Could not agree more with this. Evolution on Earth has had a very long time to develop super advanced nanotechnology, which we understand and utilise very poorly and are destroying forever - for what? More beef on the plate, palm oil for products no one needs and a bit of money for one generation?

Beyond being critical to the survival of deeply linked ecosystems, and ultimately ourselves, it's just really stupid to destroy products of millions of years of R&D before we've even begun to unlock their potential. The amount of energy and computation that has gone into that evolution is super valuable and a couple of generations are trading it for profits lasting a blink of an eye.

In general, I find it super strange that multi-generational thinking/optimisation isn't more deeply ingrained in our behaviour as a species.

Natural selection is a greedy algorithm. Being forward thinking or altruistic rarely produces more surviving progeny over the short term.

I guess in the case of humans we have partly outpaced natural selection - nature hasn't had time to optimise for the reality we are creating, it's too slow. Short term impulses which have worked great (until now) still govern our behaviour.

It's not altruism to try to avert long term disaster beyond your own life span. It's in your own interest to ensure your progeny survives - even several generations in the future they still carry your genes. But I don't know if inbuilt mechanisms for this exist in evolution.

I'd like to think self-inflicted extinction isn't a likely outcome of evolution - but maybe it is once a certain species dominates.

All of the things that humans have done, which you are referring to - can be traced back to one thing - cheap energy - in the form of OIL.

It is curious how carbon based life that existed in the past (dead plants and animals in the form of oil) is the catalyst for carbon based life wiping itself out in the future.

I wonder if this ultimately also happens on other planets with carbon based life (if they exist) - a short period of hyper growth once life learns how to unlock energy from the past, followed by extinction.

We're assuming that evolution has a higher chance of creating biotech that will solve problems than biotech we will be able to produce in the future using computational methods? I doubt it.

Quite apart from your well made point, just about everyone that "makes it" wants a home in the country with some land, probably some old forest. It's the location for so many leisure activities and holidays. Few want to retire in a city.

We conveniently don't notice the decline of soils, of insects or other species. The arrogance that we can just keep on until humanity is in battery hutches everywhere and everything else divided up between agriculture and industry astounds me. Who knows how many miracle drugs and biotech has been lost in those unknown bacteria and species.

Even if it turns out to be a process that can continue our collective psyche will lose something it apparently desires or needs. So at what cost?

Everyone wants the facilities resulting from economies of scales and efficiencies that cities provide, such as entertainment options, access to various labor and product markets, selections of schools, hospitals, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.

At the same time, everyone wants to their own space to do their own thing and raise their family and a peaceful neighborhood where you don't have to worry about dealing with too many others, especially not too far below your socioeconomic class.

This would seem to naturally result in the pattern of rich and poor suburbs clustered around cities with the constant struggle of individual housing vs shared housing, car vs public transport, public parks vs private yards, etc. Only recent factor I see changing is the delay in having children into the 30s means a lot of 20 somethings that aren't looking for suburbs, and if they don't ever have kids then maybe they never will want for suburbs.

Everyone? Plenty only move to a city because they have to, to get work. Then Nothing to do with want in many cases. Perhaps even the majority.

There's not the same need for everyone to congregate in one place there was when your factory or shipyard needed 40,000 workers every shift. The internet should have enabled more local and rural enterprises to thrive, except that's not turned out to be the case at all.

Those who want to go to the city only because they have to work fall under the "want access to labor markets" part of my statement. "Everyone" is an exaggeration of course on my part, but it still seems like a significant portion of the population, especially high earners, want incompatible parts of urban and suburban life.

I was commenting on the claim that "few want to retire in the city", which I agree with, but in old age you need access to medical professionals and other facilities that aren't economically feasible in rural populations, so even though people want the rural life, they don't want or can't afford to give up those other conveniences of more urban areas.

And yet city center locations are incredibly expensive.

Though I don't disagree with your general point, just that there are a fair number of people who make it and still want to be in the city.

