4 ms·
This 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 t
by colordrops 5y ago
This 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.