[HN Gopher] Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries
___________________________________________________________________
Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries
Author : geox
Score : 130 points
Date : 2023-09-13 19:36 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| naikrovek wrote:
| yeah, yeah, we know.
|
| there's money to be made, though, so we ain't stopping.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| It's more like there are babies to be made. After all, if we
| stopped procreating so prolifically, things would right
| themselves fairly quickly
| casparvitch wrote:
| One and the same, economic growth has lead us here & economic
| growth has been highly tied to population growth.
| simmerup wrote:
| Someone should tell these scientists that everythings actually
| fine because we can just crank up the A/C
| swader999 wrote:
| Or shade and stay hydrated. Cold kills orders of magnitude more
| than heat does.
| Liquix wrote:
| > Clearly, it is in humanity's best interest to...
|
| Herein lies the problem. What happens to the environment is not
| governed by "humanity's best interest", it's governed by whomever
| has the most power and the biggest stick. These entities act in
| their own best interest.
|
| To the Chinese government, more factories = more money = more
| power = good. To the US government, more military equipment =
| more power = good. At the executive level of either organization
| one would be laughed out of the room for suggesting environmental
| issues should take priority over national security.
|
| But it's not just two countries, it's every single country making
| these types of decisions for 100+ years... And if $country
| doesn't build that weapons facility or export that labor,
| $otherCountry will, therefore $country will be at a disadvantage.
| Repeat ad infitium.
|
| Those in power are far more concerned with maintaining and
| leveraging that power than they are with "humanity's best
| interest".
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| > At the executive level of either organization one would be
| laughed out of the room for suggesting environmental issues
| should take priority over national security
|
| Supposedly some folks are starting to frame climate issues as
| threats to national security. It may just be lip service so
| far, but we're now seeing "Meet the Climate Crisis" listed as
| one of the top 5 priorities for the US Department of Defense:
| https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/331664...
| ipnon wrote:
| "Hell hath no wrath like a national security apparatus
| threatened," I think that's how it goes. Once USG, or Wall
| Street even, is threatened nothing is really off the table.
| bombcar wrote:
| I'm always extremely suspicious of "we care about climate
| charge" arguments that always argue for exactly what the
| group has always wanted to do.
| account-5 wrote:
| > Repeat ad infitium.
|
| Unlikely since these entities all end when the environment is
| fucked. I don't know the Latin for: approx next 100 years.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _t 's governed by whomever has the most power and the biggest
| stick. These entities act in their own best interest_
|
| Everyone acts in their own interests. The _gilets jaunes_ were
| a grassroots protest against a gas tax increase. You see
| similar gas-station sticker-shock pressure exerted by voters in
| the United States.
|
| There _are_ coordination problems to climate change. But it 's
| less a prisoner's dilemma than a time-horizon problem: the
| fruits of a green transition won't yield for decades.
| (Economies of scale help with this. Geopolitical decoupling
| gets in the way of that--this is the only domain where I see
| the prisoner's dilemma that you allude to.)
| dopidop wrote:
| Digression :
|
| The Gillet jaune started this way. Very true. But also self
| organise to be something vastly different pretty quickly.
| Maybe 20 days into that months long movement ( it's not
| officially over; like Korea war ... )
| gmuslera wrote:
| Another flavor of the Tragedy of the Commons. Everyone
| optimized by their local, short term priorities.
| apsec112 wrote:
| The vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions isn't military,
| it's for ordinary consumer uses like heating, cooling, driving,
| and farming meat. No matter what the form of government, lots
| of people will object very strongly if the solution to climate
| change is not having central heating, cars, hot water, or beef
| for dinner.
| mc32 wrote:
| Hmmm, I think if we had similar (but roving, pastoral, etc)
| neolithic with population we do today (ok, doubtfully possible,
| but whatever carrying capacity), we'd never the less have
| resource fouling, resource depletion and we'd be sending soot
| into the atmosphere.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| I recently came across a game theory term called "Moloch" in
| which individual incentives lead to negative outcomes for all
| parties involved. Nobody individually wants the negative
| outcome, but it's extremely difficult to break out of the
| cycle.