I'd still rather be in the city. It's just too expensive, though, since there's a shortage of housing here (honestly "here" could be most cities with good tech industries) and I value being in the city less than a young person who still goes out a lot - and crucially, doesn't have a kid.

If it helps, I'm buying a few acres of grazing land an hour from the city by train - grazing land is basically sterile wasteland for ecological purposes - and planning to reforest it, while working remote. But we need a lot more than a few acres. And we need those places to be livable without a car. I rode a bike from the train station to view the property, but places you can do that without a death wish are far too rare.

The one thing that gives me hope on this, is that lab-grown meat requires about 95% less land, energy, and water. If we can get it cheap enough we could put most of our farms out of business.

I seriously think lab grown meats will save the world, if we can pull it off in a commercially viable fashion.

I also think so. Moreover, I wish there were a way for me, as an average nonmillionaire, to invest in that as an industry.

It's fascinating how human beings cling to old habits.

It's like we as a species couldn't go vegetarian by choice.

We could, we just won't. People have been trying to promote that for the past several decades and meat consumption globally has just gone up. The book Clean Meat devotes a chapter to this; historically every culture has consumed more meat when they could afford it. Most people just like it.

We almost hunted whales to extinction for their oil. That didn't stop because we persuaded people to quit using oil in their lamps. It stopped because someone invented kerosene. Whaling was the fifth-largest industry in the U.S., and then in thirty years it was gone.

Depending on humans to do “the right thing” when it goes against our instincts is not a good way to approach these problems. You need to offer ways for humans to satiate their needs AND do the right thing.

Yeah I agree. Though I don't think that lab meat will be a panacea.

It’s as much s habit as it is a habit for lions to hunt prey; or pigs. I understand we could choose to go vegetarian, but it’s more than overcoming “habit”. We’re omnivores, by nature, not by habit. My point is that being facile is detrimental to a cause. Yes, with effort we could become all vegetarians, but it’s more than overcoming habit (a habit is leaving the toilet seat up).

"To deny our own impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human." - Mouse, The Matrix

We evolved as omnivores. We are a predatory species. We can’t go vegetarian as a species because we aren’t a vegetarian species.

But we also evolved to have a large cerebral cortex that allows us to make decisions that go against certain impulses because we are able to see the bigger picture. We evolved to conserve energy when possible but we exercise anyway because we know that if we don`t it will be detrimental to our health.

And many people are still healthy while on a vegetarian diet so it is possible.

Speaking as a life-long vegetarian here, I don't think most people are naturally suited to it. I don't eat meat because I don't want to. I know I'd hate to live my life wanting, say, cheese, or spinach, or whatever, and denying it to myself because of some imagined higher good. I feel like people should embrace their nature. Mine doesn't happen to include eating meat. Most peoples' does, and that's OK.

So then it's a nature/nurture kind of discussion. Do you think some people are genetically unable to stop eating meat? Personally, I think your tastes will adapt, i.e. it wouldn't feel like denying yourself anything after a while. But maybe it's different for some people.

Also commercials and just society around you influences your cravings. I think if you would grow up somewhere where there is no dairy for example, you would not crave it.

I don't think they're genetically unable to stop, but I think they're genetically predisposed to prefer eating meat if it's an option. I've gone without dairy for a couple of months here and there (while traveling in Asia where it's much less of a thing than at home) and definitely still missed it by the time I got home.

What a silly assertion. You can ignore evolutionary impulses with your brain when said impulses come from your brain.

Your brain can’t override how your metabolism and gut work. Your brain can’t change the bacteria in your gut, or the shape of your teeth.

Omnivorism is not an impulse, it’s an attribute of the species. It’s part of who we are.

I'm not a vegan, but my brother has been a strict vegan for a decade and is quite healthy. Plenty of other people do the same with similar results, including some professional athletes, so clearly it's possible. I just don't think most people can be persuaded to do it.

It's possible to move around exclusively by hopping on one leg. Doesn't mean it's the best way to live your life.

But hopping around on one leg is obviously less efficient, slower and maybe even unhealthy for your joints etc. Is a vegetarian diet less efficient or healthy?

