crops but this seems the only realistic option long term. But then again you have companies like Monsanto cornering the market and making it illegal to use part of your current crop as seeds for the next crop.

This is a massively complicated topic with a lot of spin put on things depending on who you listen to. There are a lot of dodgy statistics out there!

 

[Sangahyando]

As it says, in the abstract -

"Our results suggest that human carnivory is the major driver of the current biodiversity crisis, and we hope our findings may contribute to raise awareness about this fundamental yet overlooked aspect of human ecology."

There may be other, but they are saying it hasn't been looked into much. (There are some in the references)

If you think about it, 7 billion humans living on a single planet, eating the other inhabitants or changing the environment to suit the production of crop animals for consumption over a wide range of cultures and differing environments is going to have a major, major impact ...

(They say their figure of c25% vulnerable species being impacted is conservative for a number of reasons)

The problem is the way they formulated it: "Our results suggest that human carnivory is the major driver of the current biodiversity crisis". The use of the definite article as well as the term "carnivory" (as opposed to a less absolute term like over-consumption) makes it sound fishy and agenda-driven. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If they had just said "[...] excessive meat consumption is a major driver of the current biodiversity crisis" it would be a lot more honest and a lot easier to prove, especially seeing as they are implying that this phenomenon is understudied later on in the same sentence. But I guess that wouldn't draw as much attention to one's publication.

 

[dantheman]

The problem is the way they formulated it: "Our results suggest that human carnivory is the major driver of the current biodiversity crisis". The use of the definite article as well as the term "carnivory" (as opposed to a less absolute term like over-consumption) makes it sound fishy and agenda-driven. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If they had just said "[...] excessive meat consumption is a major driver of the current biodiversity crisis" it would be a lot more honest and a lot easier to prove, especially seeing as they are implying that this phenomenon is understudied later on in the same sentence. But I guess that wouldn't draw as much attention to one's publication.

Yes, agreed it does smack of agenda, but I guess they aren't beating about the bush?* Put my heckles up a bit too, but read through it. Words are important. Going back to my earlier post, with 7 billion humans at stake, there is no such thing as 'excessive meat consumption' though perhaps? ie any amount of meat consumption by a population that size with limited range and resources is going to have a major effect on prey through various mechanisms they discuss.

It does sound emotive, and perhaps a mistake, but as humans are generally omnivores, and these are still proper words ... Wonder if 'meat' would be the wrong word too, as that implies a smaller group of animal products (farmed mammals and birds), but fish and other groups need including. (We've already focussed in on 'red meat' in this thread for a while).



*(pun intended?)

 

[dantheman]

The problem is the way they formulated it: "Our results suggest that human carnivory is the major driver of the current biodiversity crisis". The use of the definite article as well as the term "carnivory" (as opposed to a less absolute term like over-consumption) makes it sound fishy and agenda-driven. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If they had just said "[...] excessive meat consumption is a major driver of the current biodiversity crisis" it would be a lot more honest and a lot easier to prove, especially seeing as they are implying that this phenomenon is understudied later on in the same sentence. But I guess that wouldn't draw as much attention to one's publication.

A question is around the term 'carnivory' and referring to, for example, an option at a party for 'carnivores'. It does sound emotive and agenda-driven. However, is it being honest, and erring more on not sweeping the issues under the carpet? Dunno. We have Vegetarian (ok, not herbivore) as a common word, for parity and to emphasise that eating meat is a focus (it often is, to be honest) an alternative is fair? Does 'meat-eating' cover it? Don't know. Is Carnivory as the term accurate, and once the word has gained traction would anything less be dumbing down. ie would they have considered it may turn some people off/or is that not their problem.

How common is 'carnivory' a term in the abstract/title of scientific papers I wonder (and as opposed to any alternative phrasing)?



I also don't quite get how this is an 'extraordinary claim' - it is out of the ordinary perhaps, but feel the use of the phrase 'extraordinary claim' is a bit emotive in itself?!? It is entirely intuitive I would say, and not extraordinary in any negative sense ...