| littleweep wrote:
| I guess until govts realize enviromental security is national
| security...
| SinParadise wrote:
| Its OK magic of technology will swoop in and save us. Any time
| now.
| bvrlt wrote:
| And Apple will be carbon neutral in 2030.
| Acssux wrote:
| How is something critical if it has been transgressed and we are
| still alive? Or on the very first moment every single one is past
| we all suddenly die?
| elihu wrote:
| The Titanic didn't sink the moment it hit the iceberg, it took
| a little over two and a half hours. During a significant
| portion of that time it wasn't all that obvious that anything
| was seriously wrong. The ship was listing slightly to one side
| and the engines were off.
|
| The passengers weren't all affected equally either. A lot of
| first-class passengers made it onto lifeboats, whereas third
| class passengers mostly didn't.
|
| (The analogy breaks down a little in that we don't have
| lifeboats and the collapse of our ecosystems probably won't be
| as absolute and catestrophic as a ship sinking. The Earth's
| ability to sustain large numbers of humans may decline
| significantly though, and a lot of things we take for granted
| now may be gone.)
| autoexec wrote:
| We don't have life boats (yet) but I do wonder if some part
| of the massive increase in wealth disparity we've seen is due
| to uncertainty about the future, or if the reluctance to take
| meaningful action to slow/reverse the impacts we've had on
| the earth is because it's already clear that our time is
| running out and there's nothing that can be done to stop it.
| myshpa wrote:
| https://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/st-matthew-island/
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_overshoot
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Planetary_Bo...
| Cerium wrote:
| Breathing is critical to keep me alive, but I can hold my
| breath for a minute, and if forced by external means to stop
| breathing, will still be ok for a few minutes.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| It reminds me a bit of radiation poisoning - you can receive a
| lethal dose in moments. After that, you can carry on for a
| time; hours, maybe days feeling normal, but your death has
| already been ordained and your biochemical systems will
| collapse from the insult.
| musha68k wrote:
| _Hokuto Shinken_ self-application; all the neuralgic points,
| and with determination and lots of force.
| Iridescent_ wrote:
| If you have a pond with 1000 fishes, and each year the
| population of fish doubles, you can remove 501 fishes/year for
| quite a while. You are clearly in an unsustainable situation,
| yet it will take time for the population to completely
| collapse. These limits are in the sense that we cannot stay
| above forever, not in the we cannot go above ever sense.
| isotropy wrote:
| Well, only for 8 years.
|
| 1000 998 994 986 970 938 874 746 490 ooops
| ricardobeat wrote:
| A very insightful misguided comment, shows how easy it can
| be to disturb a system in equilibrium with very minor
| changes (1 extra fish).
| netsharc wrote:
| Ha, good point, let's not focus on the main issue and instead
| argue semantics shall we... /s
|
| To ELI5 like you seem to prefer, the iceberg breaching the hull
| of the Titanic seems like a critical transgression, but the
| ship stayed afloat another hour or so...
| scrozier wrote:
| They are not arguing semantics, they are getting to the very
| premise/context of the paper.
| diogenes4 wrote:
| If the main issue is not semantic, how would you characterize
| it?
| IKantRead wrote:
| Give it some time. Good news is that "faster than expected"
| seems to be a very common saying among people studying these
| areas, so you might not have to wait as long as the geological
| time might suggest!
|
| Honestly, as someone who has been very concerned about climate
| for a while now, I'm surprised how much visible disruption of
| the climate system we've directly been able to observe. Earlier
| in my life I thought that, though dire, this was certainly a
| problem that would impact future generations but not so much
| ours. It turns out I might have been quite wrong on that front.
| jacquesm wrote:
| You have a funny definition of 'good news'.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| This is looking at changes over a scale of centuries, and the
| potentially irreversible effects of what we are doing right
| now.
