myshpa

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/climate-tipping-po...

So if it’s inevitable, what are the possible positive effects?

I cannot see any positive effects. We should try to prevent the inevitable, while there's still some time. Not long. But some.

Should we start looking at transitioning to the changes

I’m starting to think we're likely to face a future akin to that depicted in Threads (1984) or The Road (2009), and I’m not sure anyone can truly prepare for it.

Maybe the biggest problem is how big a problem it is. The extent of the problems we're facing may be too overwhelming for the average person to fully comprehend.

Overshoot encompasses many aspects, including biodiversity loss, deforestation, pollution, resource depletion, and much more.

The fundamental issue is the need for constant growth in a finite environment. Almost all money in the system is created through loans by banks, and there is an interest on that money that must be paid, typically around 3% or so, and this interest compounds exponentially.

As a result, our growth is exponential, and there is no sign of it slowing down. Our GDP doubles every 30 years, while our finite natural environment is the first to be sacrificed in an attempt to service one's debts.

All we see is an attempt at solving the energy, and only partially - because it's the easiest problem. We don't see any real debate about degrowth, reforestation, equity, food system, financial system ... no real progress on any front.

- We should stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible.

- Transitioning to plant-based diets can free up an area the size of both Americas, allowing for reforestation that would halt biodiversity loss and sequester as much carbon as we've released since the Industrial Revolution.

- Agriculture must be reformed to eliminate our reliance on harmful pesticides and practices that destroy biodiversity.

- Overfishing and pollution must be stopped to preserve marine life and ecosystems.

- Developed countries should pursue degrowth while supporting the development of less developed nations.

- Education and restoration should be prioritized over exploitation.

Animal species have witnessed a 70% decline in just the last 50 years. How long until our insect and pollinator populations collapse? How long until forests completely lose their ability to retain moisture and generate rain? How long until oceans are devoid of fish or sharks (with 90% already gone), leading to the collapse of the entire marine ecosystem? How long until major crop failures occur?

There have been collapses of civilizations before, but there has never been a total collapse of the biosphere as well. So I too worry for the future of today's young.

Sorry for the rant.

more definitive action will be taken against climate change

a) our problem is not only the climate change, but overshoot / polycrisis

b) there is a profit to be made even from the collapse, maybe bigger than ever

Nothing will get changed, because solving the problems would mean dismantling the system.

global warming could result in local cooling in Western Europe because of a weakened Gulf Stream. We are still far from that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturnin...

In July 2023, a paper from a pair of University of Copenhagen researchers suggested that AMOC collapse would most likely happen around 2057, with the 95% confidence range between 2025 - 2095.

It may be a controversial paper, but all probabilities are off after this year. So there is a possibility that it could collapse as soon as two years from now.

Many individuals neglect to address climate change (or rather overshoot), often shifting blame while maintaining their consumption habits. For instance, despite knowing its significant environmental impact, most people are reluctant to reduce meat consumption, risking a bleak future for their offspring. This inaction and mere talk reflect a hypocritical stance, as people avoid making meaningful contributions to climate solutions, ultimately burdening future generations with the problem.

What do you feel about what’s happening to our planet?

Teenagers are thinking lots about climate change, and many of them, says Hannah, are quite terrified about what’s happening, so it can be really helpful to talk it through. “We need to take action – this is a very serious situation – but you don’t want your child to be fearful the whole time that we’re on the verge of extinction,” she says. Listen to their concerns and be ready to talk about what people can do to make a difference.

Hm ... take action ... extinction ... talk. That shall help.

https://i.redd.it/5a8krfiy3q631.jpg

How Shell Destroyed An Entire Country

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uuW4AP8M4M

This might interest you ...

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/climate-tipping-po...

https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/diabetes/

Type 2 diabetes, however, is almost always preventable, often treatable, and sometimes even reversible through diet and lifestyle changes. Like other leading killers—especially heart disease and high blood pressure—type 2 diabetes may be an unfortunate consequence of dietary choices. There is hope, though, even if you already have diabetes. Through lifestyle changes, you may be able to achieve a complete remission of type 2 diabetes, even if you’ve been suffering with the disease for decades.

