4 ms·
Nah. The obvious endgame there is that you reduce the amount of land required per person and then increase the persons, ending up with the same land requiremen
by throwaway55421 5y ago
Nah.
The obvious endgame there is that you reduce the amount of land required per person and then increase the persons, ending up with the same land requirement.
Then we look for the next thing to cut.
I'll just keep my current quality of life and outcompete others for resources, thanks. Carbon tax pls.
- colordrops 5y agoThis makes no sense, and is a typical non-sequitur thrown out by those who are unwilling to give up meat. There is absolutely no evidence that meat eating is the limiting factor in population growth.
- throwaway55421 5y agoEvidence? It's mathematical, not scientific. Derivable from first principles. I can eat meat as much as I want provided another 7 billion people don't also do the same. The issue is with the number of people, not the activity. Literally any use of land is a bad idea at that scale, we end up in rabbit hutches.
- colordrops 5y agoAnother non-sensical response. You made the claim, not me. It's your responsibility to provide evidence.
- throwaway55421 5y agoFor more information, please re-read.
- wizzwizz4 5y agoWhat you've said makes sense, but not as a reply. Unless you can explain how it justifies the claim that the other person claimed you made?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Ericson2314 5y agoMalthus didn't count on people just not wanting to have kids.
- earleybird 5y ago> There is absolutely no evidence that meat eating is the limiting factor in population growth. So you're saying eating meat is fine then?
- colordrops 5y agoIf this comment isn't a joke then you are acting in bad faith.
- earleybird 5y agoNot a joke, just not following your chain of logic regarding meat eating.
- colordrops 5y agoNo you aren't, you are replying with a snarky non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with any claims or logic in my post.
- bliteben 5y agoI think the response you are replying to meant this sentiment: Ranch land can and occasionally does turn back into wild land, once its a subdivision its gone forever. Over the long run he is certainly right that less requirements for ranch land doesn't do anything to ensure that we get more land without fences.
- throwaway55421 5y agoMy argument is that eating vegetarian does not reduce land use for agriculture. It does to first order. Then we just end up with more mouths - like what happened after the Haber-Bosch process.