|
On June 05 2011 05:36 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 05:33 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:06 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:51 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:44 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:37 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:32 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:18 Aurocaido wrote:
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition. No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist. "Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)." Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat. Source for this? I found this: http://earthwatch.unep.ch/emergingissues/agriculture/foodsecurity.phpWhich is based on 15 year old research... I get most of my information from my university textbooks. Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying. It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security. Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet. Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world. A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people." The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution.
It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged.
|
On June 05 2011 05:33 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 05:06 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:51 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:44 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:37 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:32 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:18 Aurocaido wrote:
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition. No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist. "Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)." Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat. Source for this? I found this: http://earthwatch.unep.ch/emergingissues/agriculture/foodsecurity.phpWhich is based on 15 year old research... I get most of my information from my university textbooks. Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying. It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security. Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet. Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world. A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people... Meat consumption tends to rise with household wealth, and a third of the world's grain is used to fatten animals."
Indeed, we don't have any issues with producing enough food, it's the fact that the people that go hungry are poor and can't create a demand for food to be shipped over, and due to environmental conditions are unable to grow enough for themselves as well.
Here in America it's disgusting how we're pushing to open European markets to our corn instead of giving surplus to those starving as food and seed. But hey, that's capitalism and business!
|
On June 05 2011 05:41 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 05:36 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:33 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:06 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:51 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:44 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:37 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:32 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:18 Aurocaido wrote:
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition. No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist. "Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)." Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat. Source for this? I found this: http://earthwatch.unep.ch/emergingissues/agriculture/foodsecurity.phpWhich is based on 15 year old research... I get most of my information from my university textbooks. Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying. It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security. Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet. Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world. A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people." The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution. It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged.
Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself.
|
On June 05 2011 05:43 Ig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 05:41 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:36 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:33 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:06 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:51 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:44 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:37 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:32 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:18 Aurocaido wrote:
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition. No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist. "Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)." Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat. Source for this? I found this: http://earthwatch.unep.ch/emergingissues/agriculture/foodsecurity.phpWhich is based on 15 year old research... I get most of my information from my university textbooks. Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying. It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security. Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet. Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world. A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people." The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution. It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged. Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself.
We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor.
Edit: Flooding poor nations with cheap surpluses has traditionally tended to have negative consequences. While providing cheap food for a short time, it also in cases such as Haiti destroys the local agricultural establishment making the people dependant on the heavily subsidized imported food. Food aid needs to go to those who actually need it so it does not undermine local food self sufficiency.
|
On June 05 2011 05:41 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 05:36 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:33 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:06 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:51 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:44 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:37 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:32 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:18 Aurocaido wrote:
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition. No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist. "Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)." Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat. Source for this? I found this: http://earthwatch.unep.ch/emergingissues/agriculture/foodsecurity.phpWhich is based on 15 year old research... I get most of my information from my university textbooks. Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying. It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security. Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet. Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world. A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people." The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution. It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged.
No it does not, meat is inefficient, but there is enough food to feed everybody with grain with a lot extra on our currently used land. We have a lot of arable land that is not put to use and a lot is poorly used.
|
On June 05 2011 05:47 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 05:43 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 05:41 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:36 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:33 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:06 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:51 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:44 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:37 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:32 Eppa! wrote:
[quote]
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)." Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat. Source for this? I found this: http://earthwatch.unep.ch/emergingissues/agriculture/foodsecurity.phpWhich is based on 15 year old research... I get most of my information from my university textbooks. Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying. It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security. Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet. Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world. A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people." The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution. It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged. Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself. We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor.
That again is an issue with distribution, not production. These are people who couldn't even afford cheap grain sold in/by the US. It's the beauty of capitalism, it helps those who have feel better about it and ensures those who have not will continue to lose.
On another note, did you know farmers are paid not to use land because of price issues in industrialized nations? Distribution and the market again!
|
On June 05 2011 05:47 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 05:43 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 05:41 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:36 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:33 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:06 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:51 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:44 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:37 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:32 Eppa! wrote:
[quote]
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)." Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat. Source for this? I found this: http://earthwatch.unep.ch/emergingissues/agriculture/foodsecurity.phpWhich is based on 15 year old research... I get most of my information from my university textbooks. Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying. It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security. Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet. Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world. A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people." The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution. It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged. Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself. We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor.
