[kshahkshah]

Not trying to be overly flippant... who cares?

The paper opens with "to feed a growing population" without asking is that what we need? want? where we are actually heading to?

Is feeding the world a real problem? I've yet to see compelling evidence that it really is except as a secondary effect of logistics, energy supply, and war.

edit: I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy problems first.

[all2]

> Is feeding the world a real problem?

Yes, but it is not a production capacity problem. The constraints on food are mostly in the logistics chain, often having to do with corruption or distribution targets (food goes where the money is), or regulation (did you know that cherry growers in the Upper Midwest are required --_by Federal law_-- to destroy unsold crops?).

A huge amount of food goes to waste simply because of regulation or subsidies, at least within the United States.

[Alupis]

Tart cherries are supply-controlled because they are processed into other goods, like pie filling, and can be stored for long duration (multiple seasons). The supply-control regulation is designed to prevent a surplus crop from depressing the market to the point where it's no longer viable to grow tart cherries - reducing future supply, ie. the regulation is designed to provide a consistent, stable supply.

Surplus tart cherry crops are rarely destroyed. In the event of a surplus, they are often exported, diverted to secondary markets, donated, or carried-over into next-season's stock.

[cogman10]

Yup. The regulations on food in the US is exactly to make sure the shelves stay stocked no matter what. Without such regulations, you'd experience random items being unavailable and price shocks.

One thing people often don't figure or realize is food takes time to grow. It requires long term thinking to make sure supplies are sufficient. Left to their own devices, farmers will often chase after last season's cash crop. That is bad. It's far better for farmers to stick to more predictable growing and for more dedicated incentives to be issued.

[fredthompson]

[flagged]

[cogman10]

I grew up on a farm and lived around farmers. This is my lived experience.

I saw first hand farmers tear up a barley fields to plant wheat when the price got high enough.

Farming is a game of speculation. Planting last year's cash crop can be a successful strategy just like buying APPL today will likely yield good returns. Yet, it's a very hard market to predict with a lot of luck involved. Maybe only a few chase the cash crop and you win big. Maybe everyone does and you lose. Maybe there's a natural or political disaster that pumps up your crop.

There was nothing insulting, condensing, or dismissive about my comment. Highly speculative markets, like food, have booms and busts that can swing wildly. That's bad for something like food. The free market does not work with crops.

[all2]

> The free market does not work with crops.

I'd argue that this should be refined to something like "farmers that speculate heavily struggle in an under-regulated free market".

Financial stability in highly volatile markets depends on appropriate planning, saving, and distribution. I say this from the investment perspective, but I would venture to guess that it also applies to hard goods like food-stuffs.

[array_key_first]

It's true though, these regulations exists because speculation and profit-chasing in agriculture is what lead to the dust bowl and worsened the great depression. We really, really don't want a repeat of that.

[boothby]

The amazing thing about people failing to learn from history is that everybody thinks they're too smart to (a) learn history or (b) follow rules enacted to prevent the disasters of yesteryear.

[bloppe]

I think your fun cherry fact is pretty inaccurate. If you're referring to USDA Marketing Order #930, it's basically about setting sales limits in bumper crop years to avoid a situation where so many cherries hit the market that farmers lose money simply by harvesting them. They're free to donate the cherries etc. but again, they would be essentially wasting their own money by putting in the time and effort to harvest them beyond the amount they're allowed to sell.

[ls612]

This is for good reason though. You want to overproduce significantly in ordinary times so that if there is a big negative shock you will still be able to produce enough to feed everyone merely by not destroying the excess anymore.

[unglaublich]

But in a pure market that would mean that during overproduction times, prices should be low. Which they artificially aren't through industry price fixing.

[bee_rider]

I’m not sure what a pure market is.

The result that free markets are Prato optimal, though, requires conditions like low barriers to entry, perfect information, and low cost transactions… none of which seem very well met in the case of agriculture.

[adgjlsfhk1]

It turns out that low barriers to entry, perfect information and low cost transactions are almost never present.

[voxl]

There is no reason to obliterate food, you should give it away to those in need.

[Alupis]

People do not eat tart cherries directly. They are processed into other goods, like pie filling, juice concentrate, etc.

Sweet cherries have no such regulation, and are the ones you consume directly as a fruit - without any additional processing.

[Dylan16807]

That's a nice bit of trivia but it doesn't really affect the comment you're replying to. It's still food, full of flavor and calories, and able to be used by a home cook (by making a pie).

[Alupis]

If you researched this regulation even a little, you'd see the crops are rarely destroyed. They are far more often exported, diverted to secondary markets, donated, or carried-over into next-season's stock.

It's interesting to me how people are quick to comment about things they know nothing about...

> It's still food, full of flavor and calories

Tart cherries have about 1-2 calories per cherry, and do not taste good without a lot of sugar. That's why they are used in commercial processing, not generally sold as a fruit in grocery stores.

[nh23423fefe]

Ok drive to Michigan and haul away 3 tons of cherries.

[munk-a]

Are Michigan tart cherry farmers allowed to sell direct to customers without additional licensing requirements and food inspections?

