General / Off-Topic Let's Have A Debate: To Be, Or Not To Be Vegan? That Is The Question ...
- Thread starter Alien
- Start date
My impression is that ArtiX is blaming evil capitalism (America in particular, I think) for the people in those developing countries not being able to afford the food that is being produced. Seems like a stretch to me, but perhaps he'll chime in with some details clarifying his position.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Right, and most of that was crawling out of the middle ages, and into modern production methods.
And our major gains for the foreseeable future will still revolve around that.
It's not magic, it's infrastructure.
There are objective limits to what can be squeezed from an acre.
Doesn't matter if the land is unsuitable for crops, period.
We best keep using it.
Again, it's a red herring if it can't be grown there at all.
Factory farms are factory farms and all have similar limitations/drawbacks.
ANYTHING done in the ocean is going to be expensive.
Not like the oceans are getting any cleaner either.
Agreed.
To what degree?
I don't think it's going to change much in the near future.
Well, I was at a veggie restaurant the other day [because they allowed dogs inside] and they had three types of burger, a quinoa one, a beet/beetroot one and a "vegan lentil burger"
So, I guess the answer to your question is ... yes!
BTW, has anyone else tried those "Impossible Burgers"? they are really quite good.
People underestimate how many imitations to meat there are and how good (some) of them taste.
Didn't you guys establish that plants feel "pain" too?
Last edited:
I said global because I meant global. Total food produced divided by total human population.
That situation doesn't change based on where I am.
Those are all aspects of distribution.
I'm acutely aware of this.
You are mistaken. I simply wasn't talking about what you are talking about.
Flaws in economic policies, exploitation of developing nations, inegalitarian distribution (of both production and product), excessive waste, and yes, unsustainable agricultural practices...all contributors to the undeniable fact that huge numbers of people still go hungry. However, none of that changes that enough food is being produced and that even if sustainable production is the goal, production will increase.
He's not wrong.
Long strings of totalitarian dictatorships and banana republics in much of the developing world, as well as the tacit support of wealthier nations for whoever can supply whatever as cheaply as possible, has left much of Central/South America, South East Asia, and most especially Africa, worse off, even as their productivity has increased. Countries with starving populations are frequently increasing their food exports faster than they are their food production.
In many ways, recent practices are just an unofficial extension of colonialism.
No it was not. Food production per hectare has increased more in each decade from 1940 on than from several centuries prior to the early 1900s.
'Modern' production methods are constantly evolving and stuff I learned less than twenty years ago is often quite outdated today.
Crop Yields
Increasing crop yields is crucial to improve food security, living standards, and reduce human impacts on the environment.
ourworldindata.org
And, overall, we aren't anywhere near them.
And we will, as long as it's profitable to. It's just going to be a proportionally smaller fraction of food production as time goes on.
Generally not as expensive as pasture, in terms of food produced per dollar, and prices are falling.
There are definitely negative sides to aquaculture, but improvements are being made in all areas, including environmental impact.
Beef production has been growing much more slowly than pork, poultry, or fish production for more than half a century, and this trend is not likely to change. Fewer people eating beef, and those people generally eating less beef, is the trend. Populations are still rising, as is average protien intake...it's just not going to be from ruminants because they are not efficient sources for most people.
World Meat Production By Year
The world is projected to produce a record 262.8 million metric tons of meat (beef, pork & chicken) in 2017. If realized, this will be the most meat produced in history.
beef2live.com
The future is here: People are now eating more farmed fish than wild-caught fish
If you can't catch 'em, grow 'em.
qz.com
Towards Blue Transformation
What does the ideal aquatic food system look like? For starters, it would be able to provide sufficient aquatic food for our growing population in a sustainable way.Check out the @FAO interactive story to learn more: https://www.fao.org/state-of-fisheries-aquaculture/en/
www.fao.org
Will ocean seafood farming sink or swim? Study evaluates its potential
Seafood farming in the ocean—or marine aquaculture—is the fastest growing sector of the global food system, and it shows no sign of slowing. Open-ocean farms have vast space for expansion, and consumer demand continues to rise.
Global food production has increased faster.
Food Supply
How had the availability of food changed over time? How does food supply vary across the world today?
ourworldindata.org
Last edited:
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
Hence the 'sentient' stipulation. While true that plants are life forms it is missing the main points of the argument:
1) Plants cannot feel pain or be mistreated like an animal can, especially a close relative of humans like any other mammal.
