Frowning-Extinct
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:48 pm



Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Earthlings 
Author Message
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 595
Reply with quote
Post Re: Earthlings

endemoniada_88 wrote:
Because there are already unsustainably large numbers of people overpopulating marginally suitable - at best - parts of the world. History suggests that feeding them more efficiently will simply lead to a population rise to take up the surplus, and an exponential demand for all other resources in order to then increase net standard of living to first-world equivalence.
More harm than good from the Gaia-friendly perspective, I would have thought. Not to mention pretty boring, when everything that isn't houses is fields of soy beans...

I don't think population problem is related to eating meat.
In Ukraine or Russia most people eat meat and don't give a crap about veganism, yet the population doesn't really grow.
Yet for example in the Netherlands there are a lot of vegans, pro nature people etc, but their population density is even a bit higher than in India.

Biggest overpopulated countries - India, China - are not the ones who eat a lot of meat. They don't seem to be the countries that are "feeding more efficiently", rather vice versa.

_________________
"There are moments I find myself not breathing at all" // Katatonia "Brave"


Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:15 pm
Profile WWW
Forum User

Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:10 pm
Posts: 1195
Reply with quote
Post Re: Earthlings

endemoniada_88 wrote:
wyrd wrote:
And going vegan is exactly the answer to the (non existent) world hunger for generations to come. One acre (we call it dunam) of soy beans (put instead any other plant like corn, wheat, et cetera) is either suitable for feeding a cow so it will gain one kilogram in body mass, or feeding several thousands of human on that very same amount of grains. Where's the problem with providing enough proteins with choosing the latter option in stead of the former?

Because there are already unsustainably large numbers of people overpopulating marginally suitable - at best - parts of the world. History suggests that feeding them more efficiently will simply lead to a population rise to take up the surplus, and an exponential demand for all other resources in order to then increase net standard of living to first-world equivalence.
More harm than good from the Gaia-friendly perspective, I would have thought. Not to mention pretty boring, when everything that isn't houses is fields of soy beans...


If that ecological paradigm had actually worked (more resources equals a rise in population, less resources equals to a decrease in population) for the human race as it works so well in the animal kingdom, there wouldn't have been hungry people in the world in the first place, and millions of those. They would have just vanished in a short time. Catch my drift? This paradigm does not work for humans. The answer to the above mentioned problem you raised is a control of birth rate, giving incentives to the small families and depriving rights from the larger ones, as cruel as it may sound...


Sun Jun 16, 2013 1:09 pm
Profile
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:46 am
Posts: 11963
Location: Belgium
Reply with quote
Post Re: Earthlings

the poorer the larger families, the richer the smaller. This is a permanent equation.

_________________
The horror... the horror...
nihil expedit - nothing is worth it


Sun Jun 16, 2013 1:37 pm
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:10 pm
Posts: 1195
Reply with quote
Post Re: Earthlings

baphomet wrote:
the poorer the larger families, the richer the smaller. This is a permanent equation.


You just validated my argument...


Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:15 pm
Profile
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:46 am
Posts: 11963
Location: Belgium
Reply with quote
Post Re: Earthlings

I meant to.

_________________
The horror... the horror...
nihil expedit - nothing is worth it


Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:40 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 595
Reply with quote
Post Re: Earthlings

baphomet wrote:
the poorer the larger families, the richer the smaller. This is a permanent equation.

Well, I'm certain it's far from being that simple.

I've already mentioned Ukraine/Russia vs the Netherlands.
The Netherlands are richer, but apparently have (or had) bigger families.
How do you explain that?

P.S. There's a map of that on Wikipedia BTW - average number of children per family, color-coded per state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Count ... tyrate.svg

Using your simplified point we should conclude from that map that US, France, Ireland are poorer than most of Europe (including Portugal, Greece, Italy, Poland etc), Russia/Ukraine, Romania, China (!), Iran (!), Braliz etc.
Doesn't seem to be true.

Next map to check - child mortality rate.
UPD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mort.svg

_________________
"There are moments I find myself not breathing at all" // Katatonia "Brave"


Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:48 pm
Profile WWW
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 595
Reply with quote
Post Re: Earthlings

P.P.S.
Hmm, I guess I was wrong about the meat question and countries - the love meat more in NL than in post-USSR:
http://geocurrents.info/wp-content/uplo ... apita1.png

_________________
"There are moments I find myself not breathing at all" // Katatonia "Brave"


Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:06 pm
Profile WWW
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:46 am
Posts: 11963
Location: Belgium
Reply with quote
Post Re: Earthlings

If you put religion and health care into the equation it becomes distorted, of course. Religion brings people to make children, and richer countries have easier access to health care but that wasn't my point.
My point is: if we consider "primitive" people, before the time of the globalization and their tutelage by the world market, by "primitive", I mean rougly people who live frugally by Western standards, we see that there is no sign of overpopulation. A society never becomes overpopulated when people are autonomous and meet all their needs. There is a natural regulation to avoid starvation. In fact it could even have the opposite effect: there is a risk of declining birthrate.

