This has been known for at least a decade now, and no changes have been made. I've even seen estimates on how little it would cost to modify the feed, and it's negligible, but any extra cost is too much cost I suppose.
Believe it or not, it's a laudable goal. Cow feces is responsible for about 40% (yes, really) of methane production worldwide, and methane is several times more impactful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. I called bullshit (heh) the first time I heard these stats, too, but they're real.
@readbeanicecream I think the economy is largely going to make the decision. Lab-grown meats are going to get better and cheaper until most feedlot meat can't compete anymore. You'll still have the aspirational meats, but it will still be debatable whether they're worth the extra money other than bragging rights.
Yes. I’m sure this is absolutely a real problem and that eliminating cows will be the best solution. Only the world elite should have access to to ruminant meats so that they can fuel their big brains that work on our behalf 20 hours a day. Our meager toil may be supported by plants, bugs, and lab grown proteins.
This reduction of beef production could then be feasibility made green with the commercialized growth and distribution of red algae which I’m certain will be done entirely with solar energy and not fossil fueled generators and trucks. We will even make the solar panels themselves biodegradable.
@Q67916tJ6Z0aWM I see you have some science-deniers giving you had hard time. Beef production is incredibly inefficient, doesn't produce any new nutrients that didn't go into the cow, and produces huge amounts of greenhouse gases. Whether the solution is red algae or lab-grown meat, I can't say, but it's going to get harder and harder to justify. Of course, the "but-my-burger!" snowflakes are going to have a melt down, but it's coming.
If you read more carefully, that comment is dripping with sarcastic conspiracy theory bullshit. They aren't saying bring on the lab meat. They are saying the opposite.
Indeed, you read me correctly. I’m not trying to dismiss the value of these scientific efforts. But I don’t buy the narrative. Not because of my belief that there is some cabal out there with the power to undermine us directly. But because history has shown over and over again how we respond to repeated messaging in the media.
While the end goals are not known precisely, I tend to ask why this particular issue is hoisted up with such frequency in recent times. Global warming and all things adjacent are popular topics at the moment. I understand the angst felt that things need to change fast, and that those with opinions like mine must be dumb rubes trying to stand in the way of science and progress.
My problem is that behind all this chatter, I see an underlying assumption that we have to run society the way we currently do and continue on our path of the demise of the human spirit and our relationship with nature. And if I ask who really benefits from this demise, then I must conclude that much of this messaging is suspect. To chase these goals the way we have will go a long way towards further undermining the individual freedoms and liberty the western world has been built on.
It’s clear to me that there is an incentive for power to keep the dialog murky. It ensures you stay in your tent and I stay in mine and that we do our best to dig away at the common ground that stands between us. I used to be in your tent. But the last 12 years have greatly changed my perspective. I don’t want to be in this tent. But I feel I must. There are plenty of examples of the technological utopia we’ve been promised turning into another tool to further devalue us and further reduce our greater human capacity.
Add comment