These estimates vary a lot from one source to another, but even then 130 kgCO2/kg is an unusually high estimate for beef. Common range, I think, is from 20 to 60. For example this estimate is 26  and this is 21 for beef from dairy herd and 60 from beef herd .
What really does contribute to climate change though is emissions that come from fossils, like fuel for machines, electricity for processing and storage, and gas for artificial fertilizer. The variation in reported numbers is caused by agenda, ie whether one wants to accurately assess impact of beef production, or whether they want to paint beef as worst thing ever.
There is a total amount of emissions in a year and it leads to a certain amount of atmospheric forcing.
Let's say the algae food amendment works out and cattle methane can be eliminated with it. Some cattle are completely pastured, let's say you can get a 70% reduction in total methane emission from cows, just mandate that lot-fed cattle must receive this feed amendment and maybe subsidize it.
That's huge. That reduces a big source of emissions. It's less atmospheric forcing in total for the year. That's the only thing that matters.
It's an open-and-shut scenario for "shut up and calculate".
> If cattle numbers are stable for some amount of time
Cattle numbers are mostly static. The amount of methane produced is not trivial, although as you point out not the same class of problem as CO² since CO² is cumulative. Was your 40 year figure the half-life?
For comparison, CFCs break down over many decades (I couldn't find reliable figures) but the ozone hole is still a serious problem (it seriously affects us in New Zealand where I live).
Half-life of methane in the atmosphere is 9.1 years (Wikipedia).
But methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, so it's not neutral at all.
You're also assuming that cattle are fed naturally occurring grass rather than industrial livestock feed, which I don't have numbers for but I assume is not carbon-neutral.
It is worse, but it doesn’t matter: as long as cattle population stays at constant levels, so will the amount of methane in the atmosphere that resulted from cattle emissions. You only get climate change from growing amount of greenhouse gases.
> You're also assuming that cattle are fed naturally occurring grass rather than industrial livestock feed, which I don't have numbers for but I assume is not carbon-neutral
In fact, I’m not; I explicitly mention artificial fertilizer, for example, which is typically not used to produce hay. The point is that to assess the effect of cattle on warming, you should focus on fossil inputs into it, not on methane. I think is quite likely that methane production from gastric fermentation in North America these days is lower than, say, in 1500s, where 60 millions bisons alone roamed the plains, along with another tens of millions of deer and other ruminants.
They turn that carbon from carbon dioxide into methane, which has a 27x multiplier in warming over its lifetime in the atmosphere.
It's not carbon neutral, it's equivalent to 26 extra tonnes for each tonne of CO2 which goes into the feed.
If it makes it easier to think about it, here is one way: imagine a world with no humans, no fossil fuels, but stable population of 10 billion cows. These 10 billion cows produce tremendous amounts of methane. Do you expect this methane to warm the climate over next 1000 years? If you do, you’re wrong: if the population has been and will stay stable, the methane that cows emit is just enough to replace the methane decomposing to CO2 and H2O that was previously emitted by the cows. As long as population numbers are constant, the amount of methane in the atmosphere is also constant, and you’ll see no climate warming.
Wouldn't that require the grass to grow more to compensate for the increase in CO2?
Still, we'd be much better off, had we stopped eating beef (and other ruminants) and instead switched to pork, poultry and fish.
They have cod goujons, and they are indeed respectably artful in their irregular shape.
interesting, these are Japanese Surimi, no?
I can take only as many as needed out of the box and put the rest back into the freezer for next time. They only take a few minutes to fry and go well with a variety of side dishes which gives flexibility. I do not even mind putting them on burgers instead of patties when I am not willing to make some (I usually cook freshly and do not like pre-made patties at all) (-> flexibility again).
> Birdseye developed a novel freezing technique...but when used on fish, the method created large blocks of intermingled fillets that, when pried apart, tore into “mangled, unappetizing chunks” .... The fishing industry tried selling the blocks whole, as fishbricks. These were packaged like blocks of ice cream, with the idea that a housewife could chop off however much fish she wanted that day.
What a world.
-- Fish sticks
-- Chicken nuggets or fingers
-- Shrimp poppers
And beef / pork don't seem to ever fall into those. (pork sticks?? Beef nuggets??)
Maybe because beef, pork seem worthy of preserving identity as a piece of a distinguishable reputable whole parent, while fish, chicken, are sometimes almost.... um, extruded and need a noun of their own after such process?
