$.language = {"scenario_name_plant_based":"Plant-based meatless","scenario_strapline_plant_based":"Planet-friendly eating OR going against nature?","scenario_description_plant_based":"Environmental sustainability and animal welfare campaigns catch on globally. People turn to plant-based diets as humans reconsider their relations with animals and animal agriculture. Land that produces animal feed now grows food for humans or is converted into wildlands.","scenario_name_less_better":"Less meat","scenario_strapline_less_better":"Win-win for animals, people and the planet OR elitist and unrealistic?","scenario_description_less_better":"Livestock roam and graze in environments that more closely resemble their natural habitats. People consume less meat in rich, industrialized nations. Meat costs more to reflect the positive benefits of livestock production for people and the planet.","scenario_name_alt_meat":"Alternative 'meat'","scenario_strapline_alt_meat":"A utopian evolution OR a science fiction dystopia?","scenario_description_alt_meat":"Crickets, mealworms, lab-grown meat. New and novel foods are grown in indoor settings to provide protein and nutrition while freeing up agriculture\u2019s demand on global land. \u201cMeat\u201d produced in these labs gradually replaces meat sold at markets, grocery stores and restaurants.","scenario_name_efficient":"Efficient meat 2.0","scenario_strapline_efficient":"The only way to feed billions OR the root of society's problems?","scenario_description_efficient":"Technological innovation and sustainable intensification pave the way for a more efficient livestock production system. These innovations reduce negative environmental impacts and improve animal welfare. People continue to consume meat at the same rate and at the same price as they are used to.","control_text_slider_disagree":"disagree","control_text_slider_agree":"agree","control_text_button_next":"Next","control_text_statement_details":"To learn more about the different statements and how we connected them with the scenarios, select a statement in the menu below!","control_text_final_return":"<p>If you have any feedback on the quiz - or if you'd like to help us with our future research into attitudes to meat and the future of food - <a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/forms\/d\/e\/1FAIpQLSczRhpUVfOWPW3yQXf1y7FgeGCRu8ORM9OSVImDq9uoGZ-Yog\/viewform?usp=pp_url&entry.939528020=$QUIZ_SHARE_ID\">please click here<\/a> to fill in a feedback form!<\/p> \r\n<p>You can learn more about the Meat: the Four Futures podcast by going to the homepage - or you can take the quiz again!<\/p>\r\n<p><button onClick=\"window.open('https:\/\/www.tabledebates.org\/meat', '_blank');\" type=\"button\">Go to the homepage<\/button> <button onClick=\"location.href='?lm=en'\" type=\"button\">Take the quiz again<\/button><\/p>","other_text_series_name":"Meat: the Four Futures","other_text_intro":"<p class=\"introText\"><span class=\"emphasisedText\">What should the future of meat look like, to you?<\/span><br\/>\r\n<a href=\"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1748-9326\/ac018e\" onClick=\"return confirm('This link will take you to an external site')\" class=\"external\" target=\"_blank\">\u2153 of greenhouse gas emissions<\/a> come from food and agriculture, over <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fao.org\/3\/cb4474en\/online\/cb4474en.html\" onClick=\"return confirm('This link will take you to an external site')\" class=\"external\" target=\"_blank\">2 billion people<\/a> are hungry or food insecure, and we\u2019re polluting and depleting the nutrients in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2071-1050\/8\/3\/281\" onClick=\"return confirm('This link will take you to an external site')\" class=\"external\" target=\"_blank\">soil<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2071-1050\/6\/9\/5853\" onClick=\"return confirm('This link will take you to an external site')\" class=\"external\" target=\"_blank\">water<\/a> that we depend on to feed the planet\u2019s 8 billion people.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"introText\">Meat and other foods sourced from animals stand out in this picture. Among the things we eat, they have <a href=\"https:\/\/ourworldindata.org\/environmental-impacts-of-food\" onClick=\"return confirm('This link will take you to an external site')\" class=\"external\" target=\"_blank\">the greatest carbon footprints, use the most land and are the largest contributors to water pollution<\/a>. At the same time, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sciencedirect.com\/science\/article\/pii\/S1751731122000040\" onClick=\"return confirm('This link will take you to an external site')\" class=\"external\" target=\"_blank\">meat can supply important nutrients to a balanced diet<\/a>, is crucial to the livelihoods and cultures of billions of people, and can play a central role in the ecology of farming.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"introText\"><span class=\"emphasisedText\">So, where do you land?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"introText\">Do we radically alter our habits and lifestyles, change how we produce food and\/or do we reimagine our relationship with nature and technology?<br\/>\r\nThe choice must be informed by science, but it is also an ethical and emotional question. <\/p>\r\n<p class=\"introText\">What future do you support? What do your gut feelings say?<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"introText\"><span class=\"emphasisedText\">Take the quiz to learn about your own values - and which future scenario you most align with.<\/span><\/p>","other_text_best_scenario":{"plant_based":"The scenario that is most closely aligned with your values is <span class=\"scenarioName\">Plant-based meatless<\/span>","less_better":"The scenario that is most closely aligned with your values is <span class=\"scenarioName\">Less meat<\/span>","efficient":"The scenario that is most closely aligned with your values is <span class=\"scenarioName\">Efficient meat 2.0<\/span>","alt_meat":"The scenario that is most closely aligned with your values is <span class=\"scenarioName\">Alternative 'meat'<\/span>"},"other_text_other_favoured":{"plant_based":"Your values are also partly aligned with <span class=\"scenarioName\">Plant-based meatless<\/span>","less_better":"Your values are also partly aligned with <span class=\"scenarioName\">Less meat<\/span>","efficient":"Your values are also partly aligned with <span class=\"scenarioName\">Efficient meat 2.0<\/span>","alt_meat":"Your values are also partly aligned with <span class=\"scenarioName\">Alternative 