BBC Article: World must eat less meat

[Maverick]

I've always thought that eventually we all have to become vegeterian or drastically reduce our meat consumption if our population continues to grows at its current rate. This article puts a different spin on it also showing how our water supply is affected by meat consumption.

Even though I gave up meat recently for religious reasons, I can't imagine 90% of the US population could ever give it up completely. I guess they'll have to though.
Either that or someone needs to create nanotechnology-based food replicators real quick

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3559542.stm

 

[puffff]

sorry, i'm not giving up my steak.

 

[GasX]

How about I eat my steaks and have no more than two kids...

reminds me of a movie I saw over the weekend: Beyond Borders. It was based around aid workers in refugee camps. While the stories are tragic, can I just ask one question?

If you live in the desert and don't have any food, why don't you stop fvcking and move to somewhere where it rains!?!?!?!

 

[Cattlegod]

Hmm, I don't really see a problem with running out of water. Then again, I've lived my whole life next to the great lakes, so I might be out of touch, but I think we have more important problems than a water crisis on our hands.

 

[CraigRT]

I could easily give up meat.. bring it on!

 

[BillGates]

Maybe some countries should work on not being overpopulated so that the United States would have more room to grow steaks.

 

[Nitemare]

Not goin to happen

 

[Amused]

Um, NO.

If meat takes up too much water to produce, the PRICE will rise and that will correct the situation.

It never ceases to amaze me how much FUD activists will spread about something the free market will obviously correct when and IF the time comes.

 

[Shockwave]

That article isnt entirely correct. While grain CAN use less water then animals, irrigators continue to water crops to increase yeilds. Irnocially enough, irrigators always seem to be the first ones to go broke when hard times hit, so i have no idea WHY they do it, but they do.
To put it in perspective, a medium sized irrigation well can pull 500 gallons per minute of water. Some run 24 hours d ay!!!

You do the math, but let me tell you, thats a HELLUVA lot of water. Additionally, some larger systems can push around 1000 gallons a minute.Thats 60,000 gallons an hour.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Amused
Um, NO.

If meat takes up too much water to produce, the PRICE will rise and that will correct the situation.

It never ceases to amaze me how much FUD activists will spread about something the free market will obviously correct when and IF the time comes.

Not to mention that at that point, there will be a marked business interest in efficient desalinization of ocean water.

 

[Maverick]

I don't think limiting people to having two kids is really going to help matters. If I have two kids, and those two kids have two kids....my wife and I just created 6 mouths to feed.

Unless everyone is limited to one kid the population growth is going to always be moving up.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Amused
Um, NO.

If meat takes up too much water to produce, the PRICE will rise and that will correct the situation.

It never ceases to amaze me how much FUD activists will spread about something the free market will obviously correct when and IF the time comes.

Not to mention that at that point, there will be a marked business interest in efficient desalinization of ocean water.

Good point.

In short, when people like this say I "must" do anything, I usually make it a point to do the opposite.

It's just a shame I've increased the amount of fish and decreased the amount of beef I eat because I just started on a cutting diet. :frown:

I'll try to add more chicken and turkey.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Maverick
I don't think limiting people to having two kids is really going to help matters. If I have two kids, and those two kids have two kids....my wife and I just created 6 mouths to feed.

Unless everyone is limited to one kid the population growth is going to always be moving up.

Um, no. Two kids per couple is replacement, i.e., zero growth. One kid per couple is negative growth.

And limiting procreation is a serious violation of human rights. Want to limit procreation? Do so through education, not force.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: puffff
sorry, i'm not giving up my steak.

:beer:

 

[Maverick]

Originally posted by: Amused
Um, NO.

If meat takes up too much water to produce, the PRICE will rise and that will correct the situation.

It never ceases to amaze me how much FUD activists will spread about something the free market will obviously correct when and IF the time comes.

I agree that the price will rise to reflect the situation, but wouldn't it be better to avoid the possibility of the prices rising out of control to avoid human disasters?

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Amused

And limiting procreation is a serious violation of human rights. Want to limit procreation? Do so through education, not force.

Yes, that technique seems to be working the world over doesnt it.

 

[Maverick]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Maverick
I don't think limiting people to having two kids is really going to help matters. If I have two kids, and those two kids have two kids....my wife and I just created 6 mouths to feed.

