No more meat?

[Sociobiology]

which is doctors recommend everyone take vitamin supplements.

So then vegans should be good if the entire population would become knowledgeable about nutrition at least a little.

yes if vegans (and most people) learn synthetic is not bad and is to be encouraged not avoided.

[Mavorpen]

Actually, it's a cycle. The reason we're having a water shortage is in part due to it being wasted and used inefficiently on livestock. Naturally, when the supply of water runs low then, a shortage of meat would follow.

I'll have to look more deeply into how it is that existing agricultural models put a kink in the water cycle. One would think that the water would, by excretion or by movement through irrigation systems, eventually find its way to a sink somewhere and then evaporate back into the atmosphere. From there it would travel back to its point of origin through rainfall.

But then, in science what seems intuitive isn't always what is, and this is clearly one of those cases or else we wouldn't be talking about it.

The simple fact is we consume more water than is replenished by the water cycle. A large portion of that though, is given to livestock. I believe it's 50% or around that.

[Mayane]

I will eat meat as long as it is affordable.

[Weslyria]

Not enough water? I though the polar icecaps were melting...


;_;

at any rate: I'm off to New Zealand, plenty of mutton there.

[Sociobiology]

Actually, it's a cycle. The reason we're having a water shortage is in part due to it being wasted and used inefficiently on livestock. Naturally, when the supply of water runs low then, a shortage of meat would follow.

I'll have to look more deeply into how it is that existing agricultural models put a kink in the water cycle. One would think that the water would, by excretion or by movement through irrigation systems, eventually find its way to a sink somewhere and then evaporate back into the atmosphere. From there it would travel back to its point of origin through rainfall.

But then, in science what seems intuitive isn't always what is, and this is clearly one of those cases or else we wouldn't be talking about it.

the problem is we pull the water out so quickly that if there is a hiccup in the return cycle (say by changing weather patterns) the rain is no longer falling were we can reclaim it. You are right on the global level, but drought is always a local phenomenon.

[Sociobiology]

if you bring them up to first world standards of living the birth rates drop naturally.

Until then though, education and women's rights are big factors.

well those are the two best ways to achieve first world living standards.

I remember doing a report that showed a countries standard of living could be predicted by just four factors, female literacy rate, average annual rainfall, birth to death ratio and GDP per capita(nominal)

[Apurture Labs]

The sad thing is that this new's/prediction is bull. Oh We may not be able to raise pigs or cows for meat, but there are other animals that are edible.
#1 Pets. There are thousands of strays that are killed in traffic accidents or die of starvation. We can kill 2 birds if we convert the dog catcher's to mobile meat trucks
#2 Bugs. As long as man has lived, bugs have laughed at us as being so unevolved. Lets show them who is really evolved with a Roach Burger and a side of maggots. It will take time but man will (and has) got used to it
#3 Soylant cola, the flavor that differs from person to person. We have a overpopulation problem, a prison overcrowding problem and a hunger problem... I think the answer is right here.

[Socialdemokraterne]

The simple fact is we consume more water than is replenished by the water cycle. A large portion of that though, is given to livestock. I believe it's 50% or around that.

That being the case, there are three logical courses of action:

(a) Increase the water supply artificially
(b) Increase the efficiency of water consumption
(c) Both

I have ideas for how to carry out (a), but I don't know enough about current consumption schemes to provide any comment on how to proceed with (b).

[Mavorpen]

The sad thing is that this new's/prediction is bull. Oh We may not be able to raise pigs or cows for meat, but there are other animals that are edible.
#1 Pets. There are thousands of strays that are killed in traffic accidents or die of starvation. We can kill 2 birds if we convert the dog catcher's to mobile meat trucks
#2 Bugs. As long as man has lived, bugs have laughed at us as being so unevolved. Lets show them who is really evolved with a Roach Burger and a side of maggots. It will take time but man will (and has) got used to it
#3 Soylant cola, the flavor that differs from person to person. We have a overpopulation problem, a prison overcrowding problem and a hunger problem... I think the answer is right here.

Was this in Megatron's presidential platform?

