Log in

View Full Version : We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests



Husar
10-21-2017, 14:45
That's right, forget about the global warming thing about how we're all going to die of too much heat in 50 or 100 years.
Apparently we are now killing other species that are vital to our survival much faster than that.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insects-gone


Changes in land use surrounding the reserves are probably playing a role. "We've lost huge amounts of habitat, which has certainly contributed to all these declines," Goulson says. "If we turn all the seminatural habitats to wheat and cornfields, then there will be virtually no life in those fields." As fields expand and hedgerows disappear, the isolated islands of habitat left can support fewer species. Increased fertilizer on remaining grazing lands favors grasses over the diverse wildflowers that many insects prefer. And when development replaces countryside, streets and buildings generate light pollution that leads nocturnal insects astray and interrupts their mating.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/08/26/windscreen-phenomenon-car-no-longer-covered-dead-insects/


Experts mostly blame intensive agriculture and the use of pesticides over the past 50 years.

Since 2006, beekeepers in Britain have lost about a third of their managed bee colonies each year largely due to the loss of flower-rich grassland which has declined by 97 per cent from the 1930s, and the increased use of insecticides on crops.

http://www.dw.com/en/insect-and-bird-populations-declining-dramatically-in-germany/a-41030897


A study by the German Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU) concludes that the total number of birds in Germany has been declining dramatically in recent years.
In the past twelve years an estimated 12.7 million pairs of breeding birds have disappeared. That's roughly 15 percent of the total bird population. The study is based on data provided to the European Union by Germany's federal government in 2013.

In that light it is always interesting to see people claim the planet can easily feed 11 or more billions of people when our agriculture, economy and behavior are terribly self-destructive at 7 billion already. How are we going to feed 11 billion people with either no biosphere around us or without chemicals and monocultures?

We need a one-child policy and an economic system that favors decline instead of growth. :sweatdrop:

Either way these developments seem quite worrying and could have an enormous impact relatively soon. And most of the solutions cannot be merged with more economic optimization and growth so far.

Beskar
10-21-2017, 18:15
Adopting a vegan diet means the land-use for animals can be changed to crops. A lot more land use is needed for animal farming than strange from vegetation. That is how you could feed 11 billion or so population.

Kagemusha
10-21-2017, 18:48
Adopting a vegan diet means the land-use for animals can be changed to crops. A lot more land use is needed for animal farming than strange from vegetation. That is how you could feed 11 billion or so population.

And what will you do when the population growth does not stop there?

Husar
10-21-2017, 19:05
Adopting a vegan diet means the land-use for animals can be changed to crops. A lot more land use is needed for animal farming than strange from vegetation. That is how you could feed 11 billion or so population.

What Kage said and what about the use of pesticides to grow all the veggies in monocultures? You'd still be killing insects left and right, for them it does not seem to matter too much whether you take away the flowers to grow pigs or to grow salad. And swarms of locusts or other insects that may adapt probably can't replace bees either.

Sarmatian
10-21-2017, 19:09
And what will you do when the population growth does not stop there?

People will start committing suicides en masse if forced to be vegan.

Montmorency
10-21-2017, 19:25
People will start committing suicides en masse if forced to be vegan.

l o l

But what if gun control, mental health services, and public safety improve to the point that we're stopping or preventing too many suicides? :freak:



There's one vegan perspective that says, well, vegan outreach and activism in the West has been an almost unmitigated failure over the past generation: full-fledged, long-term veganism is less prevalent than transgenderism, and with vegetarianism it's only marginally better.

Therefore, instead of taking an exclusionary or maximalist stance that emphatically condemns anyone who consumes a spoonful of yogurt or honey now and then to the same extent as someone who eats 50-lb steaks for breakfast, a more successful strategy might be to nudge people into making small modifications to their diet without having to fully embrace the vegan or vegetarian lifestyle.

Strangely though, one suggested nudge (https://www.thequint.com/lifestyle/food/vegan-dont-eat-chicken-matt-ball-vox-video) is to encourage eating products of large livestock rather than of small, the logic being that the suffering of two chickens (2 organisms) is worse than the suffering of one cow (1 organism). Unfortunately, this principled animal utilitarianism fails to account for the fact that chickens are relatively more ecologically sustainable with respect to our food production and the health of the world's ecosystems than cows or other large livestock...

So optimizing vegan and animal rights priorities is probably going to be tougher than 'more organisms = more suffering'.

Sarmatian
10-21-2017, 19:51
Well, first of all, I have to ask - what the heck kind of chickens do you have over there when it is 2 chickens = 1 cow?

Secondly, wouldn't that discriminate against cows? It' s not their fault they're so big. You try dealing with all those fat jokes.

Husar
10-21-2017, 19:53
I still think if people could be happy with just one or two children, many problems would solve themselves.

The biggest problem in the way of one child however, seem to be poverty, and to a lesser extent emotions and traditions. The wealthy parts of Europe already do shrink without immigration, even though some families still get 5 children. They're just not enough. As far as I am aware, in poorer countries children are often a retirement plan and one that can die away, too. So people have more incentives to get many children. That money is a factor can also be seen in countries where girls may later require payment(s) to the husband and abortions of girls are very high.

One could assume that if we solve poverty, we may reach the top of a bell curve almost naturally...

Pannonian
10-21-2017, 20:02
I still think if people could be happy with just one or two children, many problems would solve themselves.

The biggest problem in the way of one child however, seem to be poverty, and to a lesser extent emotions and traditions. The wealthy parts of Europe already do shrink without immigration, even though some families still get 5 children. They're just not enough. As far as I am aware, in poorer countries children are often a retirement plan and one that can die away, too. So people have more incentives to get many children. That money is a factor can also be seen in countries where girls may later require payment(s) to the husband and abortions of girls are very high.

One could assume that if we solve poverty, we may reach the top of a bell curve almost naturally...

How do you distribute wealth equitably so as to bring this about? Would you take human rights into account? How about self determination?

Montmorency
10-21-2017, 20:14
Well, first of all, I have to ask - what the heck kind of chickens do you have over there when it is 2 chickens = 1 cow?

Secondly, wouldn't that discriminate against cows? It' s not their fault they're so big. You try dealing with all those fat jokes.

You misunderstand. Here's their figure:


Further, it takes up to 200 chickens to provide the same number of meals as one steer, and around 40 chickens as compared to one pig.

But their logical conclusion is that it's better to eat 1 cow than 2 chickens, because then fewer, numerically fewer, animals are suffering.

Also, yes.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX4Jh-44-Nk

I still think if people could be happy with just one or two children, many problems would solve themselves.

