Here's a Forbes article that seems almost enthusiastic about this as a "green" energy source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/melissacristinamarquez/2020/03/...
What a strange article.
So sorry we accidently killed you. In order to give your life some meaning, we've come up with "unique opportunity to have their livers provide valuable products"
The difference is in Communism, there should always be 'some work'. If you are willing to work, there is work. Even if it is some public works project.
In Capitalism, maybe not. Nobody is looking out for you. If you don't have the skills for what is in demand right now, then so sorry, go ahead and die.
in the US, there are 'working poor'. under communism, there are 'working poor and starving'.
at the time when skilled blue collar workers in the US had two story houses and multiple cars per family, the same people in the USSR lived in communal apartments (with 3-4 people per room and 3-4 families per bathroom and kitchen) and commuted to work in overcrowded buses.
even towards the end, in the 80's, after several decades of relative peace and prosperity, even engineers and scientists had a standard of living far below the level of 'working poor' in the US. having a small concrete box in a commie block and a shitty car (that you had to wait several years for the privilege of being allowed to buy for a very sizeable amount of money) was the Soviet dream.
2. And. Different point. These quotes on working to eat, also are meant to apply to the rich. In the US, the rich can just sit by the pool and do not contribute to society. The communist quote is meant to mean, everyone contributes. Whereas in capitalism, you can live off inheritance or interest rates, and not contribute anything. Be a parasite.
If sharks are purposefully being killed like this then thats one thing. But that’s not being alleged.
If sharks are accidentally killed then it’s good that they’re making use of them to some extent. Hopefully they can make even more use of them.
Adding a financial incentive to continue harmful practices is NOT a good thing.
We should be punishing bycatch, not incentivizing it.
Similar vibe as replacing leather with microplastics or meat that can exist anywhere with deforesting the amazon for meat alternatives ingredients.
Is this the case? A major problem with beef is that so much of it comes from the cleared Amazon. Also, meat intrinsically takes more space than vegetables because we still have to clear land to grow feed for the meat, so a 1:1 replacement of Amazonian beef with soy and chickpeas or whatever would be a massive increase in yield.
It's no different with beef. Most beef in the USA comes from the USA, and you might raise various objections about the treatment of cattle, pollution from runoff, and so on, but it isn't contributing to rainforest deforestation, so that isn't a good reason to not eat it.
To expand on your metaphor, not only are the t-shirts made with slave labor, but the cotton grown is harvested and milled by slave labor and without supply chain transparency it’s impossible to know if the new brand is also using the slave-labor cotton.
In the end, all versions of beef production remotely possible are either insanely inefficient in yield or in resource usage or objectively cruel (aka factory farms). A vegan diet is absolutely going to be the better choice on every reasonable metric for the vast majority of people and life situations (aka Inuits don't count).
> A vegan diet is absolutely going to be the better choice on every reasonable metric for the vast majority of people and life situations (aka Inuits don't count).
Is that true of a vegan diet high in fake meat? Highly wasteful because it extracts and uses a small amount from the input material and often the waste is old as animal feed. On top of that extra transport and energy inputs required, etc.
ON the other hand cattle can be part of a natural carbon sink environment. In Scotland (and other places) they are releasing cattle into the wild as part of rewilding!
All of these apply to cattle as well and fake meat will still use less resources than real beef.
>On the other hand cattle can be part of a natural carbon sink environment
Not technically incorrect, but this is absolutely greenwashing
I believe you could make this "all" without loss of accuracy, at least to three significant figures. Might have to relax "domestic" to cover Canada and Mexico, neither of which is deforesting to produce fodder.
The US is a major exporter of the crops fed to cattle, and livestock in general. The lack of supply chain transparency your counter-analogy relies on is nowhere in evidence in US agriculture.
Yes it is, only indirectly, as it's driving climate change. It's also destroying local ecosystems which you might have an interest in? Beef is just insanely inefficient as a food source. It's like finding out all t-shirts are manufactured using a process that throws 10lbs of manufactured cloth into a landfill for every shirt made.
Not all beef is equal. Almost all the beef I eat is from the UK, and most of it grass fed.
I mean, all beef is equal in the sense that it's not an efficient use of resources, including space, to feed cattle vs growing crops that feed humans. That's basically true no matter where the land is.
Anyway, if we are talking about the Amazon, there is absolutely no conversation to be had that doesn't center on beef. Talking about Amazon deforestation specifically being driven by anything other than cattle ranching is so wrong it's evil, and plenty of UK beef also comes from the Amazon.
Our problem isn't tetris with land. We have way, way, way more land to produce food crops than we need to feed everyone, we don't need to optimize for the few places where we can raise a few cattle exclusively. We can feed the same amount of people using far less water, land, and power using a vegan-ish diet.
growing cattle keeps the land from turning into concrete. If you actually want to conserve land you want to use as much already deforested as possible for growing crops and then never deforest new land. Slowly you should work onto getting conservation NGOs to integrate it into government protected land.
Seems to me like a fools errand to optimize land use. The optimal use in the Americas for example was likely already there 14,000 years ago before humans arrived in Americas. We obviously can't go back, but we can improve land, but optimal ....
all the supermarkets i go to sell mostly British beef, and the butcher sells mostly local beef. most of of the rest is Irish.
https://oec.world/en/profile/hs/animal-food
I'm actually very surprised by these numbers, namely that all other top five importers except the UK are net exporters. My mental image of Netherlands and Germany (where I eat too much meat) was that of huge net importers, whose plant production output was in large parts an echo of the animal feed imports (feed gets converted into meat and dung...). Perhaps they are only net exporters by market value, but net importers by nutrient amount?