Editorial: Sustainable sustenance

Christopher H. Knight

摘要

Not surprisingly, the terms 'sustainable' and 'sustenance' have a common etymology, since both can be traced back to the Latin verb sustinere or sustineo, meaning variously to uphold, support, tolerate or, of course, to sustain. Since the late 14th century the main use of sustenance has related to nourishment, specifically the 'action of sustaining life by food". Sustainable and sustainability, on the other hand, have acquired their common meaning quite recently (20th century) but have recently become so important in relation to our global environment as to have a very specific definition provided by the World Bank: the 'requirement of our generation to manage the resource base such that the average quality of life that we ensure ourselves can potentially be shared by all future generations'. The usefulness of this definition can be questioned on the basis that the average quality of life is rather difficult to identify but is usually taken to relate primarily (or even solely) to developed countries: an online Quality of Life Index (Numbeo, 2021) includes only 3 of the 50 or so countries in sub-Saharan Africa, for instance. The interrelationships of sustainability and sustenance now begin to emerge. For very many people living in those other 47 countries, sustenance (food to survive) is the absolute priority, but is very heavily influenced by the climate change issues that sustainability is designed to address, and over which thy have little or no control. That control is exerted by the leaders of the developed world, themselves heavily influenced by you and I and our desire to enjoy warm, comfortable and varied lifestyles. A generation has now grown up with the belief that their explorable back-yard essentially extends to the far side of the world and will be just as cosy and hospitable wherever they might roam. Furthermore, that shrinking globe also ensures that everything they might desire in terms of exotic foods, designer goods and commodities is only a few mouse clicks away and will come to them at considerable pace. We are consummate consumers, and I do not exclude myself from this analysis! My dictionary defines the verb to consume as 'to destroy by wasting' and many would argue that this is exactly what we are doing through our abundant use of natural resources. How can this generation make amends for their environmental extravagances? A simple answer that many appear to find attractive has been supplied by numerous agencies, including such august bodies as the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations: eat less meat, drink less milk. A second interrelationship between sustenance and sustainability thus emerges, driven by the recognition that methane emitted by ruminant animals is a potent greenhouse gas. The extent of this problem has been a matter of great debate in recent years, including recent articles in this Journal (del Prado et al, 2021; Munidasa et al., 2021) and I do not intend to prolong that debate. I will, however, point out a few features that I believe are both important and often overlooked. Firstly, the quantification of methane emissions and their impact is not without its problems, even when that methane is coming from a point source such as an animal, but one of the reasons that ruminants have been incriminated is that whilst belched methane can be measured, methane arising from diffuse aquatic environments (paddy fields, for instance) is extremely hard to even estimate. High resolution satellite imaging is beginning to address that deficiency, which may come to be good news for livestock agriculture but does not in itself solve the greenhouse gas problem (BBC, 2021b). Secondly, whilst the industrial age and it's environmental impact have been with us for around three and a half centuries, ruminants have been around (and extremely numerous) for more than one hundred million years. The idea that enteric methane may have led to the demise of the dinosaurs is not generally supported, despite modelling suggesting a production level roughly equivalent to our total global post-industrial methane generation and seven-fold higher than emissions from cattle (Wilkinson et al, 2012). Thirdly, if one does believe that farmed cattle pose a serious environmental threat, it is worth remembering that methane will be released every day of the animal's life (albeit at low levels initially) but whilst dairy cattle produce a high-quality food product each and every day for around half of their life, the food value of a beef animal is a one-off. Environmental impact modelling that does not take account of the nutritional value of outputs has very limited value. Fourthly, and really as an extension of this argument, it is naive in the extreme to isolate the animal from its local environment and management when assessing impact. As a simple example, cold blooded insects are extremely efficient producers of high value protein (much more so than ruminants), but to harness that ability o

机译：毫不奇怪，“可持续发展”和“寄托”的术语具有常见的词源，因为两者都可以追溯到拉丁文动词维持或助理，意思是秉承，支持，容忍或当然，当然可以维持。自14世纪后期以来，寄托的主要使用与营养有关，特别是“持续的食物行动”。另一方面，可持续和可持续性最近（20世纪）获得了其常见意义，但最近已成为与世界银行提供的非常具体的定义有关我们的全球环境如此重要：“我们这一代管理资源基础的要求，使我们确保自己的平均生活质量可能会被所有未来共享世代'。这一定义的有用性可以在基础上质疑，即平均生活质量难以识别，但通常被采取主要（甚至单独）向发达国家（甚至单独）：生活指数的在线质量（Numbeo，例如，2021年）例如，撒哈拉以南非洲的50个国家中只有3个国家。可持续性和寄托的相互关系现在开始出现。对于非常m任何生活在其他47个国家的人都是寄托（食物生存）是绝对优先级，但受到可持续性旨在解决的气候变化问题的影响非常严重，而且你几乎没有控制或没有控制。该控制由发达国家的领导者施加，他们自己受到严重影响，以及我们愿望温暖，舒适和不同的生活方式。一代人现在已经长大了，这种信念是他们的探索后院子基本上延伸到世界的远端，无论他们可能漫游都会像舒适和好客一样。此外，缩小全球也确保他们在异国情调，设计师商品和商品方面所渴望的一切只是几只鼠标点击，并将以相当的速度来到它们。我们是完美的消费者，我不排除自己的分析！我的字典定义了“通过浪费摧毁”的动词，并且许多人认为这正是我们通过丰富利用自然资源来做的事情。这一代如何为他们的环境奢侈进行修正？一个简单的答案，许多似乎发现有吸引力的众多机构都提供了许多机构，包括这样的八月机构作为联合国的食物和农业组织：少吃肉，少喝牛奶。因此，由反刍动物发出的甲烷是有效的温室气体的识别推动，营养和可持续性之间的第二个相互关系出现。近年来，这个问题的程度是伟大的辩论问题，包括本期刊的最新文章（Del Prado等，2021; Munidasa等，2021），我不打算延长辩论。然而，我将指出一些我认为这两个都很重要，并且经常被忽视。首先，即使甲烷来自诸如动物的点源，也没有出现问题，甲烷排放量及其影响的量化并非没有问题，而是反刍动物被归因的原因之一是，可以测量甲烷的甲烷，弥漫性水生环境（例如稻田）引起的甲烷非常难以估计。高分辨率卫星成像开始解决这种缺陷，这可能是牲畜农业的好消息，但本身并不解决温室气体问题（BBC，2021B）。其次，虽然工业时代和环境影响一直在三个半世纪左右，但反刍动物已经存在（并且极度众多）超过一亿年。肠道甲烷可能导致恐龙的消亡的想法通常不受支持，尽管建模表明生产水平大致相当于我们全球总工业后甲烷生成，比牛的排放量高（Wilkinson等， 2012）。第三，如果有人相信养殖牛构成严重的环境威胁，值得记住，甲烷将在动物生命中的每一天释放（最初的低级），但奶牛每次都会产生高质量的食品每天左右的一半，牛肉动物的食物价值是一次性的。不考虑产出营养价值的环境影响建模具有非常有限的价值。第四，真正作为这个论点的延伸，极端在评估影响时将动物与当地环境和管理中的极端隔离。作为一个简单的例子，冷血昆虫是高价值蛋白质的高效生产者（比反刍动物更多），但是利用该能力o

Editorial: Sustainable sustenance

摘要

著录项

相似文献

相关主题

期刊订阅