That is a real issue that wealth is unevenly spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate or eating meat.
|
On June 05 2011 05:54 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 05:47 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:43 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 05:41 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:36 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:33 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:06 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:51 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 03:44 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:37 Aurocaido wrote:
[quote]
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat. Source for this? I found this: http://earthwatch.unep.ch/emergingissues/agriculture/foodsecurity.phpWhich is based on 15 year old research... I get most of my information from my university textbooks. Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying. It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security. Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet. Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world. A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people." The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution. It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged. Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself. We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor. That is a real issue that wealth is unequally spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate.
The price of basic staples is increasing because of scarcity. More of the grain is being used to feed animals which inflates the price for the worlds poor and starving people.
|
Banning the meat industry would be fucking retarded. Humans eat meat because we are the top of the food chain, and as such, it is our inherent right. We eat meat because we can, and we like it. I honestly don't care about the conditions in which pigs are raised, because they are raised so we can eat them. Their only "purpose" in life, from birth, is to die, and be fed to us. They fulfill that purpose just fine.
Making the industry more humane wouldn't really be feasible either, because that would mean inefficiency, and inefficiency means less product, which also means a shortage (albeit small) of available food for the human population. It might just be my survival of the fittest instincts kicking in here, but I feel like the well-being of myself, and the human population is far more important than some animals raised for the sole purpose of being food.
|
On June 05 2011 05:57 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 05:54 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:47 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:43 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 05:41 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:36 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:33 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:06 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:51 Aurocaido wrote:I get most of my information from my university textbooks. Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying. It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security. Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet. Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world. A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people." The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution. It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged. Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself. We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor. That is a real issue that wealth is unequally spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate. The price of basic staples is increasing because of scarcity. More of the grain is being used to feed animals which inflates the price for the worlds poor and starving people.
That assumes they could even afford it before, it may sound blunt but the 800 million starving were starving before prices went up. The issue is distribution and the need for improvement of ecological systems in these locales so the people can feed themselves. Of course weapons and corporate concessions are way more important than saving lives though so that's not really happening.
|
On June 05 2011 06:09 Ig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 05:57 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:54 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:47 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:43 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 05:41 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:36 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:33 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:06 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 03:51 Aurocaido wrote:
[quote]
I get most of my information from my university textbooks.
Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying. It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security. Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet. Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world. A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people." The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution. It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged. Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself. We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor. That is a real issue that wealth is unequally spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate. The price of basic staples is increasing because of scarcity. More of the grain is being used to feed animals which inflates the price for the worlds poor and starving people. That assumes they could even afford it before, it may sound blunt but the 800 million starving were starving before prices went up.
This is the kind of rationale I love. They couldn't afford it before so who gives a shit, nothing can be done, lets just keep doing what we have always done.
Edit: Distribution is in fact on of the issues I don't deny that, however, less reliance on meat by the West would make distribution to the worlds poor a much easier issue to tackle.
|
On June 05 2011 06:05 ryanAnger wrote:
Banning the meat industry would be fucking retarded. Humans eat meat because we are the top of the food chain, and as such, it is our inherent right. We eat meat because we can, and we like it. I honestly don't care about the conditions in which pigs are raised, because they are raised so we can eat them. Their only "purpose" in life, from birth, is to die, and be fed to us. They fulfill that purpose just fine.
Making the industry more humane wouldn't really be feasible either, because that would mean inefficiency, and inefficiency means less product, which also means a shortage (albeit small) of available food for the human population. It might just be my survival of the fittest instincts kicking in here, but I feel like the well-being of myself, and the human population is far more important than some animals raised for the sole purpose of being food.
The issue isn't eating meat, it's that we're eating too much, far more than our needs for protein would require. A more humane and sustainable industry is possible if you don't have a large portion of meat for every meal, which you really don't need. This has never been an issue of survival of the fittest and I don't see how you can call it such, so don't kid yourself. Hell, from a biological perspective, the animals we eat are actually the fittest because they suit our needs and as a result have spread across the world in massive numbers.
|
I think all these threads and the morons who post in them prove that people will not stop eating meat. If you really want to reduce animal suffering i suggest you dump all your extra money to non-profits that are funding or researching in vitro meat (labmeat, artificial meat, cultured meat, whatever you wanna call it). I'm surprised labmeat hasn't been mentioned in this thread after so many posts (at least i didn't find any with quick search) since in my opinion that is the only solution and it comes with added benefits compared to traditional meat (no need to pump hormones, amount of fat etc can be controlled, in the end cheaper)
Peta is going to right direction by announcing the 1 million labmeat challenge (X price style reward) instead of doing idiotic and expensive commercials appealing to emotions. New harvest is also a good charity funding university based research if you are looking for one
The first post seems to have some kind of FAQ section so i suggest the original poster adds this link to it as well: AR FAQ which i think answers most common questions and objections people make
|
On June 05 2011 06:17 Ig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 06:05 ryanAnger wrote:
Banning the meat industry would be fucking retarded. Humans eat meat because we are the top of the food chain, and as such, it is our inherent right. We eat meat because we can, and we like it. I honestly don't care about the conditions in which pigs are raised, because they are raised so we can eat them. Their only "purpose" in life, from birth, is to die, and be fed to us. They fulfill that purpose just fine.
