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:
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