|
| > Had Earth system remained forced by 1988 conditions (350 ppm
| and 85%/50%/85% of tropical/temperate/boreal forest cover
| remaining), the simulations show that temperature over the
| global land surface would not have increased by more than an
| additional 0.6degC in the subsequent 800 years
|
| > If climate and land system change can be halted at 450 ppm
| and forest cover retained at 60%/30%/60% of
| boreal/temperate/tropical natural cover, then the simulation
| indicates a mean temperature rise over land of 1.4degC by 2100
| (in addition to 0.7degC between preindustrial time and 1988)
| and 1.9degC after 800 years as vegetation evolves in a warmer
| climate
|
| The latter is an optimistic projection assuming we will do more
| to stop climate change, the paper goes further into the odds of
| a >3C increase.
|
| To put that in context, a 1.5degC increase in average
| temperature is considered a doomsday scenario where wildfires
| and storms ravage the earth, killing over half of the global
| population.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _How is something critical if it has been transgressed_
|
| I don't think the paper claims we've passed criticality.
| Instead, it talks of boundaries and risk, the latter reflecting
| that we don't know where the critical points are.
|
| > _on the very first moment every single one is past we all
| suddenly die?_
|
| Biosphere collapse could happen suddenly and without warning.
| That would throw the global south into political turmoil while
| prompting a global and destabilizing refugee crisis.
| paint wrote:
| Echoing the kind of climate change scenario 5 year old kids
| have seems kind of cruel the week thousands of people in Libya
| died of events that are exasperated by the climate crisis.
| People are already dying of climate related causes, like crop
| failures and natural distasters.
| swader999 wrote:
| Man-made dams broke.
| young_breezy wrote:
| Right? The climate is fine as long as you don't depend on
| man made objects
| [deleted]
| paint wrote:
| What you are saying is technically not wrong, but
| misleading, as it omits the fact the dams broke due to a
| natural disaster, Storm Daniel, which previously also
| "affected Greece, Bulgaria, and Turkey with extensive
| flooding.".
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Daniel
| swader999 wrote:
| No kidding, but to say that climate change did this when
| hurricanes have been on the decline the last thirty years
| is misleading. This is weather and engineering failures.
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5
| Eduard wrote:
| > No kidding, but to say that climate change did this
| when hurricanes have been on the decline the last thirty
| years is misleading. This is weather and engineering
| failures.
|
| > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5
|
| This HN user categorically and obsessively has their own
| opinion on climate change, and how it is influenced by
| humans.
|
| Their "evidence research" is taking the first Google
| search result that they believe to support their position
| in the discussion at hand - even if it doesn't make sense
| (hurricanes in North America versus Mediterranean).
|
| If they don't invest in such sloppy research, their
| arguments hit rock-bottom Tiktok factoid niveau. one can
| better just assume nonsense/randomizing/lying and ignore
| this user for anything climate-related.
| chx wrote:
| I'd recommend watching Margin Call, a movie set during the 2008
| financial collapse.
| [deleted]
| pixl97 wrote:
| If the engines on your plane fall off mid flight, everyone
| doesn't die instantly. They die instantly after 30 thousand
| feet of screaming terror.
|
| This comment screams lack of education about complicated
| systems. For example take overpopulation in things like grazing
| mammals. The funny thing about being overpopulated is that it
| is not instantly deadly. Once the mammals eat enough of their
| food source that their food source cannot reproduce reliably
| the game is over. But they tend to have reserves of fat and
| muscle that last for some period of time. The weakest die
| first. Then the population reduces. But the population doesn't
| go back to what was previously considered at the over
| population limit. No, populations massively collapse because
| there is nothing to eat at all. 9 out of 10 members of the
| population can die. And if it's something like an island,
| extinction is on the menu.