The biggest problem in the way of one child however, seem to be poverty, and to a lesser extent emotions and traditions. The wealthy parts of Europe already do shrink without immigration, even though some families still get 5 children. They're just not enough. As far as I am aware, in poorer countries children are often a retirement plan and one that can die away, too. So people have more incentives to get many children. That money is a factor can also be seen in countries where girls may later require payment(s) to the husband and abortions of girls are very high.

One could assume that if we solve poverty, we may reach the top of a bell curve almost naturally...

"Current trends (https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth/)" in birth/death rates and other factors point to a likely global-population peak by the end of the century, and henceforth a decline.

Assuming trends don't reverse, for whatever reason.

Gilrandir
10-21-2017, 20:19
The ultimate solution is GM foods.

Beskar
10-21-2017, 20:45
I will be more serious. Overpopulation is not a concern as these things have a way of working themselves out after all. As standards of living increase, people naturally have less children. This is why in the most developed areas of the world, population is stagnant, save for the immigration from the poorer regions. As these poorer regions develop, their population will stagnant too, coming to a natural equilibrium. This is part of the Population Transition.

The more indepth answer can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348

Kagemusha
10-21-2017, 20:56
I still think if people could be happy with just one or two children, many problems would solve themselves.

The biggest problem in the way of one child however, seem to be poverty, and to a lesser extent emotions and traditions. The wealthy parts of Europe already do shrink without immigration, even though some families still get 5 children. They're just not enough. As far as I am aware, in poorer countries children are often a retirement plan and one that can die away, too. So people have more incentives to get many children. That money is a factor can also be seen in countries where girls may later require payment(s) to the husband and abortions of girls are very high.


One could assume that if we solve poverty, we may reach the top of a bell curve almost naturally...

I would support two children policy. There really is no a argument against it. There are just too many of us period.

Fragony
10-21-2017, 21:04
Something new how predictable, didn't bother to read it what's going to kill us now now that global-warming lost it's ooooomph?

Montmorency
10-21-2017, 21:06
I will be more serious. Overpopulation is not a concern as these things have a way of working themselves out after all. As standards of living increase, people naturally have less children. This is why in the most developed areas of the world, population is stagnant, save for the immigration from the poorer regions. As these poorer regions develop, their population will stagnant too, coming to a natural equilibrium. This is part of the Population Transition.

The more indepth answer can be found here:

One question might be, does the suffering produced by enforcing significant population reductions within the medium-term outweigh the suffering of X billions who can't be satisfactorily governed, secured, and provisioned for, and whose poverty acts as the cushion for the relative comfort of the rest of the world (and we don't expect the "free" market to "take care of it")? It's an academic question to be sure, but so is the exercise of wondering whether or not population out of our control is necessarily a bad thing.


Overpopulation is not a concern as these things have a way of working themselves out after all.

As recently as right now these things tend to work themselves out by mass deaths of millions through disease and deprivation. Something which modern humanitarian aid regimes seek to ameliorate. So do we restrict international aid in favor of 'natural' culling, or do we somehow increase aid despite the inefficiency? How do we confront the racialized distribution and apportionment underlying these questions?


I believe that we should try to take care of people and not exterminate them (or even encourage natural death), but all this life presents serious problems that need serious address, not glib bromides about things working themselves out.

Pannonian
10-21-2017, 21:13
One question might be, does the suffering produced by enforcing significant population reductions within the medium-term outweigh the suffering of X billions who can't be satisfactorily governed, secured, and provisioned for, and whose poverty acts as the cushion for the relative comfort of the rest of the world (and we don't expect the "free" market to "take care of it")? It's an academic question to be sure, but so is the exercise of wondering whether or not population out of our control is necessarily a bad thing.

As recently as right now these things tend to work themselves out by mass deaths of millions through disease and deprivation. Something which modern humanitarian aid regimes seek to ameliorate. So do we restrict international aid in favor of 'natural' culling, or do we somehow increase aid despite the inefficiency? How do we confront the racialized distribution and apportionment underlying these questions?

I believe that we should try to take care of people and not exterminate them (or even encourage natural death), but all this life presents serious problems that need serious address, not glib bromides about things working themselves out.

More relevantly, who's going to enforce all this, and on what authority? People who want to talk about prosperity all round also hate colonialism. Without colonialism, who's going to make sure the developing nations develop efficiently? As a triple whammy, people who talk about prosperity all round often also hate globalism, which is the other non-colonialist method of controlling this somewhat.

Beskar
10-21-2017, 21:13
I believe that we should try to take care of people and not exterminate them (or even encourage natural death), but all this life presents serious problems that need serious address, not glib bromides about things working themselves out.

This is why we have the International Development Fund. Make the nations prosper, and thus no overpopulation concerns.

Seamus Fermanagh
10-21-2017, 21:19
I would support two children policy. There really is no a argument against it. There are just too many of us period.

And just how will you get the non-Western and non-techno cultures to adopt this policy? It has, de facto if not de jure, been the policy of most developed Western cultures for nearly half a century.

The death rate per 1000 in France and the UK is 9, the USA 8, and Italy and Greece 11 and Japan 10. The bigger economy countries are at a rough death rate of 10 per 1000. In contrast, the rate for the Middle East is around a 6 and central and eastern Africa around a 12. Indonesia, China, and India are around a 7.

Birth rates in the West/Industrials are roughly around 11/1k. The ME varies between 15 and 35, probably around 20 overall. EA and CA average around 33. China is a hint higher than the West at 12, but Indonesia and India average 19/1k.

In short, the West and Japan already practice a two-child policy. The developing world does not. Short of magically transforming their economies to Western standard of living levels and cultural values, just how do we go about effecting such a policy?

Husar
10-21-2017, 21:27
How do you distribute wealth equitably so as to bring this about? Would you take human rights into account? How about self determination?

Self-determination is a red shrimp. You can either make it look absurd by bringing it down to the individual level or by looking at countries where the population is split almost 50:50 or where there is a tyranny of the majority. Or you could just think about what would happen if we here run out of a lot of the food we eat and the vitamins we need. Either we let our poor die or we use our purchasing power to buy everything from abroad and then people die there not able to afford the food.
What use is self determination in that case? If they deny us the food, we will either invade or revert to the option of letting our poor die. I would think that when it comes to people literally ying from a lack of nutrition, violence might easily be favoured over any respect for anyone's self-determination. After all we're not just killing our insects, we're also ruining our soils. How does self-determination help if all of Europe and the US can't grow food anymore or not nearly enough to feed even the inhabitants? I'd guess Africa has a bit longer, but we exported our agricultural methods there as well, so... :shrug:


"Current trends (https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth/)" in birth/death rates and other factors point to a likely global-population peak by the end of the century, and henceforth a decline.

Assuming trends don't reverse, for whatever reason.

