General News

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

It surely is a diet thing. I’d love to know if this is a mainly British/American trend. If the southern European countries aren’t seeing the same issues, I really wouldn’t be surprised given their reliance on whole foods.

Rising cancer rates in younger people is a global trend but seems to be particularly affecting high income countries. From what I've read there are lots of potential theories at the moment including microplastics and increased exposure to artificial light. 

[Stadt]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

Rising cancer rates in younger people is a global trend but seems to be particularly affecting high income countries. From what I've read there are lots of potential theories at the moment including microplastics and increased exposure to artificial light. 

More or less everything about contemporary manufacturing is bad for us. Plastics, polyester, nylon, dyes, unsaturated fats.

 

It’s a rabbit hole enough to make me feel a bit neurotic with how much plastic food packaging, pans, chopping boards, kettles etc have in them.

Edited 20 October 2024 by Stadt

[SecretPro]

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, but I have read citable data that directly contradicts this increase - meat consumption in the UK looks to have at most remained roughly stable over the last 50-60 years, and if anything decreased in the last 10-20.

 

It's entirely plausible processed red meats have a link to certain types of cancers - in fact, as you say, a correlation is pretty much evidence-based - but I still don't see the evidence for humans engaging in overall behaviour (product consumption, activity etc) more likely to give them cancers than at any other time in history.

 

And yeah, we've talked about stuff like this before - as someone interested in the environmental future of the planet, I know animal agriculture is an issue, but definitely not the biggest one and certainly one of the tougher ones to sort from a science communication/getting the idea across standpoint.

True, but as we've also discussed, if individual, normal people want to make an individual impact on climate change, then eating a plant based diet is the single biggest change an individual can make. Would be positive for health care and health care/NHS finance too.

 

It's all very well relying on Governments and Policy to dictate the future, but as individuals we can make positive changes too, and every change, no matter how small, is better than no change at all. Frankly, if we are going to just sit back and say 'ah **** it, no point me doing anything, only the Governments can sort it' then we are beyond dead already. 

 

It will always irk me a little that someone so engaged in Environmental issues and willing to talk about it so much isn't vegan, mainly because if even you arent willing to make a minor change then our hopes of Joe Public doing it are non existent...

Edited 20 October 2024 by SecretPro

[leicsmac]

There's clearly issues with various environmental factors, but the overall life expectancy in the UK and other "developed" countries continues to either rise or plateau, which suggests that things aren't all that bad for the time being at least.

 

6 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

True, but as we've also discussed, if individual, normal people want to make an individual impact on climate change, then eating a plant based diet is the single biggest change an individual can make. Would be positive for health care and health care/NHS finance too.

 

It's all very well relying on Governments and Policy to dictate the future, but as individuals we can make positive changes too, and every change, no matter how small, is better than no change at all. Frankly, if we are going to just sit back and say 'ah **** it, no point me doing anything, only the Governments can sort it' then we are beyond dead already. 

 

It will always irk me a little that someone so engaged in Environmental issues and willing to talk about it so much isn't vegan, mainly because if even you arent willing to make a minor change then our hopes of Joe Public doing it are non existent...

That's entirely dependent on the individual, their power and their personal circumstances, I think.

 

I also think that anything like changing eating habits across sufficient numbers to really affect carbon emissions is a much harder sell (it would have a much more direct effect on peoples lives) than changing energy generation sources for a weaker payoff. I think it's a good idea because it would help as you say, I just don't consider it a priority issue and one that likely would have to come from the top down to be truly effective. But then I think the vast majority of such solutions have to be applied like that to be honest - we can and should recycle, eat little or no meat as we can, but the strongest thing someone can do is lobbying their representative and help necessary legislation get passed, IMO.

[SecretPro]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

There's clearly issues with various environmental factors, but the overall life expectancy in the UK and other "developed" countries continues to either rise or plateau, which suggests that things aren't all that bad for the time being at least.