By themselves fish sticks are meh, but when dipped in tarter sauce, the taste is sublime.
The shape and consistency of fish sticks make it easier to dip in tartar sauce.
Now that sounds unappealing.
But fishsticks were always great as a kid.
I don't know why it isn't mentioned that they were good for dipping. You could dip them in tartar sauce, inferior to british fish and chips, but kids didn't mind, they were even amenable to ketchup or mayonnaise.
That's fascinating. I wish they'd explain why.
A few years ago I read and enjoyed the book "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan. The author follows three different meals from farm to table as completely as possible given the nature of modern food production. It's a great read for someone who wants to know more about where food comes from and how it gets here, and it's definitely made me think about what I'm eating.
However, I don't have any memory around fish sticks associated from my childhood in Japan. Fried (frozen) fish fillets are popular, but they are more chunky. "Fish sausages" used to be popular and felt kind of similar, but it was even more artificial. I wonder where it went. It doesn't make sense not have it there.
Yes, the road to sustainability is hard and long, but a path does exist that achieves sustainability without population reduction. Discouraging people from seeking that path does nobody any good.
Neither of those permits the kind of pervasive magical thinking people have where we can somehow raise even a fraction of our 7 billion people to anything approximating a typical Western lifestyle without further accelerating environmental collapse. Or even maintaining the number of people with such a lifestyle that we currently do.
Our planet fundamentally lacks the resources for sustained consumption anywhere near the scale we're operating at, no matter how green we try to make things. Even just on a purely thermodynamic level we're running out of energy budget without overheating the planet. And that's completely ignoring greenhouse gases.
We are hundreds of years from that thermodynamic limit at our current exponential growth rate, but that growth may be slowing as population growth slows. It is also quite likely that extraplanetary energy sources could be available by then.
I'm sort of unclear where you are goin with your argument? Are you arguing we need to kill of people or economically retard developing countries energy use? Neither of those seem reasonable stances so I am left wondering what you see as the path forward and what value you see in advancing your argument.
Lack of resources are a common cause of war. Lack of resources was a problem for humanity for its entire existence and only in the last 100 years has it ceased to be a problem. I'd love it if people voluntarily decided to keep this abundance state going instead of doing the usual party everything away until it's gone behavior.
…assuming Earth is a perfect blackbody, which it is not.
> It is also quite likely that extraplanetary energy sources could be available by then.
This is irrelevant. As long as that power is delivered to Earth, it doesn’t matter how or where we generate or collect it.
I mean, just take a step back a second. In the best case scenario, where we completely strip the atmosphere of carbon dioxide, methane, and any other greenhouse gases, we have maybe five generations before we have to completely halt our energy growth or we’ll literally bake the Earth and everyone and everything on it.
We can’t even get people to believe in a global pandemic, much less take it seriously enough to wear masks and vaccinate. What do you think are the odds we’ll convince everyone to rein in energy production globally to avoid catastrophe here? Especially when that means either a) telling the world’s impoverished that we simply can’t let them continue improving their lifestyle, or b) telling the world’s rich that they’re going to have to cut back dramatically. Do either of those sound like platforms we’ll readily elect politicians on around the globe?
And this is just one axis: energy. Humanity faces dozens of these problems simultaneously, all as a simple outcome of the mind-blowing scale we operate at. The oceans are being fished empty. Aquifers for farmland are quickly being depleted of water across the globe. I mean, we’re even running out of sand!
It’s true and I hope it’s uncontroversial that we can’t continue exponentially growing into a finite space. My fear, which appears to be founded by all the evidence I can find, is that we’ve already passed the point where we can even continue things as-is no matter how much we move to solar and wind, aquaponic farms, and electric cars. All of those things require resources too, and even if it’s less it’s likely still too much.
> I'm sort of unclear where you are goin with your argument? Are you arguing we need to kill of people or economically retard developing countries energy use?
My point is that our current situation of resource usage cannot last much longer. This is unavoidable fact. We can opt to find ways to dramatically cut back—far past current feel-good greening measures—or it will happen automatically for us.
As I said this is an uncomfortable reality. Your need to assume that I’m proposing nefarious, evil, and fascist solutions when I’m merely pointing out the unavoidable truth of our predicament should only highlight that more.