People who eat a plant-based diet have been found to have just a small fraction of the diabetes rate seen in those who regularly eat meat. As diets become increasingly plant-based, there appears to be a stepwise drop in diabetes rates. Based on a study of 89,000 Californians, flexitarians (who eat meat maybe once weekly rather than daily) appear to cut their rate of diabetes by 28 percent, and those who cut out all meat except fish appear to cut their rates in half. What about those eliminating all meat, including fish? They appear to eliminate 61 percent of their risk. And those who go a step farther and drop eggs and dairy, too? They may drop their diabetes rates 78 percent compared with people who eat meat on a daily basis.

True ... but whether they are native or not, their effect on wild pollinators is the same.

That eternit/asbestos roof in the first picture ... no, thank you.

Another article about Slovenia's beekeepers: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/19/business/beekeeping-compa...

“If you overcrowd any space with honey bees, there is a competition for natural resources, and since bees have the largest numbers, they push out other pollinators, which actually harms biodiversity,” he said, after a recent visit to the B&B bees. “I would say that the best thing you could do for honey bees right now is not take up beekeeping.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-41271-5

Honeybees disrupt the structure and functionality of plant-pollinator networks

... results show that beekeeping reduces the diversity of wild pollinators and interaction links in the pollination networks ... High-density beekeeping in natural areas appears to have lasting, more serious negative impacts on biodiversity than was previously assumed.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.76795...

The Diversity Decline in Wild and Managed Honey Bee Populations Urges for an Integrated Conservation Approach

Using honey bees as an example, we argue that several management practices in beekeeping threaten genetic diversity in both wild and managed populations, and drive population decline.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7708548/

Why bees are critical for achieving sustainable development

Bees comprise ~ 20 000 described species across seven recognised families ... Fifty bee species are managed by people, of which around 12 are managed for crop pollination ... Wild bees contribute an average of USD$3 251 ha−1 to the production of insect-pollinated crops, similar to that provided by managed honey bees

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5722319/

Do managed bees have negative effects on wild bees?

The majority of reviewed studies reported negative effects of managed bees

https://www.nwf.org/Home/Magazines/National-Wildlife/2021/Ju...

“Keeping honey bees to ‘save the bees’ is like raising chickens to save birds.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01847-3

Greater bee diversity is needed to maintain crop pollination over time

Michał Niczyporuk @mihn

So when talk "Never write a database" is coming? ;)

Charity Majors @mipsytipsy

That's it. That's the talk.

"Never write a database. Even if you want to, even if you think you should. Resist. Never write a database. Unless you have to write a database. But you don't."

I will present this talk at any conference of your choosing.

Not really true.

https://newrepublic.com/article/163735/myth-regenerative-ran...

https://grist.org/climate-energy/cattle-grazing-is-a-climate...

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25138

https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-co...

https://plantbasednews.org/news/environment/george-monbiot-r...

“So any story that says it’s good to be farming these livestock, it’s good to be eating these livestock, is a story which justifies among the most devastating processes on Earth,” he said. “It is climate science denial.”

Monbiot linked this denial to the interests of major corporations like McDonald’s, General Mills, JBS, and the Murdoch Network, who he says have “backed and weaponized” the idea that grazing cattle is environmentally beneficial. “The story is false,” he said. “When you make a grand claim such as this one, that livestock can mitigate climate change, either you produce the evidence for that claim or if you cannot produce the evidence you withdraw the claim. The evidence has not been produced, the claim does not stand.”

Tools to replace pesticides? You mean something like robotic cats catching mice? :) I mean, focusing on biodiversity preservation would be probably more impactful.

I dream of robots capable of weeding, replacing herbicides, and selectively pruning/mulching to reduce fertilizer usage.

You omitted health

But we don't need meat for health.

American Dietetic Association

"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

NHS UK

"A vegetarian or vegan diet can be suitable for everyone, regardless of their age."