 

That's entirely dependent on the individual, their power and their personal circumstances, I think.

 

I also think that anything like changing eating habits across sufficient numbers to really affect carbon emissions is a much harder sell (it would have a much more direct effect on peoples lives) than changing energy generation sources for a weaker payoff. I think it's a good idea because it would help as you say, I just don't consider it a priority issue and one that likely would have to come from the top down to be truly effective. But then I think the vast majority of such solutions have to be applied like that to be honest - we can and should recycle, eat little or no meat as we can, but the strongest thing someone can do is lobbying their representative and help necessary legislation get passed, IMO.

Thats probably down to medical advances in developed countries more than anything though surely? Modern medicine is a marvel, but we are crossing into the realm that we are now continuing, blindly, to keep people alive for far too long when really their time should have come to an end. Its horrible, but it's the truth.

 

Modern medicine has a lot to answer for, especially on public finance and ageing populations. When does it stop? The thought of consistently keeping entire nations generally alive well past the 100's is already scary enough, especially when Global population is probably close to Double what it should be to maintain a healthy planet (although, for instance, if everybody was plant based we could accommodate far more people on the planet as land use for agriculture would almost be halved etc, leaving far more land for natute based services and all the positive things bought about by truly health ecosystems - take Soy alone for instance, 90% of the worlds soy is grown as feed for livestock, so not only do you have masses of land given over to grow animal feed, you also have masses of land given over to house that livestock. Most rainforest deforestation in the world today is either for livestock, or to grow food for livestock. Despite us constantly being told Palm Oil is the main culprit.

 

The graph is also skewed because 36% of Palm is harvested for Palm Kernal, to feed to livestock (the EU is the largest importer and the UK is the 4th largest consumer of Kernal). Palm oil is in fact the most eco-friendly oil on the planet, with the greatest yield to area by quite some margin - to stop Palm production and replace with an alternative would lead to a requirement of an extra 40% of land to harvest the same yield.

 

Edited 20 October 2024 by SecretPro

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Thats probably down to medical advances in developed countries more than anything though surely? Modern medicine is a marvel, but we are crossing into the realm that we are now continuing, blindly, to keep people alive for far too long when really their time should have come to an end. Its horrible, but it's the truth.

 

Modern medicine has a lot to answer for, especially on public finance and ageing populations. When does it stop? The thought of consistently keeping entire nations generally alive well past the 100's is already scary enough, especially when Global population is probably close to Double what it should be to maintain a healthy planet (although, for instance, if everybody was plant based we could accommodate far more people on the planet as land use for agriculture would almost be halved etc, leaving far more land for natute based services and all the positive things bought about by truly health ecosystems - take Soy alone for instance, 90% of the worlds soy is grown as feed for livestock, so not only do you have masses of land given over to grow animal feed, you also have masses of land given over to house that livestock. Most rainforest deforestation in the world today is either for livestock, or to grow food for livestock.

Carrying capacity of the planet in terms of people is a darkly fascinating area of study.

 

There's so many studies saying so many different things, and no one is really sure what the exact number of people for a sustainable planet is - or even close. The way I see it, general trends at the moment put us at a global plateau of around 10-11 billion by the late 21st Century, and that's going to go one of two ways - either we can find a way to support that many people and things stabilise OK, or we can't and there's a massive population crash. I honestly don't see us "organically" reducing population numbers in the time required if the carrying capacity turns out to be lower than that number - it asks too many ethical questions our species as a whole can't or won't answer. Perhaps I'm wrong on that one though.

 

NB. It's a fair point about ageing populations, but speaking as someone rather invested in the cause of life, believes that nothing but the void awaits afterwards and is deeply thanatophobic as a result, having or even suggesting someone end their life outside of the most explicit of personal wishes, no matter their age, is something that doesn't sit well with me. Of course, those explicit personal wishes should be listened to and granted whenever they come up (personal freedom should always include the choice of how you want to exit stage left and that should be respected).