[voxl]

Insightful retort, did you forget the slight issue of it being illegal?

[jshen]

It's the leading cause of deforestation which is a major factor in climate change. It also is a major contributor to climate change for other reasons. Since you mentioned energy, it's also much less energy efficient.

Isn't this something to care about?

[piva00]

I recommend you visiting the Brazilian region of Pantanal, if possible travel through Mato Grosso do Sul -> Mato Grosso -> southern Pará where it transitions into the Amazon.

You will see vast areas of cattle ranching, soybeans plantation used for cattle feed, and other crops that can be used as cattle feed. All that area used to be the Pantanal and Amazon, now transformed to grow beef.

If we would reduce the calories wasted on beef, this area could still have a lot more native vegetation. Of course, it's purely wishful thinking because this ship has sailed, beef consumption will take a long time to stop growing, these farms will fight for their lives to keep producing, and we've lost a huge area of incredible nature to eat some steaks and burgers.

[belorn]

If you want to save the rain forest you got to make saving the rain forest more profitable than cutting it down. If its not beef, it will be the next most profitable thing which generally is corn for ethanol production, something that already has eaten a huge area of incredible nature. If not corn, it will be some form of oil. If not oil, it will be some form of rare wood to make fancy furniture for rich people.

The reason we have lost a huge area of incredible nature is not because people want to eat some steaks and burgers. It is explicitly because that land made some people money. Without that incentive the forest would still be there.

[onraglanroad]

And none of that is for feeding starving people who have no food.

It's all to grow profitable luxury food.

[cromka]

People starving come from parts for the world affected by global warming, which unsustainable farming is one of the reasons. Which, in turn, crates mass migration issues. Which, in turn, is a major reason behind massive shift of Overton window and the current world situation we're in.

[DrProtic]

Every country that has a problem with starvation has huge population growth.

They have at least 2.5% population growth yearly which translates to doubling population in 28 years, while some have as high as 4.5% which means they double every 15-16 years.

If a population has a food problem, why does it double every 15 years?

[ponector]

I don't know which one is worse: to grow soybeans to feed cattle or to use as biodiesel.

What is really upsetting, the speed with which jundles are replaced with oil palm.

Humans have mastered exploitation of everything: the nature, the livestock and other humans.

[cute_boi]

If we stop subsidizing i think it will reduce a lot.

[plufz]

Solve our energy problems first? How would decreasing cattle stop work on improving our energy system? I think a lot points to that we need to do both (and yesterday). It’s not like agriculture is a small part of our greenhouse gas emissions (25-35% globally).

[karmakurtisaani]

We should solve X first is a common talking point when you recognize something is a problem, but don't want to address it for whatever reason.

[cameldrv]

Exactly. The current world population is 8.3 billion and is expected to peak at 10.3 billion in 2080 and then begin declining. Now, there are a number of other reasons we might have food shortages, but population per se I don't think is a significant factor.

[capitainenemo]

Even if food shortages aren't an issue, reducing the amount of land dedicated to food production is a win for ecosystems.

Not saying people have to go vegetarian, but reducing meat consumption or using more efficiently produced meats (in terms of land use) would overall make the world a nicer and more interesting place.

And, really, with the whole neu5gc thing, it might be that humans would be better off focusing on chickens and seafood anyway (clams being a pretty good option for seafood that is relatively environmentally friendly).

[tracker1]

Grass fed cattle can use land that is generally not fit for vegetation farming... because of excess rocks, etc. Ruminants that are being naturally (grass) fed are also regenerative in terms of soil health.

They don't tend to "bulk up" as much as conventional (grain fed and/or finished) options though, so are more expensive to produce... the gas emissions are another issue that is largely different for grass fed, where the off gases are roughly the same as the grass's natural breakdown would release anyway.

In terms of water use, naturally grass fed cattle are mostly using water that fell on the land as rain in terms of how much water they use. It's not much from municipal sources, unlike vegetation farming.

Of course there are other ruminant options that are more efficient than cattle, such as goats and sheep, with similar benefits to the soil.

It just bugs me that cattle gets such a bad repuation... especially in that it's one of the few things I can eat without issue.

[capitainenemo]

So, I was saying ecosystems. Filling the world with cows is not the same as natural ecosystems.

Also, kurzgesagt did a pretty good episode on meat production (edit - they did several, but one was on the production demands in terms of energy and environment), and if I'm to trust their figures, the "cattle grazing exclusively on the pampas" is far from the majority of world cattle. If it was, that probably would be an improvement, esp if it was done in a way that allowed other species to exist too (maybe bring some buffalo back?). The percentage would be dramatically improved if finishing lots were eliminated though (still a minority though). So maybe that's a simple option. Plus, that's the cruelest part of the cow's existence.

https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture (crazy amount of habitable surface of planet is livestock) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-024-01398-4 (study on what percent of production is actually "low-intensity grazing on marginal land")

Again, not saying eliminate, just... reduce...

[tracker1]

I don't think the answer is reduce though... I think it's increase... humans wiped out so many of the ruminant animals (buffalo mainly) that kept the grasslands healthy... we've largely over-farmed in the interim since. We need more ruminants, not less.