'meat'<\/span>"},"other_text_other_disfavoured":{"plant_based":"The values you have indicated are in conflict with <span class=\"scenarioName\">Plant-based meatless<\/span>","less_better":"The values you have indicated are in conflict with <span class=\"scenarioName\">Less meat<\/span>","efficient":"The values you have indicated are in conflict with <span class=\"scenarioName\">Efficient meat 2.0<\/span>","alt_meat":"The values you have indicated are in conflict with <span class=\"scenarioName\">Alternative 'meat'<\/span>"},"other_text_worst_scenario":{"plant_based":"<span class=\"scenarioName\">Plant-based meatless<\/span> is the scenario that is most in conflict with your values","less_better":"<span class=\"scenarioName\">Less meat<\/span> is the scenario that is most in conflict with your values","efficient":"<span class=\"scenarioName\">Efficient meat 2.0<\/span> is the scenario that is most in conflict with your values","alt_meat":"<span class=\"scenarioName\">Alternative 'meat'<\/span> is the scenario that is most in conflict with your values"},"alignment_strong_positive":{"plant_based":"Strongly agreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" aligns you with Plant-based meatless","less_better":"Strongly agreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" aligns you with Less meat","efficient":"Strongly agreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" aligns you with Efficient meat 2.0","alt_meat":"Strongly agreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" aligns you with Alternative 'meat'"},"conflict_strong_positive":{"plant_based":"Strongly agreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" conflicts with Plant-based meatless","less_better":"Strongly agreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" conflicts with Less meat","efficient":"Strongly agreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" conflicts with Efficient meat 2.0","alt_meat":"Strongly agreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" conflicts with Alternative 'meat'"},"alignment_weak_positive":{"plant_based":"Agreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" aligns you with Plant-based meatless","less_better":"Agreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" aligns you with Less meat","efficient":"Agreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" aligns you with Efficient meat 2.0","alt_meat":"Agreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" aligns you with Alternative 'meat'"},"conflict_weak_positive":{"plant_based":"Agreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" conflicts with Plant-based meatless","less_better":"Agreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" conflicts with Less meat","efficient":"Agreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" conflicts with Efficient meat 2.0","alt_meat":"Agreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" conflicts with Alternative 'meat'"},"alignment_strong_negative":{"plant_based":"Strongly disagreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" aligns you with Plant-based meatless","less_better":"Strongly disagreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" aligns you with Less meat","efficient":"Strongly disagreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" aligns you with Efficient meat 2.0","alt_meat":"Strongly disagreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" aligns you with Alternative 'meat'"},"conflict_strong_negative":{"plant_based":"Strongly disagreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" conflicts with Plant-based meatless","less_better":"Strongly disagreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" conflicts with Less meat","efficient":"Strongly disagreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" conflicts with Efficient meat 2.0","alt_meat":"Strongly disagreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" conflicts with Alternative 'meat'"},"alignment_weak_negative":{"plant_based":"Disagreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" aligns you with Plant-based meatless","less_better":"Disagreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" aligns you with Less meat","efficient":"Disagreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" aligns you with Efficient meat 2.0","alt_meat":"Disagreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" aligns you with Alternative 'meat'"},"conflict_weak_negative":{"plant_based":"Disagreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" conflicts with Plant-based meatless","less_better":"Disagreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" conflicts with Less meat","efficient":"Disagreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" conflicts with Efficient meat 2.0","alt_meat":"Disagreeing with \"$STATEMENT\" conflicts with Alternative 'meat'"},"degree_of_agreement_strong_positive":"Strongly agree","degree_of_agreement_weak_positive":"Agree","degree_of_agreement_weak_negative":"Disagree","degree_of_agreement_strong_negative":"Strongly disagree","degree_of_alignment_figure_title":{"plant_based":"How did the quiz place you in relation to <span class=\"scenarioName\">Plant-based meatless<\/span>?","less_better":"How did the quiz place you in relation to <span class=\"scenarioName\">Less meat<\/span>?","efficient":"How did the quiz place you in relation to <span class=\"scenarioName\">Efficient meat 2.0<\/span>?","alt_meat":"How did the quiz place you in relation to <span class=\"scenarioName\">Alternative 'meat'<\/span>?"},"degree_of_alignment_figure_explanation":{"plant_based":"This is how your answer to each statement affected your agreement with the \"Plant-based meatless\" scenario. The highest ranked statements are those which align you with the scenario, and the lowest ranked are those where your values are in conflict with it.","less_better":"This is how your answer to each statement affected your agreement with the \"Less meat\" scenario. The highest ranked statements are those which align you with the scenario, and the lowest ranked are those where your values are in conflict with it.","efficient":"This is how your answer to each statement affected your agreement with the \"Efficient meat 2.0\" scenario. The highest ranked statements are those which align you with the scenario, and the lowest ranked are those where your values are in conflict with it.","alt_meat":"This is how your answer to each statement affected your agreement with the \"Alternative 'meat'\" scenario. The highest ranked statements are those which align you with the scenario, and the lowest ranked are those where your values are in conflict with it."