I will be more serious. Overpopulation is not a concern as these things have a way of working themselves out after all. As standards of living increase, people naturally have less children. This is why in the most developed areas of the world, population is stagnant, save for the immigration from the poorer regions. As these poorer regions develop, their population will stagnant too, coming to a natural equilibrium. This is part of the Population Transition.

The question there would be whether the trend fixes itself before the ecosystem is irreparably damaged and people start dying in droves from malnutrition.


The ultimate solution is GM foods.

You mean let the eco-terrorists kill all the human surplus before anything bad happens? :clown:

Pannonian
10-21-2017, 21:31
And just how will you get the non-Western and non-techno cultures to adopt this policy? It has, de facto if not de jure, been the policy of most developed Western cultures for nearly half a century.

The death rate per 1000 in France and the UK is 9, the USA 8, and Italy and Greece 11 and Japan 10. The bigger economy countries are at a rough death rate of 10 per 1000. In contrast, the rate for the Middle East is around a 6 and central and eastern Africa around a 12. Indonesia, China, and India are around a 7.

Birth rates in the West/Industrials are roughly around 11/1k. The ME varies between 15 and 35, probably around 20 overall. EA and CA average around 33. China is a hint higher than the West at 12, but Indonesia and India average 19/1k.

In short, the West and Japan already practice a two-child policy. The developing world does not. Short of magically transforming their economies to Western standard of living levels and cultural values, just how do we go about effecting such a policy?

And among the non-far eastern developing countries, the first steps of development usually go towards massively enrichening a tiny elite, a la Venezuela (where Chavez's daughter is a multi-billionaire while the rest of the country is collapsing). Extra points if the tiny elite bolster their position with devout religiousness that, thanks to the nature of ancient religions, promotes high birth rates ("Go forth and multiply"). The US of A is a social democracy compared with the extreme elitism of most developing countries.

Pannonian
10-21-2017, 21:36
Self-determination is a red shrimp. You can either make it look absurd by bringing it down to the individual level or by looking at countries where the population is split almost 50:50 or where there is a tyranny of the majority. Or you could just think about what would happen if we here run out of a lot of the food we eat and the vitamins we need. Either we let our poor die or we use our purchasing power to buy everything from abroad and then people die there not able to afford the food.
What use is self determination in that case? If they deny us the food, we will either invade or revert to the option of letting our poor die. I would think that when it comes to people literally ying from a lack of nutrition, violence might easily be favoured over any respect for anyone's self-determination. After all we're not just killing our insects, we're also ruining our soils. How does self-determination help if all of Europe and the US can't grow food anymore or not nearly enough to feed even the inhabitants? I'd guess Africa has a bit longer, but we exported our agricultural methods there as well, so... :shrug:


How does aid get distributed in developing countries? In what form does the aid take? What right does the west have to determine how these countries develop? Remember the furore over Iraq. Ask the British left what they think of Tony Blair.

Ironically, Tony Blair might be an important way of resolving a lot of this. The left will never recognise this though, and the full extent of this will subsequently never be realised. Because of Iraq.

Montmorency
10-21-2017, 21:54
More relevantly, who's going to enforce all this, and on what authority? People who want to talk about prosperity all round also hate colonialism. Without colonialism, who's going to make sure the developing nations develop efficiently? As a triple whammy, people who talk about prosperity all round often also hate globalism, which is the other non-colonialist method of controlling this somewhat.

Absolutely. No idea.


And just how will you get the non-Western and non-techno cultures to adopt this policy? It has, de facto if not de jure, been the policy of most developed Western cultures for nearly half a century.

The death rate per 1000 in France and the UK is 9, the USA 8, and Italy and Greece 11 and Japan 10. The bigger economy countries are at a rough death rate of 10 per 1000. In contrast, the rate for the Middle East is around a 6 and central and eastern Africa around a 12. Indonesia, China, and India are around a 7.

Birth rates in the West/Industrials are roughly around 11/1k. The ME varies between 15 and 35, probably around 20 overall. EA and CA average around 33. China is a hint higher than the West at 12, but Indonesia and India average 19/1k.

In short, the West and Japan already practice a two-child policy. The developing world does not. Short of magically transforming their economies to Western standard of living levels and cultural values, just how do we go about effecting such a policy?

Japan and the West practice a two-child policy only in aggregate, and it is not even a policy - much of it is owed to economic insecurity among those of childbearing age. Literal two-child policies would of course (if effective) cut off individuals above the average, thus leading to precipitous declines in birth rates.

The pendulum swung back and forth on abortion in the Soviet Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia#1920-1936). But whether the government was promoting it or outlawing it, abortion remained enormously popular. IIRC one of my grandmothers (2 daughters) had at least 3 abortions.

One of the best ways to reduce birthrates or accelerate existing trends is to promote knowledge of and access to women's reproductive health services (i.e. contraception and abortion). Unfortunately, most branches of Christianity are prominent in opposing the spread of safe abortion and contraceptives to the developing world.

Pannonian
10-21-2017, 22:06
Absolutely. No idea.

Japan and the West practice a two-child policy only in aggregate, and it is not even a policy - much of it is owed to economic insecurity among those of childbearing age. Literal two-child policies would of course (if effective) cut off individuals above the average, thus leading to precipitous declines in birth rates.

The pendulum swung back and forth on abortion in the Soviet Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia#1920-1936). But whether the government was promoting it or outlawing it, abortion remained enormously popular. IIRC one of my grandmothers (2 daughters) had at least 3 abortions.

One of the best ways to reduce birthrates or accelerate existing trends is to promote knowledge of and access to women's reproductive health services (i.e. contraception and abortion). Unfortunately, most branches of Christianity are prominent in opposing the spread of safe abortion and contraceptives to the developing world.

In west Africa at least, there is a secular belief that does all the things that the progressive left would like to see in the developing world. However, it is anathema to the British left, who will reflexively oppose anything to do with it, and blacken the name of its leader.

Beskar
10-21-2017, 22:15
In west Africa at least, there is a secular belief that does all the things that the progressive left would like to see in the developing world. However, it is anathema to the British left, who will reflexively oppose anything to do with it, and blacken the name of its leader.

You referencing the leader who brought stability to Iraq again?

Pannonian
10-21-2017, 22:21
You referencing the leader who brought stability to Iraq again?

There ya go. Exactly what I was talking about. Absolute anathema to the British left. West Africans care more about Sierra Leone and his track record in the region since then. But to the British left, Iraq is all there is.

If you want to badmouth Blair, at least do not pretend to care about the development of the Third World, where he has a better track record than most.

Crandar
10-21-2017, 23:21
Adopting a vegan diet means the land-use for animals can be changed to crops. A lot more land use is needed for animal farming than strange from vegetation. That is how you could feed 11 billion or so population.
A vegan diet is extremely unhealthy, especially for minors. If vegetables and fruits consist of more than 50% of your diet then you're basically malnourishing yourself. Not recommended, a vegan diet is as healthy as the anti-vaccination movement and the refusal to wear a condom.

