4 ms·
> What about the gigantic consumption of water this implies? The water isn't destroyed. It goes right back into the ecosystem. The planet surface is 70% wate
by jpadkins 8y ago
> What about the gigantic consumption of water this implies?
The water isn't destroyed. It goes right back into the ecosystem. The planet surface is 70% water. We aren't running out of water.
> how many people could we feed?
The US could probably feed the entire world with meat, with unlimited energy / $$. People going hungry is not a food production problem, it's an economic and logistic problem.
If we use plant based food, we could probably feed 3X the world problem (or use 1/3rd the land). World hunger isn't caused by lack of productive land.
Your other point on meat requires more land use and energy than plant food is correct.
- sorrymate 8y agoSure, 70% of the earths surface is water. 97.5% being salt water and 2.5% being fresh water. You can't use sea water to irrigate agriculture. You can't drink sea water from the faucet. Additional money/ cost and work would be need to make the water drinkable. Please consider that many states like California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, water is a valuable resource. And yes, we are running out of cheap drinkable water. That's why most of the west coast gets most of their water all the way from Colorado.
- jpadkins 8y agodesalination exists. the key word in is cheap. It's an economic and energy problem, not a water resource problem. They get water from Colorado because its cheaper than desalination. Once it's not, they will get water from the ocean. also, all water requires money / energy to process before we drink it or use it on crops. It's just a matter of much money / energy you use depending on the source.