British Dietetic Association

"[I]t is possible to follow a well-planned, plant-based, vegan friendly diet that supports healthy living in people of all ages, and during pregnancy and breastfeeding."

Meat is a package of pre-processed vitamins, minerals and energy sources.

In addition to saturated fats, cholesterol, and common additives like nitrates and preservatives, meat consumption can also entail exposure to antibiotics, hormones, bioaccumulated pesticides and herbicides, and ethical concerns related to cruelty and mistreatment in the meat production industry.

Other than health, taste, tradition, habit and convenience, what has meat ever done for us?

If everyone on Earth adopted the American or European diet, we would require more than five Earths to feed everyone [0]. Animal agriculture is already the leading cause of deforestation [1], biodiversity loss [2] [3], and water pollution [4]. Our current agricultural practices are pushing over a million species towards extinction [5].

Switching to plant-based diets could free up an area equivalent to the combined size of both Americas [6], allowing us to reforest it and promote biodiversity recovery. By reforesting this vast area, we could sequester enough carbon to potentially reverse climate change [7] [8] (assuming a simultaneous phase-out of fossil fuels, of course) [9].

This approach represents the only sustainable way to feed a population of 10 billion [10] while reducing our agricultural land requirements from 4 billion hectares to 1 billion hectares [11]. Animal agriculture is one of the major culprits pushing six out of nine Earth boundaries beyond safe levels [12] [13].

So ... it does a lot.

[0] https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability...

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation

[2] https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob...

[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/

[4] https://blogs.ubc.ca/makingwaves/2017/02/07/cows-pigs-and-po...

[5] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01448-4

[6] https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land...

[7] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/08...

[8] https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal...

[9] https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

[10] https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471

[11] https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

[12] https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2...

[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries#Nine_boun...

Tradition, habit, convenience, taste. No other reasons exist.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37697562

The question was about evidence which would show that it could reverse heart disease not prevent it.

It's under the video in the list of sources :)

Ellis FR, Sanders TA. Angina and vegan diet. Am Heart J. 1977 Jun;93(6):803-5

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00028...

Four patients were placed on a vegan diet in 1977. Three of them adhered to the diet and experienced a reversal of the disease (an improvement in their symptoms), while one patient saw improvement but later switched back to a regular diet, resulting in a return of his symptoms.

Esselstyn CB Jr, Gendy G, Doyle J, Golubic M, Roizen MF. A way to reverse CAD? J Fam Pract. 2014 Jul;63(7):356-364b

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25198208/

In a study involving 198 patients with cardiovascular disease, 89% adhered to a plant-based diet, eliminating dairy, fish, and meat while adding oil. These adherent patients experienced only one recurrent cardiac event (a stroke), resulting in a low recurrence rate of 0.6%. In contrast, 62% of nonadherent participants experienced adverse events. This suggests that intensive counseling on plant-based nutrition can be successful in reducing cardiac events and warrants further testing in broader populations to address the cardiovascular disease epidemic.

- Ad Hominem: Attacking the author's religious affiliations instead of addressing the research. No proof of such affiliations, btw. Example: "No one asks to write down the author's religious affiliations."

- Guilt by Association: Associating the individual with a group (SDA) to which they may not belong or identify with is misleading and serves to further discredit the argument, as it’s based on false premises.

- Conspiracy Theory: Suggesting that most vegetarian research is sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists without evidence. Example: "Most of the research in vegetarianism is sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists."

- Straw Man: The comment misrepresents the argument by suggesting that anyone who supports vegetarianism or has religious affiliations cannot engage in scientific discussion. Example: "When a theory becomes a tenet of your religion, there is not much scientific discussion to be had."

- Generalization: Making a sweeping and unsupported claim about all research related to vegetarianism. Example: "Notice how many are affiliated with SDA."

- Appeal to Motive: Assuming that the author's religious beliefs automatically taint their scientific research. Example: "It is well-known at this point that most of the research in vegetarianism is sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists."