This means raising much more than we currently do, and probably a reduction in slaughter numbers for the next 50+ years to increase the domestic supply. Can't speak for other nations... but it's literally expanding grasslands as opposed to desert.

[capitainenemo]

Yes. I saw that TED talk about desertification being reversed by ruminants, and while it got a lot of critics, it had some pretty good points. But, those ruminants would be better off not being beef cattle in terms of biodiversity. Also, if they were beef cattle due to the lack of anything better, hopefully it would be short term, and if you're making a case for use of marginal land, they really shouldn't be finished in a feed lot, since that is using a lot of cropland to support that.

... and only some places would (possibly) benefit from that.

[_DeadFred_]

I mean we have the strategic buffalo herd in Montana, and the cattle grazing you talk about is often by for profit farmers on public land.

Seems like we could reintroduce buffalo from our reserve, a much better solution than government managed/subsidized free range cattlemen. Get government out of the cattle business, end government handouts and all that other free market talking point stuff.

[mcv]

> Grass fed cattle can use land that is generally not fit for vegetation farming

Can, but that doesn't mean it always is. There's lots of cattle that never even comes outside, and is fed food that humans could also eat.

I recall reading that during the famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s, Ethiopian farmers were exporting beans to feed cattle in Europe because that was more profitable than feeding people in Ethiopia.

Beef is simply extremely inefficient. And so, unfortunately, is cheese (I can do without beef, but not without cheese). If cattle is grazing on land that's simply not usable for anything else, that's a completely different matter, but that's not how most cattle are fed.

[neuralRiot]

>Not saying people have to go vegetarian

I’ve vegan for 20+ years and find weird the obsession people have with meat that without even talking about milk. Literally there are hundreds of alternatives better for health, for the environment and for the animals yet we keep looking for justifications to consume them.

[mcv]

Yeah. I used to be vegetarian (I eat some meat again), and I love cheese, but I'm well aware that it's almost as bad as beef. Quitting cheese feels like a bigger sacrifice to me than quitting meat. But I've been reducing my cheese consumption lately. That's something at least.

[aziaziazi]

If that helps, some non-cheese that might trigger your taste buds:

- Brewer/nutritional/super yeast (with a bit of oil and/or smashed cashew): in place of Parmesan

- Tahini: less cheesy but equally bold taste as yeast

- Lactic acid fermented Tofu: whey cheese.

- Tempeh: my favorite, just oiled-panned with salt and pepper. Between chicken and soft-Camembert

[capitainenemo]

I'm not arguing for ditching cheese either (I love cheese, esp goat cheese - which conveniently is often a more pleasant experience for the goats) but here is a recipe that I quite liked for a cheese-like cashew/brewer's yeast spread. I'm pretty sure I transcribed this correctly. Let me know if anything seems off :)

    Pimento Cheese Spread
    Blend until smooth:
    1c. water (may use water from pimentos)
    ¾ c. cashew nuts or sunflower seeds
    2 T sesame seeds
    1¼  tsp salt
    3 T Brewer's yeast flakes
    ⅔ c. rolled oats (only if being used for lasagna)
    1 tsp onion powder
    ⅛ tsp garlic powder
    ⅛ tsp dill seed
    ½ c. pimentos
    ¼ c. lemon juice (or to taste)
    May add 2 T. arrowroot or cornstarch if used for spread

[neuralRiot]

The flavor is completely different but the umami of miso is crazy, if it would not be so salty i’d eat it by the spoonful. Honestly I don’t miss cheese at all, there are some replacements good enough for the occasional sandwich or pizza.

[ndsipa_pomu]

I'm not convinced by some of those. I'm a pescetarian, so I still eat cheese, but I enjoy unusual foods.

I don't find tahini to taste anything like yeast/cheese, though to be fair I mainly use tahini in hummus.

I'm not familiar with lactic acid fermented Tofu - does that go by a different name?

Tempeh seems more nutty than cheese-like to me, though I rarely eat it as my wife doesn't like the flavour or texture of it.

Personally, I'd recommend Japanese Natto if you're after a cheesy flavour - it's soy beans fermented in straw/hay and ends up becoming somewhat slimy/stringy, so it's a bit of an acquired taste.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>Not saying people have to go vegetarian, but reducing meat consumption or using more efficiently produced meats (in terms of land use) would overall make the world a nicer and more interesting place.

I've seen articles and threads like this for decades at this point. And the only thing any of you have convinced me of is that I must start securing my own production of meat. This is, I think, the exact opposite of "more efficiently" at least from your point of view. I will be unlikely to reach the feed-to-gain ratios that professionals regularly achieve.

Swine and poultry already in progress, beef and more exotic stuff within the next 2 years.

[capitainenemo]

shrug poultry is already several times more efficient than beef in regular production (to say nothing of if your coop just has chickens wandering around finding their own food), and healthier for you. And hopefully your swine and poultry are having overall decent lives. And, if your beef is entirely grass fed (I doubt you can afford a finishing lot) you're still overall not using cropland to fatten up cows (but maybe that's your goal, who knows)

Anyway, you do you. Just offering my opinion on this 'cause it seemed like a good place to do it.

