Livestock, Methane, and Facts; Or, Nitwittery Is Not My Friend

Indeed, nitwittery may end up sending me screaming right over the edge. Or maybe today I just like the word “nitwittery.”

In any case, breathless excitement today in the “profood” world over a new report that livestock (read: cattle) and therefore meat-eaters are to blame for all the world’s woes.

The short version is here.

But please, see this for a more balanced, nuanced view.

Guess which version is gonna set the world afire?

2 thoughts on “Livestock, Methane, and Facts; Or, Nitwittery Is Not My Friend

  1. Has anyone explicitly pointed out the silliness of the term “profood”? Putting quotes around it certainly suggests the nimcompoopery (giggle) of the word. I think I should declare myself antifood just to take the piss, as our friends across the pond would say.

  2. I sort of did awhile back when I noted that profood types refer to the “food crisis.” That phrase allows them to shape the terms of the debate: They’re asserting a “food crisis,” which means they don’t have to prove there is one, or even define the term. And of course the implication is that if you’re in favor of solving this “crisis,” you’re profood. And if you’re not, by implication you’re anti-food.The parallel is with the abortion debate: the term “pro-life” implies that people who favor choice are pro-death or anti-life. So — it’s a politically smart term. Loaded with meaning and designed to shape the terms of the debate. Leaving farmers, of course, holding the (empty feed) bag.

COMMENT

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s