In constructive and respectful debates, it's essential to address the actual scientific evidence and arguments rather than resorting to personal attacks, conspiracy theories, or logical fallacies. These tactics detract from the quality of the discussion and hinder productive dialogue.

The Nurses' Health Study: This long-term study, conducted by Harvard University, has examined the dietary habits and health outcomes of thousands of nurses over several decades. It has consistently shown the health benefits of vegetable consumption

The Framingham Heart Study: Another long-running study, the Framingham Heart Study, has looked at heart disease risk factors and health outcomes in a large population. It has demonstrated the positive effects of a diet rich in vegetables on heart health

https://www.bumc.bu.edu/camed/2021/02/25/plant-based-diets-i...

Plant-based Diets Improve Cardiac Function, Cognitive Health

The EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition) Study: This study involves multiple countries in Europe and has provided significant evidence of the health benefits of plant-based diets, including lower risks of cancer and chronic diseases.

The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) Trial: While not exclusively focused on vegetables, the DASH trial emphasizes the importance of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables for managing blood pressure and overall health

Think of the children? :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

While red meat and dairy can provide certain nutrients, it's important to emphasize that a well-planned plant-based diet can also meet children's nutritional needs.

No adult mammals need milk to be healthy. Children who drink mother's milk are, of course, following a vegan diet.

American Dietetic Association

"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

NHS UK

"A vegetarian or vegan diet can be suitable for everyone, regardless of their age."

British Dietetic Association

"[I]t is possible to follow a well-planned, plant-based, vegan friendly diet that supports healthy living in people of all ages, and during pregnancy and breastfeeding."

being a Seventh-Day Adventist

Source? The link you've provided doesn't say anything about it.

While vegan science might have grounds for debate

Scientific disciplines specifically focused on veganism or vegetarianism do not exist.

Edit: It's not about nutrition; it's the ultimate hack to protect biodiversity, which is being driven to extinction by our agricultural practices, and to safeguard our society from collapse. As such, it belongs here. Lately, it seems to me to be more important than the newest JavaScript frameworks. You're welcome to spend some time in my post history and read on.

I’m wondering how many fish, birds, and mammals get eaten by non-humans every day

https://xkcd.com/1338/

https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass

I wouldn’t be surprised if that number is less than the number of animals humans slaughter

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

Like, I’ve heard that there are more chickens alive right now than all other birds combined

https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass#global...

We have twice as much poultry by weight as wild birds.

We have twice as much poultry by weight as wild birds.

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-truth-about-cats-and-...

In a paper published today in the journal PLOS One, Okin says he found that cats and dogs are responsible for 25 to 30 percent of the environmental impact of meat consumption in the United States. If Americans’ 163 million Fidos and Felixes comprised a separate country, their fluffy nation would rank fifth in global meat consumption

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-kill-animals-too

Crop fields do indeed disrupt the habitats of wild animals, and wild animals are also killed when harvesting plants. However, this point makes the case for a plant-based diet and not against it, since many more plants are required to produce a measure of animal flesh for food (often as high as 12:1) than are required to produce an equal measure of plants for food (which is obviously 1:1). Because of this, a plant-based diet causes less suffering and death than one that includes animals.

Also here: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/seaice/ (click Switch Hemisphere)

It seems that most companies are failing to exhibit independent leadership in their decision-making, especially when it comes to trends like remote work.

More and more, we're witnessing organizations simply follow the crowd instead of taking the initiative to make informed choices.

This seems like a discussion that could benefit from a reminder: animal agriculture is highly polluting (16.5% of all emissions) and destructive (the leading cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss).

Lamb and mutton are nearly as environmentally damaging as beef (116m2 vs. 119m2 for beef).

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

And why lambs and not kittens or puppies? It's the same kind of psychopathic indifference.

Thank you.

https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/e...

... our estimates of the scale of this inequality suggest that the poorest half of the global population – around 3.5 billion people – are responsible for only around 10% of total global emissions attributed to individual consumption, yet live overwhelmingly in the countries most vulnerable to climate change.