[Mavorpen]

The simple fact is we consume more water than is replenished by the water cycle. A large portion of that though, is given to livestock. I believe it's 50% or around that.

That being the case, there are three logical courses of action:

(a) Increase the water supply artificially
(b) Increase the efficiency of water consumption
(c) Both

I have ideas for how to carry out (a), but I don't know enough about current consumption schemes to provide any comment on how to proceed with (b).

B is easy. Reduce consumption of meat, and move to more efficient forms of crop irrigation.

[Sociobiology]

The simple fact is we consume more water than is replenished by the water cycle. A large portion of that though, is given to livestock. I believe it's 50% or around that.

That being the case, there are three logical courses of action:

(a) Increase the water supply artificially
(b) Increase the efficiency of water consumption
(c) Both

I have ideas for how to carry out (a), but I don't know enough about current consumption schemes to provide any comment on how to proceed with (b).

stop trying to raise cattle in desert states, tell Wyoming to switch to buffalo or give up ranching.

[Apurture Labs]

The sad thing is that this new's/prediction is bull. Oh We may not be able to raise pigs or cows for meat, but there are other animals that are edible.
#1 Pets. There are thousands of strays that are killed in traffic accidents or die of starvation. We can kill 2 birds if we convert the dog catcher's to mobile meat trucks
#2 Bugs. As long as man has lived, bugs have laughed at us as being so unevolved. Lets show them who is really evolved with a Roach Burger and a side of maggots. It will take time but man will (and has) got used to it
#3 Soylant cola, the flavor that differs from person to person. We have a overpopulation problem, a prison overcrowding problem and a hunger problem... I think the answer is right here.

Was this in Megatron's presidential platform?

Would you have voted for him if it was.

[Mavorpen]

Was this in Megatron's presidential platform?

Would you have voted for him if it was.

I don't really like #1, but the other two sound nice.

[Threlizdun]

Regardless of whether or not meat will remain a viable food source, there is no denying the inefficiency of our current agricultural practices and the damage they are doing.

[Pope Joan]

In a few more decades, I'll be 94, or I'll be dirt.

Either way I won't be fit to enjoy a proper steak dinner.

Another issue is water. Beef production uses up much more water than any other protein source. Even Prince Charles says so. http://www.ecocentricblog.org/2011/08/0 ... ootprints/

[PapaJacky]

What? No. Neither of them are actions. They are needs. Pure survival needs are needs that are a product of your environment, and you are born with them. They typically are biological. In the case of biology, you are correct to say the two are separate. However, from the moment you are born, you are thrust into a world where money is required to survive, so much that they might as well be basic needs. And despite this, this has nothing to do with morality. In the case of basic needs versus constructed needs, both involve choices. You can choose how you fulfill your basic needs as well as your constructed needs. That is the core of the debate.

That is not. Your constructed needs like I've stated, is what's present in the environment that you are in that would lead fulfilling your survival needs. They are not mutually exclusive. I can still eat food, drink water, breath air without interacting with any of the constructed needs in place (mainly by stabbing and stealing). To reiterate, I need to eat food, I don't need money for that. I could use money for it, but again, they are not mutually exclusive.

That's not a moral argument, that is personal emotions and an appeal to emotion.

That is a moral argument, based upon my morals.

It's good that the animals we slaughter do not meet that definition then. They aren't "vegetables playing a tape on repeat." They learn, they change, and they have emotions. It seems that you honestly don't even want to debate at this point, if you're going to change the parameters behind what is morally right or not. Using your argument, I can say, "Oh, well even though we're the same species, we're different races! Therefore it's okay to slaughter black people!" Stop being completely inconsistent and changing the parameters of the debate when you're backed into a corner and can't morally defend your stance.

They do. The animals we slaughter are meant for slaughter, they were raised from birth to be slaughtered and they, usually, make no attempts to stop this impediment in their livelihoods. The fact that others of their kind enjoy the world to it's fullest does not mean they are both the same, they are individual creatures where one was meant to be slaughtered for consumption and the other meant to roam the earth at their leisure. Natural evolution applies to the latter, but artificial evolution applies to the former.

