This interview talks about pronatalism. If you're not ready to think politically about natalism without knee-jerking to a tweet-long critique, this is for you.

This discussion with science journalist Angela Saini does something that I really like: cut through centuries or thousands of years of bullshit diagonally to get to some key sets of connected truths. Her book is "The Patriarchs: How Men Came to Rule". I haven't read it yet, but it's going to the top of my list.

lots of animal products

This is related to the:

Overkill Hypothesis

And the article here is related to this paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221330542300036X

Highlights

• Modern humans (Homo sapiens) drive late-Quaternary megafauna extinctions, with no role for climate change.
• The strong body-size bias of the late-Quaternary extinctions is also linked to modern humans, not climatic change.
• The late-Quaternary extinctions represent the first planet-wide, human-driven transformation of the environment.

easy read

Podcast about wolves returning in Europe and the livestock industry (includes extensive pastoralism) getting anxious and feeding right-wing populist clownery.

Reminder to the clowns: there's no "livelihood" on a dead planet. Biodiversity, the health the biosphere, comes before business. Unfortunately, the podcast hosts don't understand that, so enjoy this dose of "conservation centrism".

The post-lecture discussion is more interesting.

🦞

thread

>This strategy seems to be working—at least when it comes to convincing policymakers and philanthropists. Technical solutions to livestock’s climate impact have emerged as the new orthodoxy in climate and agriculture circles, repeated by USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, Biden’s climate envoy John Kerry, the government of Ireland, the new FAO report, and nine-figure philanthropic endeavors funded by groups like the Bezos Earth Fund. It doesn’t hurt that, as the British environmental journalist George Monbiot so aptly puts it, the “livestock industry’s political connections are umbilical.”

technofix

technohopium

greenwashing....

I would say astroturfing, but

astropasturing

sounds more fitting.

!

>Although the origins of inequality are hotly debated, an approach developed by physicists and mathematicians, including my group at Tufts University, suggests they have long been hiding in plain sight—in a well-known quirk of arithmetic. This method uses models of wealth distribution collectively known as agent-based, which begin with an individual transaction between two “agents” or actors, each trying to optimize his or her own financial outcome. In the modern world, nothing could seem more fair or natural than two people deciding to exchange goods, agreeing on a price and shaking hands. Indeed, the seeming stability of an economic system arising from this balance of supply and demand among individual actors is regarded as a pinnacle of Enlightenment thinking—to the extent that many people have come to conflate the free market with the notion of freedom itself. Our deceptively simple mathematical models, which are based on voluntary transactions, suggest, however, that it is time for a serious reexamination of this idea.

>In particular, the affine wealth model (called thus because of its mathematical properties) can describe wealth distribution among households in diverse developed countries with exquisite precision while revealing a subtle asymmetry that tends to concentrate wealth. We believe that this purely analytical approach, which resembles an x-ray in that it is used not so much to represent the messiness of the real world as to strip it away and reveal the underlying skeleton, provides deep insight into the forces acting to increase poverty and inequality today.

>Oligarchy

>In 1986 social scientist John Angle first described the movement and distribution of wealth as arising from pairwise transactions among a collection of “economic agents,” which could be individuals, households, companies, funds or other entities. By the turn of the century physicists Slava Ispolatov, Pavel L. Krapivsky and Sidney Redner, then all working together at Boston University, as well as Adrian Drăgulescu, now at Constellation Energy Group, and Victor Yakovenko of the University of Maryland, had demonstrated that these agent-based models could be analyzed with the tools of statistical physics, leading to rapid advances in our understanding of their behavior. As it turns out, many such models find wealth moving inexorably from one agent to another—even if they are based on fair exchanges between equal actors. In 2002 Anirban Chakraborti, then at the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics in Kolkata, India, introduced what came to be known as the yard sale model, called thus because it has certain features of real one-on-one economic transactions. He also used numerical simulations to demonstrate that it inexorably concentrated wealth, resulting in oligarchy.

...

!

