Sustainable Development concerns itself with the future while living and working in the present. Perhaps, the best known definition is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." This definition from "Our Common Future" recognises that what we do today influences tomorrow. Of course, we all want to see progress but we need to examine the way societies are developing to ensure the future isn't being threatened. We humans are a part of the environment not separate from it; we are entirely dependent on the ecosystem services provided by our planet.
Our Common Future was published in 1987, some 27 years ago, a lifetime ago for some, though the ideas presented are as relevant now as they were then. Since publication, the human population has grown somewhat and is still growing. Critics will say that we have managed in the past, so we will cope in the future. Maybe, maybe not. Yes, we have found mechanisms to deal with problems and issues but the planet Earth is a finite resource for all practical purposes.
Food is, of course, essential to the developing population and maintaining food security is important for all nations. Though I don't know the exact proportion, I suspect most food is provided by agricultural systems of one kind or another around the world. Some food is provided by something akin to hunting, albeit hunting on an industrial scale - fishing is the best example that springs to mind, though even some fish are now farmed. We all need a balanced diet to survive, of course, and a significant part of that diet for many people will be meat. For some, there is an expectation for all to be able to have meat every week and in all probability everyday. OK, why might this be an issue?
Agriculture requires land, people require land, an increasing population requires more land, the increasing population needs to eat - land is the key here. Animals do not, of course, convert all the food they eat into animal flesh that can be eaten. The amount converted can be as low as 10%, though this will, of course, vary. Maybe it would be better to eat the plants than the animals? Actually, I don't think it's quite that simple in that we would not be able to survive on the diet a cow can live on - we don't have the mechanisms animals with cellulose-rich diets have to deal with this particular carbohydrate. Of course, the land could be used to grow crops other than the grass we may use to feed our farmed ruminants and that may be the way to go. I suspect the Earth can support more vegetarians than carnivores (thinking of human dietary preferences here), so reducing meat consumption is likely to be one way of improving the sustainability of a rising population. I doubt we would be able to turn all into vegetarians, at least not in the short term. We can all aim to reduce our meat consumption, which would help us to move in the right direction and reduce the short-term pressure on land use. Another option might be to eat more insects, which, I understand, are more efficient converters of plants to animal protein!
I know this is a complex issue and I will be returning to this and related issues in the future.
While thinking about this issue this caught my eye form Guardian Shorts: Planet Carnivore: Why cheap meat costs the earth (and how to pay the bill) by Alex Renton. I haven't read it and am not specifically recommending it but go for it if you think it will be interesting to you and you can afford the £1.99 or $2.99. This makes it cheaper in dollars! Maybe this is due to tax differences, though I don't think we pay tax on books in the UK!?
Our Common Future was published in 1987, some 27 years ago, a lifetime ago for some, though the ideas presented are as relevant now as they were then. Since publication, the human population has grown somewhat and is still growing. Critics will say that we have managed in the past, so we will cope in the future. Maybe, maybe not. Yes, we have found mechanisms to deal with problems and issues but the planet Earth is a finite resource for all practical purposes.
Food is, of course, essential to the developing population and maintaining food security is important for all nations. Though I don't know the exact proportion, I suspect most food is provided by agricultural systems of one kind or another around the world. Some food is provided by something akin to hunting, albeit hunting on an industrial scale - fishing is the best example that springs to mind, though even some fish are now farmed. We all need a balanced diet to survive, of course, and a significant part of that diet for many people will be meat. For some, there is an expectation for all to be able to have meat every week and in all probability everyday. OK, why might this be an issue?
Agriculture requires land, people require land, an increasing population requires more land, the increasing population needs to eat - land is the key here. Animals do not, of course, convert all the food they eat into animal flesh that can be eaten. The amount converted can be as low as 10%, though this will, of course, vary. Maybe it would be better to eat the plants than the animals? Actually, I don't think it's quite that simple in that we would not be able to survive on the diet a cow can live on - we don't have the mechanisms animals with cellulose-rich diets have to deal with this particular carbohydrate. Of course, the land could be used to grow crops other than the grass we may use to feed our farmed ruminants and that may be the way to go. I suspect the Earth can support more vegetarians than carnivores (thinking of human dietary preferences here), so reducing meat consumption is likely to be one way of improving the sustainability of a rising population. I doubt we would be able to turn all into vegetarians, at least not in the short term. We can all aim to reduce our meat consumption, which would help us to move in the right direction and reduce the short-term pressure on land use. Another option might be to eat more insects, which, I understand, are more efficient converters of plants to animal protein!
I know this is a complex issue and I will be returning to this and related issues in the future.
While thinking about this issue this caught my eye form Guardian Shorts: Planet Carnivore: Why cheap meat costs the earth (and how to pay the bill) by Alex Renton. I haven't read it and am not specifically recommending it but go for it if you think it will be interesting to you and you can afford the £1.99 or $2.99. This makes it cheaper in dollars! Maybe this is due to tax differences, though I don't think we pay tax on books in the UK!?
No comments:
Post a Comment