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, SecretPro said:

True, but as we've also discussed, if individual, normal people want to make an individual impact on climate change, then eating a plant based diet is the single biggest change an individual can make. Would be positive for health care and health care/NHS finance too.

 

It's all very well relying on Governments and Policy to dictate the future, but as individuals we can make positive changes too, and every change, no matter how small, is better than no change at all. Frankly, if we are going to just sit back and say 'ah **** it, no point me doing anything, only the Governments can sort it' then we are beyond dead already. 

 

It will always irk me a little that someone so engaged in Environmental issues and willing to talk about it so much isn't vegan, mainly because if even you arent willing to make a minor change then our hopes of Joe Public doing it are non existent...

Yeh you’re probably right…Also I don’t think we have any idea of the true impact of agriculture on ghg emissions. It’s a bit like scope 3 at entity level. You can kinda have a stab at it but in no way get data which is fully auditable

[LiberalFox]

I'm extremely anthropocentric. I find most vegans aren't. Veganism as a philosophy places animals a lot closer to humans in terms of importance based on the idea that we are both sentient lifeforms. So they believe that animals are entitled to be treated with a similar level of respect to a human who has issues of communication. They disagree on principle over exploiting the natural power differential humanity enjoys over animals for human advancement. 

 

I don't see the world that way. I think a lot of environmentalist debate ends up being a proxy for people pushing some sort of agenda. It could be vegans or it could be those invested in the hydrocarbons sector. There's a lot of information overload out there at every level. 

 

One of the best ways to tackle environmental concerns is to end world poverty and get a handle on consumerism and capitalist excess. 

 

Overpopulation is an economic issue. Instead of having a debate over whether we should euthanise OAPs or bring back eugenics we could address the issues that are obvious. If the world had the same birth rate as first world nations it wouldn't be a problem. 

 

If advancements in technology and productivity were distributed fairly and more evenly instead of going to the top 1%, we wouldn't be worrying about meeting the basic needs of the 99%.

 

If we got a grip on consumerism I don't think we would have the same economic pressures driving environmental crises. 

 

(No offence to any vegans, I just struggle to relate to them). 

[SecretPro]

14 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I'm extremely anthropocentric. I find most vegans aren't. Veganism as a philosophy places animals a lot closer to humans in terms of importance based on the idea that we are both sentient lifeforms. So they believe that animals are entitled to be treated with a similar level of respect to a human who has issues of communication. They disagree on principle over exploiting the natural power differential humanity enjoys over animals for human advancement. 

 

I don't see the world that way. I think a lot of environmentalist debate ends up being a proxy for people pushing some sort of agenda. It could be vegans or it could be those invested in the hydrocarbons sector. There's a lot of information overload out there at every level. 

 

One of the best ways to tackle environmental concerns is to end world poverty and get a handle on consumerism and capitalist excess. 

 

Overpopulation is an economic issue. Instead of having a debate over whether we should euthanise OAPs or bring back eugenics we could address the issues that are obvious. If the world had the same birth rate as first world nations it wouldn't be a problem. 

 

If advancements in technology and productivity were distributed fairly and more evenly instead of going to the top 1%, we wouldn't be worrying about meeting the basic needs of the 99%.

 

If we got a grip on consumerism I don't think we would have the same economic pressures driving environmental crises. 

 

(No offence to any vegans, I just struggle to relate to them). 

That's all you needed to say really. People only caring about people and treating the human race as the only entity entitled to exist when it means the plunder, rape, exploitation of anything and everything on earth which is essentially leading to the death of the earth is the exact reason we are in this mess to begin with. 

 

The debate really was what can YOU do to affect positive change. Your post above moots several great phylosophical ideas that have existed for decades and have never been acted on and will never wver be acted on with the current status quo of the rich getting richer and everything revolving around economic growth. Its all wishful thinking, not proactive in any way.

