Interesting hypothesis, but it seems very unlikely. Safely fermenting any calorie-dense plant matter in the tropics without airtight containers or other equipment would be more a matter of luck than anything. It would not be a reliable means of increasing caloric intake for an entire population. A much simpler explanation for human brain expansion? Sweet fruit. No tools, no fire, no difficult digestion. Neuroscientist Tony Wright has researched this possibility extensively.

Could you give an example? Since herding cultures themselves are inherently racist (speciesist), merely speaking out against them hardly constitutes racism.

That website merely published an excerpt. The author of the book has nothing to do with that.

Cow pasture accounts for about 80% of Amazon deforestation since 1970, but feedcrops like soya are still a significant contributor. Animal agriculture excluding cow pasture accounts for an additional 12% of deforestation, and part of that is soya monocultures. Perhaps the bigger problem with soya cultivation in the Amazon is the opportunity cost that is not apparent from the deforestation numbers: it is often grown on former pasture lands that could have otherwise reforested themselves.

That said, you’re right that not buying soybeans from Brazil would have little impact, as the vast majority of the soybeans produced in Brazil are fed to “livestock” animals.

To be clear, the vast majority of the soybeans produced in the Amazon (and elsewhere) go towards “livestock” feed, so buying edamame or tofu isn’t really contributing much (if at all) to Amazon destruction, Atlantic Forest destruction, Cerrado destruction, or any other soy-related destruction in Brazil.

Not Bangladesh?

archived (Wayback Machine)

record annual jump cited (Wayback Machine)

Please note that this article contains questionable arithmetic:

That brings the annual mean global concentration close to 430 ppm, about 40 percent more than the pre-industrial level, and enough to heat the planet by about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius).

The actual figure from NOAA is 428.15 ppm (last updated 2025-04-14). If we use the more precise pre-industrial estimate of 278 ppm, then we get an increase of 54%, which is indeed “about 40%” if we round to the nearest multiple of 40%.

Climate models tend to underestimate the cooling effect of aerosol pollution, and the climate sensitivity is actually about 50% greater than previously thought, so a more realistic estimate of the warming caused by a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration over the pre-industrial level is 4.5°C. If we assume that the relationship is linear, this means that the current level of 428.15 ppm is “enough to heat the planet” by 4.5°C * 54% = 2.43°C, which is… more than 1.5°C.

the 2023-2024 spike of the global average surface temperature, which has also not been fully explained

Yes it has.

WAAAAAAAAY too much grass.

Ah, of course. If you depend on the government and human-made infrastructure, New Zealand and Finland and the like are definitely more reliable than any countries at the equator. (Except Singapore? Interesting.) Governments don’t grow durian though.

Severe weather events in New Zealand

I know that New Zealand has the ocean to buffer it against temperature extremes, but based on this image:

it seems that the island of New Guinea, which is also east of the Wallace Line, has experienced similarly mild warming in recent decades. Maprik (3.63°S, 143.05°E) at ~200m, for example:

seems to have a much more durian-friendly climate than even areas at sea level on the north island of New Zealand (e.g. Ahipara).

And that’s not even Borneo. What is the advantage of New Zealand? Am I missing something?

GitHub

Windows

privacy

Pick two and call me back.

archived for posterity

Best way to protect yourself is to find some land at a comfortable elevation near the equator and start planting fruit trees.

Not even fair to compare to 2024. This year is on track to be the warmest non-El Niño year on record.

archived version (Wayback Machine)

Partly because many recently deforested areas (mainly in Mato Grosso) were “legally” reclassified from Amazon to Cerrado. Either way, there is still massive deforestation going on, no matter how anyone manipulates the statistics.

Even in Argentina, where beef has long been king, change is beginning to take root. Recent data suggests that plant-based food products now account for about six percent of total food sales.

Is that accurate? Is it really that low? Fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, nuts/seeds, packaged junk like fried potatoes and instant noodles and soy-based meats and those caramel-coated peanut things… all combined only account for 6% of “food” sales? How are Argentinians even alive?

Veganic permaculture food forests using syntropic methods can provide individual and community food security and sovereignty without the bullshit.

In the Amazon especially, some people are already reforesting with fruit trees and other beneficial vegetation, and they invite others to join in the effort.

So go vegan. If not cows, they would graze some other animals there.

Not surprising. I remember reading that (some of) the ancestors of Home sapiens sapiens in East Africa first started regularly using fire about 400,000 years ago… to cook starchy tubers. Apparently that population didn’t start eating animals for another ~300,000 years, and others didn’t even leave the forest and start using fire until ~250,000 years ago or later. History is not an ethical guide in any case…