On your consistent referral to racial conflicts. Again, no that is not how I've been arguing it and your insinuation of such is both insulting and idiotic on your part. No one has stated that Africans were of a different race, and no one has tried to justify it, please understand that much. No one has also rationalized the slaughter for meat because they were simply "different". I have rationalized the slaughter for meat because they are not self-aware. This is something you seem to be content on avoiding. Like I've stated countless times, I don't feel bad for killing an animal without higher brain functions. I do feel bad for killing an animal with higher brain functions. Finally, like I've stated in the paragraph you're replying to, invoking humans into this argument would draw another argument against it, not on a consciousness rationale, but on a "we're the same species" rationale. Remember that there is no separate African or Asian or Caucasian race, only the homosapien species.

Yes, but it is to protect those that are unconscious. You've basically admitted that our legal system is contradictory.

You're mistaking unconsciousness with brain-dead. If you were be knocked out by an uppercut, you're unconscious. If your brain is dead, your consciousness is gone for good. Being unconscious can lead to being brain dead, but they are not the same.

That's...not how it works. Artificial meat would be created so as to make it taste good. I'm not following what you're saying at all.

I would like a citation for that now. If you don't mind.

They just electrically stimulate the meat. Works the same way as exercise.

To Mavorpen, you are wrong that meat is not required for a balanced diet. It's required for evolution. The only reason why us, of all the apes, were able to grow a bigger brain, was because we fueled our bigger brains with large amounts of meat consumption. Meat, as you know, has greater caloric density than plants. Only a few vegan foods have a caloric density equalling or surpassing meat, the problem is that it's essentially pure fat and hard to grow or obtain (nuts). We could either consume boatloads of vegan foods to match the same amount of calories we can from meat, or, we can eat meat, preferably from live stock not fed with "human" crops like corn.

[Mavorpen]

That is not. Your constructed needs like I've stated, is what's present in the environment that you are in that would lead fulfilling your survival needs. They are not mutually exclusive. I can still eat food, drink water, breath air without interacting with any of the constructed needs in place (mainly by stabbing and stealing). To reiterate, I need to eat food, I don't need money for that. I could use money for it, but again, they are not mutually exclusive.

This is assuming money is the only constructed need, which it isn't.

That is a moral argument, based upon my morals.

No. You stated

We've been. Again, this is where the philosophical divide opens. If the animal in question is capable of higher brain functions such as self-awareness, I feel terrible for intruding in it's habitat, killing it, raping it in the literal sense, etc. If the animal in question is essentially, a vegetable playing a tape on repeat, I do not feel bad for killing it, eating it, etc.

Feelings are not morals.

They do. The animals we slaughter are meant for slaughter, they were raised from birth to be slaughtered and they, usually, make no attempts to stop this impediment in their livelihoods.

And slaves were raised from birth to be slaves. How does this make it moral, again? And yes, they do make attempts to stop this when they're actually in the slaughterhouse and know they are about to be killed.

The fact that others of their kind enjoy the world to it's fullest does not mean they are both the same, they are individual creatures where one was meant to be slaughtered for consumption and the other meant to roam the earth at their leisure. Natural evolution applies to the latter, but artificial evolution applies to the former.

Okay? Evolution has nothing to do with anything I have said.

On your consistent referral to racial conflicts. Again, no that is not how I've been arguing it and your insinuation of such is both insulting and idiotic on your part. No one has stated that Africans were of a different race, and no one has tried to justify it, please understand that much.

What? I never said that anyone said such a thing. I used your logic and applied it to another scenario. This is not me claiming you said that which I am applying the logic to. Why don't you try understanding my posts before claiming I'm not understanding yours.

No one has also rationalized the slaughter for meat because they were simply "different". I have rationalized the slaughter for meat because they are not self-aware.

Exactly. You are rationalized it because they are different. Not being self-aware is not ground for basing morality on, and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise. Moreover, you admit that it doesn't works when applied to humans. Using your logic, it's perfectly moral to kill newborns because they are not self-aware. You simply move the parameters to saying, "oh, well new-borns are humans." In essence, it is because they are different. You have created a smokescreen that there is some underlying factually based reason. There is none that you have shown.