I have proposed no solutions because I personally don’t believe any achievable ones exist at this point. We as a species will continue to consume all available resources until the moment we can’t and then… incredibly bad things will follow. I don’t know how to stop it any more than you do. But it doesn’t bring me comfort to believe that vague promises
of human ingenuity will somehow overcome these very real problems.
This is blantantly false.
How does an energy budget that is multiple orders of magnitude larger than our current usage imply we must reduce energy usage below current levels?
What is the "automatic" mechanism that will curtail our energy usage below current levels?
You arguments don't make any sense and seem completely pointless. If you really don't believe there are any solutions, you should shut up and let the optimists work the problem on the off chance you are wrong.
The argument is that its magical thinking that the earth, which has finite resources, can support an infinite number of people, if we only, "manage the resources right". Its a question of reality, not morality, but unfortunately some have a hard time separating the two concepts.
> Are you arguing we need to kill of people or economically retard developing countries energy use? Neither of those seem reasonable stances so I am left wondering what you see as the path forward and what value you see in advancing your argument.
Nobody has to be killed off, but what we should be doing is setting as a goal sustainable population levels in the future through reproduction. This isn't to suggest people should be prevented from having children, but that our policy goals should incentive having fewer children. Right now are policies are the opposite - we offer subsidies to people to have children. What if we offered subsidies to people who didn't have any children?
Of course people will inevitably raise the straw man economic argument, "we need more young people to pay for our older people". The fact is that we have a glut of unskilled labor that is only growing due to automation and increased overpopulation. The unsustainability of our debt-based economy is, unfortunately, not a function of population and will have to be reckoned with on its own.
Population-based sustainability arguments are a deflection from the actual hard work, which is reducing CO2 emissions and preserving ecosystems. Because they have nothing to say and no knowledge to contribute about actual sustainability, and reliably go nowhere.
I have not met a single person that thinks the earth can support an infinite number of people. If that is the position you are arguing against, I believe it is a strawman and a waste of your time.
> Nobody has to be killed off, but what we should be doing is setting as a goal sustainable population levels in the future through reproduction.
Global population growth has been slowing for half a century. If you are concerned about reducing it further, western "baby subsidies" aren't a good place to start. The main place you would have to look is Africa since that is expected be the source for the majority of population growth over the next 50 years. If this line of thought is still making sense to you, you are veering dangerously close to ecofacism and genocide. IMHO, the only remotely ethical way to reduce population growth is to mirror the factors that lead to declining birth rates in the west (i.e. prosperity and social stability.)
This means that the only ethical way to reach sustainability is to find ways to be prosperous and sustainable. To do that we must find ways to aproximate the western standards of living in sustainable ways.
And this is where we come full circle to magical thinking.
The Earth is struggling to support the current number of people living at western standards. “Approximating” it for a few billion more people will require even more resources than we use today no matter how green you theorize we make things.
This is never going to be possible, no matter how much nicer it would be if we could make it happen. We’re simply too far past the point where it’s a plausible solution. Which, I want to be clear, is super awful. It would be great if that were still an option but it isn’t even close.
> Global population growth has been slowing for half a century.
Growth has been slowing which means… we’re still growing. At a time when we’ve blown past the CO2 threshold to reach +2degC with barely a speed bump. That’s going to happen even if we stopped emitting today and started sucking CO2 out of the air. Which means the actual reality we face is going to be much worse.
If the only real argument you have against this is ad hominem, you’re on shaky ground.
Unless we cut back our resource consumption—not just the growth rate but the real absolute amount—these things you find so unpalatable will happen. Wars will be fought over resources, hundreds of millions will be displaced and/or starve due to lack of fresh water and arable land, and a host of other increasingly displeasant situations I don’t care to list.
Do I have any practical answers to how we avoid those things? Of course not. Nobody does! But calling people epithets for simply pointing out the abysmal future humans have wrought upon ourselves is childish.
Maybe you disagree that we’re past a point of no return. That’s completely fine. I think the overwhelming quantity of evidence is in my camp but we can disagree here. But if you take a minute to consider that there’s some point where these things are true, what would your perspective be if we were there?
We are having significant effects on the climate and ecology, but I don't think it is accurate to say the earth is struggling to support us.
> Growth has been slowing which means… we’re still growing. At a time when we’ve blown past the CO2 threshold to reach +2degC with barely a speed bump.