2) Raising animals for food rather than using a pure plant based source of calories is ecologically damaging and inefficient when taking a global perspective.
Have you seen any research on chimpanzees? We share 99% of our DNA with them. They are ruthless killers, carnivores and cannibals.
You can deny your DNA all you want, make whatever "conscious" moral arguments you want, biology dictates our behavior and what we need.
Anytime a population specializes, reducing its capacity to exploit a variety of environments or resources, it becomes more vulnerable to extinction. We need more meat. We need more different types of meat. We need to hunt, dress and prepare our own meat.
Oh, by the way. If you want to save rhinos, elephants, tigers etc. you would farm them. Not many endangered cows or pigs right?
You can deny your DNA all you want, make whatever "conscious" moral arguments you want, biology dictates our behavior and what we need.
Anytime a population specializes, reducing its capacity to exploit a variety of environments or resources, it becomes more vulnerable to extinction. We need more meat. We need more different types of meat. We need to hunt, dress and prepare our own meat.
Oh, by the way. If you want to save rhinos, elephants, tigers etc. you would farm them. Not many endangered cows or pigs right?
Right, we should become ruthless cannibals without any real government, rules or knowledge and play by the rules of nature, that's what our DNA dictates right?
Sorry Jenner, but you're wrong, plants do feel pain, it has been scientifically proven. What we as humans can't do, without scientific equipment, is detect that plants feel pain. I think it's naive to think that something that is alive, and grows and dies, can get diseases or be eaten while still alive ..... doesn't feel pain, simply because it's not obvious to us when that plant is in pain.
Also what we do with animals for our food supply, is far far better than what some animals do to other animals. For example, there is a wasp that preys on caterpillars. It drags it to a hole, injects an egg inside it, and bricks it up so it can't escape. The wasp larvae then eats the caterpillar from within while it's still alive. Things like that make me glad we have the capacity to understand what we're doing and how we treat animals. By the way, have you ever seen an abattoir? I have. They are very respectful to the animal. It's killed in the kindest way we can possibly do it. We treat cows far far better than lions treat antelopes. Think about that.
Last edited:
This is indeed a problem.
And the western world consumes the resources of the planet on credit since in general in the first semester it consumed the totality of what the earth can regenerate in one year.
@Morbad, not seeing the "fault" of the buyers there. If you or anyone else wants to assign blame, then you should stick with the third world regimes exporting their products to the detriment of their people, at least in this particular equation. The leaders of these countries could use the money to do something good for their people, but they don't, and that is nobody's fault but their own.
@Siobhan, still waiting for your elaboration on your "population culling" plan. Can't wait for some practical details.
@Siobhan, still waiting for your elaboration on your "population culling" plan. Can't wait for some practical details.
Last edited:
They know those they are paying do not have the will or well being of their people in mind and they do not care. When a corporation or congolmerate buys enormous tracts of land in a country like Sudan, specifically to grow food for export, it's no different than you or I watching a mugging then buying a discount, blood spattered, watch from the mugger.
I'm not making any moral judgements about either activity (and who am I to judge? After all, I buy the food these conglomerates sell, knowing full well how they got much of it), just pointing out their obvious equivalence.
Last edited:
Deleted member 110222
D
I've liked this not because I necessarily agree with it, but it certainly provides a fresh perspective.
I specifically refer to your farming comment. I don't know if I'm comfortable with it yet, but I do see the logic you are using, and have to concede that you might be onto something.
In the blink of an eye society can evaporate. In many places on the globe it does not exist. Would you cut off your left hand because there is speech to text and you don't need to type any more? We need to preserve our capacities to exploit and endure a variety of environments and resources. Limit your capacities at your descendants' peril.
Plenty of recently extinct or endangered wild and domesticated pig and cattle species and breeds.
Also, ones bred for hundreds or thousands of years to be food for us no longer fill the ecological niches their ancestors did. Domesticating and farming something can destroy it just as thoroughly as hunting it to extinction or annihilating it's natural habitat.
Even in places where society has virtually broke down, people still don't behave and do what we did in the stone age because technology is so embedded in us nowadays (cough cough, weapons), leveling a whole medium city is no joke, do you seriously think that you can mess around like Tarzan in a place where society has broken down?. BTW, those "many places" are the exception, not the rule.
I might as well buy a bunker and a good amount of food supplies to prepared for the ever coming end of the world.
Last edited: