Verlyn Klinkenborg, writing on the editorial page of the New York Times, points to the challenges of producing enough food to feed the world’s population in the future:
The question isn’t whether we can feed 9.1 billion people in 2050 — they must be fed — or whether we can find the energy they will surely need. The question is whether we can find a way to make food and energy production sustainable in the broadest possible sense — and whether we can act on the principle that our interest includes that of every other species on the planet.
The only way to do that is to think about the habitat of all other species as the frame of our activities. Unless habitat is part of the equation, we’re simply not talking realistically about the character, much less the future, of our planet. We have no idea what the “right†amount of biodiversity on this planet should be (although we seem at times to be running an ill-judged experiment to see how little we need). And we struggle to find reasons why other species and ecosystems are important, searching mostly for utilitarian arguments (their value as medicines, for instance) that specify their usefulness to us.
That’s reasonable enough as far as it goes. However, Mr. Klinkenborg (his PhD is in literature, irrelevant to discussions of energy or agricultural policy) can’t resist a reflexive drive by attack on Americans and our way of life:
That will mean more than simply roping off habitat. It will mean among other things, a new and far more modest idea of food prosperity, more limited and almost certainly less meat-driven than the present American model.
Plainly stated, this is poppycock. There are mountains of research including that of Robert and Linda Braidwood demonstrating that for as long as we’ve been a species we have preferentially sought out the highest fat food source in our environment which in most cases means meat. Studies of the diets of European humans and Neanderthals (Richards et al, 2000) have shown that until about 5,000 years ago they were almost entirely carnivorous. When, as they become more prosperous, Chinese people eat more meat it isn’t because they’re aping Americans; it is because they are human. It is a prudent balance that is best and most sustainable from a behavioral and health standpoint.
If we are to rise to the challenges that food production for future populations will present, we must abandon romanticism and fashionable anti-Americanism and adopt approaches informed by a knowledge of history, technology, and human behavior. American agriculture isn’t a threat; it is among the most efficient. Slash and burn agriculture as practiced by many subsistence farmers around the world is a major threat to the environment and a producer of greenhouse gases not a solution for them, see Davidson et al, 2007. Yearning longingly for its simplicity is romanticism, pure and simple. Unfortunately, some of the alternatives, e.g. plantation farming, are even worse and I’m skeptical that paying farmers not to practice slash and burn will be effective. The prudent farmer will take the payouts and sneak off to continue his traditional practices out of sight of the prying eyes of inspectors. Local inspectors can be bought off; foreign inspectors will be few and far between enough so as not to present a threat.
According to the International Fertilizer Industry Association as cited by Caroline Lucas in a report in 2006, China relies on coal for 60% of its fertilizer production. The production of ammonia from coal is 70% more energy intensive than production from natural gas. And China’s inefficient and damaging agricultural practices require continuingly increased amounts of fertilizer to produce food for its population from its polluted soil. Chinese agricultural and economic policy present significantly greater threats to the environment than does American agriculture, much more efficient by comparison. China should be importing much of its food from other countries; it is its policy of food self-sufficiency that prevents it from doing so.
Anti-Americanism, opposition to technology, and romanticizing practices undeserving of the sentiment simply because they aren’t Western are greater threats to the future than American and Americans, technology, and abandoning traditional practices in favor more efficient ones.
One can only hope that the majority of NYT’s readers have as thoughtful a reaction as yours. Sadly, I suspect many will nod in silent agreement with the author. Its fashionable today.
I’m gonna start a new movement aimed at forcing everyone to eat bratwurst and drink beer. This movement will consider not doing so an act of highest immorality.
Will we live longer? Nope.
Will we be happier? Most likely.
Rich, when I was a kid there was already such a movement. They were called “the South St. Louis Dutch”. 😉
We used to call them the “Scrubby Dutch” lol
I hadn’t thought of that in years…..
Again when I was a kid I actually saw women in South St. Louis scrubbing their doorsteps on their hands and knees. As I’m sure you know that’s the origin of the expression.
My mom tells me that they used to scrub their front walks all the way down to the street or even the sidewalks and streets themselves.
Prof. Klinkenborg’s article struck me as vapid; there was a complete lack of meaningful recommendations, just a lot of fluffy pseudo-environmentalist concern.
That said, he’s right that meat production in this country – especially beef production – is increasingly unsustainable. That doesn’t mean it should be abandoned entirely, and no one in their right mind is suggesting we should return to slash and burn agriculture. But pretending that our present system of food production cannot be significantly improved upon is also insane.
Of course it can be improved and if you prowl around here a bit you’ll find me arguing for improving the efficiency of everything including agriculture. My point is that he
1) Is proposing something that’s behaviorally unsound and
2) He’s blaming America first.