},"button_back_to_result":"Back to result","share_buttons_intro":"Share this result","statement_text_1":"There should not be foods that only higher-income groups can afford.","statement_text_2":"It is important to support farmers and rural communities in the future.","statement_text_3":"Farmed animals probably have an experience of suffering similar to humans.","statement_text_4":"Our food should be produced by small local producers not big multinational companies.","statement_text_5":"It is too hard to change the eating habits of the whole population\u2014it would be easier to change how we produce food.","statement_text_6":"Causing some suffering to animals is justified to produce delicious but non-essential foods.","statement_text_7":"People should be able to eat all the foods they know and like.","statement_text_8":"New technologies generally make the world a better place.","statement_text_9":"Diets should be made up of natural, whole foods, without supplements, additives or highly processed ingredients.","statement_text_10":"It is human nature to eat meat and we should be allowed to act according to our nature.","statement_text_11":"Killing animals is immoral if there is another option.","statement_text_12":"Eating at least some meat is beneficial for human health.","statement_text_13":"Our ways of farming should be as close as possible to natural ecosystems.","statement_text_14":"Because eating meat is seen as a symbol of economic success, people should be able to eat more meat as their incomes rise.","statement_text_15":"It is best to let animals live in environments similar to their natural habitats where they can behave as is natural for them.","statement_text_16":"Livestock are important recyclers in food and farming systems.","statement_text_17":"We should return as much land as possible to nature to protect non-farmed species.","statement_text_18":"Insects are a promising option to provide protein for the world.","statement_text_19":"It is important to keep meat at a low cost so all income groups can afford it.","statement_text_20":"Traditional ways of making and preparing food are of deep cultural value and should be preserved.","statement_explanation_1":"This statement probes how much emphasis you would put on universality of consumers' access to food. Efficient meat 2.0 and alternative 'meat' both bet on technology as a means to prioritising universality of access\u2014to meat or to 'meat', depending on your feelings about cultured meat products. Accordingly, agreeing with this statement pushes you towards those two scenarios. The less meat scenario accepts that animal-sourced foods will\u2014or even should\u2014cost more, which means that access to these foods will be more stratified by wealth. Many proponents of this scenarios argue that other measures (such as a universal basic income) could be used to level economic inequality and so maintain equality of access: but even so, a strong belief in this value creates a problem that proponents of the less meat scenario would need to overcome. Finally, the plant-based meatless scenario is equivocal on this point: since nearly no-one has access to meat, inequality of access is not built into this scenario, but neither is equality of access to foodstuffs necessarily prioritised.","statement_explanation_2":"Of the four scenarios, the less meat scenario most explicitly prioritises farming communities, building in higher prices for their products, more diversification and distribution of resources among smaller producers, and a partial return to more traditional (and fulfilling) techniques of animal husbandry. The plant-based meatless scenario demands some substantial changes from farming communities as animal agriculture largely disappears, but keeps many things the same\u2014food production is still largely located in rural communities. In very different ways, the efficient meat 2.0 scenario has an equivocal relationship with this statement: the consolidation and intensification of animal agriculture, which has brought both environmental problems and squeezes on incomes to rural communities, continues in this scenario. By contrast, the alternative 'meat' scenario moves meat production away from traditional animal agriculturalists altogether and turns it into an industrial process.","statement_explanation_3":"Most moral frameworks which see animal suffering as experientially similar to human suffering also put a lot of value on minimising it, and some significant degree of animal suffering is an inevitable consequence of animal agriculture (although the exact amount of suffering differs a lot according to agricultural methods). Accordingly, agreeing or disagreeing with this statement aligns you with the different scenarios roughly according to the scale of animal agriculture they entail.","statement_explanation_4":"The efficient meat 2.0 and alternative 'meat' scenarios both entail increasing the capital required for food production and so straightforwardly favour bigger producers: accordingly, if you agree with this statement, that pushes you away from these two scenarios. Plant-based meatless is more agnostic\u2014we can imagine plant-based futures where smaller producers thrive\u2014but the current reality of crop agriculture is just as consolidated and large-scale as animal agriculture, and this is weighted to reflect that. Only the less meat scenario actively builds in the idea that we should design a system which favours smaller producers, and so agreeing with this statement pushes you towards less meat.","statement_explanation_5":"Alternative 'meat' and efficient meat 2.0 can be considered 'supply side' solutions: they try to fix environmental problems or problems of animal suffering in agriculture by changing the way that meat is supplied, while assuming that the global upward trajectory in demand for meat will stay broadly similar\u2014accordingly, if you agree with this statement, that aligns you with these two scenarios. On the other hand, plant-based meatless and less meat both involve changing the actual amount of meat that is consumed\u2014whether to zero (plant-based meatless) or just to a lower level (less meat). These scenarios are thus incompatible with the belief that we have little chance of changing eating habits at the population level.","statement_explanation_6":"For many people, animal suffering is a moral bad\u2014something to be avoided\u2014but one that is balanced against other considerations. In such a way of thinking, there might be a scale of situations in which animal suffering is increasingly unacceptable, ranging from situations where it is the only way to produce biologically necessary food for humans (most