One of the reasons I avoid the “Solarpunk” types is because they still don’t want to renounce “Shit-and-gore-punk”. Raising and killing animals is not punk. I’m not into Shitpunk. If your village smells like shit, something is going wrong.

Excellent model and it would be even neater with some animation to show the feedback loops.

Humans in the past 6-10 thousand years or so, past 4 thousand years especially.

I still aim for a low-ish fat diet, mostly because I don’t really have an “off switch” for eating nuts and seeds, never have. But it’s good to know that ω−6 fatty acids aren’t such an issue with regards to the infamous ratio with ω−3 ones.

Plants are just inherently less calorie dense than protein and fat.

You’re comparing apples to orange juice.

I’m not morally justifying my diet. I’m just a hungry animal.

Technically, you are. You’re using a sort of naturalistic fallacy as moral justification.

The point of contention is this:

Are you justifying a need or are you justifying a desire or want?

Which begs the question: do you know your needs and do you know yourself enough to know your needs?

For carnivore animals, this is about needs.

I have avoided getting diagnosed due to the low (is it?) probability that fascists come to power and want to make lists of people for obvious evil purposes, but I’d certainly call myself neurodivergent.

Anarchism and a moneyless economy | The Anarchist Library

US: zed (/ˈzɛd/)

UK: zee (/ˈziː/)

jobs tho

Charity is always a patch and a simulacrum for what’s really needed.

Knew it. My bullshit detector is finely tuned.

The animal agriculture industry hired scientists to produce industry-friendly emissions reports and challenge individual action, influenced public discourse around dietary change, and created a front group, the Food Facts Coalition, with a mission to defend the industry against ‘anti-cow arguments’. The animal agriculture industry’s response to individual dietary change illustrates a unique form of climate obstruction and suggests that an industry’s approach to personal responsibility is context-dependent and action-specific.

It’s not even the usual scam disinformation, they get into fascist fantasies, as made clear with the “alt” right types, Jordan Peterson and others. They treat beef as a better “masculinity” supplement than injecting testosterone or taking ED pills. Yet another nightmare forming fantastic narrative unleashed to protect a capital sector that’s destroying the world.

The animal agriculture industry’s opposition to dietary change contrasts with the oil and gas industry’s support for individual energy reduction and shows that industry attitudes towards individual action are context-dependent and action-specific.

Yeah, that’s because the fossil fuel industry knows that people are dependent on their products, like addicts. The carbon footprint (per capita GHG emissions) is like a reminder of who the dealer is, who has the power.

The meat industry tries to sponsor science that claims that eating meat is not just necessary, but nearly confers superpowers. That’s compensating for the fact that consuming meat is not necessary. While they may have addicts based on hyperpalatable high-fat meat, it’s not the same as the dependency on fossil fuels.

While asserting that its products do not cause climate change and changing one’s diet will not make a difference (e.g. Wright, Citation2009) and that emphasis on individual responsibility ‘distracts from the problem’ (Mitloehner, Citation2020), the animal agriculture industry has simultaneously made a series of products and claims aimed at climate-conscious consumers. For example, the Oregon-based dairy company Neutral claims to be carbon neutral and states on its packaging: ‘This milk fights climate change’ (Hamlett, Citation2023). Tyson Foods, the largest US meat company, introduced ‘Brazen Beef’, which it claims emits 10 percent fewer GHGs (Samuelson, Citation2021). JBS USA, part of the largest meat company in the world, has made many climate-related claims, including that the company will reach net-zero by 2040, which led to a lawsuit by the Attorney General of New York alleging that JBS USA has repeatedly misled consumers (Gelles & Andreoni, Citation2024). This paradox is reminiscent of the tobacco industry, which, in the 1950s, began funding a large network to challenge the causal link between smoking and cancer while they also started manufacturing filtered cigarettes that they claimed removed tar and nicotine (Proctor, Citation2012; Whiteside, Citation1963). If smoking does not cause cancer, why was a filter necessary? Likewise, if meat and dairy do not contribute to climate change and/or dietary change is insignificant, why produce Neutral milk or Brazen Beef, or commit to net-zero?

The meat cartels are all too rich from various subsidies too. Like the fossil industry, they have a big “war chest” to spread disinformation and attack opponents.

As for civil society groups, the evidence presented here that the industry has fought even modest forms of dietary change is reason alone to suggest that dietary change is an effective climate intervention and should be part of climate action and advocacy.

It’s going to get worse under the Trump regime and that RFK Jr.

Ah, yes, doing the same thing while waiting for “better options” as a moral position. That’s called moral opportunism! Congrats, capitalism’s ideal man: “rational self-interest man”.

Many rich economies such as the UK have made big strides in cleaning up their power supply, but their populations still live high-carbon lifestyles. Unlike less wealthy peers still working towards a coal-free grid, this cluster of mostly European nations now faces a new challenge: persuading the public to live differently.

fossil fascists have entered the chat

“What Noaa provides is an infrastructure of facilities that produce the data — satellites, ships, weather buoys — that the insurance industry doesn’t have,” Nutter said.

Well, the insurance companies better start investing in all of those EO capabilities. That’s how the “Free Market” forces work, right? The insurance company with the best data wins. 🍿

, it was just ~20% after accounting for the longer life of the cattle due to unpredicted slower mass gain with the supplement.

Unpredicted is wrong there, there are many substances, additives, and outright plants that can be added to ruminant diets to reduce GHG emissions and that usually has consequences. The animal farmers have known about these for a long time as it’s part of the “technology”; sometimes the additives reduce weight gain, sometimes they cause harms; sometimes the plants taint the meat or milk.

They had hoped for no changes to development of the cattle and around 80% or higher emissions cut.

Yes, it’s a huge failure.

a great starting point and a strong show of the value proposition

It’s not. This has been going on for years.

Here’s a long article: https://etcgroup.org/content/seaweed-delusion

Australian trial of seaweed cow feed fails to achieve hoped-for methane cuts | Environment | The Guardian (2023)

stop the greenwashing

Fiction can be useful, but fiction is not real. Are you using Yellowstone or is Yellowstone using you?

President Javier Milei, known for his flamboyant personality and right-wing libertarian policies, signed a decree in his first month in government in 2023 through which “the powers of the Executive Branch to impose prohibitions on economic imports and exports were eliminated, in order to provide legal certainty to those who invest in the country.”

For extra context: https://www.desmog.com/2023/08/22/javier-milei-argentina-atlas-network/

I watched Yellowstone

Maybe stop thinking of fiction as reality?