I've repeatedly acknowledged the issues we face with global warming. Halting population growth will not solve that problem alone. However you keep bringing up the thermodynamic limit amd the declining population growth and a huge impact on when we reach that limit that you seem to refuse to acknowledge.
> If the only real argument you have against this is ad hominem, you’re on shaky ground.
I made no ad hominem attack nor did I call you any names, nor did I ascribe any beliefs to you. I meant to be using "you" in the general form to explain where I see a particular line of reasoning headed. I probably should have used a different general form for clarity and I appologize for any confusion.
You've explained elsewhere that you aren't going anywhere with your argument and don't believe solutions exist.
> Maybe you disagree that we’re past a point of no return
I don't believe there is a single point of no return, but I do believe there are a large number of inflection points that if you pass make the problems haeder to solve. We have passed some of them and there are more on the way. The longer we wait to really take these problems seriously, the hardee they are to solve
I am still unclear what the "magical thinking" is...
Nowhere did I say the subsidies should be western. Naturally the subsidies need to be global to affect the largest areas of population growth. This would have the added benefit of helping pull those in the poorest countries on earth out of dire poverty.
We simply cannot grow at a 2-3% rate of energy consumption, period, without shortly running into thermodynamic limits of how quickly Earth can radiate excess heat into space. As I said before, this is while completely ignoring greenhouse gases and assuming Earth is a perfect thermodynamic blackbody. And the real Earth is not a perfect blackbody, so reality is inevitably worse than the theoretical limits.
This is entirely independent of the method of energy generation. It’s true of nuclear, solar, and even magical faerie dust. And there’s no getting around it, at least not unless our most basic understanding of thermodynamics is completely off base. Some future where we have “unlimited” energy is a complete fantasy.
Raising half of the current global population to a Western standard of living would blow past this hard limit, even if we assume a doubling of energy efficiency.
Nothing in this graph should give you the warm and fuzzies that we’ll all somehow band together to avoid this fate.
And keep in mind, we are fewer than five generations away on our current path to a physically-unavoidable global catastrophe. This isn’t the sort of thing we can solve with technology. There’s a hard physical limit on global energy production that cannot be exceeded. We don’t know exactly what that number is given greenhouse gases, but it’s definitely less than a few generations of growth away. How close, exactly, do you think we should creep up to this number?
Nobody said it did. What it does do is reduce the exponential growth rate in energy demand.
However, energy use per capita is not currently growing exponentially in developed countries and is declining in some places.
The combination of those two factors makes the prediction of continued exponential growth in energy consumption at the same rate pretty unlikely.
You should just stop mentioning the thermodynamic limit as it is irrelevant to any of our practical considerations for the predictable future.
> Raising half of the current global population to a Western standard of living would blow past this hard limit, even if we assume a doubling of energy efficiency
What hard limit are you talking about? There are several thresholds we should avoid crossing, but there are no hard limits (besides the thermodynamic limit, which we wouldn't come anywhere close to reaching even if we gave everyone on the planet a western standard of living and also doubled the population.)
> Nothing in this graph should give you the warm and fuzzies that we’ll all somehow band together to avoid this fate.
The direness of the global warming situation has been repeatedly acknowledged by me. You seem to think that holding out any hope that we have a path to recovery, matter how hard and long, is "magical thinking" but somehow fail to see that taking this stance is actively making our chances of finding and following that path worse.
We have two hundred and fifty years, assuming we completely rid the atmosphere of carbon dioxide, methane, and all other greenhouse gases. Hopefully you can see that this means it will be less than that amount of time.
I don’t know about you but “some amount less than 250 years” to get the entire globe to agree to permanently cap energy production is almost comically implausible. No politician will ever get elected on a platform centered around this, much less an entire planet of such governments. And as with all tragedies of the commons, every individual will have a multitude of reasons to personally use more while hoping that everyone else makes the necessary noble sacrifice.
Has anything about this last year of a global pandemic given you reason to believe that humans as a whole will accept an indefinite future of permanent restriction for the sake of everyone? We can barely get half the American population to obey stay at home orders for a few weeks at a time, and that’s to say nothing of countries like Brazil whose leaders refuse to even acknowledge a problem. Hell, we’re fifty years into scientists sounding the alarm about greenhouse gases, and we’ve only managed to accelerate our production of them in the time since.