acceptable) through to situations where it creates completely optional luxuries (least acceptable). This question is intended to test people's views at this end of the scale. Agreeing with this aligns you with the efficient meat 2.0 scenario or, slightly less strongly, the less meat scenario. Disagreeing with it aligns you with plant-based meatless (where animal suffering is totally minimised) and, slightly less strongly, with alternative 'meat' (where there is still some animal agriculture but far less than at present).","statement_explanation_7":"The foods we are used to have deep, emotional resonance and it can be very difficult to change our dietary habits. If you agree that people have a right to continue to eat the foods that they are used to, this favours the efficient meat 2.0 scenario, which prioritises the universal availability of meat, and to a lesser extent the alternative 'meat' scenario, which prioritises universal availability if you regard cultured meats as fully equivalent to animal-sourced meat. The plant-based no meat scenario is not consistent with this statement, since it envisages the majority of people who eat meat making changes to their diets. The less meat scenario is more equivocal: meat becomes scarcer and more expensive to produce and purchase in this scenario, since other factors (rural livelihoods, preservation of traditional techniques and landscapes, keeping animals in more naturalistic environments) are prioritised over pure production efficiency. As a result, not everyone would be able to afford to continue to eat as they are used to.","statement_explanation_8":"An important distinction between the four scenarios can be found in the degree of optimism about technology. In particular, both alternative 'meat' and efficient meat 2.0 are very optimistic about technology: these both posit that by pushing recent technological developments even further, we will find solutions to environmental problems and\/or problems of animal suffering associated with meat consumption. Less meat, on the other hand, is the least techno-optimistic scenario, and involves the fewest assumptions about benefits from technologies to come. Plant-based meatless scenarios are basically agnostic on this front, since they could include either highly technological agriculture, a return to more traditional agriculture, or both.","statement_explanation_9":"If you agree with this statement then that pushes you away from the alternative 'meat' scenario (which prioritises new technologies for creating highly processed foods) and towards the less meat scenario (which is associated with traditional, lower tech foods and 'natural' means of production). Both of the other two scenarios have a more equivocal relationship with this statement.","statement_explanation_10":"If you reject this statement, that aligns you with the plant-based meatless scenario, and if you accept it wholeheartedly, it aligns you with both of the scenarios that involve a continued, central place for animal agriculture. The alternative 'meat' scenario is more equivocal. Proponents of this scenario might agree that it is human nature to eat meat and see new technologies like cultured meat as a way to allow us to continue to do this with lower impacts on the environment and less animal suffering. However, this requires you accept that what these technologies produce <i>is<\/i> meat.","statement_explanation_11":"If you agree with this statement, that straightforwardly aligns you with the plant-based meatless scenario, which minimises killing of (larger) animals for human purposes. The alternative 'meat' scenario is almost as consistent with this statement, since vastly fewer animals are farmed and killed. Both less meat and efficient meat 2.0 necessitate continuing to kill animals, and so strongly disagreeing with this statement is consistent with those scenarios\u2014very slightly more so efficient meat 2.0, since it involves far more individual animals.","statement_explanation_12":"Agreeing with this statement should favour the two scenarios which involve the most continued meat production through animal agriculture (it is possible to believe that eating meat is necessary for good health and nevertheless oppose eating meat on the grounds of avoidance of animal suffering\u2014but this clearly creates a conflict between priorities). Disagreeing pushes you towards the plant-based meatless scenario, since it makes maintaining some meat production less of a priority. As with many statements, the relationship between this statement and the alternative 'meat' scenario depends on your attitude to cultured meat and other technological meat replacements.","statement_explanation_13":"The idea that our ways of farming\u2014or more generally of producing food\u2014should mimic nature as much as possible is centred in the less meat scenario, where smaller scale, less technological, and perhaps agroecological approaches are to be found. The two high-tech scenarios\u2014efficient meat 2.0 and alternative 'meat'\u2014involve moving further away from naturalistic food production. The plant-based meatless scenario, on the other hand, is more agnostic, since, just as with animal agriculture, it is possible to grow crops in more or less naturalistic ways. Here, agreeing with this statement pushes you away from plant-based meatless to some degree, reflecting the reality of how our crops are currently produced.","statement_explanation_14":"This is a value statement that is often brought up with specific reference to the Global South, where demand for animal-sourced foods are steadily increasing as wealth increases. If it is felt to be unjust to deny the luxury of meat-eating to the newly prosperous when the Global North has enjoyed very high meat diets for over a century, this pushes you towards efficient meat 2.0\u2014which focuses on producing as much meat as possible through technology\u2014and to alternative 'meat'\u2014which either has the same focus or is focused on creating an ethically acceptable substitute, depending on how cultured meat is understood. This statement is not as consistent with the less meat scenario, since that involves less meat production, higher cost meat, and consequently (though not inevitably) less access to meat in these emerging markets. Finally, and obviously, agreeing with this statement pushes strongly away from the plant-based meatless scenario.","statement_explanation_15":"This belief goes beyond purely a concern for animal welfare or for minimising animal suffering. The scenario which simply minimises the amount of animal husbandry\u2014plant-based meatless\u2014is straightforwardly consistent with