eating meat

We divide a complex problem into manageable parts or simplify our equations.
A reason there are over seven billion people is agricultural innovation. That is if there were not an abundance of food there wouldn't be over seven billion people so that is one issue. Hunger stresses that currently exist are due to economic models creating uneven distribution. A different issue.

There is the room and the technology to have both an industrial scale food delivery system and a resurgence of subsistence type rural living. To bring large scale agricultural production into high rise or underground hydroponic facilities would free up large areas of arable land and relieve the need for trans/inter-continental transportation systems. Rural systems no longer dependent on urban exchanges develop in relative isolation creating island ecosystems, or new environments in terms of civilized efforts where there might then come to be a proliferation of new species. To transition from predominantly one form, urban factory economy to eco-sensitive local economy the new form will flourish quicker, assuming that is where you want to go, if it is protected from any demands made on it by the old, (new ideas of sovereignty.) The current model of globalized economy among sovereign nations is skewed toward megalomania.

In the meantime we gain hope in becoming our own personal logicians claiming no logistic that subjugates or finds us dependent on others. From such a position we become reliable to everyone.

 

Right, but if people regard it as whining or see it will get the topic in a pointless direction they will simply let you know.

 

"Eat it.Just eat it.No one wants to be defeated.Showing how funky and strong is your fight,it doesn't matter,who's wrong or right.Just eat it."

 

I hear you Fairlight. I always feel I have to prove that I am no weakling. How did you know that?

 

no

 

OK, no...I get it...LOL

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcJjMnHoIBI"]"Weird Al" Yankovic - Eat It - YouTube

 

Yes and that transition is already under way and has been for decades, but it will probably be another 50 years before we see a complete change.

 

Permaculture!

 

Some good responces to my 7 billion people question. The funny ones were (paraphrasing) "me first cant worry about people elsewhere."
Hope that wasnt one of the vegans that basically said i dont want animals to suffer but fuck those humans that live in areas of famine.
And the other about if there was no cows and pigs then more food for humans....are you implying that we kill them so they dont eat our crops? Or just keep them away from each other so they dont have babies? Because otherwise there will still be farm animals around and they will need to eat.

 

:iagree:

 

OUCH! I am not whining....but I am gonna say OUCH when I feel singled out like that....and not in a postive way....sorry, folks....

 

No, I was simply responding to the question of whether farm animals are necessary to feed the world's people. And the answer is no, it would be easier to feed them if we didn't have farm animals. I wasn't saying that I wanted to eliminate them or anything. But if more people stopped eating meat, then gradually farmers would raise fewer animals, right?

 

You guys do understand that if you don't breed new cows there will be fewer of them in a decade or so right? Instead of thinking you have to terminate all cows and pigs in order to get rid of the full amount of them eventually
Same with the 7 billion people by the way. Which to me sounds like the most simple and logical conclusion for the global but mainy first world food issue: when the current oldest generation (for a large part babyboomers) fades away naturally and we don't all have 3 or more kids it already evens out on itself after half a century or so.

 

was expecting this comment and it is true there would be less of those animals...but how can you possibly know how many less? they would still pack and they would still have sex so they would live on. without humans caring as much yes i agree they would have less numbers but speculation dosnt feed the people. and a farm in central park wont feed the residents of nyc. and if there is a drought or a flood during the growing season for the people in north carolina where would they get their food from....(that was to the person who spoke about groups forming locally over time)

edit:i get that if things were different 100 years ago then things would make more sense now but we are trying to change the current system and it isnt going to happen without some major work....aka it isnt going to happen.

 

and you are saying, that cows are mainly bred for slaughter. I find this a hard fact to ever embrace, although it is a fact, i know....so fewer of them to be born for this purpose is the glass half full then, right?

 

Isn't it cheaper to feed with soy? People would not starve., There are plenty of options.

 

I agree, it needs a lot of work to get a good succesful change. I'm not saying I know how many less at all and I agree it is not the whole solution to the problem. Just that there is no need to kill cows to get rid of this or a bigger amount in the future
And the same with all the people. The most logical conclusion to solve the problem of all the farm land for animals and the global food distribution is not more food or a more efficient food industry (although we definately need to make it more efficient) but less people. This does also not mean that we need to kill people, just realize that once the babyboom generation has passed away (and taking in account we are not doing the same as them) we have much less people to feed already. This will most likely also have a positive effect on our economy since a lot of people we have now are too old to add to the system, to say it bluntly, the babyboom generation is a heavy burden on our society these days and the following years.

Well, they die anyway so if they are humanely put to death for consumption and had a good life I think it's not such a bad purpose at all. I was saying what I said because I am mainly concerned with the impact all those cows and the farms they are on have on society and the environment. And if there are fewer of them they most likely have less negative impact indeed

 

Soy can have a lot of negative impact on the environment as well. Also, I am not a fan of consuming it a lot myself.
But what do you mean with feeding with soy? Humans or cows?

 

It's not the babyboomers who's Pope is anti-contraception...
think about it man.