4 ms·

I'll say it, although this isn't popular. The world has too many people. We had to engineer our food supply to keep up with what is needed to feed everyone.

manmal 8y ago
„Too many“ for what?
- jonnycomputer 8y ago
  How about, "too many to sustain and give a lifestyle that maximizes human potential"?
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    What is "human potential"? What if my life goals are to enjoy tasty food?
jobigoud 8y ago
> We had to engineer our food supply to keep up with what is needed to feed everyone. Nah, not needed. It's only because people eat so much meat.
- Noumenon72 8y ago
  However, meat is a complement to vegetables because it restores what they take out of the soil, so it's not as inefficient as it seems. https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/993309884711129088 https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/993309884711129088
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    Where do cows get their nutrients from?
    - Noumenon72 8y ago
      I guess what she's saying must only apply to grass fed.
chillingeffect 8y ago
Not really, sorry.. first we are not feeding everyone. Second, animals take more space and resourced than vegetables.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  People are starving because we don't drive food over to give to them, not because there isn't enough food being harvested due to meat or anything else.
jonnycomputer 8y ago
It seems that there are two replies: 1. No there aren't too many people; people just need to change their lifestyles. 2. Yes, there are too many people, because with far fewer people, we could have all the things we like (like lots of meat, cell phones, automobiles), and the overall impact will be small. Given how hard it is to change lifestyles, maybe #2 is the more practical alternative.
- lev99 8y ago
  I don't see how significantly reducing the number of people on the planet is practical. Yes, current models predict global population capping, but it will stabilize higher than it currently is. There are two actions that modify the population count. Birth and Death. We can decrease our birth rate while increasing freedom by offering better reproductive healthcare to those without access, but I don't think it will decrease the birth rate enough to make it lower than the death rate. To reduce the current population to a level with "far fewer" it would involve involuntarily death increasing (war, murder, fatal accidents, illness), or involuntary decrease in birthrate (China's one-child-per-family policy, forced sterilization). Both of those seem horrific to me, especially if the motivation is to give more luxury resources to the living.
  - qrbLPHiKpiux 8y ago
    Or have a massive antibiotic resistant bacteria wipe out a significant number or the population.
    - lev99 8y ago
      I covered that in illness. I think we are better armed to handle epidemic infectious disease than we ever have been, and a Black Plague level of population decrease is unlikely for a few reasons. 1. The disease model is very useful for identifying root causes of infection. Knowledge is a very powerful tool in prevention. 2. We have experience fighting infectious disease that do not respond to anti-biotics. They are a very powerful tool, but not our only tool. 3. State level actors, such as the United States CDC, have broad authority in the case of epidemics. Antibiotic resistant bacteria is a scenario they have war gamed many times, and a situation they monitor closely.

manmal 8y ago

„Too many“ for what?

jonnycomputer 8y ago
How about, "too many to sustain and give a lifestyle that maximizes human potential"?
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  What is "human potential"? What if my life goals are to enjoy tasty food?

jobigoud 8y ago

> We had to engineer our food supply to keep up with what is needed to feed everyone. Nah, not needed. It's only because people eat so much meat.

Noumenon72 8y ago
However, meat is a complement to vegetables because it restores what they take out of the soil, so it's not as inefficient as it seems. https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/993309884711129088 https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/993309884711129088
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  Where do cows get their nutrients from?
  - Noumenon72 8y ago
    I guess what she's saying must only apply to grass fed.

chillingeffect 8y ago

Not really, sorry.. first we are not feeding everyone. Second, animals take more space and resourced than vegetables.

fjsolwmv 8y ago
People are starving because we don't drive food over to give to them, not because there isn't enough food being harvested due to meat or anything else.

jonnycomputer 8y ago

It seems that there are two replies: 1. No there aren't too many people; people just need to change their lifestyles. 2. Yes, there are too many people, because with far fewer people, we could have all the things we like (like lots of meat, cell phones, automobiles), and the overall impact will be small. Given how hard it is to change lifestyles, maybe #2 is the more practical alternative.

lev99 8y ago
I don't see how significantly reducing the number of people on the planet is practical. Yes, current models predict global population capping, but it will stabilize higher than it currently is. There are two actions that modify the population count. Birth and Death. We can decrease our birth rate while increasing freedom by offering better reproductive healthcare to those without access, but I don't think it will decrease the birth rate enough to make it lower than the death rate. To reduce the current population to a level with "far fewer" it would involve involuntarily death increasing (war, murder, fatal accidents, illness), or involuntary decrease in birthrate (China's one-child-per-family policy, forced sterilization). Both of those seem horrific to me, especially if the motivation is to give more luxury resources to the living.
- qrbLPHiKpiux 8y ago
  Or have a massive antibiotic resistant bacteria wipe out a significant number or the population.
  - lev99 8y ago
    I covered that in illness. I think we are better armed to handle epidemic infectious disease than we ever have been, and a Black Plague level of population decrease is unlikely for a few reasons. 1. The disease model is very useful for identifying root causes of infection. Knowledge is a very powerful tool in prevention. 2. We have experience fighting infectious disease that do not respond to anti-biotics. They are a very powerful tool, but not our only tool. 3. State level actors, such as the United States CDC, have broad authority in the case of epidemics. Antibiotic resistant bacteria is a scenario they have war gamed many times, and a situation they monitor closely.