Ok, FTR I am smoking 100 lbs of pork shoulders for pulled pork this weekend, but that doesn’t mean I dont recognize that our typical American diet is not especially good for us. Look around. I also dont think criticizing our diet is anti-American. You went off the deep end there.
We really dont know if our current methods of agriculture are sustainable for the long run. We rely very heavily on fertilizers and pesticides. As you probably know, the heavy reliance on our current kinds of fertilizers started after WWII. We really only have about 100 years of farming with combustion engines used for power enabling the modern huge farms that benefit from spraying so much. Things like the bee problem should concern us. No need to all start eating tofu, though I did try tempeh for the first time this w/e and it was tolerable, but some moderate changes in our diets would be good. Google Diabetes and Obesity for a start.
Steve
How are you smoking it?
And just for the record my daily protein consumption is roughly 120 gm. per day, all forms (mostly soy and chicken). Sounds like a lot but it’s significantly lower than the average.
I’m a longtime reader here (albeit under a different handle than before) and I know you’re an efficiency maven. But I also think you’re reacting in an uncharacteristically knee-jerk fashion. Yes, it was a dumb article but
1) Whether or not it is “behaviorally unsound,” absent a major technological development we DO need to find ways to eat less meat, especially beef. Our present level of production and consumption result in very high levels of negative externalities, environmental and otherwise.
2) There is nothing especially “anti-American” about saying this. Similarly, it is not anti-American to say Americans should drink less alcohol, or exercise more, or say grace before dinner more often. None of those are behaviors that come to people naturally either.
Criticizing one aspect of one’s culture does not make one anti-American.
I also assumed that he was more criticizing the cropland needed for livestock production than meat consumption per se.
But the last paragraph, which Dave does not quote, was more annoying to me:
“It will mean a new idea of food equity, a fairer and far more balanced way of sharing and distributing food to reduce the devastating imbalance between the gluttony of some nations and the famine of others. It will mean that we all have to do what we can — wherever we live — to localize and intensify food production.”
Let me count them off: (1) anti-American (or anti-Anglospheric); (2) anti- free trade; and (3) and pro global food distribution.
Five minutes ago I was fine. Not even hungry. Now I’m deciding between In-N-Out and Fatburger.
Old smoker. I use a basic rub out of one of Raichlens books, takes about 20 hours and lots of beer (for me). I keep it well away from the heat and I do not ever wrap it. It gets nice and dark and very crisp on the outside, like extra good bacon. Stop at about 190 degrees. We then make a few different kinds of sauces for the pulled pork. I make a sweet one for the local Yankees, a vinegary one for the Carolinians (actually two of those one with mustard), and a hot one. If I run short on time I will just make the sweet and the vinegary. If I am just doing one or two shoulders I use the grill and wood chips. Lot less work, still comes out nice. The worst part, the best too in some ways, is pulling all that damn pork. Those crispy outer pieces are heavenly (insert Homer Simpson drooling sound here).
I am seriously considering getting an electric smoker, one of the Smoke-in-Tex models. Friend has one and it works great for smoking fish which I have just started working on. That or I may finally splurge on a Klose model.
Have you tried tempeh? I may have to look into it a bit.
Steve
Dave:
I’m interested in your diet point. That’s not much protien calories. I assume the balance is not carbs, so veggies and fruit?
Steve:
I recommend an electric smoker very highly. I used an old charcoal-fired one for years. The electric smoker is much, much less work and the output is as good if not better.
And I love tempeh. There’s a great broccoli-tempeh stir fry recipe posted here some time ago.
Drew:
Here’s the rest of my diet balance sheet. I consume roughly 200 gms. of carbs daily and less than 70 gms of fat. I don’t actually count the fat too closely because when you eat as little meat as I do it kind of takes care of itself. Carbs are mostly in the form of vegetables, some whole grains.
My typical breakfast struggles to reach 350 calories:
2 soy sausages (microwaved)
1/4 cup egg beaters (microwaved)
bowl of oatmeal with soy milk and a handful of fruit
My lunch and dinner are each about 500 calories and I have a couple of small snacks between breakfast and lunch and between lunch and dinner. I weigh everything. Or used to—I’ve been doing this so long I know how much everything weighs.
Technically I’m overweight. My weight has been pretty stable for the last twelve years or so.
Dave,
Just out of curiosity – are you following the CRON diet? Or do you practice calorie restriction for some other reason?
No, we’re following a different diet strategy in a less than rigorous sort of way. We’ve found that we eat about a third of what we used to eat, feel better, and maintain a fairly constant weight.
I can believe that. I followed the CRON diet for a while in my mid-twenties, but ultimately was too hungry too often to stay on it. When not hungry, though, I found that I felt a lot more energetic most of the time.