;-)

Apologies for a second reply on a different slant - no-one likes long posts and had some further thoughts!

 

[Farnboro John]

A question is around the term 'carnivory' and referring to, for example, an option at a party for 'carnivores'. It does sound emotive and agenda-driven. However, is it being honest, and erring more on not sweeping the issues under the carpet? Dunno. We have Vegetarian (ok, not herbivore) as a common word, for parity and to emphasise that eating meat is a focus (it often is, to be honest) an alternative is fair? Does 'meat-eating' cover it? Don't know. Is Carnivory as the term accurate, and once the word has gained traction would anything less be dumbing down. ie would they have considered it may turn some people off/or is that not their problem.

How common is 'carnivory' a term in the abstract/title of scientific papers I wonder (and as opposed to any alternative phrasing)?



I also don't quite get how this is an 'extraordinary claim' - it is out of the ordinary perhaps, but feel the use of the phrase 'extraordinary claim' is a bit emotive in itself?!? It is entirely intuitive I would say, and not extraordinary in any negative sense ...

;-)

Apologies for a second reply on a different slant - no-one likes long posts and had some further thoughts!

Actually carnivorousness is the right word (or would be if normal humans weren't omnivores), but lacks the punch of the agenda-driven capitalised Carnivory from people who apparently disrespect English as well as meat eaters.

It's still the case that excessive breeding (and in that respect we have to deplore any organisation that opposes contraception) is the root of the problem, not meat eating.

Nobody needs an heir.

John

 

[dantheman]

Actually carnivorousness is the right word (or would be if normal humans weren't omnivores), but lacks the punch of the agenda-driven capitalised Carnivory from people who apparently disrespect English as well as meat eaters.

It's still the case that excessive breeding (and in that respect we have to deplore any organisation that opposes contraception) is the root of the problem, not meat eating.

Nobody needs an heir.

John

To be fair it isn't capitalised in the article, and 'carnivorousness' is a bit of a mouthful ... I've certainly never seen it used.

Wonder when the word 'carnivory' came into first use? Herbivory has certainly been around a while as a real word.


It's what those 7 billion people do (in terms of all resources) that is the issue as a starting point though. I expect a few computer simulations would show that whatever you did there would be problems. Eating is a problem for starters of course, but so is meat-eating, in all its variations ...

 

[Farnboro John]

To be fair it isn't capitalised in the article, and 'carnivorousness' is a bit of a mouthful ... I've certainly never seen it used.

Wonder when the word 'carnivory' came into first use? Herbivory has certainly been around a while as a real word.


It's what those 7 billion people do (in terms of all resources) that is the issue as a starting point though. I expect a few computer simulations would show that whatever you did there would be problems. Eating is a problem for starters of course, but so is meat-eating, in all its variations ...

No, its definitely excessive breeding. All the issues stem from it, not just space for wildlife but direct predation of ocean stocks, persecution of predators due to competitive interactions, concreting over everything, emissions.... halve the number of people and you halve emissions, predation, remove altogether need for additional land and so on.

In the absence of any sign of responsibility in individuals of the human race the ideal solution would be to start eating people but selection might be an issue. Cue re-run of Logan's Run....

John

 

[dantheman]

No, its definitely excessive breeding. All the issues stem from it, not just space for wildlife but direct predation of ocean stocks, persecution of predators due to competitive interactions, concreting over everything, emissions.... halve the number of people and you halve emissions, predation, remove altogether need for additional land and so on.

In the absence of any sign of responsibility in individuals of the human race the ideal solution would be to start eating people but selection might be an issue. Cue re-run of Logan's Run....

John

I think that's a separate thread ;-) Soylent Greens was the one I remember hearing of (although don't think I've watched either).

3.5 billion will still have a massive impact tbh. It's also very much how those people in any given population type use resources (eg Western America/Third World Asian etc). It's pretty complicated (and more research/modelling required?). Those numbers aren't going down, so other ways to fix the problem temporarily ... anyway.