We find it noteworthy that the best-fitting model for empirical wealth distribution discovered so far is one that would be completely unstable without redistribution rather than one based on a supposed equilibrium of market forces. In fact, these mathematical models demonstrate that far from wealth trickling down to the poor, the natural inclination of wealth is to flow upward, so that the “natural” wealth distribution in a free-market economy is one of complete oligarchy. It is only redistribution that sets limits on inequality.

The mathematical models also call attention to the enormous extent to which wealth distribution is caused by symmetry breaking, chance and early advantage (from, for example, inheritance). And the presence of symmetry breaking puts paid to arguments for the justness of wealth inequality that appeal to “voluntariness”—the notion that individuals bear all responsibility for their economic outcomes simply because they enter into transactions voluntarily—or to the idea that wealth accumulation must be the result of cleverness and industriousness. It is true that an individual's location on the wealth spectrum correlates to some extent with such attributes, but the overall shape of that spectrum can be explained to better than 0.33 percent by a statistical model that completely ignores them. Luck plays a much more important role than it is usually accorded, so that the virtue commonly attributed to wealth in modern society—and, likewise, the stigma attributed to poverty—is completely unjustified.

Moreover, only a carefully designed mechanism for redistribution can compensate for the natural tendency of wealth to flow from the poor to the rich in a market economy. Redistribution is often confused with taxes, but the two concepts ought to be kept quite separate. Taxes flow from people to their governments to finance those governments' activities. Redistribution, in contrast, may be implemented by governments, but it is best thought of as a flow of wealth from people to people to compensate for the unfairness inherent in market economics. In a flat redistribution scheme, all those possessing wealth below the mean would receive net funds, whereas those above the mean would pay. And precisely because current levels of inequality are so extreme, far more people would receive than would pay.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/8973846

> Caption > > (Meme type image) > > >Upper image: Penny the Clown, standing or walking forward, in daylight, but in the shadow of a building behind some grass. Text: "The meat lobby - on its way to" > > >Lower image: picture of large real clown gathering event, a group photo of about 150 clowns. Text: "Conference Of Parties 2023" > >

!

> After a median of 11.2 years of follow-up, 4461 participants (39% women) developed multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases. Higher UPF consumption (per 1 standard deviation increment, ∼260 g/day without alcoholic drinks) was associated with an increased risk of multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.12). Among UPF subgroups, associations were most notable for animal-based products (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.12), and artificially and sugar-sweetened beverages (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.12). Other subgroups such as ultra-processed breads and cereals (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.94, 1.00) or plant-based alternatives (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.91, 1.02) were not associated with risk.

The irony is in the details. Even with ultra-processed foods (UPF), animal parts are still winning at being terrible for health, worse than sugary-sweetened drinks.

!

>The appearance of Homo erectus shortly after 2.0 Ma is widely considered a turning point in human dietary evolution, with increased consumption of animal tissues driving the evolution of larger brain and body size and a reorganization of the gut. An increase in the size and number of zooarchaeological assemblages after the appearance of H. erectus is often offered as a central piece of archaeological evidence for increased carnivory in this species, but this characterization has yet to be subject to detailed scrutiny. Any widespread dietary shift leading to the acquisition of key traits in H. erectus should be persistent in the zooarchaeological record through time and can only be convincingly demonstrated by a broad-scale analysis that transcends individual sites or localities. Here, we present a quantitative synthesis of the zooarchaeological record of eastern Africa from 2.6 to 1.2 Ma. We show that several proxies for the prevalence of hominin carnivory are all strongly related to how well the fossil record has been sampled, which constrains the zooarchaeological visibility of hominin carnivory. When correcting for sampling effort, there is no sustained increase in the amount of evidence for hominin carnivory between 2.6 and 1.2 Ma. Our observations undercut evolutionary narratives linking anatomical and behavioral traits to increased meat consumption in H. erectus, suggesting that other factors are likely responsible for the appearance of its human-like traits.

No, but read the article at least.

"Cultural carnism", promoted, of course, by fascist types.