Husar
10-22-2017, 00:03
More relevantly, who's going to enforce all this, and on what authority?


And just how will you get the non-Western and non-techno cultures to adopt this policy?

Two words: Orbital lasers!

No, seriously, of course that is hard, but there is also another dimension to this. Which is that the West/Developed world consumes most of the resources and does most of the damage anyway. Lowering consumption in countries that hardly consume despite a much bigger population is not going to help a lot. And developing them to our standard of consumption in the hopes of controlling their population through that may just end the planet before the plan gets anywhere.

Hoping for a magic technological breakthrough, well, we could also decimate the population with mandatory russian roulette if we're going to gamble.

So no, I don't have a solution ready, just a goal of sorts. And if the ultimate goal is that we and our children survive and don't bash eachother's heads in over rare apples one day, perhaps we can agree on that last one at least.
I mean it would be nice to have some food in the future, wouldn't it? :sweatdrop:

Perhaps the EU and US should end subsidies for farming and let food markets return to actual competition, giving farmers in other countries a real chance to compete again and leading consumers to appreciate their terribly expensive food once more so they reduce food waste?

Pannonian
10-22-2017, 00:29
Two words: Orbital lasers!

No, seriously, of course that is hard, but there is also another dimension to this. Which is that the West/Developed world consumes most of the resources and does most of the damage anyway. Lowering consumption in countries that hardly consume despite a much bigger population is not going to help a lot. And developing them to our standard of consumption in the hopes of controlling their population through that may just end the planet before the plan gets anywhere.

Hoping for a magic technological breakthrough, well, we could also decimate the population with mandatory russian roulette if we're going to gamble.

So no, I don't have a solution ready, just a goal of sorts. And if the ultimate goal is that we and our children survive and don't bash eachother's heads in over rare apples one day, perhaps we can agree on that last one at least.
I mean it would be nice to have some food in the future, wouldn't it? :sweatdrop:

Perhaps the EU and US should end subsidies for farming and let food markets return to actual competition, giving farmers in other countries a real chance to compete again and leading consumers to appreciate their terribly expensive food once more so they reduce food waste?

The moderate way to developing these countries is through green economies that develop traditional agriculture and crafts that don't consume much fossil fuels, alongside education and empowerment of women. Why should these countries do that? If there is tangible evidence that this improves lives. How do these improvements begin, when the first steps towards enrichment usually results in concentration of wealth in a tiny elite?

That is where Blair has made his mark in Africa. But, as I've said before, and as Beskar has demonstrated above, to the British left, Iraq is all he is. And thus the trail he's blazed in the developing world will never be allowed to go far. Recently, when Blair said his piece on Brexit, British leftists who were pro-Europe said they'd rather he'd keep quiet than make the case for Europe. If the British left would rather lose the argument on Europe than let Blair speak up for it, why the hell would they care about a world further away?

Beskar
10-22-2017, 00:34
A vegan diet is extremely unhealthy, especially for minors. If vegetables and fruits consist of more than 50% of your diet then you're basically malnourishing yourself. Not recommended, a vegan diet is as healthy as the anti-vaccination movement and the refusal to wear a condom.

I am not a vegan, but I know this information is incorrect. You have to manage your diet appropriately, that is true, but vegan malnourishment is a myth (for humans). Arguably, "meat eaters" are worst for micro-nutrient malnourishment. How many do you know eat a full 5-7 a-day?

HopAlongBunny
10-22-2017, 00:37
I had this in the Climate Thread but it seems appropriate to this discussion:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/pollution-worldwide-deaths-1.4363613

Pollution. More population=>more pollution.
This outcome is enhanced by development, but is the natural outcome of increasing population in any case.
The concentration and distribution of toxins is aided to some extent by development; industry simply adds novel toxins.
The shift from fossil fuels to renewables closes one window to extinction, many more remain.

Greyblades
10-22-2017, 00:51
The third world is catching up to the post war west in terms of population growth and pollution output. Unless the rest of the world cuts back all our efforts to cut our own is in vain and, going by the lack of adheirance by non western signatories of the paris agreement, they are decidedly uncooperative on that front.

Outside of a technological miracle it is it seems the only solution possible is to effectively roll back half the worlds development; no more cheap electricty, no more baby booms.

I cannot imagine such proposals are going attract many volunteers.

Husar
10-22-2017, 02:51
The third world is catching up to the post war west in terms of population growth and pollution output. Unless the rest of the world cuts back all our efforts to cut our own is in vain and, going by the lack of adheirance by non western signatories of the paris agreement, they are decidedly uncooperative on that front.

Outside of a technological miracle it is it seems the only solution possible is to effectively roll back half the worlds development; no more cheap electricty, no more baby booms.

Well, insects going extinct and the soil degrading to uselessness are going to hit us regardless of what other countries do because we're ruining these things right here. I'm not sure whether insects are going extinct in Africa as well. If we can't grow enough food here anymore, we'll be going to Africa as refugees or die of malnutrition.
Perhaps some insects could be replaced with pollinating robot drones, but what about soil degradation? The way it sounds to me, adding more chemicals just won't work anymore at some point in the relatively near future.


I cannot imagine such proposals are going attract many volunteers.

Death will not wait for volunteers. :skull:

Gilrandir
10-22-2017, 06:07
There are just too many of us period.

Are you Chinese to make such claims?



Pollution. More population=>more pollution.


We don't have to do anything because: more population=>more pollution=>less population=>less pollution.

Kagemusha
10-22-2017, 07:25
And just how will you get the non-Western and non-techno cultures to adopt this policy? It has, de facto if not de jure, been the policy of most developed Western cultures for nearly half a century.

The death rate per 1000 in France and the UK is 9, the USA 8, and Italy and Greece 11 and Japan 10. The bigger economy countries are at a rough death rate of 10 per 1000. In contrast, the rate for the Middle East is around a 6 and central and eastern Africa around a 12. Indonesia, China, and India are around a 7.

Birth rates in the West/Industrials are roughly around 11/1k. The ME varies between 15 and 35, probably around 20 overall. EA and CA average around 33. China is a hint higher than the West at 12, but Indonesia and India average 19/1k.

In short, the West and Japan already practice a two-child policy. The developing world does not. Short of magically transforming their economies to Western standard of living levels and cultural values, just how do we go about effecting such a policy?

I was just talking about my own half, but now that you mentioned. I would give it similar conditions with carbon credit, but at individual level. Maybe thus making babies might become more fashionable and we would not go totally extinct at the West. Concerning the rest of the World. Those who would accept the policy would gain development aid, those who would not, it would be cut off. Other means would be trade deals.

