4 ms·
Do you mean to imply that the only thing we need to do is "stop having children like there's no tomorrow?" michaelochurch didn't say that outlawing factory far
by dwiel 14y ago
Do you mean to imply that the only thing we need to do is "stop having children like there's no tomorrow?" michaelochurch didn't say that outlawing factory farming was the only thing we should do like you seem to imply.
- XorNot 14y agoAlso it's been done. Western fertility rates are on average ~2. Development and education in poorer nations - especially for women - also results in declining birthrates. Interesting side point though: reduced birthrates don't result in any benefits to drug-resistant bacteria though, since a small population can still run high density feedlots which promote them!
- schiffern 14y ago>Interesting side point though: reduced birthrates don't result in any benefits to drug-resistant bacteria though, since a small population can still run high density feedlots which promote them! Side-note is incorrect. It's a probability game. Going from (hypothetically) 1000 CAFOs to 10 would drop the rate of production by 100x.
- XorNot 14y agoWhich doesn't matter, because it only has to happen once. Literally nothing about reducing the population density of an area addresses the horrific practices of the meat industry. They would still be a bad idea if there was exactly 1 next to a town of 1000 people, because that town would still be wiped out by drug-resistant bacteria. We don't need current meat production practices - they're about corporate profit, not long-term efficiency.
- moheeb 14y agoNo, you're incorrect. Reducing the human population density would decrease meat consumption, which would decrease cattle population density, which would decrease anti-bacterial consumption.