[krater23]

Yes, we could concreting this land and build housings and streets.

[jamespo]

or could eat something less likely to give you bowel cancer

[Barrin92]

>I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy problems first.

is there a rational argument in here or is this just a cheap psychological reflex to keep eating beef? Because it's not clear to me how solving our energy problems and the consumption of beef even intersect so that we couldn't do both at the same time.

You might as well have said "man I really should stop drinking and smoking, but we gotta solve the energy problems first"

[irishcoffee]

Isn’t that entirely their point? Stop bitching about cows (not a real problem at all) and fix an actual problem. Seems like you nailed it.

People aren’t going to stop eating beef, full stop. Won’t happen, full stop. It’s akin to suggesting we need to stop eating eggs, also will never happen.

These threads pop up on here every so often and it amuses me in a morose way. Nothing will ever change in the beef industry, not even in places like California, who are actively causing a water shortage in order to grow crops. That is a much bigger problem than farting cows, the whole region is aware of the problem, and no movement has been made to create a fix.

Give it up on the cows, there are bigger fish to fry.

[Barrin92]

>and fix an actual problem.

but it is an actual problem. The beef industry has a large ecological impact. You yourself bring up the water shortages as a result of crop production... who do you think are the crops grown for?

You're just yelling "lalala I'm not listening" basically. The world doesn't consist of "real" and "fake" problems depending on how much you're offended by the topic, the world has a million problems, the more we tackle of them the better.

Sure you can say nothing will ever change, I don't care, but that's not an actual argument, that's just screaming like a kid who doesn't want his toys taken away, how is that an adult conversation. If you can't even tackle the cows how are you going to tackle bigger fish? Are the bigger fish being dealt with?

The only people who ever pretend you can ignore an ostensibly small regional problem, to fix the world are people who literally fix neither because in reality they're nihilists who don't want to solve anything because they never want to take any personal responsibility.

[irishcoffee]

Clearly I struck a nerve, this isn’t a genuine conversation. I gave up reading your reply at paragraph 2.

Have a nice day!

[XorNot]

Not just bigger, but actually tractable problems. The revolutionary fall in the price of solar power and batteries means we can actually displace coal, and have, without really asking much of anyone to do it. That's a massive advantage to have with a big problem!

There's a world coming where automation means electrified heavy equipment stops using diesel entirely, already happening in mine sites in Australia.

[hackable_sand]

You sound like an addict

[irishcoffee]

How so?

[choilive]

Agreed. The market should decide if beef consumption is viable. Ultimately energy is the basis all food production. Cheap and plentiful energy solves the food production and distribution problem, then its just matter of preferences.

[BadBadJellyBean]

"The market" doesn't work as long as costs to the environment can be externalized. If the cost of climate change and lost living space would be added to the cost of beef it might be fair. But it isn't. Methane released by cows, cutting down rain forests for feed, and all the transporting costs us all dearly. But it doesn't cost the manufacturers anything directly so beef can be cheap.

[enoint]

We're more than 40 years past the first boycotts on rainforest beef. Not small boycotts, either; big ones which were effective at scale. If we translated the concerns here into Chinese, would it affect the current top importer of rainforest beef?

[brainwad]

Just slap a pigouvian tax on it.

[sirbutters]

And meat is heavily subsidized by the government. It's insanity and corruption.

[RhysU]

In the US agricultural subsidies for 2024 were overwhelmingly for corn ($3.2B), soybeans ($1.9B), cotton ($998M), and wheat ($960M). Pasture comes in 5th ($741M).

https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-da...

Tofu and ethanol may be more price-distorted by the US government than is beef, but I dunno how to quickly support that idea with hard data beyond what I cited above.

[stvltvs]

Depending on how we measure it, either 58% or 75% of that heavily subsidized soy goes to feed animals.

https://insideanimalag.org/share-of-soybean-crop-for-feed/

[datsci_est_2015]

Have you been to the Midwest to observe the scale of corn and soybean operations? I would wager the number of calories per dollar subsidy produced by the corn and soybean industries outweighs handily the calories per dollar subsidy produced by cattle operations, especially given the 10% reduction in efficiency per trophic level.

Also, how much does beef benefit from cheap feed prices (corn and soy) due to subsidies as well?

[RhysU]

Beef prices are high right now.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000703112

If the intent of the government is to pour subsidies into domestic beef production to stabilize prices they're doing a crap job.

Compare corn: https://www.macrotrends.net/2532/corn-prices-historical-char...

[mhurron]

> The market should decide if beef consumption is viable

The market has decided, ant it decided that the well off are more important than the rest so they get what they want at everyone elses expense.

Maybe we should stop thinking market forces are in any way right or moral. At least saying 'I got mine, fuck you' would be honest.

[b65e8bee43c2ed0]

those 33 calories are dirt cheap carbs. there's absolutely no shortage of soy and corn syrup for you to consume.

[r_p4rk]

Soy is an excellent protein source?

[b65e8bee43c2ed0]

1. "protein" is a blanket term for a number of amino acids we need, and vegetable sources tend to miss a bunch of them.