Generally id rather not answer what should be done about the behalf of other countries in any situation and im not sure asking me gives any good answers either.



Are you Chinese to make such claims?

Are you North Korean for wanting the human civilization to collapse because of stupidity?:rolleyes:

Fragony
10-22-2017, 07:32
It's a reoccuring thing, I forgot the name of the the theory but it boils down to population overstretching, it was hot in the twenties when some major leaps in medecine were made, but it was hot in the 19th century as well as agriculture became more efficient. It never happened though as people get less children if they are more likely to survive, caring for the enviroment is also a kuxory-problem as having a nice enviroment becomes desirable, it kinda solves itself. Wildlife needs attention though, who's in favour of recolonising Africa and South-America to save it? Thought so

Technology is good, space is very rare here in the Netherlands but we grow more than enough food, can't call it wildlife but species are doing just fine, wolves and lynxes are even sighted, they don't want to be seen so you don't but they are there

HopAlongBunny
10-22-2017, 08:36
You're probably thinking of the musings of Thomas Robert Malthus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

The Green Revolution may have staved off facing some of the limits he mused about, but those same practices (chemical fertilizers, insecticide, herbicide, tillage...etc.) have also led to played out soils, water pollution and the disappearance of needed insect species.
Another technological solution to the problems of modern agriculture might be feasible, but it will have to address the consequences of the practices developed.

Crandar
10-22-2017, 09:53
I am not a vegan, but I know this information is incorrect. You have to manage your diet appropriately, that is true, but vegan malnourishment is a myth (for humans). Arguably, "meat eaters" are worst for micro-nutrient malnourishment. How many do you know eat a full 5-7 a-day?
No, if you're a vegan, in sense that you don't eat meat, fish and any dairy products, then you unconsciously undermine your own health. There's an ongoing campaign of misinformation by vegan lobbyists, whose impartiality is zero, like the infamous Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Generally, we have yet to fully understand how digestion works, but every serious scholar agrees that meat and dairy are obligatory for a healthy diet. For example, no fruit can offer you any amount of creatine (its name comes from the Greek word for meat, "κρέας"), which is necessary for our cerebral functions.
Some recommended articles about the subject:
http://ssu.ac.ir/cms/fileadmin/user_upload/Mtahghighat/tfood/ARTICLES/meat/Red_meat_consumption.pdf
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088278&type=printable
http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/clinchem/35/8/1802.full.pdf
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=hbspapers
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/15/how-to-avoid-the-most-dangerous-side-effect-of-veganism.aspx
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691485/pdf/14561278.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15390047_Creatine_Deficiency_in_the_Brain_A_New_Treatable_Inborn_Error_of_Metabolism

Their amount and vocabulary may look overwhelming, but they're worth a reading, if you feel tempted by vegan propaganda. IMO parents forcing veganism to their children is as stupid and immoral as not vaccinating them.
Thankfully it's not a very threatening phenomenon right now, but it has the potential to surpass in anti-intellectualism even the climate change denial.

Gilrandir
10-22-2017, 10:38
Are you North Korean for wanting the human civilization to collapse because of stupidity?:rolleyes:

I see. Making fun = being stupid. Now I know why you Japanese wanted to exterminate us Koreans.

Kagemusha
10-22-2017, 10:52
I see. Making fun = being stupid. Now I know why you Japanese wanted to exterminate us Koreans.

More like: Making fun=making fun.

Gilrandir
10-22-2017, 11:07
More like: Making fun=making fun.

In my invew making fun =/= using abusive language.

Kagemusha
10-22-2017, 13:06
In my invew making fun =/= using abusive language.

North Korean policies= stupid
North Korean´s= variety of people
abusing concepts like policies= free for all
abusing people= bad

Husar
10-22-2017, 13:29
I hope we can get back on topic once you two are done abusing mathematic signs. :shifty:

That said, as a meat eater, Crandar's sources do appear a bit shifty in some cases. I don't have time to read and analyze them all in detail though.
One is by a doctor Mercola, who is also trying to sell things in his shop (including vegan protein bags, why would he sell to vegans if he thinks veganism is unhealthy? hypocrite?), that has about the same credibility level as Alex Jones for starters.
Some others only talk about the benefits of this or that, but I couldn't find them explicitly saying they're unavailable to vegans. At best I saw them conclude that vegans are less healthy. That study from Graz does say it corrected for lifestyle choices, but it doesn't say whether they're just doing veganism wrong and I'm not sure whether they also corrected their data for the possibility that they found so many sick vegans becuase sick people try veganism in an attempt to cure themselves rather than becoming sick from being a vegan.
The study that talks about the benefits and drawbacks of red meat seems to say that only certain preparation styles might make the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, without checking that more thoroughly. Of course eating it raw will likely get you a toxoplasma gondii infection: http://www.ihaveabrainparasite.com

So on the meat eater issue, I guess things are still vague.

Pannonian
10-22-2017, 13:57
I hope we can get back on topic once you two are done abusing mathematic signs. :shifty:

That said, as a meat eater, Crandar's sources do appear a bit shifty in some cases. I don't have time to read and analyze them all in detail though.
One is by a doctor Mercola, who is also trying to sell things in his shop (including vegan protein bags, why would he sell to vegans if he thinks veganism is unhealthy? hypocrite?), that has about the same credibility level as Alex Jones for starters.
Some others only talk about the benefits of this or that, but I couldn't find them explicitly saying they're unavailable to vegans. At best I saw them conclude that vegans are less healthy. That study from Graz does say it corrected for lifestyle choices, but it doesn't say whether they're just doing veganism wrong and I'm not sure whether they also corrected their data for the possibility that they found so many sick vegans becuase sick people try veganism in an attempt to cure themselves rather than becoming sick from being a vegan.
The study that talks about the benefits and drawbacks of red meat seems to say that only certain preparation styles might make the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, without checking that more thoroughly. Of course eating it raw will likely get you a toxoplasma gondii infection: http://www.ihaveabrainparasite.com

So on the meat eater issue, I guess things are still vague.

It's probably possible to be perfectly healthy on a vegan diet, but it requires more knowledge of where certain rare nutrients are (vitamin B is an issue). It's easier to get the full set of nutrients if you eat some meat as well, or at the very least some animal-derived products. In any case, wartime Britain showed that it is possible to move largely to a vegetarian diet, but this doesn't spare the land if it's still cultivated intensively, and you'll probably still want to keep some breeding stock (cf. the post-war cull of pig breeds to standardise for the market).

Montmorency
10-22-2017, 14:09
It's probably possible to be perfectly healthy on a vegan diet, but it requires more knowledge of where certain rare nutrients are (vitamin B is an issue). It's easier to get the full set of nutrients if you eat some meat as well, or at the very least some animal-derived products. In any case, wartime Britain showed that it is possible to move largely to a vegetarian diet, but this doesn't spare the land if it's still cultivated intensively, and you'll probably still want to keep some breeding stock (cf. the post-war cull of pig breeds to standardise for the market).