I’m honestly just glad I won’t live to see this play out.
Global energy usage is already diverging from that exponential curve so your alarmism does not seem very rooted in reality (as long as global population continues to stabilize.)
> Hell, we’re fifty years into scientists sounding the alarm about greenhouse gases, and we’ve only managed to accelerate our production of them in the time since.
Global warming is a signifanct concern, the thermodynamic contraints on solar energy generation is not.
I wholey believe that we can replicate the aspects of our standard of living that have the biggest impacts on our quality of life. We can have nice clothes, we just need clothes that last a decade rather than a month or a year. We can travel, we just have to travel a bit slower using electric power. Education is a huge factor in our quality of life and can be done very sustainably. We can still have plenty of food, we just might not have year round cheap access to stuff that doesn't grow locally.
So there is definitely a path to a very good aproximation of our standard of living that is sustainable for the entire planet. We just aren't currwntly on that path, or even really headed in that direction
I think, we should move to sustainable solutions, but I don't believe in over population
Overpopulation is definitely a real thing in ecological systems, so I assume you mean either:
1) We are not currently in an overpopulated state.
2) We are extremely unlikely to reach an overpopulated state in the nearish future.
One important thing to note is that overpopulation is not a fixed threshold, but one that is dependant on a number of ecological, environmental and technological factors that makes it extremely hard to completely accept 2).
Which doesn't mean that I think we can't live above our means with the population we already have. I just think it's a question of optimizing production and not restricting population growth.
For the consumer, sustainability in the West really is about food, and specifically, it really is about meat. There's no amount of equivocation that will change that. And affecting it - by simply not buying meat - really is as easy and as effective as it appears.
Likewise, with meat, the root cause of unsustainability is the animal abuse that enables cheap meat. I'm definitely not blaming the consumer here. Of course you could make sustainable meat, it would just cost 10-400x more (Eating Animals is a great, broad take on this you could read).
This statement is silly. There is A scale at which fishing is sustainable. The issue is that we are likely well over that.
There very clearly exists a scale at which fishing is sustainable and a scale at which it is not. You can argue what the tipping point is, but you can't argue with that fundemental premise.
The definition of "At scale" just means operating at whatever is a sufficient scale to solve the problem at hand. If you only need one dinky laptop to solve the problem, you can operate at scale with a dinky laptop.
So "fishing at scale" is fishing at a scale that statisfies the demand for fish. Since demand for fish will drop as sustainabile fishing regulations increase costs, there is absolutely a way to fish at scale sustainably.
1) There is no way to catch the amount of fish we catch in a sustainable manner. (No sustainability at our current scale.)
2) There is no way to catch any amount of fish sustainably. (No sustainability at any scale.)
I think people are intrepreting you as saying #2 when you are really saying #1.
The answer would appear to be that if that we need to reduce the scale at which fiahing operates. This means sustainability requirents that increase the costs to fishermen so that overall demand cam be curbed to a sustainable level.
If that is their argument, the push to stop eating fish would be justified only in the current environment where there is no ecologically sustainable source.
Maybe I being too generous, but "fishing can never be sustainable" appears to be blatantly false so I feel we have to look for the "strongest plausible interpretation".
I don't know about the over-fishing, but I do remember reading a lot about whaling in Japan and some incidents about fishermen hunting whales in sanctuaries. Guess that could also be folded into "condemned as fish abuser".
You've heard of the killing of dolphins by Japanese fishermen, but not of the similar practice of killing of pilot whales in the Faroe islands where people are distinctly not of Asian descent:
Edit: We don't have to guess. Using 1986 numbers since this is when I remember the world being peak-Save-The-Whales (Star Trek IV's release year). Admittedly if you use current numbers they're closer, but that's because Japan's fishing output has decreased dramatically. That decrease is due to exhaustion of its fishing grounds; their fishing practices i.e. square milage of nets it's putting in the water each day remain mostly unchanged.
Faroe - 355,000 metric tons fished in 1986
Japan - 12,750,000 metric tons fished in 1986
Source: https://tradingeconomics.com/faroe-islands/total-fisheries-p... and corresponding Japan page.
The numbers you quote are for fish, without distinction (and they may well exclude cetaceans, actually). The Taiji hunt has a quote of about 2000 animals. The Faroese hunt doesn't have a quote as far as I can tell but it catches 500 to 1000 animals on average according to wikipedia. Look it up yourself if you're interested.