It is limiting your choices in restaurants obviously, but suppose you live in some vegetarian community. Is this community limiting its potential? While if you live in a community that exclusively hops around on one leg, the answer is obviously yes, for the first example I'm not sure.

A vegetarian diet often has significantly less protein (important if you're trying to build or maintain muscle mass) and less of some trace nutrients (zinc, iron, vitamin B12) than a diet including meat. It's possible to make up the differences and there are health benefits if you do, but it's definitely more work.

You’re ignoring what I’m saying.

I also don’t believe that vegans are healthy. Sure, they don’t starve (omnivores, after all). But I want to see their regular glucose levels and their mortality rates. The way I eat (omnivore) is ancient, veganism is brand new.

I'm not ignoring, I'm disagreeing. My brother is a military officer, gets an annual physical, and his numbers are consistently great.

A quick google finds studies supporting the idea that his results are typical. Here's one from 2016, which finds that more plant protein correlates with lower mortality, and more animal protein with higher mortality: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...

But as I said above, from an environmental perspective I don't think widespread vegetarianism is a feasible policy goal, so I'm not trying to tell you what to eat. Getting our meat from vats instead of animals is what I think will save the world.

Ahem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_user_bias

There are some studies that are coming out that undermine your idea that vegans are inherently healthier, such as the notice that vegetarians appear to have higher rates of cavities than the population at large. If you ask an anthropologist you'll know this is a big deal, because dental health is a great indicator of overall health.

I think all the arguments about the vegetarianism saving the world are bunk, and a convenient reason for us all to not talk about the real issue: oil.

My meat comes from animals that graze on grass, as has been the case for millenia. The millions of buffalo that ran around north America a few centuries ago didn't warm the planet with their farts, so why should properly managed grass fed cows do the same?

On the other hand, what is new is large scale industrial monoculture agriculture. I am dubious to the concept that we can transition the world over to plant based without planting a lot of soy, something that I think is bad.

Side note: we have been managing cattle poorly for years. The proper way is to pen them into relatively tight (but not cramped) portions of the grazing land, and then rotate them from section to section regularly. This mimics the way that herding animals react to predators (cluster up), and gives the grasses time to recover and sequester carbon. It's also far more land efficient than other methods, which is nice.

Edit: it looks like 84% of world wide calories come from plants already. Doesn’t seem to be doing anything to stop global warming to me. Maybe it’s the fact that we’re still using fossil fuels instead?

So that was not the case for my brother; his numbers were significantly worse and he was on medication, before he switched to veganism and greatly improved. In the study I posted, the meat-eaters were in the study too so I don't think that bias exactly applies, though in general dietary studies are always difficult.

I think I've read the same books as you, and agree with much of what you say. I would love to see us switch all our cattle over to Allan Savory's methods, and if lab-grown meat works out, maybe some ranchers will survive by providing premium grass-fed.

I've also read a stack of the better-known low-carb/paleo books. It just didn't work out for me, my results were horrific. It does seem to work for some people. Regarding cavities, perhaps there are tradeoffs to every diet.

In any case, as I said above I don't think vegetarianism is a way to save the world. Lab-grown meat is what will help save the world. Getting off oil will also be a huge help.

The bias absolutely applies. Vegans care about their health, so they’re likely to do a lot of behaviors that are unambiguously healthy. If someone believes that meat is bad for them and continues to eat it, then they are obviously valuing something else over their health, and are more likely to do other unhealthy things like smoke, drink too much, etc.

I’d be far more interested in comparing vegans to people who believe that meat is good for them and are very health aware. Paleo or Keto individuals would be a good cohort to pick. That would measure technique and not intention, because both paleos and vegans are intending to be healthy.

I’m curious what your results were on low carb. I work out with a cohort of low carb eaters, and we lost an avg of 30lbs when we switched. I personally lost 40, most of it fat (thanks Dexa scan!). I’d also be curious about what your brother cut out from his food supply that helped. Obviously we’re deep into anecdote land at this point though.