It's difficult, but we should distinguish between diets for survival and diets for "optimal health". The latter are nearly opaque to modern science because it's such a complex object of study: everything in the whole body over time.

The former, however, is probably easier to distinguish, even with 19th century science. As a random example, the meat of small mammals, even accompanying many plant-based diets, will lead to malnutrition and starvation in the long-term because small-mammal (lean) meat lacks certain fats and lipids, or more proximately because the proportion of proteins relative to other caloric nutrients overwhelms the liver.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682.full.pdf

Greyblades
10-22-2017, 15:09
It is worth noting that some of our sources for meat such as sheep and goats are able to utilize land that cannot feasably be converted for crop farming, a stony highland slope will never bear wheat or corn but can support mutton production.

Gilrandir
10-22-2017, 17:32
North Korean´s= variety of people


Wrong!! North Korean's = possessive case singular = belonging to A North Korean.

Kagemusha
10-22-2017, 17:38
Wrong!! North Korean's = possessive case singular = belonging to A North Korean.

Dont take Husar´s job!:bigcry:

Beskar
10-22-2017, 19:08
For example, no fruit can offer you any amount of creatine (its name comes from the Greek word for meat, "κρέας"), which is necessary for our cerebral functions.

It is produced by the body but we do get a lot from eating meat. You can also take vegan supplements to compensate too. So no, you don't need to eat meat. There are meat-free alternatives and solutions.

Seamus Fermanagh
10-22-2017, 19:17
No, if you're a vegan, in sense that you don't eat meat, fish and any dairy products, then you unconsciously undermine your own health. There's an ongoing campaign of misinformation by vegan lobbyists, whose impartiality is zero, like the infamous Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Generally, we have yet to fully understand how digestion works, but every serious scholar agrees that meat and dairy are obligatory for a healthy diet. For example, no fruit can offer you any amount of creatine (its name comes from the Greek word for meat, "κρέας"), which is necessary for our cerebral functions.
Some recommended articles about the subject:
http://ssu.ac.ir/cms/fileadmin/user_upload/Mtahghighat/tfood/ARTICLES/meat/Red_meat_consumption.pdf
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088278&type=printable
http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/clinchem/35/8/1802.full.pdf
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=hbspapers
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/15/how-to-avoid-the-most-dangerous-side-effect-of-veganism.aspx
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691485/pdf/14561278.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15390047_Creatine_Deficiency_in_the_Brain_A_New_Treatable_Inborn_Error_of_Metabolism

Their amount and vocabulary may look overwhelming, but they're worth a reading, if you feel tempted by vegan propaganda. IMO parents forcing veganism to their children is as stupid and immoral as not vaccinating them.
Thankfully it's not a very threatening phenomenon right now, but it has the potential to surpass in anti-intellectualism even the climate change denial.

Vegetarians and Vegans have to be extremely careful about their diets. It is FAR too easy to fall short in certain minerals/vitamins as well as protein intake when eschewing dairy and meats entirely.

A quick look at human teeth and the rest of the digestive systems says OMNIVORE in large letters. I am well aware that the preponderance of meat/dairy/refined sugars in the Western diet may be skewed from what is healthy, but excising everything but renewable vegetable product from the human diet is, I suspect, nearly as unhealthy.

Crandar
10-22-2017, 20:20
It is produced by the body but we do get a lot from eating meat. You can also take vegan supplements to compensate too. So no, you don't need to eat meat. There are meat-free alternatives and solutions.
You still need to eat meat, especially if you're a child. The amounts synthesized by the body are hardly sufficient (which is why so many vegans suffer from creatine deficiency) and also, the body could have spent this time producing other nutritional elements.
http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/clinchem/35/8/1802.full.pdf
About the various supplements existing, all of them are coming from animal products, which makes them unacceptable for the vegan dogma. Meanwhile, the lack of creatine leads to underdevelopment, weak muscles and brain. It's an unnecessary disaster and vegan diet imposed on minors is child abuse.

Beskar
10-22-2017, 23:27
About the various supplements existing, all of them are coming from animal products, which makes them unacceptable for the vegan dogma.

Nope - While dietary creatine comes mostly from animal products, the creatine used in supplements is made from synthetic creatine is made from sarcosine (or its salts). Sarcosine may be synthesized from chloroacetic acid and methylamine. So whilst most of your links point out to various things a vegan needs to consider, there are alternatives to animal-based consumption. I am not attempting to disprove your statement that vegans/vegatarians have less creatine, more that they came make up for the deficiency through alternative methods.

You could argue there is also an ethos about keeping to "whole foods" and avoiding anything sythenic or manufactured which would make arguement moot for those people.

Fragony
10-23-2017, 00:07
Only meat contains B1, you are more at risk to get alzheimer pretty early in your life, would at least eat meat 2 times a week, going all veggie simply isn't very good for you. I wouldn't call meat essential but you are build to take advantage of it.

Pannonian
10-23-2017, 00:09
Nope - While dietary creatine comes mostly from animal products, the creatine used in supplements is made from synthetic creatine is made from sarcosine (or its salts). Sarcosine may be synthesized from chloroacetic acid and methylamine. So whilst most of your links point out to various things a vegan needs to consider, there are alternatives to animal-based consumption. I am not attempting to disprove your statement that vegans/vegatarians have less creatine, more that they came make up for the deficiency through alternative methods.

You could argue there is also an ethos about keeping to "whole foods" and avoiding anything sythenic or manufactured which would make arguement moot for those people.

How many people are going to stick to a vegan diet? Why wouldn't people eat the now rarer and thus more prestigious meat? What studies are there of a large population moving towards a more vegetarian diet, in particular the practical aspects of moving them to such a diet and making sure they keep to it? If you can't do this, there's no point in talking about the vegan-approved synthesis of dietary requirements.

Beskar
10-23-2017, 01:01
How many people are going to stick to a vegan diet? Why wouldn't people eat the now rarer and thus more prestigious meat? What studies are there of a large population moving towards a more vegetarian diet, in particular the practical aspects of moving them to such a diet and making sure they keep to it? If you can't do this, there's no point in talking about the vegan-approved synthesis of dietary requirements.

Well, there are effectively vegetarian-like diets in existence around the world, due to meat being such a luxury item in the first place. If there isn't the availability, there is no need to make people "stick" to it.

There is also other technology like lab-grown meats which are an alternative. There are also GM solutions to making sure people get their nutrition.

There are also shake based diets which do away with cooking and meat all together, but they are rather bland, example of these being Huel and Cambridge but these run into a problem due to swallowing concerns.