this. Alternative 'meat', in which very few animals are kept in agricultural contexts and so there are the resources and space to keep them in very natural conditions is also quite consistent, as is the less meat scenario, in which more animals are kept outdoors in pastures rather than in intensive, indoor setups. Agreeing with this statement pushes you away from the efficient meat 2.0 scenario, on the other hand, since production efficiency is prioritised over keeping animals in naturalistic environments.","statement_explanation_16":"Both the plant-based meatless scenario and the alternative 'meat' scenario will feature relatively little livestock agriculture\u2014accordingly, believing that livestock play highly important practical roles in food and farming systems should make these scenarios less appealing. At the other end of the spectrum, the less meat scenario highlights these synergies as invaluable and imagines a future for agriculture which makes great use of them. The efficient meat 2.0 scenario does have a lot of livestock agriculture and so some livestock are available to play roles as recyclers or to contribute to fertiliser\u2014but in practice, this is not prioritised in this scenario, where there are far more livestock than would be supportable on leftovers, which produce large enough amounts of waste to create problems of runoff into water courses and\/or seeping into groundwater.","statement_explanation_17":"This statement makes reference to the debate over \"land sparing\" vs. \"land sharing\". In short, should we try to minimise the amount of land taken up by agriculture and leave the rest to nature, or should we use more land for less 'efficient' agriculture that is more friendly to wild species sharing that land? The scientific debate around these two options is complex, and some proponents of several of the four scenarios would align themselves with land sparing. To estimate how much the statement should push you in the direction of each of the different scenarios, we looked at the literature on land use by different kinds of protein production: ruminant and monogastric agriculture; cereals, legumes, and other plant protein sources; and cultured meats. According to reviews by Santo et al. 2020 and Poore & Nemecek 2018, demands for land use are greatest for ruminant meats (cows, sheep and goats), less for meat from monogastrics (pigs and chickens), and lower still for most plant-based protein sources. The estimates for cultured meats are extremely uncertain, reflecting how new these technologies are, but the average is slightly lower than the plant sources. Accordingly, if you agree with this statement, it pushes you towards the two scenarios which minimise animal agriculture and away from the two scenarios which maintain a lot of animal agriculture.","statement_explanation_18":"Eating insects generally wouldn't feature in the plant-based meatless scenario, and probably would in the alternative 'meat' scenario where scaling up new protein sources is prioritised. The other two scenarios are broadly neutral on this question.","statement_explanation_19":"This statement relates to two of the scenarios very straightforwardly: the plant-based meatless scenario does not fundamentally frame meat as a good, so is not interested in maximising access to it; the efficient meat 2.0 scenario, in contrast, aims to maximise meat production, and so to make meat as widely available as possible. The other two scenarios have a more equivocal relationship with this value statement. Many advocates for the alternative 'meat' scenario regard this as very important\u2014indeed, as the goal of creating new technologies like cultured meat. However, others may not regard those products <i>as<\/i> meat. The less meat scenario maintains a significant amount of meat production but at lower quantities and therefore inevitably higher prices.","statement_explanation_20":"Many traditional foods with deep histories and strong associations with particular places or communities are based on meat or other animal-sourced foods\u2014the disappearance of these might be felt as a deep, cultural loss. The less meat scenario prioritises the preservation of these traditions; the efficient meat 2.0 scenario prioritises the availability of meat, which would allow for traditional foods and food preparation techniques to be maintained, but uses non-traditional methods of animal husbandry. Agreeing with this statement generally pushes away from the other two scenarios: plant-based meatless, in which meat will become far less available and thus these traditions will be hard to maintain, and alternative 'meat', which replaces traditional food production techniques with new, technological alternatives.","share_text_twitter":"See%20which%20scenario%20for%20the%20future%20of%20meat%20I%20favour!%20","share_text_fb":"See%20which%20scenario%20for%20the%20future%20of%20meat%20I%20favour!%20","take_quiz_button":"Take the quiz!","next_button":"Next","slider_left_label":"disagree","slider_right_label":"agree","graph_dot_you":"you","why":"why","other_text_intro_workshop":"<p class=\"introText\"><span class=\"emphasisedText\">The quiz will take 2-3 minutes<\/span><\/p>","control_text_initial_return":"Find out more about the podcast","other_text_scenario_why":{"plant_based":"How did my answers lead to this result for <span class=\"scenarioName\">Plant-based meatless<\/span>?","less_better":"How did my answers lead to this result for <span class=\"scenarioName\">Less meat<\/span>?","efficient":"How did my answers lead to this result for <span class=\"scenarioName\">Efficient meat 2.0<\/span>?","alt_meat":"How did my answers lead to this result for <span class=\"scenarioName\">Alternative 'meat'<\/span>?"}};
