General / Off-Topic Let's Have A Debate: To Be, Or Not To Be Vegan? That Is The Question ...

Fish stocks have been ravaged too by over-fishing... While healthier than meat, it's still not helping over all.
I suppose in the end, what we need is a population cull. One change that our modern civilisation has brought is there are fewer wars of any scale, so people don't die off, and in addition we live longer.
A population cull? What do you propose?
 



Est 1887, jus' sayin'...


I think what's more likely to happen for the foreseeable future is many people will starve while the people with the means to do so will change very little.
Same old, same old...

If we come to embrace grass fed beef more widely, it's probably still going to be marketed as a somewhat premium item as it is now.
"Tastes great and assuages guilt too!"

And I'm pretty (read: 100%) sure there will always be a market for the direct opposite line of thinking too:




Fatten those beasts up by the most extravagant means possible folks!

NOMNOMNOM!
 
Or the pork versions?
Oh my goodness, also hailing from Kagoshima like that hunk of Wagyu above, the famed Kurobuta Berkshire pigs?



Suh-weeeet pigpigpigpigpigpigggggyyyy!!!!

 
1. Where;'s the doc? I haven't seen him lately.

2. It's a proven fact that a vegan diet is not, nutritionally and due to body type, blood type and general make up, a diet for everyone.

3. If you want to go vegan; knock yourself out. It's not my thing but I do beleive in good nutrion and balance in a diet.
 
Whatever you eat, you kill another living "creature".
Plants are lifeforms, too.

Only synthetic food will one day end that pseudodiscussion between meat-eaters, vegetarians and vegans.
Until then, enjoy your salad.... It died for you.
 
That's because the change in population is going to outpace any meager gains made by eating less impactful foods.
We've historically increased productivity faster than population growth (there is more food produced per person today than at any time in history) and there are a lot of options available to further increase efficiency; shaping demand for less impactful sources of protein will be no small part of that.

Not neccesarily.
Pasture land just "is" and requires very little in the way of intervention.
Not so for growing crops, that land has to be resown every year, which takes a lot of energy.
We don't do that by hand.
We also use lots of petrochemicals to do so.
It's nit quite so clear cut.
Pasture is an important part of agriculture and yes, it's less work to manage than cropland, but it's production also cannot be scaled to the same degree. Sure you can move animals around more efficiently and mix the right species together for complementary effect, but the productivity potential is lower.

Cattle don't subsist entirely off of feed, and even feedlot cattle generally spend half their life in pasture.
Still less efficient than many other sources of protein, as is reflected in their current prices, and this differential will certainly grow.

I simply don't see it happening.
Farmed fish?
Lol, I highly doubt that.
They have all the same problems, but it's compounded by them living in water, and we don't.
That translates to costs.
Half of all fish consumed are already farmed (farmed fish production is significantly higher than total beef production and is growing much faster) and good practice aquaculture is a cheaper and more sustainable source of protein than almost anything else involving vertebrates, including essentially all ruminants that can be pasture fed. I believe chicken is still slightly cheaper, but that may change in the near future.

Furthermore, as the Aus article suggests, pasture lands fine for beef production are often unsuitable for crops in the first place.
Yes, and raising ruminants for meat isn't going anywhere...it's just going to be a progressively less important source of meat for most people.
 
Last edited:
....
We've historically increased productivity faster than population growth (there is more food produced per person today than at any time in history) and there are a lot of options available to further increase efficiency; shaping demand for less impactful sources of protein will be no small part of that.
....
You know, this statement makes me quite mad actually. And it's not just naive to say, but ignorant as well. Sure, if you don't look over to the horizon, the scope is much smaller.

FACT:
  • Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five - 3.1 million children each year.
source: https://www.foodaidfoundation.org/world-hunger-statistics.html
 
You know, this statement makes me quite mad actually. And it's not just naive to say, but ignorant as well. Sure, if you don't look over to the horizon, the scope is much smaller.

FACT:
  • Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five - 3.1 million children each year.
source: https://www.foodaidfoundation.org/world-hunger-statistics.html
Not sure what you find naive or ignorant about a factual statement regarding food production.

I made no claims or implications about how that food was used, only that more is currently being produced, per capita, than at any time in recorded history. Food being poorly distributed, and poorly utilized, is another matter entirely. That's an inequality issue.

Global production is not the bottleneck here, and likely never will be; that was the point.
 
You know, this statement makes me quite mad actually. And it's not just naive to say, but ignorant as well. Sure, if you don't look over to the horizon, the scope is much smaller.

FACT:
  • Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five - 3.1 million children each year.
source: https://www.foodaidfoundation.org/world-hunger-statistics.html
You're confusing the issue, ArtiX. What Morbad was saying has nothing to with whether the food gets to the end user or not. The link you provided just demonstrates the need for a strong western democracy where food production and humanitarian policies may flourish.
 
Not sure what you find naive or ignorant about a factual statement regarding food production.

I made no claims or implications about how that food was used, only that more is currently being produced, per capita, than at any time in recorded history. Food being poorly distributed, and poorly utilized, is another matter entirely. That's an inequality issue.

Global production is not the bottleneck here, and likely never will be; that was the point.
Don't say global, when you actually are talking about your own Country only. It's not just the distribution,
because overproduction in one place, often takes ressources from another.

Take any so-called Third World Country and look at what they mainly produce.
They produce the ressources that they can sell for the most profit, TO YOUR COUNTRY!
Because any given Food "producer" in your Country pays good money for it, Palm Oil, for instance.
Humans become prey to carnivorous traits of an ever increasing greed in Capitalism,
and people feel better when they don't have to see starving children by just closing their eyes to reality.

Your reply was a living example of such ignorance.
 
Top Bottom