Making the industry more humane wouldn't really be feasible either, because that would mean inefficiency, and inefficiency means less product, which also means a shortage (albeit small) of available food for the human population. It might just be my survival of the fittest instincts kicking in here, but I feel like the well-being of myself, and the human population is far more important than some animals raised for the sole purpose of being food. The issue isn't eating meat, it's that we're eating too much, far more than our needs for protein would require. A more humane and sustainable industry is possible if you don't have a large portion of meat for every meal, which you really don't need. This has never been an issue of survival of the fittest and I don't see how you can call it such, so don't kid yourself. Hell, from a biological perspective, the animals we eat are actually the fittest because they suit our needs and as a result have spread across the world in massive numbers.
Well said, totally agree.
|
On June 05 2011 06:11 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 06:09 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 05:57 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:54 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:47 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:43 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 05:41 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:36 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:33 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:06 Eppa! wrote:
[quote]
It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security.
Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet. Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world. A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people." The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution. It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged. Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself. We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor. That is a real issue that wealth is unequally spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate. The price of basic staples is increasing because of scarcity. More of the grain is being used to feed animals which inflates the price for the worlds poor and starving people. That assumes they could even afford it before, it may sound blunt but the 800 million starving were starving before prices went up. This is the kind of rationale I love. They couldn't afford it before so who gives a shit, nothing can be done, lets just keep doing what we have always done. Edit: Distribution is in fact on of the issues I don't deny that, however, less reliance on meat by the West would make distribution to the worlds poor a much easier issue to tackle.
If you lose your right arm we can either:
Put a bandaid which fixes nothing
or have you do a 60 hour surgery to reattach it.
Removing poverty and having food security is the only way to remove hunger and malnutrition in the world. Fluctuation in grain prices do not have a large effect on poverty or hunger. Anyone that has a steady income can provide for their family.
|
On June 05 2011 06:40 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 06:11 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 06:09 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 05:57 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:54 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:47 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:43 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 05:41 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:36 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:33 Aurocaido wrote:
[quote]
Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world.
A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people."
The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution. It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged. Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself. We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor. That is a real issue that wealth is unequally spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate. The price of basic staples is increasing because of scarcity. More of the grain is being used to feed animals which inflates the price for the worlds poor and starving people. That assumes they could even afford it before, it may sound blunt but the 800 million starving were starving before prices went up. This is the kind of rationale I love. They couldn't afford it before so who gives a shit, nothing can be done, lets just keep doing what we have always done. Edit: Distribution is in fact on of the issues I don't deny that, however, less reliance on meat by the West would make distribution to the worlds poor a much easier issue to tackle. If you lose your right arm we can either: Put a bandaid which fixes nothing or have you do a 60 hour surgery to reattach it. Removing poverty and having food security is the only way to remove hunger and malnutrition in the world. Fluctuation in grain prices do not have a large effect on poverty or hunger. Anyone that has a steady income can provide for their family.
So how many people get to starve to death while we wait for these states to develop? What is an acceptable number? Just like with your arm analogy, if you don't stop the bleeding before you have a chance to reattach it you will bleed to death anyway.
|
On June 05 2011 06:32 SplashBrannigan wrote:I think all these threads and the morons who post in them prove that people will not stop eating meat. If you really want to reduce animal suffering i suggest you dump all your extra money to non-profits that are funding or researching in vitro meat (labmeat, artificial meat, cultured meat, whatever you wanna call it). I'm surprised labmeat hasn't been mentioned in this thread after so many posts (at least i didn't find any with quick search) since in my opinion that is the only solution and it comes with added benefits compared to traditional meat (no need to pump hormones, amount of fat etc can be controlled, in the end cheaper) Peta is going to right direction by announcing the 1 million labmeat challenge (X price style reward) instead of doing idiotic and expensive commercials appealing to emotions. New harvest is also a good charity funding university based research if you are looking for one The first post seems to have some kind of FAQ section so i suggest the original poster adds this link to it as well: AR FAQ which i think answers most common questions and objections people make
I realized you were an idiot when I glanced through and saw PETA.