[jgtuk]

38 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

That's all you needed to say really. People only caring about people and treating the human race as the only entity entitled to exist when it means the plunder, rape, exploitation of anything and everything on earth which is essentially leading to the death of the earth is the exact reason we are in this mess to begin with. 

 

The debate really was what can YOU do to affect positive change. Your post above moots several great phylosophical ideas that have existed for decades and have never been acted on and will never wver be acted on with the current status quo of the rich getting richer and everything revolving around economic growth. Its all wishful thinking, not proactive in any way.

All of this but also the generalisation that all vegans (2-3 million in the uk) think the same way - there are many reasons for choosing a plant based diet. I dare say that there are anthropocentric individuals who may be Vegan. 
Also, how can you be anthropocentric and not acknowledge the importance of the rest of the ecosystem and balance of human interaction given the evidence surrounding climate change. It doesn’t matter how high up on the evolutionary chain you are when facing climate catastrophe. 
One of the stats that I find most disturbing is that livestock make up 62% of the world's mammal biomass; humans account for 34%; and wild mammals are just 4% 

Frightening…  

@leicsmac changing to vegetarian or plant based diet is THE easiest thing anyone can do as an individual to do their bit. Much easier and affordable than reducing your fossil fuel use by changing your car to ev or replacing your boiler with a heat pump system. 
 

Edited 20 October 2024 by jgtuk

[SecretPro]

1 hour ago, LiberalFox said:

I'm extremely anthropocentric. I find most vegans aren't. Veganism as a philosophy places animals a lot closer to humans in terms of importance based on the idea that we are both sentient lifeforms. So they believe that animals are entitled to be treated with a similar level of respect to a human who has issues of communication. They disagree on principle over exploiting the natural power differential humanity enjoys over animals for human advancement. 

 

I don't see the world that way. I think a lot of environmentalist debate ends up being a proxy for people pushing some sort of agenda. It could be vegans or it could be those invested in the hydrocarbons sector. There's a lot of information overload out there at every level. 

 

One of the best ways to tackle environmental concerns is to end world poverty and get a handle on consumerism and capitalist excess. 

 

Overpopulation is an economic issue. Instead of having a debate over whether we should euthanise OAPs or bring back eugenics we could address the issues that are obvious. If the world had the same birth rate as first world nations it wouldn't be a problem. 

 

If advancements in technology and productivity were distributed fairly and more evenly instead of going to the top 1%, we wouldn't be worrying about meeting the basic needs of the 99%.

 

If we got a grip on consumerism I don't think we would have the same economic pressures driving environmental crises. 

 

(No offence to any vegans, I just struggle to relate to them). 

This is also one of the biggest tropes going too. 

 

It's not huge rates of birth in Africa driving climate breakdown or financial crisis. The developed world is entirely responsible for emissions and subsequent climate change. Third world nations may well have higher birth rates but in terms of consumerism, land use, and emissions their impact is non-existent. 

 

Nobody is taking ablut euthanasia either. The human body wasn't designed to live for 100 years, not even close. We've made it live that long through constant medical advancement and now it's costing us on every single front - climate change, global finance etc etc. 

Edited 20 October 2024 by SecretPro

[Wymsey]

3 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

This is also one of the biggest tropes going too. 

 

It's not huge rates of birth in Africa driving climate breakdown or financial crisis. The developed world is entirely responsible for emissions and subsequent climate change. Third world nations may well have higher birth rates but in terms of consumerism, land use, and emissions their impact is non-existent. 

 

Nobody is taking ablut euthanasia either. The human body wasn't designed to live for 100 years, not even close. We've made it live that long through constant medical advancement and now it's costing us on every single front - climate change, global finance etc etc. 

What's your opinion on it?