2. atrocious calorie to protein ratio due to carbs. I imagine eating a pound (dry weight!) of any legume every day would get real old real fast.

3. phytoestrogens. not just soy, all legumes are full of them, even peanuts.

[r_p4rk]

1. yeah, i know, soy is packed full of them though and considered a complete protein hence my reply :)

2. i imagine eating a pound of most unprocessed food sources would be bad, tofu and tempeh are very competitive and have macros similar to egg or cheese

3. not sure where you're going with this? surely you're not referencing the well debunked claim that soy feminizes men or something?

---

I'm not even vegan and I make plenty of room for soy derived foods in my diet because the benefits are so concrete. It helps with muscle recovery and inflammation via soy isoflavones, and the gut health benefit from diversifying protein sources is very important. It has marginally less leucine, but I am ingesting 200g of protein a day because I actually lift so that really doesn't matter.

[rayiner]

This is stupid thinking indulged in by westerners who were born in the lap of luxury. The market is incredibly moral. When my dad was born in a village in Bangladesh, 1 out of 4 kids didn’t live past age 5. Thanks to market reforms and the resulting economic growth, child mortality in Bangladesh has plummeted. Bangladesh’s under-5 morality rate is better today than America’s was at the same time my dad was born.

If India and Bangladesh hadn’t fucked around with socialism for decades after independence, we could have reached the same point many years ago. Millions of children would have been saved. Talk about immorality.

[worik]

Bangladesh has done well, in difficult circumstances

Market reforms helped. But those reforms could not have happened unless the state did sensible things

Those same market reforms impoverished the entire middle class in New Zealand, where the state did not do sensible things (the reverse)

Markets are good at fully allocating resources, which feudalism and central planning is not. But they also concentrate wealth into the hands of very few (that is what wrecked New Zealand's middle class) and it takes deliberate government policy to avert that.

[rayiner]

> Market reforms helped. But those reforms could not have happened unless the state did sensible things

The state did almost nothing sensible! Bangladesh’s government, and the culture of the people more generally, is one of the most dysfunctional in the whole world. We just overthrew our government again! The free market is just a hardy plant growing in inhospitable ground as long as you don’t completely strangle it.

[oa335]

> Thanks to market reforms and the resulting economic growth, child mortality in Bangladesh has plummeted.

I agree that market reforms have been great for most countries that adopt it, provided they have stable and competent institutions.

However, it doesn't make sense to attribute decrease in child mortality to "market reforms". Cuba, Russia/USSR, North Korea all have seen huge declines in child mortality since 1960.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?end=2006...

[selimthegrim]

Why don't you ask noted anti-socialism state Pakistan (pre and post-1971) how that's going?

[rayiner]

We have A/B comparisons in India and Bangladesh keeping the underlying culture constant. Pakistan’s problem seems to be a Pakistan thing.

[danaris]

So..."Pakistan's problem is a Pakistan thing", unrelated to markets....

...but Bangladesh's success is purely attributable to markets? It's not "a Bangladesh thing"?

You might want to check your prejudices there.

[mhurron]

You mean the Socialism that produces higher quality of life in Scandinavia as compared to to say the US where the oh so moral market decides if you weren't born into the upper end of society you deserve to die of disease and conditions that can be treated?

The market is not moral, it is amoral and it serves those with the money to direct it.

[JuniperMesos]

I know a number of people who have immigrated from Scandinavian countries to the US, generally for high-prestige or high-paying work. If quality of life in Scandinavia was consistently higher than in the US, they wouldn't be doing this.

[foldr]

People also immigrate in the other direction. And more generally, it obviously happens sometimes that people move from one country to another with a lower average quality of life.

[TimorousBestie]

How are you extrapolating overall quality of life from some anecdotes of high-prestige or high-income workers? Seems like a fallacy of composition slipped in somewhere.

[kshahkshah]

My understanding is that a large portion of Scandinavian socialism is paid for by sovereign wealth funds, ultimately backed in their oil production and reserves.

I know they’ve gotten a lot else right of course

[rayiner]

> You mean the Socialism that produces higher quality of life in Scandinavia as compared to to say the US where the oh so moral market decides if you weren't born into the upper end of society you deserve to die of disease and conditions that can be treated?

Scandinavian countries have highly market oriented economies. Denmark and Norway are in the top 10 in Heritage Foundation’s economic freedom index and Sweden is #11. Capitalism is what generates the surplus to feed the socialists in Scandinavia.

[mhurron]

Every single one of those economies are highly regulated to prevent 'the free market' deciding peoples lives.

Without it, you get the US. You get the life your wealth dictates, if you're not wealthy, you didn't deserve life.

Sweden's costs for insulin are over 10 times lower than that of the US, because the US let the free market decide and Sweden has a socialist political system.

At a place I lived earlier, my neighbour got out of the hospital after heart surgery with a $100k medical bill that they never recovered from. My dad had heart surgery in Canada and left the hospital with a $150 parking bill.

But no, please lets continue to try and argue the free market is moral and just.

[datsci_est_2015]

Amazing that advancements in Bangladeshi quality of life is due to only market forces! What an incredibly unique geopolitical phenomenon.

