I’ll note that if this works, it solves the methane problem, but not the land use problem associated with cattle.
Access options:
- gift link - registration required
- archive.today
- ghostarchive.org
I’ll note that if this works, it solves the methane problem, but not the land use problem associated with cattle.
Access options:
Not too surprising; we’ve been using selective breeding to radically alter everything we eat since the development of agriculture.
Artificial selection and gene editing aren’t exactly the same thing. Also, trying to use technology to get out of technology-caused problems (the issues from raising and slaughtering tens of billions of bovine a year) is a modern techbrobillionaire-promoted pipedream, like us being able to colonize mars when we fail to address human-caused climate change on this planet
Technical solutions aren’t crazy; we’ve pulled them off before for other problems. (Eg: sewage)
It’s a question of whether the specific tradeoffs associated with a particular technical approach to a particular problem are worthwhile.
I never said technical solutions were crazy. I just mean to draw attention to the fact that we’re reading a story published in a publication owned by the world’s richest man that says we don’t need to curb consumption currently causing a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions that we know beyond all reasonable doubt are killing our planet and compromising the longevity of our species - because a sometime-in-the-future technology will rescue things, enabling us to keep consuming at levels that are unsustainable in many other areas beyond methane emissions.
We are in the midst of a great propaganda effort to undermine concern about planetary health in the masses so that the investor class’ profits don’t slow down as the planet turns to shit. This article is a part of that