[SecretPro]

3 minutes ago, jgtuk said:

All of this but also the generalisation that all vegans (2-3 million in the uk) think the same way - there are many reasons for choosing a plant based diet. I dare say that there are anthropocentric individuals who may be Vegan. 
Also, how can you be anthropocentric and not acknowledge the importance of the rest of the ecosystem and balance of human interaction given the evidence surrounding climate change. It doesn’t matter how high up on the evolutionary chain you are when facing climate catastrophe. 
One of the stats that I find most disturbing is that livestock make up 62% of the world's mammal biomass; humans account for 34%; and wild mammals are just 4% 

Frightening…  

@leicsmac changing to vegetarian or plant based diet is THE easiest thing anyone can do as an individual to do their bit. Much easier and affordable than reducing your fossil fuel use by changing your car to ev or replacing your boiler with a heat pump system. 
 

Quite! Amazing how people so easily disconnect those two things. Why should we care so much about something as small as insects etc? Well, in the words of E O Wilson, 

 

If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos.

 

Basically, without nature, we die. Without even just Bees (a few species amongst millions) we Basically die. 

 

Oh but, its not important.

 

[jgtuk]

4 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

What's your opinion on it?

What a swerve 😂. 
Probably another thread for this 

Edited 20 October 2024 by jgtuk
Addition

[SecretPro]

15 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

What's your opinion on it?

If we are talking about the debate on assisted dying my view is that the likes of the strange and utterly non-existent arguments being promoted by the likes of the Archbishop of Canterbury which amount to scaremongering about how we are all suddenly going to just be injecting everyone who says they'd like to die or is poor, or old or whatever other trope it may be is frankly ridiculous.

 

For the very limited number of cases in which any Swiss style assisted dying would be granted in the UK in factual reality then I'm probably pro-assisted dying. 

 

I watched a very good piece on the news last week where a priest had changed her mind on assisted dying from anti to pro after having to care for her mother at end-of-life. Experience of those situations will and does easily change views. Too many who haven't experienced those situations are far too happy to band about this idea that suddenly we'll be killing everyone off as an argument for pro-life. 

 

If I was terminally I'll and suffering to the point where life really was not worth living, why would I not only inflict that on myself but also on my loved ones...especially being as the end really is the same, ie. Death. 

 

Where do we take it next, shall be ban abortion? Shall we just change our name to America.

Edited 20 October 2024 by SecretPro

[LiberalFox]

I'm definitely concerned about the environment and I could go into a long explanation of why I hold various beliefs on this but it isn't necessary. 

 

Of course being anthropocentric should not mean not caring about the environment. Those who believe humanity should be centred and those who don't should both share a common concern for the environment. 

 

I definitely feel 'vegan' has certain negative connotations though. So I would recommend a less prohibitive approach to lowering the consumption of meat and animal products. 

 

 

[ozleicester]

Any/Everyone should have the right to end their own life, easily, comfortably and without judgement.

[SecretPro]

11 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I'm definitely concerned about the environment and I could go into a long explanation of why I hold various beliefs on this but it isn't necessary. 

 

Of course being anthropocentric should not mean not caring about the environment. Those who believe humanity should be centred and those who don't should both share a common concern for the environment. 

 

I definitely feel 'vegan' has certain negative connotations though. So I would recommend a less prohibitive approach to lowering the consumption of meat and animal products. 

 

 

Quite, but my argument would be that the care of the Environment should be at the centre of anybody so anthropocentric, because without a healthy environment there genuinely are no people (and I'm not even really on about climate change - it's the current 6th mass extinction and biodiversity crisis that is likely to finish us off first, because many many creatures perform tasks that are essential to human life, insects being the main category (whether that be essential food pollination, assisting plant reproduction providing the oxygen we breathe, waste removal services, dealing with decay and driving the essential nitrogen cycle required for life, those microorganisms on land and ocean that sequest more atmospheric carbon than all of the worlds forests put together or the natural defence against pest species and associated disease that a functioning ecosystem provides, and they have suffered a 70% decline in the last 40 years alone)

Edited 20 October 2024 by SecretPro

[leicsmac]