[rayiner]

It’s not unique at all! When my dad was a kid in the 1950s, Singapore, China, South Korea, and Taiwan were poor—all under $1,000 GDP per capita. They were a little ahead of Bangladesh but less than a factor of 2. The U.S. at the time was around $10,000.

Today, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea are rich, and China is getting there. Multiple dirt poor Asian countries getting rich within a few generations thanks to One Simple Trick!

[_aavaa_]

It’s hard for the market to decide on its own when the environmental damage of meat production is left as an unpriced externality and when government subsidies are handed out like candy.

[irishcoffee]

Pretty sure the western US states are in a water shortage because they grow almonds et. al. In places that were not meant to be agricultural, importing water, fucking up the entire ecosystem of the region and causing massive water shortages, and massive environmental damage.

But yeah, we can keep focusing on the farting cows, that’s the problem.

[_aavaa_]

Ask yourself why they are growing almonds there if it’s such a problem? Because those almond growers have water right contracts that are absurdly cheap and are use it or lose it.

Fine by me though, add in the environmental costs for almonds too. Would you support an initiative of pricing these externalities on food, or is it just a snarky comment about cow farts?

[irishcoffee]

So you're good with artificially fucking the water supply?

[_aavaa_]

Do you care about the water use from almonds or is it just a shallow hatch point to not have to talk about the damages from raising animals for food?

Is the water use from almonds a problem or is it fine and any changes would be “fucking the water supply”?

[bluedino]

I'd bet the people who don't eat beef eat a lot more almonds than those who do.

[throw0101a]

> Agreed. The market should decide if beef consumption is viable.

Until The Market™, especially in the US, starts dealing with externalities (like climate change), it should not. Something like carbon pricing (per Greenspan and Volcker):

* https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists%27_Statement_on_Car...

Even Mr. Free Market himself, Milton Friedman, thought a price on pollution was a good idea:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YGfwSvLkC0

[Hikikomori]

Market also decided that the Irish could only eat potatoes.

[ux266478]

It was actually a disgusting set of edicts and regulations called the Penal Laws, enacted by the English crown, which formalized and wrote into law the informal restrictions imposed on Irish Catholics after the Tudor conquest, as part of a broader genocidal colonialization scheme. Very cool attempt to try and sweep that little fact under the rug. Fun fact, Adam Smith cites the penal laws as an example of the dangers wrought by mercantilism.

[Hikikomori]

Can be a bit of both? Free market advocates were certainly involved saying it should work itself out. It kinda did by letting millions die.

[bjustin]

I agree that we must stop subsidies for cattle farming.

[ahhhhnoooo]

We have 8 billion people. We have enough people to solve both the energy problem and the food efficiency problem.

That said, it's very, very funny that you responded to an article about energy inefficiency (calorie -> calorie) and said we should solve our energy problems. Beef is an energy problem! We're putting 30x the energy into the product against the energy we get out! Thats wasted energy!

[colechristensen]

Eh. Grow beef mostly grazed on marginal land that can't support other agriculture.

This is how a LOT of beef is produced and how most of it SHOULD BE.

They're not "lost calories" if they're produced on large swaths of semi-arid land that don't support any other kind of agriculture.

And on the opposite side... a LOT of those "lost calories" are corn. Corn is substantially more productive than other crops and people don't want to replace large portions of their diet with cereal grains or corn syrup so much of those "lost calories" would also be lost to much less efficient crops.

[jamespo]

This is the first I've heard of a lot of beef produced on semi-arid land incapable of supporting anything else, any source on that?

[colechristensen]

This is a pretty basic fact about agriculture but you'll find people are selective about sharing facts when they have a narrative in mind. There are VASTLY different environmental impacts which depend on HOW you raise an animal, not just if. (and places where arguments about water usage per animal are pointless because water is very plentiful)

It is also a pretty fundamental driver of much of human history and caused a lot of conflicts when you'd have migrant/nomad peoples who either followed wild herds or managed their own herds and peoples who stayed put, owned land, and planted crops -- both of these strategies often driven heavily by geography not by choice. These people would meet at the margins and there'd be war.

There are a million sources but here: https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/cattle-and-land-use-dif...

There are plenty of places around the world where you have maybe a hundred acres per animal or more. Whereas the best farmland can support one animal on the order of an acre of land.

[Copernicron]

There are large areas of British Columbia not at all suitable for farming due to lack of water, or mountains, but you still see cattle ranchers. On top of that, most of Alberta is classified as semi-arid because the Rockies block the vast majority of the rain. Alberta is easily the largest supplier of beef in the country. Crown land in both provinces gets opened up from spring until fall to allow for cattle grazing. It's fairly widespread in some parts of the world.

[colechristensen]

An additional suggestion, go to youtube or wherever and look up Mongolian herding where people are still nomads and conventional farming is done very little because it's not particularly possible.

It's not just cattle, you live yourself on some pretty marginal land and need to eat? Raise you some goats. They eat anything, not a lot, you don't have to feed them, you can eat them, milk them, and use their hair for making cloth.

[idle_zealot]

> edit: I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy problems first.