I’m dubious about lab grown meat. As previously mentioned in an edit, 84% of the worlds calories are just straight up plants, and it doesn’t seem to be helping much. But if it provides cheaper meat to the masses, I might be persuaded.

I am however very conservative when it comes to introducing new ingredients into the human food supply. I think we’ve done a lot of harm in the past 30 years by adding a lot of seed (sorry, “vegetable”) oils into our food supply. Just because something isn’t acutely toxic doesn’t mean you should be eating it all the time, and I will personally take the exact same approach to lab grown meat. I’ll probably be the last person to switch over, if I ever do.

Edit: it turns out the original study claiming that meat was producing half of the greenhouse gasses was flawed, and the authors had to revise it. The actual number is 3.9% of US emissions, with the rest of agriculture representing 5.1% of US emissions.

Source: https://www.eco-business.com/opinion/yes-eating-meat-affects...

Humans are primates, and most primates of the world are vegan, or nearly so, including our closest relatives. That's not something new.

Our two closest primate relatives are not vegan, they’re omnivores. Bonobos and chimpanzees hunt smaller mammals.

Most of their diet is fruit/leaves. The rest is squirrels. I don't see many people eating squirrels, but I see a lot of squirrels.

Spend more times in the sticks. I’ve heard that squirrel is delicious.

We evolved to adapt to our environment and we are not some kind of 'final form' that we are stuck with forever, we are still evolving. And people are able to extract nutrients from plants just fine. Also the two incisors do not have to determine anyone's diet. Now if you don't want to be be a vegetarian fine but don't tell me it's impossible because that's just not true.

> We evolved to adapt to our environment and we are not some kind of 'final form' that we are stuck with forever, we are still evolving.

As a species we are evolving, as an individual you are not. You can argue that humans might become herbivores in the next few 10,000 years, but don't expect to see it in your lifetime.

I also would argue that the individuals who are trying to consciously work against where we've evolved from will face some negative effects, even if their intentions are good.

> the two incisors do not have to determine anyone's diet.

We actually have 4 incisors and 4 canines, for a total of 25% of our teeth. In general teeth are a good indication of what a species eats, since the teeth and the rest of the organism evolved together. Teeth are also a fantastic indicator of the health of the individual, anthropologists use the rate of cavities to tell how healthy the individual and society was.

Coincidentally, vegetarians have a higher rate of cavities than the population at large.

> Now if you don't want to be be a vegetarian fine but don't tell me it's impossible because that's just not true.

I would kindly appreciate you not making up what I'm arguing and putting words into my mouth. I'm not saying humans are obligate carnivores, I'm saying they're omnivores. That means that we can survive off plants, I just think it's a bad idea.

Individuals can and do evolve, and then they pass that on to their children, that's how evolution works. Biological evolution is a very long and slow process, technological evolution is not. That's why our teeth are a poor indication of what we should be eating because of this revolutionary thing called cooking. Our teeth are records of our past evolution, not rules for our future or current evolution. The claim that vegetarians have higher rates of cavities is total bullshit. They actually have better dental hygiene.

Bzzzt, no.

Individuals do not evolve new genetic features after birth. You will not change your teeth structure genetically in your lifetime, unless if you take up hockey or bare knuckle boxing. Your kids might have a mutation from you that’ll change their teeth, but statistically they won’t.

There’s also an ongoing debate about to what degree humans face evolutionary pressures anymore. Without some selection to pick one mutation over the other, it’s unclear which direction we will evolve.

Teeth are a good record of how the individual evolved to eat, which is indeed in the past. But you have no idea where the evolution will take us, and that’ll take thousands of years, and again individuals do not evolve. So yes, teeth still matter.

I’m glad you have good teeth, but I’ll remind you that anecdotes are not data.