54 minutes ago, jgtuk said:

All of this but also the generalisation that all vegans (2-3 million in the uk) think the same way - there are many reasons for choosing a plant based diet. I dare say that there are anthropocentric individuals who may be Vegan. 
Also, how can you be anthropocentric and not acknowledge the importance of the rest of the ecosystem and balance of human interaction given the evidence surrounding climate change. It doesn’t matter how high up on the evolutionary chain you are when facing climate catastrophe. 
One of the stats that I find most disturbing is that livestock make up 62% of the world's mammal biomass; humans account for 34%; and wild mammals are just 4% 

Frightening…  

@leicsmac changing to vegetarian or plant based diet is THE easiest thing anyone can do as an individual to do their bit. Much easier and affordable than reducing your fossil fuel use by changing your car to ev or replacing your boiler with a heat pump system. 
 

It surely is the easiest thing to do. I'm not sure if it is in any way the most effective in terms of effectiveness/effort required.

 

8 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Quite, but my argument would be that the care of the Environment should be at the centre of anybody so anthropocentric, because without a healthy environment there genuinely are no people (and I'm not even really on about climate change - it's the current 6th mass extinction and biodiversity crisis that is likely to finish us off first, because many many creatures perform tasks that are essential to human life, insects being the main category (whether that be essential food pollination, assisting plant reproduction providing the oxygen we breathe, waste removal services, dealing with decay and driving the essential nitrogen cycle required for life, those microorganisms on land and ocean that sequest more atmospheric carbon than all of the worlds forests put together or the natural defence against pest species and associated disease that a functioning ecosystem provides, and they have suffered a 70% decline in the last 40 years alone)

You're absolutely right with pretty much everything you've posted here.

 

My only quibble is, as above, with the idea that becoming vegan forms a truly integrally effective part of that and so "must" be the right way to go for anyone concerned with the future of the biosphere - I mean, I'm certainly prepared to consider it as a working hypothesis, but I simply haven't seen the evidence for if it would be effective enough and how to make it workable with enough people to be effective.

Edited 20 October 2024 by leicsmac

[SecretPro]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It surely is the easiest thing to do. I'm not sure if it is in any way the most effective in terms of effectiveness/effort required.

 

You're absolutely right with pretty much everything you've posted here.

 

My only quibble is, as above, with the idea that becoming vegan forms a truly integrally effective part of that and so "must" be the right way to go for anyone concerned with the future of the biosphere - I mean, I'm certainly prepared to consider it as a working hypothesis, but I simply haven't seen the evidence for if it would be effective enough and how to make it workable with enough people to be effective

Sure, I'm definitely not saying 'everyone go vegan and that's problem solved' in any sense, I'm saying for people who want to do something that they can physically do to be proactive it would be a good start. For me it's not even just the emissions from animal agriculture, its the masses and masses of land it occupies and what it then subsequently turns that land into. Combined, it had a massive, massive impact. The graphic I posted above about deforestation is a just one tiny thing in a host of things that animal agriculture has a deep impact on. Look at the UK uplands - people go to the Highlands and say 'oh, that looks pretty' but the reality is that that's not how it should look - it's denuded not only of character, but of biodiversity and that impact is lasting. Our uplands are fast becoming green deserts through sheep farming when really they should be covered in montane scrub and a vast, vast array of biodiversity. And that's just the UK! Extrapolate that into the same kind of theory as Edward O Wilsons 'Half-earth' (very good if you haven't read it) and that change of land use becomes something huge.

 

My point is, Veganism needs to be weapon amongst an arsenal of weapons to even get close to doing anything about climate change and biodiversity loss - most of those weapons can only be forged by governments, policy, big business etc etc, but the vegan weapon, we can all do it, it's something we as individuals CAN do, when many of the other things we can't. Governments have been talking about climate change since the early 80's, campaigners have been campaigning since the same time. In recent years we've had extensive campaigning and lobbying from Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and others and had this change anything. Did the apparently game changing Paris agreement change anything?! No is the real answer, so whilst we can all campaign and lobby our MPs etc for change and that's within our power to do, how much more getting around the table and talking can we do (and not see change from it) before it becomes apparent we've just wasted a whole load of time getting round tables and talking to people who don't care or don't want to care. 

