• Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    That is the way humans have always been and it is not just the USA. I will be dead before the worst affects hit is the justification many think but few are willing to express. Around the world ground water is being used at rates that are thousands of time faster than replenishment.

    When the water runs out, mass starvation will soon begin.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      But it’s not everyone, not always. In Europe we started sustainable forest management in the 18th century, so for at least a couple hundred of years people are acting differently. Why?

      • ButtDrugs@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah but it started after Europe was basically logged to the ground for wood or agriculture.

      • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That will also happen but it will not stop the hunger.

        Food exports will dry up as countries hold their food for their own people (See: India’s ban on rice exports) and the countries that cannot feed their own populations will implode.

        The Arab spring started as protests over a jump in food prices.

      • w00tabaga@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        To think that getting rid of those two things is a silver bullet is naive.

        People like to shit on animal agriculture. However, you have to consider that only about 3% of the earth’s entire surface is suitable for agriculture, and even less to grow most of the crops we eat. Animals can be raised on land that’s not suitable for crops. It spreads out where we use our water, which is a good thing. Animal agriculture also gives us a plethora of goods besides just meat, and again, it’s goods from land that otherwise we cannot farm.

        As with all things in life, there are better and worse ways to go about it, but animal agriculture isn’t ruining the planet in itself.

        Secondly, the problem with biofuels is it should be replaced with nuclear, and getting hungry isn’t going to change that, a lot of people are just going to die from starvation and violence directly caused by starvation.

        • neanderthal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Let’s stop to think about this. The US is farming water intensive crops in the desert. Iowa and surrounding states, some of the best farmland in the world, grows a shitload of corn to make ethanol to add to ICE engine fuel. The energy return on investment is minimal and ethanol trashes small engines that usually aren’t designed to run on it.

          We could stop farming in the desert and use our premier farm land to grow food instead of for making low quality ICE fuel. We should be phasing out ICE engines as much as possible anyway, so we can get a double whammy here.

        • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Animal agriculture is not ruining the planet itself, yes.

          But

          Animal Agriculture emits nearly 60% of greenhouse gases from food production.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thoughts don’t form in a vacuum. They are the product of the underlying material conditions, produced by the intellectual labor of the army of propagandists that work in the fossil fuel industry, the meat industry, the ethanol industry, etc. You’re putting the cart before the horse.

            Thoughts matter, but they are a symptom of deeper structural problems that prevent reform. Combating bad ideas only treats a symptom.

            • neanderthal@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re putting the cart before the horse.

              I really don’t understand what you mean by this.

              So are you giving up?

                • neanderthal@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m saying bad thinking guarantees defeat, and that this isn’t over yet.

                  Look at the Kansas abortion ballot initiative debacle. I’d wager that the climate deniers and anti abortion people are largely the same group. That election shows that they can be beaten and probably have more people on our side than they do. I.e. we are the proverbial elephant tied up with a string.

        • DragonTypeWyvern
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thoughts lead to actions, of which inaction based on defeatist ideas literally encouraged by the fossil fuels industries is included.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is literally idealism; the theory that political action comes from ideas.

            Ideas matter, but they can only reinforce the structural and material base.

    • aeternum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      what humans use PAILS in comparisson to what the animals we eat use. Stop eating animals!

      • RadicalCandour@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can understand why you’re getting downvoted. People don’t want to stop eating animals. I know I don’t. But we really should. You’re right, it’s horrible for the planet. I for one am looking forward to the lab grown meat future.

        • mrpants@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why even lab grown? I’ve eaten burgers from vegan shops that I prefer to meat ones. They’re meatier and tastier than every other meat based burger in their price range.

          Of course not every restaurant is this good yet but I have a feeling it’ll outpace the rate of lab grown meat availability.

          • RadicalCandour@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why even lab grown? Because people will not give up meat. Humans want fat and muscle protein without the cruelty and waste.
            I’m all for vegan options as well. I love me a well made vegan burger.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        animals mostly eat parts of plants that people can’t or won’t eat, so in that way they help us conserve resources.

        • Steeve@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Haha what the hell are you talking about, a third of cropland is literally dedicated to growing livestock feed. Livestock also directly contributes 7% of greenhouse gas emissions by shitting alone.

          This is directly from the FAO: https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            a third of cropland is literally dedicated to growing livestock feed

            that’s not what your source says. and all of agriculture is about 20% of our emissions, but i’d be fine if it were 100%: we need to eat.

            • Steeve@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Twenty-six percent of the Planet’s ice-free land is used for livestock grazing and 33 percent of croplands are used for livestock feed production.

              Dude, it’s one of the first things written on the first page. Come on now, this is embarassing.

                • Steeve@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Jesus Christ, so close, read ten more words. Do you think you can do that buddy?

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                33 percent of croplands are used for livestock feed production.

                but not exclusively for livestock feed production. it’s not “dedicated”.

                • Steeve@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  This is what this user posted and embarrassingly deleted before writing the comment above:

                  grazing lands aren’t croplands

                  If you can’t even be bothered to read a full quote that was handed to you, you aren’t discussing in good faith. You can go ahead and fuck off with your hand wavy non-scientific bullshit. Learn to read a source and provide a proper rebuttal with evidence instead of spamming nonsense.

                  Edit: Oh look I broke the spambot lol

        • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I feel like this is overlooked, that animals eat stuff we can’t/won’t- like grass or discarded food.

        • Steeve@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m not a vegan, but I respect the hell out of them a lot more than people like you. It isn’t a debate that our level of meat consumption is problematic for the environment, if you deny that and aren’t taking steps to at least try to reduce your meat consumption you are a climate denialist.

  • RadicalCandour@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not sure if this report mentions it but I remember reading recently that we’ve pumped so much ground water out of the earth, it’s affected the tilt of the fucking planet. Man we are a shithole species.

  • gnygnygny@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Extracting groundwatee in the death valley in order to make a golf is the most insane example

    • reddig33@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You joke, but we actually do need desalination plants — starting yesterday. Water will be the new oil soon.

      • exohuman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, we definitely do. We are already seeing the result of not thinking ahead in the southwest. I’m not really joking about the plants. We need nuclear plants to provide the clean energy to desalinate on the levels we need to sustain agriculture and cities without contributing to global warming.

        • Edmond Dantesk@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          … or maybe switch to a less water intensive form of agriculture ?

          Edit : I mean, how sustaining a wasteful practice with a huge wasteful infrastructure is progress ?

            • Edmond Dantesk@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe we should, but I’m not sure we can - because one (nuclear + desalination) acts as a disincentive to the other (actually chaning practice).

              Also, building a nuclear reactor takes a lot of time (do we have it ?), changing agricultural practices can start right now and scale progressively.

    • toothpicks@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And then we can pour the nuclear waste back into the sea! Just kidding 😂 I’m not anti-nuclear

      • Kittenstix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hopefully by then Nevada is a barren wasteland uninhabited by nimbys so we can get the Yucca Mountain project started.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    American companies and local governments implementing unsustainable projects that will only face consequences once they’re gone?

    They would never!

    • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not true. The vast majority of water overuse is industrial (including wasteful farm practices) and commercial. Gandhi said it well:

      There is enough in this world for every man’s need, but not enough for every man’s greed.