| lkbm wrote:
| The article says:
|
| > Boundary positions do not demarcate or predict singular
| threshold shifts in Earth system state. They are placed at a
| level where the available evidence suggests that further
| perturbation of the individual process could potentially lead
| to systemic planetary change by altering and fundamentally
| reshaping the dynamics and spatiotemporal patterns of
| geosphere-biosphere interactions and their feedbacks
|
| Probably would need to read more to get a clear understanding
| of exactly what they mean and how they're defined, but it
| sounds like we're to an unstable place. Perhaps somewhat
| analogous to skating on thin ice: you may not have haven't
| broken through yet, but you're in a spot where a break could
| happen at any moment and from any movement.
| haltist wrote:
| California's climate patterns are already changing but the
| state has managed to deal with the problems and will probably
| continue to do so. Texas on the other hand is starting to see
| problems with their electricity grid during summers and it's
| going to keep getting worse as temperatures continue to rise.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| My man, this comment is so wildly antiscience. I don't know
| where to begin.
|
| I'm not sure if it would be with forest management, or the
| complexity and reasons that cut Texas has its own grid,
| separated from everyone else. I'm not sure I would say
| either directly applicable to this topic.
| autoexec wrote:
| Texas throwing a tantrum and refusing to have their power
| grid under federal regulation will become increasingly
| applicable to the topic since the changes we're causing
| to our planet and its climate will put even more strain
| on their weak and inflexible power grid. People in texas
| are already dying from the heat in the summer and
| freezing to death in the winter and it's only going to
| get worse.
| autoexec wrote:
| California's "dealing with the problems" seems like a lot
| of shortsighted non-sustainable policy. Parts of CA are
| burning right now. At this point they've been bragging
| about _maybe_ not having to go back to rolling blackouts.
| Reliably providing even the most basic services like water
| and power is such an astonishingly low bar that only in the
| poorest developing nations should that even be in question
| yet here we are. Long term, I don 't see Texas or
| California holding up very well to climate change.
| haltist wrote:
| What states do you think will manage to deal with climate
| change if not California?
| autoexec wrote:
| I know there have been models to predict which areas of
| the country are expected to be most/least impacted by
| climate change but I'm not qualified to judge them. I
| suspect that increasing heat and desertification will
| leave much of the southern and western US in very bad
| shape. Anywhere prone to flooding now will only have it
| worse. The coastal areas will also deal with flooding and
| storms in increasing frequency/severity.
|
| Maybe some of the northern flyover states would be best?
| Higher land around the great lakes for example? If I were
| looking to buy up some land today I'd even consider
| Canada, but only after the fires have died down. The only
| nice thing about wildfires burning 40 million acres of
| forest to the ground is that it'll be a while before
| there's enough fuel for it to happen again.
| haltist wrote:
| So it sounds like you don't think most of the US will
| adapt.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| One is losing residents and one is gaining. Could that
| partially explain what you descibed?
| haltist wrote:
| Seems like that should be even more reason for Texas to
| upgrade their energy infrastructure like California.
| formvoltron wrote:
| pretty sure we have enough solar and batteries to power the
| world. Sure ok we could use nuclear in some places too.
| aerosols... that's from burning fossil fuels, no? fake meat will
| go a long way to reclaiming farmland.
|
| micro / nano plastics everywhere sucks. going to have to think
| hard about how to fix that one.
|
| can we take cell samples of all the species just in case we need
| to conjure them up again? (or is at least one required to "boot")
| dopidop wrote:
| It's satire right ?
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| I don't know why this triggers such skepticism in me.
| Particularly the section on novel entities. But it feels funny,
| somehow, and I can't put my finger on it.
| ipnon wrote:
| I think the thought, like death, is simply so horrible it
| defies full consideration. This is why climate activists can
| seem fanatical, because it has a religious quality. Either you
| believe "it" will happen in our lifetime, very soon, or it will
| not happen at all, and it's this horrifying, apocalyptic nature
| of the problem that causes this schism. If some of these
| climate scientists are right in their claims it is the most
| important thing for these activists to do. I'm sure we can all
| draw parallels here.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| There's a lot of religion going on right now. Whatever that
| is in humans that encourages that, going back to tribal
| behavior, or survival or whatever, it hasn't gone away just
| because formalized religions are weak right now.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > why this triggers such skepticism
|
| I know it does for me - because the people who claim to believe
| in it the most don't actually live their lives as if they
| actually believed it. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to do
| whatever I could reasonably do to create cooler summers and
| less smog, but I've never heard any actual concrete proposal
| beyond "vote democrat".