 

I merely bring up veganism because it's empowering for an individual because they are actively doing something. Imagine, just for a second, if the world was plant based what an impact that would have on land use and emissions. I freely admit that is NEVER going to happen, much as all the other forms of action are likely to NEVER make any difference but the difference is:

 

You can become vegan and it will make a small change

You can continue to lobby, campaign and talk and prioritise that above going vegan and it might not make any change. 

 

So for me, its a no-brainer. Be part of that arsenal. 

Edited 20 October 2024 by SecretPro

[Trav Le Bleu]

46 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Any/Everyone should have the right to end their own life, easily, comfortably and without judgement.

And in some cases, other people's.

[jgtuk]

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It surely is the easiest thing to do. I'm not sure if it is in any way the most effective in terms of effectiveness/effort required.

 

You're absolutely right with pretty much everything you've posted here.

 

My only quibble is, as above, with the idea that becoming vegan forms a truly integrally effective part of that and so "must" be the right way to go for anyone concerned with the future of the biosphere - I mean, I'm certainly prepared to consider it as a working hypothesis, but I simply haven't seen the evidence for if it would be effective enough and how to make it workable with enough people to be effective.

If you concede that it’s the easiest thing to do, what, in your opinion, is the most effective thing an individual can do because I think that this is it. 
Most climate change issues are out of our hands and can only be solved by governments and multinationals as far as I’m concerned. Yes, we should all recycle, turn down the thermostat a degree or two and walk/cycle more often but as for anything else 🤷‍♂️

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Sure, I'm definitely not saying 'everyone go vegan and that's problem solved' in any sense, I'm saying for people who want to do something that they can physically do to be proactive it would be a good start. For me it's not even just the emissions from animal agriculture, its the masses and masses of land it occupies and what it then subsequently turns that land into. Combined, it had a massive, massive impact. The graphic I posted above about deforestation is a just one tiny thing in a host of things that animal agriculture has a deep impact on. Look at the UK uplands - people go to the Highlands and say 'oh, that looks pretty' but the reality is that that's not how it should look - it's denuded not only of character, but of biodiversity and that impact is lasting. Our uplands are fast becoming green deserts through sheep farming when really they should be covered in montane scrub and a vast, vast array of biodiversity. And that's just the UK! 

 

It's certainly a facet of the problem, as you say, part of a suite of issues.

 

24 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

 

 

My point is, Veganism needs to be weapon amongst an arsenal of weapons to even get close to doing anything about climate change and biodiversity loss - most of those weapons can only be forged by governments, policy, big business etc etc, but the vegan weapon, we can all do it, it's something we as individuals CAN do, when many of the other things we can't. Governments have been talking about climate change since the early 80's, campaigners have been campaigning since the same time. In recent years we've had extensive campaigning and lobbying from Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and others and had this change anything. Did the apparently game changing Paris agreement change anything?! No is the real answer, so whilst we can all campaign and lobby our MPs etc for change and that's within our power to do, how much more getting around the table and talking can we do (and not see change from it) before it becomes apparent we've just wasted a whole load of time getting round tables and talking to people who don't care or don't want to care. 

 

You're certainly right about the lack of action that's been taken. For me though, the change still has to come from the top down or it simply won't do enough on enough of a scale, so if that's not going to do it (and it might not) then things look very bleak indeed.

 

26 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

I merely bring up veganism because it's empowering for an individual because they are actively doing something. Imagine, just for a second, if the world was plant based what an impact that would have on land use and emissions. I freely admit that is NEVER going to happen, much as all the other forms of action are likely to NEVER make any difference but the difference is:

 

You can become vegan and it will make a small change

You can continue to lobby, campaign and talk and prioritise that above going vegan and it might not make any change. 