There's no "first." There's not a queue of problems that the people of the world work on one by one. It's not a matter of limited labor/money either, we're talking about policies to change allocation. If anything is limited here it's political will, but that doesn't really work like money or physical limitations, it's more abstract and nonlinear. It's quite possible that a platform containing more changes earns more will than one with fewer, so budgeting is the wrong impulse.

[heathrow83829]

meat uses up enormous quantities of water. potatoes for instance use about 75 gallons to produce 2000 calories compared to say 1500 to 2500 gallons for 2000 calories of beef.

[tracker1]

For grass fed cattle, the vast majority of said water is from rain that would have fallen on the land with or without the cattle. It's not generally municipal supplies of water in use for naturally raised cattle.

[mcv]

Absolutely. But not all beef is grass fed. The situation would be very different if it was.

[tracker1]

Would it really be though? From my experience, most of the anti-meat crowd is against all meat, for any reason.

As to alternatives for real meat not grown as animals... we don't even get micro-nutrients for baby formula right... I won't trust alternatively grown meat for a very long time. I and my brother wouldn't have survived on conventional baby formula... I have issues with just about everything outside eggs and red meat.

As for all beef being grass fed/finished... I'd be way more than happy to see it become the norm, exceptions for snowy parts of the year only. I'd like to see regenerative farming, which pretty much requires ruminant cycles, be the norm everywhere... we need more ruminants, not less imo.

[mcv]

The most vocal anti-mean crowd, perhaps. I eat only free-range, sustainable meat from animals that had a happy life outside, instead of being locked up into tiny boxes. A lot of meat comes from factory farms where animals are force fed in boxes and never see the light of day.

I don't have a problem with hunting, as long as it's done sustainably. I have no problem with fishing, as long as it's done sustainably. The problem is that there are too many people and we cannot possibly feed them all meat every day in a sustainable manner.

[colechristensen]

A lot of the "meat uses too much water" arguments are stupid because they're based on food grown in places where it rains all of the water they ever use.

We drain the land in Iowa otherwise the north half of it would be a swamp. Complaining about water usage for all but the western edge of Iowa is much the same as complaining about how solar panels use up the sunlight.

[some_random]

Water is not equally scarce everywhere, this is a simple matter of producing things only in places where the production thereof makes sense

[slowmovintarget]

When they complain about these lost calories is anyone asking them if they have a better way to turn grass into food we can eat? Eating beef lets us eat grass we couldn't otherwise, indirectly. It also has a whole bunch of minerals and nutrients that are particularly beneficial.

We don't need a steak every day, but two servings of beef a week can be a truly great infusion of protein and nutrients in someone's diet.

These are found calories, not lost.

[eykanal]

This is being downvoted, but is raising a serious point.

- Nearly 90% of Americans eat red meat [1].

- Environmental activity against meat has led a lot of people (26% of Americans) to believe that there is a push to ban red meat. This issue does not poll well [1].

- Despite the above, Americans are eating less red meat than we used to [2].

- The vast majority of people who choose to reduce their meat intake do so for cost or health reasons, not environmental [3].

Putting all that together... studies like this do not help the environmental cause. Sure, they find something that's vaguely interesting, and can possibly be a bullet point on an environmentalist slide. However, a far better research study would be one focusing on human health impacts of red meat, or demonstrating economic benefits to red meat alternatives.

tl;ld - This study is not useful, and is probably damaging to it's own cause.

[1]: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/nearly-nine-ten-ameri...

[2]: https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/new-survey-reveals-r...

[3]: https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/two-thirds-of-a...

[tracker1]

There are absolutely a number of people that would love to ban meat consumption.

I eat mostly meat and eggs, because there isn't much else I can eat that doesn't cause a number of digestive or inflammation issues for me.

[tzs]

> Environmental activity against meat has led a lot of people (26% of Americans) to believe that there is a push to ban red meat

I'd guess that has more to do with something like half a dozen different Fox hosts saying a few years ago that Biden's Inflation Reduction Act would prohibit Americans from eating hamburger more than once a month.

[rainsford]

I think it's probably a mistake on any topic to conduct or not conduct research based on what's most useful to a particular side of an argument. Especially in this case, where the party split in the poll results suggest reasonable debate on this issue is yet another casualty of partisan culture war nonsense.

It's not like people aren't aware of the environmental arguments around red meat production. Deliberately ignoring research on that front to avoid triggering people concerned about a red meat ban and to make a better argument for people who want to reduce red meat consumption seems just as likely to backfire, leading people into believing they're being manipulated into supporting what's really an environmental argument with the Trojan horse of health and economic reasons.

Laying out all the facts but focusing the actual argument on the most relevant ones seems like a much better strategy. I personally have been cutting back on red meat for health reasons and because, while I can afford it, paying that much for beef is annoying when pork or chicken fits my cooking needs just fine for much cheaper. But I still find it useful to know that choice also has a positive environmental impact, even though that wouldn't otherwise be a deciding factor for me and certainly wouldn't be justification enough for me to support banning red meat. In fact it seems like a strong argument for caring about environmental things is pointing out to folks how there can be plenty of other reasons to do things that also have environmental benefits.

