[Shaved Monkey]

If you grow your own you can close the loop by using your poop to grow your veg
But if you are growing to sell you need to redirect the sewage flow back to the farm.
And get an animal to plough and poo for you or a tractor you need to feed oil too.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')nly in sophisticated heirarchical communities are permanent taboos placed on the eating of flesh, and usually for reasons, though ostensibly spiritual, that are advantageous to those at the top of the heap.
It is only the very privileged who are able to refuse perfectly good food and choose exactly what they eat, rather than eating what they can afford, or what they can get.

[Newfie]

I remain confused. Could someone please explain, or recap, how veganisim will save the world.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'I') remain confused. Could someone please explain, or recap, how veganisim will save the world.

[Newfie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'I') remain confused. Could someone please explain, or recap, how veganisim will save the world.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'I') remain confused. Could someone please explain, or recap, how veganisim will save the world.

[Newfie]

VT,
Yes I get the counter argument. I haven't heard the premis for the affirmiative, if one exists.

[Newfie]

Pstarr,
OK, I'm not looking to blame anyone, I'm trying to understand the logic of the argument.

I've engaged Dohboi enough to know there is nothing substantive there.

Is there someone who can explain the premis and defend it logically?

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I')t flies in the face of reason and facts.

[Newfie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I')t flies in the face of reason and facts.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I')t flies in the face of reason and facts.

[Newfie]

I think the reason it remains unanswered is that the cited article did not address the core issue.

It tries to answer " how can we feed 9+ billion people."

Burrows in that is the assumptions that 1) population will stabilize and 2) that current production rates can be sustained.

Once you uncover those assumptions you can ask
1) what is a sustainable level of calories which can be grown and
2) what is the mix of animal and non-animal in that mix.

It does NOT address how to define what "save the world" means.

It does seem to address the question "how can we sustain our over population bubble for as long as possible."

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'I') think the reason it remains unanswered is that the cited article did not address the core issue.

It tries to answer " how can we feed 9+ billion people."

Burrows in that is the assumptions that 1) population will stabilize and 2) that current production rates can be sustained.

Once you uncover those assumptions you can ask
1) what is a sustainable level of calories which can be grown and
2) what is the mix of animal and non-animal in that mix.

It does NOT address how to define what "save the world" means.

It does seem to address the question "how can we sustain our over population bubble for as long as possible."

[kiwichick]

if we continue to add ghg's to the system the current population bubble will not be sustained............grain is generally grown in areas that are already " dry/arid " .............and they will get drier as the planet continues to heat up.....once the temperature and rainfall combination hit critical levels grains fail to develop...........and then there is much less grain available for livestock....or humans

have already seen it happen multiple times in the grain belt in Australia

[dohboi]

I don't 100% agree with every single word of every single article I post.

Do you?

So if you don't why would you assume that I do?

(Oh, I forgot, you never post links to any article, you only bloviate about your misconceptions of what others' views are!! )

I bring up articles and points of view that I think will stimulate conversation and perhaps help people to reflect on their positions, whether to alter them, or to articulate them more clearly.

As I have said quite clearly, what is most needed is a vast reduction in the consumption of (especially commercial bovine) meat and dairy. That could be accomplished with lots of people going totally vegan, leaving a good amount of grass fed meat for you incorrigible meat eaters. Or pretty much everyone needs to drastically reduces their own consumption across the board.

One would think that, given those choices, folks like you would be the most vocal proponents of (other people's) veganism!!

And of course, there is no straight forward, one-to-one correlation between food available to humans and their rate of population growth (except in absolute cases--no food = everyone dies).

Otherwise places like Afghanistan would have among the lowest birthrates and places like the Netherlands (the second larger exporter of food after the US!) would have the highest birthrates.

But reality is...a bit different. But perhaps people here are not interested in discussing reality?

(By the way, pete, some of the more violent reactions by right wingers against proposals in this and related threads may in some cases have to do with paranoid conspiracy theories about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21 "...combating poverty, especially in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making..." It's the "changing consumption patterns" part, especially suggestions of (entirely voluntary) reductions in meat eating, that really seem to send these folks through the roof and out of their gourd--if they ever were in any sort of gourd to begin with! )