- cross-posted to:
- environment@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- environment@sh.itjust.works
You must log in or register to comment.
The title is misleading. The problem is industrial scale egg-farming and the meaningless “free-range” label; most people see “free-range” and think “pastured.” The marketing is unfortunately working exactly as intended. Industrial scale anything is going to be bad for ecosystems, animals, and people.
I can’t believe that human populations aren’t zero entropy entities. What’s their problem?
The problem is much more than how things are produced, it’s what you produce in the first place. There is no way to do things at scale that does not turn into factory farming or make the environmental impacts even worse. This whole study talks about even some tiny changes making the emissions significantly higher
Per capita production levels and thus consumption levels have to change if we want a better world
Deleted my response before your edit since I misunderstood what you were saying
Why does “per-capita” production need to decrease? Is it really the best course of action to have the population of earth be infinitely growing and then respond by constantly decreasing per-capita consumption? What’s the endpoint?
Copying my comment from earlier in this thread:
Per capita consumption of animal products have risen significantly over the past few decades. Even if 0 new people were born starting this instance, there will still be large populations for decades to come
Should we just sit around waiting for decades for a population to decrease to eventually happen and let the environment burn in the meantime?
This conclusion is even less rational than reducing the British population.
Per capita consumption of animal products have risen significantly over the past few decades. There is not much getting around that the consumption levels need to change
Even if 0 new people were born starting this instance, there will still be large populations for decades to come