4 ms·
If we are at the point where we don't have enough land to support raising livestock for meat, this means our population is too high, not that we're eating the w
by fallingknife 6y ago
If we are at the point where we don't have enough land to support raising livestock for meat, this means our population is too high, not that we're eating the wrong thing.
- jacknews 6y agoWhat did people eat 50_000 years ago? Probably not steak and eggs in cheese sauce washed down with a glass of milk.
- Number157 6y agoThey had all sorts of deficiencies and ate anything they came across. Literally anything. As in, practically every culture has had cannibalism, for instance.
- delecti 6y agoOur population is too high for our resource consumption, which leaves two dials to adjust. It sure seems a whole hell of a lot less genocidal to just raise fewer cows than to eliminate people, and yet you rule out that option up front?
- k__ 6y agoIt's really sad to see such misanthropic opinions here.
- mikkergp 6y agoSo I’ve seen this negativity towards reducing global population but I don’t entirely understand it. Based on the fact that richer countries tend to have lower rates of reproduction than poorer countries. So why not reduce global inequality and then let people have as many kids as they want (which tends not to be enough to increase the global population). It seems like a win win.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ma2rten 6y agoI am also sad to see sentient beings being referred to as things.
- altcognito 6y agoWanting to insure that we have an appropriate amount of resources to support humans isn’t misanthropic, it is good planning. You can’t have endless population growth forever, it literally violates the laws of physics at some point.
- k__ 6y agoI don't know if prohibiting people from having kids so you can keep eating burgers is the optimal solution.
- fallingknife 6y agoWell eventually the population gets to 4x what it is today, and then you are going to be using all of the available land to grow plant based food for everyone. So now your choice is limit reproduction or starve, so obviously you're going to choose to limit reproduction. It's inevitable, so might as well do it at a point where everyone doesn't have to eat nothing but rice and beans.
- tyingq 6y agoI didn't read anything anti-humankind there. Arguably, it's an important point because if we do nothing, famine might kick in to correct for it. Better availability of contraception, for example, isn't a rash measure.
- fallingknife 6y agoYeah let's continue to cram more and more people onto Earth to the point that we have to continuously lower our standard of living just to fit them all. But I'm the one who's misanthropic?
- DangitBobby 6y agoI'm gonna disagree!
- joubert 6y agoI know what you’re saying, but at some point you could argue we “ARE eating the wrong thing”, considering our population size. Said differently, I hypothesize that it would be more practicable to create policies that influence what we eat and how that food is produced, compared to creating policies that try to reduce population size. If anything, it appears that more advanced countries are competing to gain population so that the machinery of their societies can keep chugging along in the name of growth. EDIT: elsewhere in the thread I see people comment on multi-use of animals vs plants, and the consequent implication of increased use of undesirable synthetics/plastics if we raise fewer animals. Systems get complex, and their behavior can change drastically in surprising ways if you start fiddling. But fiddling we must.
- jdmoreira 6y agoPopulation is not really the problem. The problem is the western way of living. I guarantee you that the average American trashes this world thousands of times more than the average Congolese. How about we set the example for those that want to live like us and change our ways. Is it really worth to live for overconsumption and overfeeding ourselves to death? What kind of life are we leading?
- fallingknife 6y agoYou think it would be better if all lived like the Congolese? Since that is easily attainable, I'm sure you have already bought your plane ticket. When are you heading over?
- jdmoreira 6y agoExcept that's not what I said and you know it.
- soyftware 6y agoWe raise and kill multiples of human population of animals a year, and already produce enough food for our entire population without raising livestock. This means people care more about their tastebuds than ethics.
- bbddg 6y agoSo basically your solution to this problem would be eugenics rather than just eating less meat?