This is kind of a silly standard, since it assumes that livestock are being fed food that humans would otherwise be eating. In many cases, particularly with animals like cows, they're eating stuff we can't eat, and converting that into A> manure for fertilizer, and B> edible meat.
you're an idiot.
almost all of Earth's arable land is under cultivation
the issue is fresh water, and no desalinization is not a fix
as a trump supporter, I am all for encouraging the 3rd world to STOP FUCKING NOW.
why can't we sterilize the 3rd world? serious question.
[Infracted - Flaming]
Last edited by Endus; 2016-09-20 at 06:33 PM.
Well, define "arable acres", because if you're defining it as "productive farmland", that's a self-fulfilling prophecy; that farmland only BECAME farmland by taking non-arable land and making it arable. It's like saying we can't house a growing population because there's only so many houses and apartments, ignoring that we can build more.
And the point extends to livetock. A crop rotation system often involves leaving a field fallow for a year or more, and in that time, it can serve as grazing pasture for livestock, who contribute manure back to boot. If livestock were that inefficient, we'd never have been so successful at domesticating them and making them a major component of agriculture in the first place. Sure, I disagree with growing so much corn you feed the pigs, cattle, and chickens corn as well, but after you harvest or eat the kernels (which is what people eat), the stalks and leaves and cobs are all edible by those same pigs and cattle. Stuff we can't eat, being converted into stuff we can; that's what livestock do.
And that's without pointing out we're opportunistic omnivores, and meat is a pretty significant component of a healthy human diet.
Another nanook12 thread based on his studies in freshman biology and philosophy.
I invite anyone who thinks overpopulation is the scourge of the earth to take the first step in combating it.
Beta Club Brosquad
Again, define "finite arable land". The current agricultural landscape is mostly all used, yes. But the same goes for housing. If we need more, we can make more. We aren't in a position where we can't create more new farmland.
And this is also ignoring that "arable land" isn't even a requirement; vertical urban farms are already a growing trend.
Because overpopulation is a myth. The earth population is plenty sustainable for a LOT more people, and growth is slowing down to begin with anyway.
Non-issue is a non-issue.
I find it weird that some folks consider me to be the selfish one, because I do not intend to have children. By not creating sex trophies to use up more resources, I'm the bad guy.
Bandwagon sports fans can eat a bag of http://www.ddir.com/ .
Nope. I am not.
Nope. Not even close.almost all of Earth's arable land is under cultivation
Nope. There is an insane amount of fresh water available. Between Brazil and Canada alone, there's more fresh water than the world needs by a huge order of magnitude. The issue is where the water is located, and who owns it.the issue is fresh water, and no desalinization is not a fix
Ah. That explains it...as a trump supporter, I am all for encouraging the 3rd world to STOP FUCKING NOW.
Moving away from how morally reprehensible the notion of forced sterilization is? How about the fact that Trump would lose his cheap labour for his shitty products?why can't we sterilize the 3rd world? serious question.
[Infracted - Flaming]
"Most countries" are usually small, low population, or wealthy countries. Many european countries have negative rates.
Places like Africa, Middle East, US, and South America have much higher positive rates.
-20% rate in some 100 million population country doesn't offset +300% 1.2 billion population of India
Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads"Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab
Endus fails to acknowledge that much of the earths surface is either completely arable land or non-economically feasible for aeration. He is stacking the earths resources and land surface as a whole without realizing that it is not possible to farm corn on Antarctica, nor is it economically feasible to farm corn in a desert due to heavy, and rising, costs of water transportation. Yes, the earth has plenty of resources to support even more people, but many resources are locked under mile deep glaciers, are non-arable due to geographic location, or simply too expensive to extract. He still doesn't factor in that human beings are a greedy species that pursue over excess and are not going to share equally, we need wiggle room for our resources because we all want to live satisfying lives and consume more than we actually need. Even further Endus doesn't account for land that needs to be used for power generation such as solar and wind which take up heavy area footprints and use resources to be built and maintained. Roads for transportation are another thing that take up a lot of surface area that he doesn't account for. He doesn't account for recreation areas, nor does he account for places for animals to live such as wildlife sanctuaries which also take up a lot of land. He doesn't account for shopping malls and and all the other modern convinces we enjoy that soak up footprint area and resources themselves. His analysis is unrealistic.
There is a massive amount room and resources left for people if we want to wipe out all infrastructure and technological advancement and basically live as cavemen again. So who is ready to give up your modern comfortable lives and go shit in a dirt hole so that we can make room for more people on this planet?
- - - Updated - - -
Essentially no.
- - - Updated - - -
So your opinion is we just slam straight into resource limitation and start killing each other. Such a better plan.
Last edited by nanook12; 2016-09-20 at 07:14 PM.
Surplus fresh water far away from most uncultivated arable land only emphasizes the limitations of that natural resource. Also deforestation in places like Brazil is mainly due to farmers increasing acreage. So if you want more consumption at any cost, that is what you'll get.
Last edited by PC2; 2016-09-20 at 07:16 PM.
Endus, I'm shocked that you of all people would be against bringing population growth under control.
In his book Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth, Alan Weisman quotes a Mormon woman in an audience he spoke to as saying " There isn't a single problem on Earth that wouldn't be easier if there were fewer people."
A Mormon woman.
Eventually, no matter how technologically tricky we get, the Earth will not be able to hold us all, at least not in a lifestyle people would find tolerable. Not to mention the habitat destruction and mass extinctions a world of twice the population we have now would see.
Just because someone wears a moderator tag doesn't mean he or she is better than anyone else at making logical arguments. That would be the appeal of authority that Endus tried to pin onto me in another thread.
Endus: "Their job titles is not evidence of anything, other than that they're employed somewhere. That's not how "evidence" works. What you're doing is an appeal to authority fallacy, not making a claim based on evidence."
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...ob-Outsourcing
Last edited by nanook12; 2016-09-20 at 07:20 PM.