Unless everyone is limited to one kid the population growth is going to always be moving up.

Um, no. Two kids per couple is replacement, i.e., zero growth. One kid per couple is negative growth.

And limiting procreation is a serious violation of human rights. Want to limit procreation? Do so through education, not force.

Do you have any links showing how two kids per couple = zero growth? Not that I doubt your logic but I'm just curious about the statistics behind it.
I never said I was for limiting procreation...but lets be honest...no amount of education is going to stop poor people from fvcking.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Maverick

Originally posted by: Amused
Um, NO.

If meat takes up too much water to produce, the PRICE will rise and that will correct the situation.

It never ceases to amaze me how much FUD activists will spread about something the free market will obviously correct when and IF the time comes.

I agree that the price will rise to reflect the situation, but wouldn't it be better to avoid the possibility of the prices rising out of control to avoid human disasters?

The poor and starving of the world already cannot afford meat. It is largely grains that feed them.

And besides, it is not a lack of food or ability to produce it that is creating the vast majority of hunger in the world. It is despot governments and failed attempts at communism that has caused the vast majority of starvation.

Human disasters caused by my eating habits? Excuse me, but that just screams FUD to me.

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Maverick
Do you have any links showing how two kids per couple = zero growth? Not that I doubt your logic but I'm just curious about the statistics behind it.
I never said I was for limiting procreation...but lets be honest...no amount of education is going to stop poor people from fvcking.

2 couples, 1 kid each. Thus, 4 people (2 couples) = 2 kids. These 2 kids have 1 baby.
You've went from 4 people to 2 people to 1 person.

 

[Maverick]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: Maverick
Do you have any links showing how two kids per couple = zero growth? Not that I doubt your logic but I'm just curious about the statistics behind it.
I never said I was for limiting procreation...but lets be honest...no amount of education is going to stop poor people from fvcking.

2 couples, 1 kid each. Thus, 4 people (2 couples) = 2 kids. These 2 kids have 1 baby.
You've went from 4 people to 2 people to 1 person.

thats the negative growth...I wanted the zero growth one based on One couple, two kids

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Maverick

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Maverick
I don't think limiting people to having two kids is really going to help matters. If I have two kids, and those two kids have two kids....my wife and I just created 6 mouths to feed.

Unless everyone is limited to one kid the population growth is going to always be moving up.

Um, no. Two kids per couple is replacement, i.e., zero growth. One kid per couple is negative growth.

And limiting procreation is a serious violation of human rights. Want to limit procreation? Do so through education, not force.

Do you have any links showing how two kids per couple = zero growth? Not that I doubt your logic but I'm just curious about the statistics behind it.
I never said I was for limiting procreation...but lets be honest...no amount of education is going to stop poor people from fvcking.

It's simple math. If you only replace yourself and your spouse (and everyone else does the same including your offspring) growth will slow and flatten out.

You don't need a link for this. You only need to THINK about it.

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Maverick

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: Maverick
Do you have any links showing how two kids per couple = zero growth? Not that I doubt your logic but I'm just curious about the statistics behind it.
I never said I was for limiting procreation...but lets be honest...no amount of education is going to stop poor people from fvcking.

2 couples, 1 kid each. Thus, 4 people (2 couples) = 2 kids. These 2 kids have 1 baby.
You've went from 4 people to 2 people to 1 person.

thats the negative growth...I wanted the zero growth one based on One couple, two kids

reading comprehension > me

 

[JulesMaximus]

I'll never give up meat. I don't eat as much now as I used to though. Mostly fish and chicken for me and vegan foods with the occasional steak or burger. I do love a good burger!

 

[welst10]

I eat some meat (chicken, pork, seafood). But it won't bother me if there is none. I am perfectly fine with Chinese vegetable dishes.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Maverick

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: Maverick
Do you have any links showing how two kids per couple = zero growth? Not that I doubt your logic but I'm just curious about the statistics behind it.
I never said I was for limiting procreation...but lets be honest...no amount of education is going to stop poor people from fvcking.

2 couples, 1 kid each. Thus, 4 people (2 couples) = 2 kids. These 2 kids have 1 baby.
You've went from 4 people to 2 people to 1 person.

thats the negative growth...I wanted the zero growth one based on One couple, two kids

Do you really not understand how 2 kids per couple is zero growth?