Starting with the fattest ones would make sense ... ;-)

 

[opisska]

The obvious solution would be to stop feedlot production of meat altogether, only have free grazing animals, on possibly a large portion of the land, as freeing all the land used for feed would allow production of enough crops and other plant-based food for everyone from a much smaller area. The only problem would be that meat would now be a super-expensive luxury and this would not work economically in free market, so we would need to pay even more subsidies - two things upon which some people would surely scream murder. But the landscape would be so much nicer with much more biodiversity, the question is just whether people are willing to sacrifice some ideology and some money for that or not.

 

[dantheman]

Funnily enough just saw this -

Tesco plant-based food advert banned as misleading

The supermarket's claims of environmental benefit had not been substantiated, says watchdog

www.bbc.co.uk

Could argue reasonably that the ASA is wrong on either the basis of the planet as a whole (ie animals didn't have to be reared and die to make the plant-based products) or that promoting meat-alternatives is better for the planet (cf pbjosh's points in post above).

Granted that likely to be manufactured/processed (and thus with environmental/health deleterious effects) - but the misleading claim upheld on the basis that it could be wrong, not that it was.

Interesting that is quite a high number of complaints, possibly driven by an agenda lol?

 

[Farnboro John]

I think that's a separate thread ;-) Soylent Greens was the one I remember hearing of (although don't think I've watched either).

3.5 billion will still have a massive impact tbh. It's also very much how those people in any given population type use resources (eg Western America/Third World Asian etc). It's pretty complicated (and more research/modelling required?). Those numbers aren't going down, so other ways to fix the problem temporarily ... anyway.



Starting with the fattest ones would make sense ... ;-)

Seriously though, with governments already deciding that their targets are to reduce emissions etc by less than 50%, it is apparent that a reduction in population by 50% would, even at current emission levels per capita, achieve the target. Equally, half as many people will need half the resources for feeding (less than half if the fattest have been "dealt with".) This is why it is obvious that the solution has to be fewer people. If you care about the planet but don't believe people can be educated into preferring hedonism to breeding, then keep your fingers crossed that the next pandemic does a proper job.

John

 

[Andy Lakin]

The obvious solution would be to stop feedlot production of meat altogether, only have free grazing animals, on possibly a large portion of the land, as freeing all the land used for feed would allow production of enough crops and other plant-based food for everyone from a much smaller area. The only problem would be that meat would now be a super-expensive luxury and this would not work economically in free market, so we would need to pay even more subsidies - two things upon which some people would surely scream murder. But the landscape would be so much nicer with much more biodiversity, the question is just whether people are willing to sacrifice some ideology and some money for that or not.

I read a book recently about a beef farmer from the U.S and he described why he stopped raising livestock and actually became vegetarian. One of the major concerns he had was that grazing the cattle in the wrong areas was creating a virtual desert over very large areas of land. Somebody mentioned up thread about lab grown meat I wonder how far off we are from being able to scale this up to make a significant difference. There appears to be vast amounts of money being invested in the technology, also the costs need to come down greatly both for producers and consumers.

 

[Farnboro John]

I read a book recently about a beef farmer from the U.S and he described why he stopped raising livestock and actually became vegetarian. One of the major concerns he had was that grazing the cattle in the wrong areas was creating a virtual desert over very large areas of land. Somebody mentioned up thread about lab grown meat I wonder how far off we are from being able to scale this up to make a significant difference. There appears to be vast amounts of money being invested in the technology, also the costs need to come down greatly both for producers and consumers.

Nothing compared to the dustbowls produced by agriculture in the USA in the 1930s and parts of Africa since (the groundnut scandal and so forth): truth is whatever you are growing the land will only support so much.

Wonder how the megafauna and for that matter the vast herds of buffalo managed.... oh yeah, despite the numbers they were actually not such intense users of the land. Carrying capacity matters and humans are way past it.

John