On the one hand I can totally relate, agriculture (not just ranchers but crop agriculture as well) and environmental well-being are often at odds with each other. However, I can understand where ranchers and farmers are coming from as well, as ranching is their livelihood and a serious setback like disease coming to their herd or many cattle being taken by predators could really have serious consequences for them. And ultimately we have to have farmers and ranchers to provide food for us. The hard part is trying to strike a balance, where there’s room enough for agriculture to provide for the needs of the country while still preserving nature and wild places in areas like the prairies.
I had that opinion for the last decade, but I’m over it. Things are getting worse and people are taking more and more. The greed is overwhelming.
5 Likes
While environmental destruction is certainly still happening, I would actually argue in many more developed countries (like the US) things have actually gotten better in recent times, not worse. In earlier times, there were basically no environmental regulations to speak of, no national parks or forests, anything like that, and pollution and habitat destruction went completely unchecked. Almost all the forests of the country were destroyed, and thankfully they are coming back in certain areas today. Today I believe that has at least slowed, with more regulation and consciousness around sustainable practices. Which is part of why I believe it’s important to keep agriculture in our country, albeit with regulations to mitigate environmental destruction. Because the only alternative is to outsource our food, often from countries with little to no environmental protection, with an “out of sight, out of mind” attitude to the impacts in those countries.
6 Likes
I got beef out of my life years before going vegetarian. Same reason as yours.
4 Likes
but planning to fell old growth forests?
2 Likes
This isn’t correct, if by recent times, you mean the last few months. The Migratory Bird Act was weakened, leadership is wishing to strip endangered species protection (rather cruelly citing this “dire wolf” nonsense), logging in National Forests is being opened wide, and despite the lease falling through, oil drilling keeps being pushed in ANWR. I won’t even mention climate protections because I seem to recall that you don’t feel personally affected by climate change, although it’s killing red cedars and madronas where I live, as well as fish (especially salmonids) and shoreline crustaceans and mollusks.
I would argue that the defunding of National Parks and firing of parks staff will also have a seriously negative impact on those areas. Those park staff are the ones who enforce regulations, keep trails safe and clean, and educate the public about why it’s important not to do stuff like hug bison and kill the last 2 Cascade foxes.
9 Likes
Yes. While we still have a lot of room to improve, the level of environmental protection today is much more than it was throughout most of US history, especially the 20th century
2 Likes
I fully agree that the current administration leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to environmental policy (although one could argue that, like I said earlier, previous administrations have simply outsourced environmentally costly products to keep the damage out of sight and out of mind). But I still contend that compared to historical times, before my lifetime and maybe yours as well, we have made a lot of progress when it comes to environmental protection. While we still have a good ways to go, it’s not all doom and gloom.
2 Likes
I created a separate topic with the above posts as they had diverged substantially from the original topic:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/dire-wolf-what-do-we-think/63730
1 Like
16 posts were split to a new topic: All-beef diet questions
Wait till you find out about non-Western countries and their impacts on the environment.
3 Likes
Yep. Which is why I was saying I think it’s ultimately better to source agricultural products from more developed countries with better environmental protections
1 Like
With farming, there are mainly two “approaches” (sort of). On the one hand you have small family owned businesses who are trying their best to somehow combine earning a living and limiting impact on nature. On the other hand you have rather huge businesses with huge swaths of land, all covered in a pesticide- and fertiliser-poisoned monoculture.
At least here in Germany, the interesting thing is that whenever there’s a farmer’s protest against some new environmental policy, it’s mostly these second type of farmers doing the protesting, while all masquerading as the first type…
But I think there’s one factors that is far more threatening to “farming subsp. 1” that far outweighs the impact environmental regulations (would) have:
The business model of “farming subsp. 2” will always be more competitive, purely economically. Producing at larger scale means lower costs, means lower prices, means people will choose that product over the other. So the current system rewards the more destructive type of farming. Same with animals… Keeping animals cramped in unethically small places, feeding them antibiotics to fatten them up more quickly (which is also very concerning from a medical pov, btw), will always be cheaper than the alternative.
But the most problematic (because most unnecessary) perversion of the western life style is all the waste. So the best first step anyone can and should do for a more environmentally friendly lifestyle is eliminating personal waste as much as possible (whether that is food, plastics, or anything else).
2 Likes
May I ask… Why?
As someone who loves fruits and veggies, and an abundance of green things (except parsley, that can f right off), this seems like a nightmare to me.
I mean, I understand liking meat, but what’s the goal behind deliberately conditioning yourself to eat only meat? From all I know (and ever suspected) about nutrition, I don’t think there are health benefits?
8 Likes
I am curious, too. Also why only one kind of meat? I am also a meat enjoyer, but I’m pretty sure if I ate one type exclusively, I would hate it after a while. It also seems expensive unless you’re buying nothing but the cheap ground stuff. I’ll also point out, Adam, that you wanted to add a different perspective for balance, but you didn’t actually discuss anything with relation to the topic of the post (namely environmental impacts). Anything to add about that?
7 Likes
and it threatens to return to dense smog and rivers on fire?
USA surely DID make great improvements.
We lived in Switzerland, when they introduced improved conditions for farmed pigs (which are intelligent animals). Wonderful. Improved animal welfare. But. The Swiss people then prefer to buy and eat, imported cheaper food.
I am vegetarian. Meat (and the dairy products I do eat) has a heavy environmental footprint. I prefer to buy local for the carbon footprint, and employment here where I know it is needed.
https://www.oneearth.org/planetarian-diet/
About half vegetables (and some fruit). A quarter protein (legumes, eggs, dairy, meat) Last quarter is complex carbohydrates. A diet so that the other people on the planet can eat too.
6 Likes
Yeah, it’s sad, and somehow seems inevitable. And it gives strength to the argument that regulations only harm the farmers in that country. Because in a world driven only by money it does. I think this is where government action is most needed: make the better choice more attractive.
Also: The modern experience of deciding how much chicken happiness you can afford when standing in front of the egg shelf… Quite absurd and dystopian. And interestingly the choice of egg doesn’t correlate with wealth. Pretty clear what that says about society
4 Likes
As far as I can tell, much of what people do has a negative impact on the rest of biodiversity on the planet. Sure, there are greater and smaller impacts and certainly one can minimize one’s own impacts, but I suspect the only things that would really make a difference are:
- Work towards a goal of fewer people on earth.
- Own less stuff and travel much less, including locally.
- Permanently protect as much land as possible from human impact like development and agriculture.
Do I follow all these principles? Well, I don’t have any kids, but that was my choice. Do I want to live another 20 years? Of course I do. Do I want to stop driving 10 minutes or an hour to go hiking to make iNat observations? Well, no, I want to keep hiking. Do I want to renovate my decrepit kitchen? Yep, and it’s happening as I write. Could I give more money now to organizations that protect land, not just leave them 75% of my estate in my will? Yes, I could.
It’s a trade-off between my personal and immediate gratification and doing everything I possibly can to conserve biodiversity. Unfortunately, I am far, FAR from perfect, and I think other people are the same way.
5 Likes
I have to disagree on this one, from an ethical and practical perspective. While localized overcrowding is absolutely a thing, the idea of global overpopulation is much less founded. In fact many first world countries are facing demographic crisis due to low birth rates. And the goal of population reduction has the potential to lead to very unethical outcomes.
I agree about doing what you can to reduce waste though (although I do drive a lot, and have no plans to stop doing so anytime soon)
1 Like