Pannonian
10-23-2017, 01:15
Well, there are effectively vegetarian-like diets in existence around the world, due to meat being such a luxury item in the first place. If there isn't the availability, there is no need to make people "stick" to it.

There is also other technology like lab-grown meats which are an alternative. There are also GM solutions to making sure people get their nutrition.

There are also shake based diets which do away with cooking and meat all together, but they are rather bland, example of these being Huel and Cambridge but these run into a problem due to swallowing concerns.

The point I'm making is that western countries, who will be the only ones willing to switch voluntarily, can afford meat. There is a case study of a western country successfully reducing meat intake whilst still functioning, namely WWII Britain. And there are studies of how they made the rationing system work. NB. it wasn't just about goodwill and scientific logic.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-23-2017, 10:17
No, it made people pretty darn grumpy.

In any case, Beskar is demonstrably wrong because the insects are suffering most in areas with intensive crop farming, which is exactly what you would need to feed everyone Vegan. You're also need to kill most of the sheep, cows, goats etc. that we keep and turn all the meadows they graze on over to arable land - except some of it's not suitable.

The BBC had an article on this recently, too, about people who went Vegan for ethical reasons and discovered it made them physically unwell despite "monitoring" their diet closely. The fact is, Veganism doesn't really work for humans and more than a heavily meat-based diet. Of course, by "humans" I really mean Europeans because not all humans have the same guts, I can't see the Innuit surviving on a Vegan diet at all - for example.

He's also wrong about this "natural equilibrium" because developed countries are still horribly over-populated. This is a serious issue in Britain where we are swallowing farm land to build houses, but it get's really serious if you look at somewhere like Japan. The Japanese have really serious mental health issues as a society, isolationism, loneliness, suicide... A lot of that can be traced to their extreme over-crowding, especially the loneliness.

The International Development fund is a total bust - because the money just gets wasted or simply hived off and spent by corrupt politicians.

Pannonian
10-23-2017, 10:49
No, it made people pretty darn grumpy.

In any case, Beskar is demonstrably wrong because the insects are suffering most in areas with intensive crop farming, which is exactly what you would need to feed everyone Vegan. You're also need to kill most of the sheep, cows, goats etc. that we keep and turn all the meadows they graze on over to arable land - except some of it's not suitable.

The BBC had an article on this recently, too, about people who went Vegan for ethical reasons and discovered it made them physically unwell despite "monitoring" their diet closely. The fact is, Veganism doesn't really work for humans and more than a heavily meat-based diet. Of course, by "humans" I really mean Europeans because not all humans have the same guts, I can't see the Innuit surviving on a Vegan diet at all - for example.

He's also wrong about this "natural equilibrium" because developed countries are still horribly over-populated. This is a serious issue in Britain where we are swallowing farm land to build houses, but it get's really serious if you look at somewhere like Japan. The Japanese have really serious mental health issues as a society, isolationism, loneliness, suicide... A lot of that can be traced to their extreme over-crowding, especially the loneliness.

The International Development fund is a total bust - because the money just gets wasted or simply hived off and spent by corrupt politicians.

Blair is appreciated in west Africa simply because this fact of life is heavily reduced in areas where he's involved, leading to these funds actually getting to target areas and being used with some degree of efficiency in developing these areas to progressive standards. But, as Beskar has demonstrated, and as every other British leftist will demonstrate, to them Blair is Iraq and nothing else.

Certainly any Brit who wants to talk about a prescriptive diet should have a look at WWII's rationing system and how it worked, and its ramifications. A look at the agricultural changes and their ramifications would also be useful. Because that's effectively what they're saying should happen. There's one historian, whose name I've forgotten, who has actually looked at how rationing from that period might work if translated into the modern world.

Greyblades
10-23-2017, 12:03
Blair is appreciated in west Africa simply because this fact of life is heavily reduced in areas where he's involved, leading to these funds actually getting to target areas and being used with some degree of efficiency in developing these areas to progressive standards.

Hrm, the only information google deigns to show me on Blair's African Governance Initiative that isn't self promotion is an independent article on anti-Ebola logistics in sierra leone and a telegraph article on a lack of transparency in its dealings in Ethiopia.

Beskar
10-25-2017, 17:49
In any case, Beskar is demonstrably wrong because the insects are suffering most in areas with intensive crop farming, which is exactly what you would need to feed everyone Vegan. You're also need to kill most of the sheep, cows, goats etc. that we keep and turn all the meadows they graze on over to arable land - except some of it's not suitable.

A large proportion of the farmland is used to feed animals. If you don't need to feed the animals, this can be turned into land farming solely for humans. Land used which cannot be farmed, but sheep graze for example can be made into viable habitats for biodiversity.

As for the poor sheep, cows, etc. They will end up on your plate. No need to pity their plight as you season their flesh just before your teeth tear through it. There is no need for forced mass breeding and rising prices for the last of the meat will act as a farmers payday.

In short, more biodiversity, less land usage, no more animal suffering. Wins across the board.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-25-2017, 23:46
A large proportion of the farmland is used to feed animals. If you don't need to feed the animals, this can be turned into land farming solely for humans.

Last I checked, the majority of pastoral farmland was pastoral precisely because it wasn't suitable for arable farming.


Land used which cannot be farmed, but sheep graze for example can be made into viable habitats for biodiversity.

This presupposes it isn't already, which it often is. Sheep and cows are kept in smaller, hedged, fields, and those fields are left to grass naturally, they often have man-made brooks running through them for watering the animals, too.


As for the poor sheep, cows, etc. They will end up on your plate. No need to pity their plight as you season their flesh just before your teeth tear through it.

I find your lack of compassion disturbing. You forget, I grew up on a working sheep farming, I have been involved in the process from birth to death. I care, I eat meat, the two are not a conflict. Simply a fact of life for me.


There is no need for forced mass breeding and rising prices for the last of the meat will act as a farmers payday.

Oh, yes, how are the crofters going to survive in your brave new world?

What you going to do, give them nice cushy jobs working in customer service? Talk about cruel.


In short, more biodiversity, less land usage, no more animal suffering. Wins across the board.

My sister, who did a degree in animal welfare, once gave me an axiom: "the fact the animal died is not an animal welfare issue". Death is inevitable, how an animal dies is important but the fact it died to provide us with meat is not. So the "no more suffering" argument is rubbish, as is the biodiversity argument, as pastoral farming (which there will be more of) is inherently harmful to the environment when done intensively.

Face it, your argument is ill thought out and utterly without foundation, moral, economic, or scientific.

You refuse to recognise the simple truth - there are too many people.

Pannonian
10-26-2017, 00:09
A large proportion of the farmland is used to feed animals. If you don't need to feed the animals, this can be turned into land farming solely for humans. Land used which cannot be farmed, but sheep graze for example can be made into viable habitats for biodiversity.