I think we have a serious problem with people being and acting stupid. One way we can improve that state of affairs is stop treating them as if they are stupid and that's what we expect of them.

[0xbadcafebee]

> Is feeding the world a real problem?

Yes.

> I've yet to see compelling evidence that it really is except as a secondary effect of logistics, energy supply, and war.

I don't know how to respond to this. It's like saying you don't think breathing underwater is difficult, except for the secondary effects of water. War is a problem. Energy supply is a problem. Logistics is a problem. All these problems lead to starvation. People starving is a real problem.

Another reason people starve is economics and market forces. The market decides it wants to use up more water and grain to feed cows. That grain and water is now not available for purchase as human food. That means it is more scarce on the human-feeding market. Scarcity drives up prices. So livestock feed makes grain more expensive, making it harder to purchase, for people to eat.

(I'm using "starve" as a euphemism for "malnutrition that not only severely impacts bodily health, reduces quality of life, and increases mortality, but also decreases economic productivity")

Now, if the point you're trying to make is "we could solve world hunger", then absolutely the answer is yes, humans produce more than enough grain to feed everyone in the world, and we have the money to transport it everywhere, even assist with cooking fuel. But because of all the categories you think don't apply, and markets, and economics, we are not fixing it. We are choosing to let people starve.

[some_random]

>Another reason people starve is economics and market forces. The market decides it wants to use up more water and grain to feed cows. That grain and water is now not available for purchase as human food. That means it is more scarce on the human-feeding market. Scarcity drives up prices. So livestock feed makes grain more expensive, making it harder to purchase, for people to eat.

None of these are logistics, energy supply, or war. The paper is specifically talking about increasing efficiency in food production, the originally commenter is saying that efficiency of production is not the main driver for undernourishment and your comment doesn't address that.

[0xbadcafebee]

Something doesn't have to be the main driver to still have an impact on the problem. Increasing food production efficiency would have a marked impact on the problem, without requiring you to to figure out how to end war or "fix" energy or logistics.

[some_random]

You could make corn in the US free and that would not help it get to people in the DRC who are blockaded by Rwanda backed militias. It would not make transporting that corn to Syria cheaper or easier. I will give that it would make ethanol cheaper, so that's cool at least.

[worik]

Feeding the world is a problem of economics and politics, not the ecological problems of growing food.

There is huge capacity for food production in the world, and no reason anyone should go hungry

Keeping people hungry is deliberate economic policy.

In New Zealand where I live we make enough food for millions more than live here, yet many face food insecurity.

As I say, it is deliberate, calculated, government policy to keep people on the edge of hunger.

It keeps wages low - our idiot business people think every dollar paid in wages is a dollar of profit lost

Idiotic and cruel, and widespread

[0xbadcafebee]

Of course it's a political problem. So what are we going to do? Sit around and pray for a miracle that solves all of politics? Meanwhile people are suffering. Increasing efficiency of food production will actually create more food, which makes it cheaper, which makes it easier for people to get. That we can probably actually accomplish, unlike solving politics.

[datsci_est_2015]

> I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy problems first.

You don’t think the two are related at all? When you say “solve” energy problems, do you mean from supply-side solutions or demand-side solutions?

[kshahkshah]

Just getting back here, didn't expect all these replies.

I meant supply-side.

[XorNot]

No amount of efficiency improvements matters if all the energy is still coming from burning fossil fuels at the end of the day.

[krater23]

The question is, whats the bigger environmental impact, more people using smart phones, computers, cars, planes, buying the newest fashion to show their style,... or feeding them with beef?

You are completely right, who the fuck cares?

[mcv]

Feeding the world is mostly a political-economic problem. Political-economic decisions make it hard to feed everybody, when we technically have more than enough to feed everybody. But one of the decisions that make it hard to feed everybody is the decision to eat lots of beef in rich countries. Land that's used to grow food for cattle could (in many but not all cases) also be used to grow food for poor people, but there's no money in that.

That's not the only one; there's lots of other ways in which food is wasted or used inefficiently. Although the situation has improved tremendously over the past half century, there are still a lot of people suffering from malnutrition.

[nradov]

In most places where there is chronic, widespread malnutrition the root cause problem is not lack of arable land but rather local violence and corruption. It doesn't matter how much food you grow if a rebel group with AK-47s shows up and steals it all.

[Thrymr]

> Not trying to be overly flippant... who cares?

Congratulations on being overly flippant without trying. Evidently a lot of people care, and environmental impacts and energy problems are closely related.

[usrusr]

> Is feeding the world a real problem?

In light of recent, uhm, "challenges" to fertilizer supply chains?

[tootie]

I know you warned us, but this overly flippant.

There's plenty of obvious reasons we shouldn't be wasting land, energy, water and labor on producing things that don't get utilized. Even in the most selfish capitalist sensibility, we are wasting money. Yes the energy issue is much bigger than this but wasted energy utilization is part of that problem. I know this is politically fraught, but that should not have any bearing on scholarship. This is just data to add to our understanding.

And also that this study is global, not purely applicable to America. Republicans can exploit outrage with lies to their base, but that isn't such a slam dunk everywhere in the world