Labmeat is an interesting but touchy subject and not even close to being a reality yet. You might as well say wait until we get Star Trek replicators.
|
On June 05 2011 06:48 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 06:40 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 06:11 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 06:09 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 05:57 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:54 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:47 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:43 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 05:41 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:36 Eppa! wrote:
[quote]
The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution. It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged. Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself. We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor. That is a real issue that wealth is unequally spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate. The price of basic staples is increasing because of scarcity. More of the grain is being used to feed animals which inflates the price for the worlds poor and starving people. That assumes they could even afford it before, it may sound blunt but the 800 million starving were starving before prices went up. This is the kind of rationale I love. They couldn't afford it before so who gives a shit, nothing can be done, lets just keep doing what we have always done. Edit: Distribution is in fact on of the issues I don't deny that, however, less reliance on meat by the West would make distribution to the worlds poor a much easier issue to tackle. If you lose your right arm we can either: Put a bandaid which fixes nothing or have you do a 60 hour surgery to reattach it. Removing poverty and having food security is the only way to remove hunger and malnutrition in the world. Fluctuation in grain prices do not have a large effect on poverty or hunger. Anyone that has a steady income can provide for their family. So how many people get to starve to death while we wait for these states to develop? What is an acceptable number?
...
Personal attacks, don't do them.
Obviously it is a process not an action.
Anyway this is way of topic, overconsumption of meat, fish, and single types of grain are all bad for the environment and us human beings.
Never met a Vegan
Vegetarians are cool
Omnivores are cool
Carnivores are a joke.
|
On June 05 2011 07:00 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 06:48 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 06:40 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 06:11 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 06:09 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 05:57 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:54 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:47 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:43 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 05:41 Aurocaido wrote:
[quote]
It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged. Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself. We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor. That is a real issue that wealth is unequally spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate. The price of basic staples is increasing because of scarcity. More of the grain is being used to feed animals which inflates the price for the worlds poor and starving people. That assumes they could even afford it before, it may sound blunt but the 800 million starving were starving before prices went up. This is the kind of rationale I love. They couldn't afford it before so who gives a shit, nothing can be done, lets just keep doing what we have always done. Edit: Distribution is in fact on of the issues I don't deny that, however, less reliance on meat by the West would make distribution to the worlds poor a much easier issue to tackle. If you lose your right arm we can either: Put a bandaid which fixes nothing or have you do a 60 hour surgery to reattach it. Removing poverty and having food security is the only way to remove hunger and malnutrition in the world. Fluctuation in grain prices do not have a large effect on poverty or hunger. Anyone that has a steady income can provide for their family. So how many people get to starve to death while we wait for these states to develop? What is an acceptable number? ... Personal attacks, don't do them.
Lol a little over sensitive aren't you? That was not meant as a personal attack, get over it.
Edit: So we do nothing as the process of development takes place? Or what were you getting at?
Ok fair enough.
|
On June 05 2011 07:03 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 07:00 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 06:48 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 06:40 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 06:11 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 06:09 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 05:57 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:54 Eppa! wrote:On June 05 2011 05:47 Aurocaido wrote:On June 05 2011 05:43 Ig wrote:
[quote]
Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself. We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor. That is a real issue that wealth is unequally spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate. The price of basic staples is increasing because of scarcity. More of the grain is being used to feed animals which inflates the price for the worlds poor and starving people. That assumes they could even afford it before, it may sound blunt but the 800 million starving were starving before prices went up. This is the kind of rationale I love. They couldn't afford it before so who gives a shit, nothing can be done, lets just keep doing what we have always done. Edit: Distribution is in fact on of the issues I don't deny that, however, less reliance on meat by the West would make distribution to the worlds poor a much easier issue to tackle. If you lose your right arm we can either: Put a bandaid which fixes nothing or have you do a 60 hour surgery to reattach it. Removing poverty and having food security is the only way to remove hunger and malnutrition in the world. Fluctuation in grain prices do not have a large effect on poverty or hunger. Anyone that has a steady income can provide for their family. So how many people get to starve to death while we wait for these states to develop? What is an acceptable number? ... Personal attacks, don't do them. Lol a little over sensitive aren't you? That was not meant as a personal attack, get over it. Edit: So we do nothing as the process of development takes place? Or what were you getting at?
It was a stupid statement, get over it.
You reduce poverty gradually, there are plenty of way to do it. Banning meat will not do nearly as much as for example subsidizing Afrikan and LA non cash crops and stabilizing income.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