$.quiz = [{"id":"1","statement":"There should not be foods that only higher-income groups can afford.","alt_meat":"0.85","plant_based":"0.5","less_better":"0","efficient":"1","explanation":"This statement probes how much emphasis you would put on universality of consumers' access to food. Efficient meat 2.0 and alternative 'meat' both bet on technology as a means to prioritising universality of access\u2014to meat or to 'meat', depending on your feelings about cultured meat products. Accordingly, agreeing with this statement pushes you towards those two scenarios. The less meat scenario accepts that animal-sourced foods will\u2014or even should\u2014cost more, which means that access to these foods will be more stratified by wealth. Many proponents of this scenarios argue that other measures (such as a universal basic income) could be used to level economic inequality and so maintain equality of access: but even so, a strong belief in this value creates a problem that proponents of the less meat scenario would need to overcome. Finally, the plant-based meatless scenario is equivocal on this point: since nearly no-one has access to meat, inequality of access is not built into this scenario, but neither is equality of access to foodstuffs necessarily prioritised."},{"id":"2","statement":"It is important to support farmers and rural communities in the future.","alt_meat":"0.5","plant_based":"0.6","less_better":"1","efficient":"0.75","explanation":"Of the four scenarios, the less meat scenario most explicitly prioritises farming communities, building in higher prices for their products, more diversification and distribution of resources among smaller producers, and a partial return to more traditional (and fulfilling) techniques of animal husbandry. The plant-based meatless scenario demands some substantial changes from farming communities as animal agriculture largely disappears, but keeps many things the same\u2014food production is still largely located in rural communities. In very different ways, the efficient meat 2.0 scenario has an equivocal relationship with this statement: the consolidation and intensification of animal agriculture, which has brought both environmental problems and squeezes on incomes to rural communities, continues in this scenario. By contrast, the alternative 'meat' scenario moves meat production away from traditional animal agriculturalists altogether and turns it into an industrial process."},{"id":"3","statement":"Farmed animals probably have an experience of suffering similar to humans.","alt_meat":"0.8","plant_based":"1","less_better":"0.3","efficient":"0","explanation":"Most moral frameworks which see animal suffering as experientially similar to human suffering also put a lot of value on minimising it, and some significant degree of animal suffering is an inevitable consequence of animal agriculture (although the exact amount of suffering differs a lot according to agricultural methods). Accordingly, agreeing or disagreeing with this statement aligns you with the different scenarios roughly according to the scale of animal agriculture they entail."},{"id":"4","statement":"Our food should be produced by small local producers not big multinational companies.","alt_meat":"0","plant_based":"0","less_better":"1","efficient":"0","explanation":"The efficient meat 2.0 and alternative 'meat' scenarios both entail increasing the capital required for food production and so straightforwardly favour bigger producers: accordingly, if you agree with this statement, that pushes you away from these two scenarios. Plant-based meatless is more agnostic\u2014we can imagine plant-based futures where smaller producers thrive\u2014but the current reality of crop agriculture is just as consolidated and large-scale as animal agriculture, and this is weighted to reflect that. Only the less meat scenario actively builds in the idea that we should design a system which favours smaller producers, and so agreeing with this statement pushes you towards less meat."},{"id":"5","statement":"It is too hard to change the eating habits of the whole population\u2014it would be easier to change how we produce food.","alt_meat":"1","plant_based":"0","less_better":"0.2","efficient":"1","explanation":"Alternative 'meat' and efficient meat 2.0 can be considered 'supply side' solutions: they try to fix environmental problems or problems of animal suffering in agriculture by changing the way that meat is supplied, while assuming that the global upward trajectory in demand for meat will stay broadly similar\u2014accordingly, if you agree with this statement, that aligns you with these two scenarios. On the other hand, plant-based meatless and less meat both involve changing the actual amount of meat that is consumed\u2014whether to zero (plant-based meatless) or just to a lower level (less meat). These scenarios are thus incompatible with the belief that we have little chance of changing eating habits at the population level."},{"id":"6","statement":"Causing some suffering to animals is justified to produce delicious but non-essential foods.","alt_meat":"0.1","plant_based":"0","less_better":"0.7","efficient":"1","explanation":"For many people, animal suffering is a moral bad\u2014something to be avoided\u2014but one that is balanced against other considerations. In such a way of thinking, there might be a scale of situations in which animal suffering is increasingly unacceptable, ranging from situations where it is the only way to produce biologically necessary food for humans (most acceptable) through to situations where it creates completely optional luxuries (least acceptable). This question is intended to test people's views at this end of the scale. Agreeing with this aligns you with the efficient meat 2.0 scenario or, slightly less strongly, the less meat scenario. Disagreeing with it aligns you with plant-based meatless (where animal suffering is totally minimised) and, slightly less strongly, with alternative 'meat' (where there is still some animal agriculture but far less than at present)."},{"id":"7","statement":"People should be able to eat all the foods they know and like.","alt_meat":"0.85","plant_based":"0","less_better":"0.5","efficient":"1","explanation":"The foods we are used to have deep, emotional resonance and it can be very difficult to change our dietary habits. If you agree that people have a right to continue to eat the foods that they are used to, this favours the efficient meat 2.0 scenario, which prioritises the universal availability of meat, and to a lesser extent the alternative 'meat' scenario, which prioritises universal availability if you regard cultured meats as fully equivalent to animal-sourced meat. The plant-based no meat scenario is not consistent with this statement, since it envisages the majority of people who eat meat making changes to their diets. The less meat scenario is more equivocal: meat becomes scarcer and more expensive to produce and purchase in this scenario, since other factors (rural livelihoods, preservation of traditional techniques and landscapes, keeping animals in more naturalistic environments) are prioritised over pure production efficiency. As a result, not everyone would be able to afford to continue to eat as they are used to."