| pixl97 wrote:
| In general because the tragedy of the commons is solved by
| one group pointing a gun at everyone else. Nobody wants that,
| but at the end of the day that's what we're going to get if
| we like it or not.
|
| The longer we wait, the more people are going to get shot by
| that gun.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| What a fantastic graphic and title! I do not believe I need to
| read the article to understand the point of it. Rarely have I
| seen such good visualization.
| musha68k wrote:
| It's very telling yes:
|
| https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458#F1
| toss1 wrote:
| Note that the areas of the three largest deviations are, in
| order: Biosphere Integrity, Novel Entities (synthetic chemical &
| processes), and Biogeochemical Flows.
|
| The entire ecosystem on which we depend for sustenance is an
| extremely complex web of interlocking dependencies, from plankton
| to pollinators, to soil microbiota, to temperature & hydration,
| and so on, endlessly.
|
| This is the food web. If it collapses, we as a species are beyond
| fooked. Because it is so complex (and even something relatively
| simple such as CO2-driven greenhouse effect climate change is too
| complex for the lower half of the population to understand), it
| is barely even discussed.
|
| But make no mistake, the food web is under massive assault from
| all kinds of human activities (and even the artificial
| agriculture web is coming up against the hard limit of a
| phosphorus crisis). This is likely to be a sooner and more
| catastrophic failure than the climate crisis. The Fine Article
| nicely clarifies some of the threat.
| myshpa wrote:
| > This is the food web
|
| One major contributor to the overshoot is our current
| agricultural practices, with animal agriculture being a primary
| offender.
|
| It's responsible for a significant amount of greenhouse gases,
| it's a leading driver of biodiversity loss and deforestation,
| and it contributes to soil degradation and water pollution.
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land...
|
| BIODIVERSITY LOSS
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01448-4
|
| Humans are driving one million species to extinction - UN
| backed report finds that agriculture is one of the biggest
| threats to Earth's ecosystems
|
| https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob...
|
| Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity
| loss
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/
|
| Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption
|
| DEFORESTATION
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation
|
| Drivers of Deforestation - combined, beef and oilseeds for
| animal feed account for nearly 60% of deforestation
|
| https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/whats-driving-deforestation
|
| Just four commodities -- beef, soy, palm oil, and wood products
| --drive the majority of tropical deforestation.
|
| Beef - 2.71 million hectares / year
|
| Soy - 480,000 ha / year (77% for animal feed)
|
| Palm Oil - 270,000 ha / year
|
| Wood - 380,000 ha / year (but probably more)
|
| GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
|
| CO2 - 16.5+% animal agriculture (https://www.researchgate.net/p
| ublication/352100490_Emissions...)
|
| Methane - animal agriculture leading driver,
| https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#methane-ch4-e...
|
| N20 - animal agriculture leads again,
| https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#nitrous-oxide...
|
| SOLUTIONS
|
| We can significantly reduce our footprint by adopting plant-
| based diets, reforesting the pastures (more than 50% of which
| were originally forests), and allowing biodiversity to recover.
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
|
| If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global
| agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4
|
| The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production
| on land - shifts in global food production to plant-based diets
| by 2050 could lead to sequestration of 332-547 GtCO2,
| equivalent to 99-163% of the CO2 emissions budget consistent
| with a 66% chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degC
|
| https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471
|
| Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may
| be achievable
| analognoise wrote:
| Humanity would rather go to war to thin our numbers than give
| up eating meat.
|
| The only viable method is lab grown meat that tastes exactly
| the same, same texture, and is cheaper. That's it. People
| have real stuff in their lives - they're not worried about
| planetary survival in 100 years, they're worried about next
| months rent, etc.
| toss1 wrote:
| Perhaps note that only 12% of Americans eat 50% of the
| beef. That group is men between 50-66 years old.