 

So for me, its a no-brained. Be part of that arsenal. 

It's absolutely something that could (and likely should) be done and it does help. It just needs to be a part of a range of solutions all applied close to each other - some bigger, some smaller. Easy, huh?

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, jgtuk said:

If you concede that it’s the easiest thing to do, what, in your opinion, is the most effective thing an individual can do because I think that this is it. 
Most climate change issues are out of our hands and can only be solved by governments and multinationals as far as I’m concerned. Yes, we should all recycle, turn down the thermostat a degree or two and walk/cycle more often but as for anything else 🤷‍♂️

In terms of effectiveness/effort ratio, doing whatever possible to get that government change implemented, as hopeless as it may seem right now. That's likely the only way out of this without cataclysmic events, IMO.

 

As per above, it's easy and more people should do it because it will obviously help, but it shouldn't be framed as the only most effective thing an individual can do.

[Trav Le Bleu]

19 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Sure, I'm definitely not saying 'everyone go vegan and that's problem solved' in any sense, I'm saying for people who want to do something that they can physically do to be proactive it would be a good start. For me it's not even just the emissions from animal agriculture, its the masses and masses of land it occupies and what it then subsequently turns that land into. Combined, it had a massive, massive impact. The graphic I posted above about deforestation is a just one tiny thing in a host of things that animal agriculture has a deep impact on. Look at the UK uplands - people go to the Highlands and say 'oh, that looks pretty' but the reality is that that's not how it should look - it's denuded not only of character, but of biodiversity and that impact is lasting. Our uplands are fast becoming green deserts through sheep farming when really they should be covered in montane scrub and a vast, vast array of biodiversity. And that's just the UK! Extrapolate that into the same kind of theory as Edward O Wilsons 'Half-earth' (very good if you haven't read it) and that change of land use becomes something huge.

 

My point is, Veganism needs to be weapon amongst an arsenal of weapons to even get close to doing anything about climate change and biodiversity loss - most of those weapons can only be forged by governments, policy, big business etc etc, but the vegan weapon, we can all do it, it's something we as individuals CAN do, when many of the other things we can't. Governments have been talking about climate change since the early 80's, campaigners have been campaigning since the same time. In recent years we've had extensive campaigning and lobbying from Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and others and had this change anything. Did the apparently game changing Paris agreement change anything?! No is the real answer, so whilst we can all campaign and lobby our MPs etc for change and that's within our power to do, how much more getting around the table and talking can we do (and not see change from it) before it becomes apparent we've just wasted a whole load of time getting round tables and talking to people who don't care or don't want to care. 

 

I merely bring up veganism because it's empowering for an individual because they are actively doing something. Imagine, just for a second, if the world was plant based what an impact that would have on land use and emissions. I freely admit that is NEVER going to happen, much as all the other forms of action are likely to NEVER make any difference but the difference is:

 

You can become vegan and it will make a small change

You can continue to lobby, campaign and talk and prioritise that above going vegan and it might not make any change. 

 

So for me, its a no-brainer. Be part of that arsenal. 

I know you're only talking about Veganism as an example of taking control of the situation for yourself, but I wonder if anyone has seriously mapped out total consequence of everyone going vegan, the pros v cons.

 

For all the savings on cow flatulance, what happens to the now wild domestic cow left to fend for itself, the sheep, the chickens all left to roam the countryside untended. Bees without beekeepers might well die out. Wild boars would essentially return to the country..

 

Also, if you're hard-core vegan, you don't exploit animals in any way, so no horse riding, no pets, no swimming with dolphins, no alligator wrestling, no donkey rides at Skeg Vegas.

 

But seriously, a totally vegan society, without immense sacrifice (no just by humans giving up their practices, but also by huge culling of farm animals on a regular basis) is fraught with immense difficulty.