},{"id":"8","statement":"New technologies generally make the world a better place.","alt_meat":"1","plant_based":"0.5","less_better":"0.1","efficient":"1","explanation":"An important distinction between the four scenarios can be found in the degree of optimism about technology. In particular, both alternative 'meat' and efficient meat 2.0 are very optimistic about technology: these both posit that by pushing recent technological developments even further, we will find solutions to environmental problems and\/or problems of animal suffering associated with meat consumption. Less meat, on the other hand, is the least techno-optimistic scenario, and involves the fewest assumptions about benefits from technologies to come. Plant-based meatless scenarios are basically agnostic on this front, since they could include either highly technological agriculture, a return to more traditional agriculture, or both."},{"id":"9","statement":"Diets should be made up of natural, whole foods, without supplements, additives or highly processed ingredients.","alt_meat":"0","plant_based":"0.6","less_better":"1","efficient":"0.45","explanation":"If you agree with this statement then that pushes you away from the alternative 'meat' scenario (which prioritises new technologies for creating highly processed foods) and towards the less meat scenario (which is associated with traditional, lower tech foods and 'natural' means of production). Both of the other two scenarios have a more equivocal relationship with this statement."},{"id":"10","statement":"It is human nature to eat meat and we should be allowed to act according to our nature.","alt_meat":"0.5","plant_based":"0","less_better":"1","efficient":"1","explanation":"If you reject this statement, that aligns you with the plant-based meatless scenario, and if you accept it wholeheartedly, it aligns you with both of the scenarios that involve a continued, central place for animal agriculture. The alternative 'meat' scenario is more equivocal. Proponents of this scenario might agree that it is human nature to eat meat and see new technologies like cultured meat as a way to allow us to continue to do this with lower impacts on the environment and less animal suffering. However, this requires you accept that what these technologies produce <i>is<\/i> meat."},{"id":"11","statement":"Killing animals is immoral if there is another option.","alt_meat":"0.95","plant_based":"1","less_better":"0.05","efficient":"0","explanation":"If you agree with this statement, that straightforwardly aligns you with the plant-based meatless scenario, which minimises killing of (larger) animals for human purposes. The alternative 'meat' scenario is almost as consistent with this statement, since vastly fewer animals are farmed and killed. Both less meat and efficient meat 2.0 necessitate continuing to kill animals, and so strongly disagreeing with this statement is consistent with those scenarios\u2014very slightly more so efficient meat 2.0, since it involves far more individual animals."},{"id":"12","statement":"Eating at least some meat is beneficial for human health.","alt_meat":"0.25","plant_based":"0","less_better":"0.95","efficient":"1","explanation":"Agreeing with this statement should favour the two scenarios which involve the most continued meat production through animal agriculture (it is possible to believe that eating meat is necessary for good health and nevertheless oppose eating meat on the grounds of avoidance of animal suffering\u2014but this clearly creates a conflict between priorities). Disagreeing pushes you towards the plant-based meatless scenario, since it makes maintaining some meat production less of a priority. As with many statements, the relationship between this statement and the alternative 'meat' scenario depends on your attitude to cultured meat and other technological meat replacements."},{"id":"13","statement":"Our ways of farming should be as close as possible to natural ecosystems.","alt_meat":"0.5","plant_based":"0.2","less_better":"1","efficient":"0","explanation":"The idea that our ways of farming\u2014or more generally of producing food\u2014should mimic nature as much as possible is centred in the less meat scenario, where smaller scale, less technological, and perhaps agroecological approaches are to be found. The two high-tech scenarios\u2014efficient meat 2.0 and alternative 'meat'\u2014involve moving further away from naturalistic food production. The plant-based meatless scenario, on the other hand, is more agnostic, since, just as with animal agriculture, it is possible to grow crops in more or less naturalistic ways. Here, agreeing with this statement pushes you away from plant-based meatless to some degree, reflecting the reality of how our crops are currently produced."},{"id":"14","statement":"Because eating meat is seen as a symbol of economic success, people should be able to eat more meat as their incomes rise.","alt_meat":"0.85","plant_based":"0","less_better":"0.2","efficient":"1","explanation":"This is a value statement that is often brought up with specific reference to the Global South, where demand for animal-sourced foods are steadily increasing as wealth increases. If it is felt to be unjust to deny the luxury of meat-eating to the newly prosperous when the Global North has enjoyed very high meat diets for over a century, this pushes you towards efficient meat 2.0\u2014which focuses on producing as much meat as possible through technology\u2014and to alternative 'meat'\u2014which either has the same focus or is focused on creating an ethically acceptable substitute, depending on how cultured meat is understood. This statement is not as consistent with the less meat scenario, since that involves less meat production, higher cost meat, and consequently (though not inevitably) less access to meat in these emerging markets. Finally, and obviously, agreeing with this statement pushes strongly away from the plant-based meatless scenario."},{"id":"15","statement":"It is best to let animals live in environments similar to their natural habitats where they can behave as is natural for them.","alt_meat":"0.95","plant_based":"1","less_better":"0.8","efficient":"0","explanation":"This belief goes beyond purely a concern for animal welfare or for minimising animal suffering. The scenario which simply minimises the amount of animal husbandry\u2014plant-based meatless\u2014is straightforwardly consistent with this. Alternative 'meat', in which very few animals are kept in agricultural contexts and so there are the resources and space to keep them in very natural conditions is also quite consistent, as is the less meat scenario, in which more animals are kept outdoors in pastures rather than in intensive, indoor setups. Agreeing with this statement pushes you away from the efficient meat 2.0 scenario, on the other hand, since production efficiency is prioritised over keeping animals in naturalistic environments."