Would you eat less meat to save the world ?

[jaysizzles]

don't think anything will save the world but giving up meat would be easy

Unfortunately, I agree.

The world is probably at the tipping point of no return and I don't think my giving up a burger every other week is going to have much of an impact when all is said and done. I'd prefer not to give up chicken and fish though. When I think of my minimal impact on this planet in comparison to so many others out there that are wasteful and just don't care, I sometimes think why do I bother/care...but I do.

 

[rareboy]

^ This is why all the fish stocks will be gone by 2100 and meat will be unaffordable except for the wealthiest and the very poorest who will likely keep a goat or two where there lawns and gardens used to be.

Because the whole world will be eating like a present day third world country.

Take a look at what Africans eat and then get ready for that.

But I agree. Why should anyone in this time and place, with meat still plentiful and even with diminishing stacks of fish and seafood, give up anything. It isn't as though anyone ever gave up any foods before to help save the planet or feed more people.

Malthus was right.

The good news is that around 2100, there will likely be a huge population collapse globally...just because of the diminishing birth rates all around the world.

 

[Alnitak]

^ No measure is "necessary". If it is so, "necessary" for what? The survival of the masses the avoidance of a revolution? for business efficiency?
The necessity is to eat. Efficiency (sustainability) is always optional and deffered, especially when you can start ditching out people's "necessities" that do not fit in your balance or system in general, because there can always something else, anything "after", sustainable or not, and always at whose or what "expense"?

Not only do Americans eat absurdly more calories than recommended, our food waste would feed the rest of the world.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

^ This is why all the fish stocks will be gone by 2100 and meat will be unaffordable except for the wealthiest and the very poorest who will likely keep a goat or two where there lawns and gardens used to be.

Because the whole world will be eating like a present day third world country.

Take a look at what Africans eat and then get ready for that.

Africans eat better than most Americans.

But I agree. Why should anyone in this time and place, with meat still plentiful and even with diminishing stacks of fish and seafood, give up anything. It isn't as though anyone ever gave up any foods before to help save the planet or feed more people.

Malthus was right.

The good news is that around 2100, there will likely be a huge population collapse globally...just because of the diminishing birth rates all around the world.

In 2100, food production technology will be 81 years further. I'm sure agriculture can feed the world many times over if we put our mind to it.

 

[Kahaih]

. . . .
In 2100, food production technology will be 81 years further. I'm sure agriculture can feed the world many times over if we put our mind to it.

Agriculture has to have an hospitable environment. Good luck with that.

And where will people be able to live whilst they stuff themselves? In bubble colonies on the ocean floor?

 

[belamyi]

Of course...we could go the soylent green route.

YES! Finally someone posted it... I was thinking I would have to do it myself...

 

[belamyi]

Not only do Americans eat absurdly more calories than recommended, our food waste would feed the rest of the world.

Well, your short history as a nation is long enough do show the consequences of optimistically naive overproduction, and how that problem gets... 'solved'.

 

[Kahaih]

YES! Finally someone posted it... I was thinking I would have to do it myself...

But that is the opposite of this thread's intent, isn't it?

If we're to change the subject to gastronomical cannibalism, we'd likely be encouraging people to eat more meat - a lot more - quickly. Turn urban sprawl areas into hunting grounds - no permits required.

 

[Vannie]

Soylent stuffed cabbages

 

[belamyi]

But that is the opposite of this thread's intent, isn't it?

If we're to change the subject to gastronomical cannibalism, we'd likely be encouraging people to eat more meat - a lot more - quickly. Turn urban sprawl areas into hunting grounds - no permits required.

Nope, it looks like that at first thought but, actually, it's not quite so, because it answers the deep issue of the whole matter: at the bottom of it all is the problem of feeding an overpopulated planet and, then, you use the very problem (people) to feed the problem (people) so, instead of feeding a ever-growing monster, you create a loop.
Then you will be tackling the environmental issue by taking human meat to produce "veggy" food, with a different technology involved than that necessary to raise and process cattle, which is what causes all the gas emission and water shortage problems.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Cormac135]

I've given up all meat apart from bacon.

 

[belamyi]

^ Also the 'flesh' "meat"? Man meat?

 

[Kahaih]

I've painted my submarine yellow, and installed a mailbox.

 

[Cormac135]

^ Also the 'flesh' "meat"? Man meat?

Are you mad ?

 

[zoltanspawn]

I begin with the premise that for the benefit of a flourishing community, some sort of sacrifice should be made by individuals (given the circumstances we are practically faced with).

Perhaps it's restricting transportation, or diet (like meat), reproduction or a serious dedication to the three Rs. I don't know, something.

I think of that as base level decency. (Of course, I prefer a certain approach).

But all the time people seem to find reasons not to have to sacrifice anything.

These are the people I think should "step off the planet." (As many people have told me I ought to do.)

 

[belamyi]

Are you mad ?

Only sex crazy, lecherous old man that I am.

 

[belamyi]

I begin with the premise that for the benefit of a flourishing community, some sort of sacrifice should be made by individuals (given the circumstances we are practically faced with).

Perhaps it's restricting transportation, or diet (like meat), reproduction or a serious dedication to the three Rs. I don't know, something.

I think of that as base level decency. (Of course, I prefer a certain approach).

But all the time people seem to find reasons not to have to sacrifice anything.

These are the people I think should "step off the planet." (As many people have told me I ought to do.)

Don't worry, destiny always ends up reaching us back in the course of history, and things get ultimately solved, strightened or, well, at least, they find a way out... often more traumatically than not but, hey...

 

[zoltanspawn]

^Destiny...ultimate solution...trauma...

That's certainly what will happen.

But not what should happen.

 

[belamyi]

Couldashouldawoulda.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't worry, destiny always ends up reaching us back in the course of history, and things get ultimately solved, strightened or, well, at least, they find a way out... often more traumatically than not but, hey...

Straightened... damn it.

 

[belamyi]

I didn't speak of "ultimate solution" but... the last will be the first, you know...