|
| The remaining half is spread among the other 88%. Convince
| that 12%, or let them age out, and half the problem goes
| away.
|
| [0] https://phys.org/news/2023-08-mere-americans-nation-
| beef-sig...
| myshpa wrote:
| The link got cut off.
|
| https://phys.org/news/2023-08-mere-americans-nation-beef-
| sig...
| mistrial9 wrote:
| Hindus and Buddhists have developed vegetarian diets
| alongside architectural and intellectual accomplishments,
| for more than a thousand years.
| myshpa wrote:
| > Humanity would rather go to war to thin our numbers than
| give up eating meat
|
| We're using up resources at a pace that outstrips Earth's
| ability to replenish them. For instance, we're already
| consuming 1.7 times the Earth's available resources.
|
| https://www.overshootday.org/
|
| If everyone were to adopt a diet similar to the American
| diet, we would require more than five Earths to sustain it.
|
| https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainabilit
| y...
|
| > The only viable method is lab grown meat
|
| Achieving the required scale and price point may take
| decades, potentially leading to the collapse of
| biodiversity long before that occurs.
|
| > that tastes exactly the same, same texture, and is
| cheaper
|
| Is our love for the taste really worth destroying the
| planet?
|
| What will we say to our grandchildren? "Sorry, I couldn't
| give up those burgers. Now, go play in a desert."
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/uk-
| news/mea...
|
| _Veggie sausages and burgers up to ten times better for
| environment than meat, study finds_
|
| > they're worried about next months rent
|
| Vegan diets are typically the most economical choice, even
| in first-world countries. The affordability of animal
| products is primarily a result of significant subsidies,
| without factoring in the negative externalities.
|
| https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-
| chea...
|
| _Sustainable eating is cheaper and healthier - Oxford
| study_
| jgraham wrote:
| > The only viable method is lab grown meat
|
| I suspect it's true that the only way to substantially cut
| animal-based protein consumption at scale is some
| technological alternative that offers a comparable culinary
| experience but with a lower cost (and lower impact).
| Although as another poster notes, it's also true that --
| like many resource consumption issues -- the distribution
| isn't flat, but shows the majority of consumption coming
| from a relatively small fraction of the population.
|
| However, what I wanted to point out is that "lab grown
| meat" is not the only possibility in this general area.
| Precision fermentation of proteins (e.g.
| https://gfi.org/science/the-science-of-fermentation/) is
| another approach that seems to have potential. Although I
| note that I don't have a specific horse in this race, and
| would be delighted to see anything that can reduce the
| overall environmental impact of food production at a global
| scale take off.
| toss1 wrote:
| >>Our agriculture and food production are major contributors
| to the damage
|
| Yes - deadly serious.
|
| I had to travel to the US midwest recently, after not having
| been there for a long time. As I drove out of the city the
| first impression of the farmlands was pleasant. But after an
| hour of highway-speed driving past nothing but bare fields
| (out of growing season) with scant rows of trees, we became a
| bit horrified -- there was absolutely zero habitat for
| anything but the artificial plantings, when they were in
| season. And they would be coated with pesticides to ensure
| that there were no insects, or anything that ate them, or
| that ate the things that ate the insects, etc.. And indeed,
| returning to the airport in daytime, there was remarkably
| little wildlife.
|
| It was a seriously disturbing experience, which I did not
| expect.
|
| >>Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits
| may be achievable
|
| Yikes. The damage being done by 7 billion right now, adding
| 20-30% more is kind of unthinkable, even setting aside the
| agricultural damage. And you're absolutely right that we need
| to adopt a plant-based diet.
|
| The conversion away from meat does seem much more doable,
| since only 12% of Americans eat 50% of the beef. Moreover,
| that's men between 50-66 years old, so if younger generations
| don't acquire that habit, we'll get a 50% reduction just by
| that sub-population aging out.
|
| [0] https://phys.org/news/2023-08-mere-americans-nation-beef-
| sig...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-13 23:00 UTC)