},{"id":"16","statement":"Livestock are important recyclers in food and farming systems.","alt_meat":"0.5","plant_based":"0.1","less_better":"1","efficient":"0.775","explanation":"Both the plant-based meatless scenario and the alternative 'meat' scenario will feature relatively little livestock agriculture\u2014accordingly, believing that livestock play highly important practical roles in food and farming systems should make these scenarios less appealing. At the other end of the spectrum, the less meat scenario highlights these synergies as invaluable and imagines a future for agriculture which makes great use of them. The efficient meat 2.0 scenario does have a lot of livestock agriculture and so some livestock are available to play roles as recyclers or to contribute to fertiliser\u2014but in practice, this is not prioritised in this scenario, where there are far more livestock than would be supportable on leftovers, which produce large enough amounts of waste to create problems of runoff into water courses and\/or seeping into groundwater."},{"id":"17","statement":"We should return as much land as possible to nature to protect non-farmed species.","alt_meat":"1","plant_based":"0.85","less_better":"0.3","efficient":"0","explanation":"This statement makes reference to the debate over \"land sparing\" vs. \"land sharing\". In short, should we try to minimise the amount of land taken up by agriculture and leave the rest to nature, or should we use more land for less 'efficient' agriculture that is more friendly to wild species sharing that land? The scientific debate around these two options is complex, and some proponents of several of the four scenarios would align themselves with land sparing. To estimate how much the statement should push you in the direction of each of the different scenarios, we looked at the literature on land use by different kinds of protein production: ruminant and monogastric agriculture; cereals, legumes, and other plant protein sources; and cultured meats. According to reviews by Santo et al. 2020 and Poore & Nemecek 2018, demands for land use are greatest for ruminant meats (cows, sheep and goats), less for meat from monogastrics (pigs and chickens), and lower still for most plant-based protein sources. The estimates for cultured meats are extremely uncertain, reflecting how new these technologies are, but the average is slightly lower than the plant sources. Accordingly, if you agree with this statement, it pushes you towards the two scenarios which minimise animal agriculture and away from the two scenarios which maintain a lot of animal agriculture."},{"id":"18","statement":"Insects are a promising option to provide protein for the world.","alt_meat":"1","plant_based":"0.05","less_better":"0.45","efficient":"0.5","explanation":"Eating insects generally wouldn't feature in the plant-based meatless scenario, and probably would in the alternative 'meat' scenario where scaling up new protein sources is prioritised. The other two scenarios are broadly neutral on this question."},{"id":"19","statement":"It is important to keep meat at a low cost so all income groups can afford it.","alt_meat":"0.4","plant_based":"0","less_better":"0.15","efficient":"1","explanation":"This statement relates to two of the scenarios very straightforwardly: the plant-based meatless scenario does not fundamentally frame meat as a good, so is not interested in maximising access to it; the efficient meat 2.0 scenario, in contrast, aims to maximise meat production, and so to make meat as widely available as possible. The other two scenarios have a more equivocal relationship with this value statement. Many advocates for the alternative 'meat' scenario regard this as very important\u2014indeed, as the goal of creating new technologies like cultured meat. However, others may not regard those products <i>as<\/i> meat. The less meat scenario maintains a significant amount of meat production but at lower quantities and therefore inevitably higher prices."},{"id":"20","statement":"Traditional ways of making and preparing food are of deep cultural value and should be preserved.","alt_meat":"0","plant_based":"0.2","less_better":"1","efficient":"0.9","explanation":"Many traditional foods with deep histories and strong associations with particular places or communities are based on meat or other animal-sourced foods\u2014the disappearance of these might be felt as a deep, cultural loss. The less meat scenario prioritises the preservation of these traditions; the efficient meat 2.0 scenario prioritises the availability of meat, which would allow for traditional foods and food preparation techniques to be maintained, but uses non-traditional methods of animal husbandry. Agreeing with this statement generally pushes away from the other two scenarios: plant-based meatless, in which meat will become far less available and thus these traditions will be hard to maintain, and alternative 'meat', which replaces traditional food production techniques with new, technological alternatives."}];
$.scenarioTexts={
		plant_based:{name:"Plant-based meatless",strapline:"Planet-friendly eating OR going against nature?",description:"Environmental sustainability and animal welfare campaigns catch on globally. People turn to plant-based diets as humans reconsider their relations with animals and animal agriculture. Land that produces animal feed now grows food for humans or is converted into wildlands.",colour:"#21a651"},
		less_better:{name:"Less meat",strapline:"Win-win for animals, people and the planet OR elitist and unrealistic?",description:"Livestock roam and graze in environments that more closely resemble their natural habitats. People consume less meat in rich, industrialized nations. Meat costs more to reflect the positive benefits of livestock production for people and the planet.",colour:"#f3b81d"},
		alt_meat:{name:"Alternative 'meat'",strapline:"A utopian evolution OR a science fiction dystopia?",description:"Crickets, mealworms, lab-grown meat. New and novel foods are grown in indoor settings to provide protein and nutrition while freeing up agriculture’s demand on global land. “Meat” produced in these labs gradually replaces meat sold at markets, grocery stores and restaurants.",colour:"#dd4090"},
		efficient:{name:"Efficient meat 2.0",strapline:"The only way to feed billions OR the root of society's problems?",description:"Technological innovation and sustainable intensification pave the way for a more efficient livestock production system. These innovations reduce negative environmental impacts and improve animal welfare. People continue to consume meat at the same rate and at the same price as they are used to.",colour:"#1575bb"}
	};