_________________
The horror... the horror...
nihil expedit - nothing is worth it


Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:24 pm
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:25 am
Posts: 23
Location: NYC
Reply with quote
Post Re: Earthlings

endemoniada_88 wrote:
wyrd wrote:
And going vegan is exactly the answer to the (non existent) world hunger for generations to come. One acre (we call it dunam) of soy beans (put instead any other plant like corn, wheat, et cetera) is either suitable for feeding a cow so it will gain one kilogram in body mass, or feeding several thousands of human on that very same amount of grains. Where's the problem with providing enough proteins with choosing the latter option in stead of the former?

Because there are already unsustainably large numbers of people overpopulating marginally suitable - at best - parts of the world. History suggests that feeding them more efficiently will simply lead to a population rise to take up the surplus, and an exponential demand for all other resources in order to then increase net standard of living to first-world equivalence.
More harm than good from the Gaia-friendly perspective, I would have thought. Not to mention pretty boring, when everything that isn't houses is fields of soy beans...

I have never seen any evidence that putting a dent in the lack of proper nutrition in any of the more questionable areas of the world (Southern Asia, parts of Northern and Central Africa) will result in a population increase greater than anything that those providing the resources can handle. Your point is akin to the argument of "if we provide struggling families with welfare, they'll just stop working altogether!"

One of the problems with a lot of the arguments being presented in this thread is that they tend to deal with beings as a whole, while disregarding the inherent sanctity and respect of individual life forms. Pertaining to population issues, the topic is split up into handy regions of the world as opposed to acknowledging that there are actual human beings who are suffering consequences that are out of their own control and that a lot of us have the power to eradicate. That's something I've noticed outside of this thread, too. When people refer to the farming industry (in America, at least-- I haven't interacted with too many non-Americans on this topic) they refer to growing "sustainable" meat, while ignoring the fact that no meat is sustainable-- the creature is alive, you kill it to eat it, and it's gone.

I've been vegan for all of my adult life and it is something I feel very passionate about. My girlfriend said that Earthlings totally changed the way she views the meat industry but I absolutely do not have the stomach nor the heart to watch any part of it. As an atheist/agnostic/whatever, I'm not a huge fan of the belief of a soul or "enduring aura" or whatever hippy-dippy stuff like that. Humans are animals, and we evolved from other animals, and as such we are no different from any animal alive today in terms of having certain rights to respect. When we die, we cease to exist and never come back. To me, that is a terrifying concept, and it's completely wrong to inflict that sentence on anything that can experience it before its time.

Most people don't need meat to live (or even thrive), therefore animal products are a luxury. If that is the case, then when is it ever okay to kill, torture, or exploit another sentient, living being simply for a luxury?


Mon Jun 17, 2013 2:43 am
Profile
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:14 pm
Posts: 4588
Location: Way down South, UK.
Reply with quote
Post Re: Earthlings

Ocean of Ghosts wrote:
endemoniada_88 wrote:
wyrd wrote:
And going vegan is exactly the answer to the (non existent) world hunger for generations to come. One acre (we call it dunam) of soy beans (put instead any other plant like corn, wheat, et cetera) is either suitable for feeding a cow so it will gain one kilogram in body mass, or feeding several thousands of human on that very same amount of grains. Where's the problem with providing enough proteins with choosing the latter option in stead of the former?

Because there are already unsustainably large numbers of people overpopulating marginally suitable - at best - parts of the world. History suggests that feeding them more efficiently will simply lead to a population rise to take up the surplus, and an exponential demand for all other resources in order to then increase net standard of living to first-world equivalence.
More harm than good from the Gaia-friendly perspective, I would have thought. Not to mention pretty boring, when everything that isn't houses is fields of soy beans...

I have never seen any evidence that putting a dent in the lack of proper nutrition in any of the more questionable areas of the world (Southern Asia, parts of Northern and Central Africa) will result in a population increase greater than anything that those providing the resources can handle. Your point is akin to the argument of "if we provide struggling families with welfare, they'll just stop working altogether!"

No, it really isn't.

My point was simply that artificially forcing the natural population limiting factors (disease, starvation, conflict due to overcrowding, aging) invariably does lead to a larger net population - not necessarily in headline figures but in aggregate numbers surviving. That's not the significant part of the increased resource demand, though - as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs demonstrates, once a given population moves from subsistence level it seeks increasingly sophisticated levels of satisfaction. In terms of human societies, that means a move towards first-world standards of living (reference, say, China or India as of now), which requires an exponential increase in raw and refined materials and a concomitant increase in population centre infrastructures and, of course, wastage and pollution.

From a purely ecological perspective, that doesn't sound like an especially desirable outcome. I hadn't really expressed either a humanitarian or a moral position on the subject.

_________________
>> ex silens nox noctis <<


Mon Jun 17, 2013 12:51 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 6
Reply with quote
Post Re: Earthlings

baphomet wrote:

The meat industry is barbaric.


The video is blocked on my computer. I've seen other videos of factory farms and slaughterhouses. I had to turn it off. It's sadistic how they are treated.Removing beaks from chickens, cutting the tusks of hogs with bolt cutters,awful. :( I try to avoid meat as much as I can. However, you may not agree that hunting is more humane, since the animal lived a natural life before it died. With the exception of snares which I don't believe in. Deer and Moose is much better than pork or beef anyway.
I want the animal to have a chance of quality of life before it's death


Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:26 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.