2 ms·

Maybe. If crops fail, it's going to depend on what crops fail. We won't have the option of radically reapportioning our crops on the fly; while a pre-emptive m

Maybe. If crops fail, it's going to depend on what crops fail. We won't have the option of radically reapportioning our crops on the fly; while a pre-emptive move to vegetarianism might help, that's a radical solution for a problem that may happen every 20,000 years. So, consider what happens. If crops like alfalfa end up more resilient, we probably won't eat those past their sprout stage. However, if they can feed rabbits, it may be incredibly valuable as an option. However, we would absolutely be looking to prioritize vegetables that can be processed for either human or animal consumption, even if they're not particularly palatable. I think the real problem, however, is the calories that would be available from such. I think it's fair to say that if the food dries up, we would cull herds early and prioritize the most efficient food sources. We would likely be eating much less meat, if at all. We would not have room to be picky with our food.

saalweachter 5y ago
> We would likely be eating much less meat, if at all. In the short term, we would probably end up eating a lot more meat -- most of the hundreds of millions of cows, pigs and chickens we could cull wouldn't be slaughtered at the optimal time, being too young or too old, but we'd still be insane not to preserve as much of the meat as possible. > We won't have the option of radically reapportioning our crops on the fly... We can't turn alfalfa into wheat or rice, nor grow rice or wheat in all places we now have pastures, but we will have the option to redirect the corn and soybeans we use for livestock feed. These feeds are produced to lower standards -- for instance, there are higher limits on residual pesticides -- but in a catastrophe it's better than nothing.