Are you actually trying to reduce the amount of misinformation from the net now? How nice. You should do it more often.
Environmental arguments and meat
- Thread starter swarm
- Start date
Are you actually trying to reduce the amount of misinformation from the net now? How nice. You should do it more often.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Last edited:
I will admit that I might have been mistaken. It happens.
What's hard to believe is that the global warming advocates don't mention direct oxidation of methane gas in air, which should be facilitated by ultraviolet.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Do you have a link to that ?
On the two thirds of existing land that is freed up by ceasing to produce meat.
I don't know about that.
I suppose that is vaguely possible via ozone and would result in all manner of nasty pollutants ending in CO which while stable, is not really useful or less of a pollutant.
You do realize global warming is not in the least in question. The most that can be argued is the degree of the human impact. The north polar cap is melting and visibly reduced. The perma frost is also melting and releasing an immense about of methane. The south polar ice sheets are breaking up. Several Polynesian countries are now under water and their people are refugees.
Global warming is not only happening. It is happening at a rate which exceeds the more dire predictions.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Exactly.
The way I see it, the only solution is to 'naturally' decrease the world population to a sustainable level. Perhaps birth restrictions is the best way to do that.
Null. As much of the worlds meat supply actually comes from the ocean, lakes and rivers. None of this area is viable for producing meat. Then there is moutainous and massiviely uneven terrains that are very difficult at best to farm, but are a snap to grass herds of goats, llama, yak and deer. Then there are the cattle ranches that raise cattle , mainly becuase it is just not fit land for other forms of agriculture. Your argument is unbelievably flawed and you know it.
On an ecological scale, the production and consumption of meat is a neccesary function of human society. Our population has grown far beyond the limits of hunting and simple fishing. Just as we have grown beyond berry and root gathering. To maintain a civilized society we need agriculture of both vegetable matter and animal matter. Yes, we could do so more efficently and with less impact on the environment, but change does not happen over night. New methods devised today may take decades to take root, but they will.
Actually a much easier, but far crueler, way to do this would he stop all aid to starving, diseased, and struggling nations/ It would only take a few years and the population would drop considerably. I admit this is not a choice I would make willingly. In fact Ii would fight it to the very end, but if it came down between survival of a nation that can produce it's own food (or trade equivalent items of value for the food) over a nation in such disarray that 99% of it's people are starving to death....Sorry, but the starving are closer to death then the thriving nations. The only bright side is after a few years the land in the starving nation should be fertile again.
As for birth restriction, the only problem with that is that it only works if you enforce it. Educate the populace that we are overcrowded and only the intelligent will limit their offspring, which would be the exact opposite of what you would need. You want the smart people popping out brats, sure a few will not be up to par, but it would be better than watching the idiots pop out idiot after idiot with only a few functional people in the mix. Sorry if i sound negative and condescending.
No. It would be far more efficient in terms of land usage to produce crops for humans on land currently used to produce feed for animals, and to use the land currently used for grazing meat animals to grow more crops.
We should stop both of those.
Er. This is why we have farms.
No. Meat production is not necessary, and is in fact a waste of resources.
And thus speaketh the man who ignored all of my points about the majority of land that is used for meat production. Ah well, I did not expect any intellectual honesty here.
There is also the fact that there is already a world surplus of food to consider.
the problem is of course not surplus of food or under-nourishment but delivery of that food to the population. USA chickens and Zimbabwe children
No the problem is when there is uncontrolled breeding a population will expand until it exhausts a vital resource and then collapse. Artificially propping up the population by importing food just means thing are that much worse when the collapse comes, which is inevitable.