As for the poor sheep, cows, etc. They will end up on your plate. No need to pity their plight as you season their flesh just before your teeth tear through it. There is no need for forced mass breeding and rising prices for the last of the meat will act as a farmers payday.

In short, more biodiversity, less land usage, no more animal suffering. Wins across the board.

You really do need to look at WWII rationing and agriculture in Britain. It was, in gross, probably the lowest meat-eating period in recorded British history, with land use optimised to maximise feeding the population with the essentials. Yet both rationing and agriculture encountered problems that your posts do not consider. PFH touches on the rationing problem, which may sound flippant, but is a major obstacle to making it work. And while the mass vegetising of British agriculture did feed more people for the land used, it was enabled by unusually inclement weather, land was used that was unsuitable for the purpose, and the land was exhausted after several years of intensive production, exacerbated by lack of regeneration through manuring.

Beskar
10-28-2017, 01:07
Face it, your argument is ill thought out and utterly without foundation, moral, economic, or scientific.

Shouldn't be projecting so much, isn't healthy.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-28-2017, 10:59
Shouldn't be projecting so much, isn't healthy.

I attacked your argument, you attacked me.

That contravenes the basic founding principle of the Backroom.

I challenge you to engage with your interlocutors' arguments or withdraw and concede defeat.

Beskar
10-28-2017, 11:19
I attacked your argument, you attacked me.

Actually, you attacked me. With phrases like "I find your lack of compassion disturbing" and it was "ill-thought out, without foundation, moral, economic and scientific basis" which were are just plain wrong showing no attempt from your side to understand what is being said. I believe your personal feelings towards me (hence projecting) is heavily influencing or blinding your replies which is why I am withdrawing because arguing with you is pointless when you are not going to be civil. Not the first occasion.

Here are some sources:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/9/29/1240661/-Feed-an-extra-4-billion-Grow-crops-for-humans-not-animals
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/world-hunger-population-growth-ditching-meat/
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/five-things-would-happen-if-everyone-stopped-eating-meat-a6844811.html

Shaka_Khan
10-28-2017, 16:38
This is the warmest Halloween that I experienced except when I was in Arizona and California.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-29-2017, 20:27
Actually, you attacked me. With phrases like "I find your lack of compassion disturbing" and it was "ill-thought out, without foundation, moral, economic and scientific basis" which were are just plain wrong showing no attempt from your side to understand what is being said. I believe your personal feelings towards me (hence projecting) is heavily influencing or blinding your replies which is why I am withdrawing because arguing with you is pointless when you are not going to be civil. Not the first occasion.

Here are some sources:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/9/29/1240661/-Feed-an-extra-4-billion-Grow-crops-for-humans-not-animals
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/world-hunger-population-growth-ditching-meat/
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/five-things-would-happen-if-everyone-stopped-eating-meat-a6844811.html

That miss-represents what I said.



As for the poor sheep, cows, etc. They will end up on your plate. No need to pity their plight as you season their flesh just before your teeth tear through it.


I find your lack of compassion disturbing. You forget, I grew up on a working sheep farming, I have been involved in the process from birth to death. I care, I eat meat, the two are not a conflict. Simply a fact of life for me.


You espoused a lack of compassion for animals, I responded to that directly by pointing out that even though I have been involved in farming, I still care.

At the end I said:


Face it, your argument is ill thought out and utterly without foundation, moral, economic, or scientific.

You refuse to recognise the simple truth - there are too many people.

I said your argument had no foundation, and that you refused to acknowledge the truth that there are too many people.

I think you're the one projecting - you see me attacking your argument and you take it as a personal attack, so you try to make a nastier personal attack. You're right though, it's not the first time, and I'm not the only one you've done it to.

I read the article you linked from the Independent - it presumes the future is factory farming due to an ever-growing population. So, again, a refusal to engage with the real issue. It's also wrong that if everyone was Vegan there would be no more hunger. We already produce adequate food, the people in the world who are starving live in warzones like Yemen and Somalia, or in countries riddled with corruption like Zimbabwe. You do realise there's enough arable land in Zimbabwe to feed all of Southern Africa, yes?

Famine is a political problem - pretending it's a logistical problem is not helpful.

I noted one thing in that Independent Article - the problem of Antibiotic resistance. This is something else caused by too many people and too much reliance on technology.

The Onegreenplanet article is just as bad, it correctly identifies the problem but then asks not how we can solve it, but how we can get around it. Instead of asking how we can reverse human population growth and bring our numbers back down to a reasonable level. That means about a 50% drop, and most of that needs to happen in Europe and Asia. Lowering the population would mean lower population density, which would mean healthier people and less strain on the environment.

But no, instead we march "forward" and spread across the globe like Locusts.

John Smith
10-31-2017, 20:01
How do you deal with a plague of locust?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-31-2017, 22:48
How do you deal with a plague of locust?

Without spoiling the crops?

Can't really - some modern pesticides will kill them but mostly you wait for them to starve after the eat everything.

Was that your point?

Seamus Fermanagh
10-31-2017, 23:09
How do you deal with a plague of locust?

Saute pan, high smoke point vegetable oil, salt.

Since they ate all of your food, you might as well get it second hand.

Husar
10-31-2017, 23:11
I'm no biologist, but first I'd ask how they become a plague in the first place?
Perhaps it's due to the same monoculture that destroys the soil and two problems could be solved in one step?
Perhaps it is partially because their natural enemies have gone missing?


Saute pan, high smoke point vegetable oil, salt.

Since they ate all of your food, you might as well get it second hand.

:laugh4:

Beskar
10-31-2017, 23:22
You are some terrible individuals. :bow:

Strike For The South
11-09-2017, 07:01
Cows and deer are bros but too dumb to really understand anything.

Pigs are somewhere between dogs and people. Pigs understand and when pigs scream it sounds like people. I try not to think about Pigs.

Chickens are trash and would eat you if they could. DO NOT feel bad for the chickens.

spmetla
11-09-2017, 07:33
Pigs are somewhere between dogs and people. Pigs understand and when pigs scream it sounds like people. I try not to think about Pigs.

The wounded piglets I had to put down when I got their momma sow while hunting did scream, like people too, they made eye contact with me. It really is a gut wrenching sound and among one of the many things I don't like thinking about...

Greyblades
11-10-2017, 09:48
Chickens are trash and would eat you if they could. DO NOT feel bad for the chickens.

Their demeanor is rather fitting considering they are part of what became of the dinosaurs.

Seamus Fermanagh
11-10-2017, 16:19
Their demeanor is rather fitting considering they are part of what became of the dinosaurs.

I'm getting this image of shivering archeopteri huddling for warmth in some rocky cleft, staring bitterly at the little mammals skittering about and having a frolic in drifting flurries.