Now you're hopping from evolution to genetic features as though they are the same thing. I never mentioned that I have good teeth or that I was vegetarian, nor is it anecdotal that vegetarians have better dental hygiene. I highly doubt our teeth will change at all because people don't die from lack of a certain tooth. Teeth don't matter when you can literally have all fake teeth and get by eating just fine. In fact, we often remove teeth because we have too many. Again, individuals do evolve, which is not the same as suddenly getting new distinct physical features half way through your life, which actually can happen so you're also wrong about that.

You keep asserting, sans proof, that individuals evolve. Unfortunately for you, the experts disagree[0-2]. Evolution is something that happens to a population, not an individual.

> I highly doubt our teeth will change at all because people don't die from lack of a certain tooth.

Yes, I made this point. But that was not true when humans evolved into our current form, right around when the rest of us evolved. Until relatively recently, humans did die from dental cavities, and we haven't changed significantly in 1,000 years, so the point stands.

> nor is it anecdotal that vegetarians have better dental hygiene.

Which would be a good point if I was trying to claim that. I said they had worse health, which is diet and behavior related.

The big one for me is K2. There is only one vegan source of K2, natto, all other sources are either animal or meat based. K2 is critical for a lot of things, including tooth cells.

Vegans and vegetarians are showing higher rates of tooth decay (not cavities, I misread) than the rest of the population[3]. Doesn't really matter how much they're brushing, it's diet driven.

> Again, individuals do evolve

[Citation needed]

> which is not the same as suddenly getting new distinct physical features half way through your life

You're right that meaningful mutations might be at the protein level, but you're not going to start synthesizing brand new proteins either.

0. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/l...

1. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq...

2. https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/53371/what-is-me...

3. https://www.deltadentalwa.com/blog/entry/2018/07/vegan-diet-...

Okay, you're merely arguing semantics with me on evolution. You can call it adaptation or a catalyst for evolution, whatever word you want, but it's still evolution. When applying the theory of evolution to humans, you can't use such a simple definition because we have technology. Additionally, our minds are powerful enough to decide to do things that will cause physiological changes beyond those that one might say would have been caused by natural selection. And how do our minds evolve? Thought, experience, brain processes that we have yet to understand fully which are also directly linked/affected with the rest of our bodies. The evolution of our collective consciousness and knowledge base is the where the real evolution is occurring.

Honestly have no idea what you're saying about teeth anymore, your whole point was that our teeth prove we are meant to have omnivorous diets, which I was arguing against because our teeth are relics just like our nails, they do not matter anymore, so I still don't know how your point stands. They are merely links to our past evolution and what we used to eat 100's of thousands of years ago, long before we discovered cooking which some have linked to a spike in our evolution to our current status.

You literally said "Coincidentally, vegetarians have a higher rate of cavities than the population at large." Cavities are tooth decay btw...not sure why you think they are two different things.

Sorry, but they really don't, and the study you're pushing trying to claim that shit was done on isolated indigenous populations which has nothing to do with vegetarians in the rest of the world who are able to get K2 from plenty of non meat foods like cheese or eggs. More than likely, those isolated tribes are vegan more-so than vegetarian without access to milk-based products or soy beans. Also you get K2 from your gut as well.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1492156

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/changing-our-dna-...

There’s no point in continuing this thread, you’re literally making up your own definition for every subject we’re talking about.

Refusing to even admit you're completely wrong about vegetarians having more cavities because you know I'm right. :)

My naive impression is that the safest bet for survival would be to improve our technological mastery to a point where we can create near-closed and self sufficient ecosystems for small populations that they can be fully in control of, like deep space habitats. Such habitats should be able to support life inside indefinitely and be able to produce new habitat. And we need to make sure that we can maintain a high level of technological competence even if our population would be severely diminished. Perhaps then can civilization survive almost anything. Not sure if this is a pipe dream.

> Such habitats should be able to support life inside indefinitely and be able to produce new habitat...

We have this already, and it's free.

We're just too short sighted as a species to fully appreciate it, so we degrade or even destroy those habitats for short term gains.

Wouldn't the materials needed to build and maintain such environments ultimately have to come from nature?

Sure, but ideally that nature could be outside our biosphere so that we don't depend on it.