Do kids in the US use plastic cutlery and paper plates or something (and drink from red solo cups)?
In Hungary kids eat something like these for lunch:
Far from fancy, but at least real plates and cutlery. I guess American schools are afraid kids will hurt themselves with a real fork or break a plate on each other's head and the school gets sued out of existence by the parents or something?
Which seems to elude many posters in this submission.
A dirty lie, at least when it comes to "no waste", when you consider that the
skin, head and tail of the fish, or about 1/3 of its edible tissue, is thrown
away as garbage, and lucky if it's made into pet food.
This is the convenience and advantage of rearing entire generations on food that
doesn't look like food: that they never wonder what happened to the rest of the animal.
No respect for an other living thing.
Heads are harder to deal with unless you want to make your own stock.
I grew up on the coast, catching, cleaning, and cooking my own fish all the time. I know not everyone has those experiences.
Here, this link will set you straight, and it has a real discussion of the actual downsides and consequences of this practice.
Rather than what you said, which is complete nonsense. I'd accuse you of lying, since you used that word, but I'll be charitable and assume you were exhibiting ignorance.
> Fishmeal is made from the bones and offal left over from fish caught by commercial fisheries. The vast majority of the fish from which fishmeal is manufactured are not used for human consumption; rather, fishmeal is generally manufactured from by-catch.
What exactly are you trying to say? What is it that you don't like with my original comment? What do you disagree with? How does your fish meal link disagree with it? Can you articulate all that clearly, or do you just want to pick a fight?
Food waste starts with cultural norms that make some foods taboo, essentially. Like for example "offal" as the perfectly edible entrails of ruminants are derogatorily known.
This particular product may be totally lying about how fresh they froze their fish, but it's still not an oxymoron.
1> So you like to put fish sticks in your mouth?
1> So you are a gay fish.
2> I'm not a gay fish, I'm the voice of a generation.
That's an u̶n̶f̶a̶i̶r̶ comparison. (apparently they did consider some of my complaints)
Does it take into account the additional co2 that fishing boats emit? Esp. given that they usually use far more harmful fuels than the gas used on roads.
Comparing a dish to the raw. material is unfair. Fish sticks should be compared to the environmental. impact of beef stir fry or sukiyaki or at the very least, an order of burger and fries (per kg)
Then there is the fact that caloric densities vary. comparisons should be made per portion, not unit weight.
co2 is also a complex topic. There is carbon that is recaptured in replanting crops. Beef also primarily produces methane, so I'm not sure if the co2 impact of beef is the proportional impact in methane or actual co2. Methane has a much shorter term. impact vs co2.
Lastly, trawling has massive ecosystem destroying impacts that don't show up on co2 counters. We must also consider that in sustainability calculations.
All in all, fish sticks might be sustainable, but these back of the napkin numbers are rarely representative of the complex systems that drive climate change.
to be fair, I love fish. They are healthier, easier to do sustainably than red meat, you need less of it to flavor food and it is easier to use 100% of it vs red meat animals. Lastly, salt water fish have straight up more flavor. (too much for some)
If seafloor trawling is banned and ships are moved over to better refined petroleum products, then fishing can be quite sustainable.
"Unlike previous studies that have largely overlooked the downstream processing activities associated with Alaskan pollock, this study examined all the components of the supply chain, from fishing through the retail display case." [https://news.ucsc.edu/2020/01/mckuin-fish.html]
It is most certainly accounted for. The correct unit is CO2-equivalent and the time horizon commonly used is 100 years.
Those more harmful fuels don't produce extra CO₂, though. Marine diesel engines burn less clean oils, and thus produce other pollutants (such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate emission), but the energy content and CO₂ emissions are same as with e.g. gasoline.
I think as we figure out how to make protein alternatives that taste like meat, we’ll see a small rise in adult baby food, things shaped like a slim jim, etc.
Then we can finally fulfill our prophecy of being adults that wear children’s winter jackets and eat food that’s shaped like toys, and just really come full circle with the aging into infancy.
The childish thing is judging adults by completely substanceless distinctions like this.
I'm confused by your remark about children's winter jackets though. Do you mean we'll have mittens strung through our sleeves so we can't lose them?