This is something you seem to be content on avoiding.

Considering I addressed it in my very first (or one of my first) reply to you, bullshit.

Like I've stated countless times, I don't feel bad for killing an animal without higher brain functions. I do feel bad for killing an animal with higher brain functions.

Pigs have higher brain functions. Chickens have higher brain functions. So do cows. Either you're painfully ignorant about the very topic you're debating, or you just don't care about facts.

Finally, like I've stated in the paragraph you're replying to, invoking humans into this argument would draw another argument against it, not on a consciousness rationale, but on a "we're the same species" rationale. Remember that there is no separate African or Asian or Caucasian race, only the homosapien species.

Source? And if race isn't your cup of tea, what about ethnicity? All you've done is move the parameters so you can even begin to defend your asinine beliefs. You don't believe that it is moral to kill newborns because they do not have higher brain functioning because they are humans, after saying that your morals are based on sentience. Why can I not just turn around and say that it should be based on ethnicity?

You're mistaking unconsciousness with brain-dead. If you were be knocked out by an uppercut, you're unconscious. If your brain is dead, your consciousness is gone for good. Being unconscious can lead to being brain dead, but they are not the same.

No, I'm not. Both are protected. So this is largely irrelevant and was a waste of a paragraph.

[Mavorpen]

To Mavorpen, you are wrong that meat is not required for a balanced diet. It's required for evolution. The only reason why us, of all the apes, were able to grow a bigger brain, was because we fueled our bigger brains with large amounts of meat consumption. Meat, as you know, has greater caloric density than plants. Only a few vegan foods have a caloric density equalling or surpassing meat, the problem is that it's essentially pure fat and hard to grow or obtain (nuts). We could either consume boatloads of vegan foods to match the same amount of calories we can from meat, or, we can eat meat, preferably from live stock not fed with "human" crops like corn.

This is completely incorrect. Cooking helped us get more calories. It had nothing to do with eating meat.

And I really don't care if it helped us along with evolution. That's in the past. We're speaking of the present. Why can't you understand this? Moreover, if you're insinuating that it's necessary for future evolution, that's silly. Our brains are getting smaller, more efficient.

[Kazarogkai]

That being the case, there are three logical courses of action:

(a) Increase the water supply artificially
(b) Increase the efficiency of water consumption
(c) Both

I have ideas for how to carry out (a), but I don't know enough about current consumption schemes to provide any comment on how to proceed with (b).

stop trying to raise cattle in desert states, tell Wyoming to switch to buffalo or give up ranching.

Wyoming is not A desert(Arid), It is filled with Plaines/Steppes and is Semi-Arid, Get your facts straight. Many types of Cattle(Spanish and longhorn varietys) Dont need much water all they need to do is switch to those then they will be fine. Also their is little Demand for Buffalo meat if they switch form cattle to Buffalo their economy will collapse. Finally we dont Have a command economy the government cant force them to do what they want to to do in terms of economy like in the Soviet Union.

[Wu Wei Shan]

If using the word omnivore makes you feel better then just pretend I typed it - makes no difference to me, you all kill and eat animals. If you are so good at deducing intent over the internet you are probably in the wrong line of work. Besides, you seem to have selective reading problems as you somehow missed the oh-so-ironic

but I know it's probably just butthurt.

Try taking a biology class because there is a difference between eating exclusively mean and eating mostly vegetables with a smaller amount of meat. Well, I guess to someone like you it really doesn't matter-I doubt you can even understand the difference.

Used to teach biology, shortcake. Try reading what I said. I know there is a difference to meat eaters. I just don't care.

[Jinos]

50 years ago scientists were panicking about shrinking food supplies, and then the Green revolution happened. Point is, this study is basically an extrapolation of trends without taking into account that, well, the future is unpredictable.

We're already seeing results with vat grown food. Simple fact is that technology advances exponentially, not linearly. We're going to see even more fantastical things 50 years from now than what people 50 years ago see now.

There are reasons to be panicked though, I don't think this article is over exaggerating our water supply problem.

[Sociobiology]

stop trying to raise cattle in desert states, tell Wyoming to switch to buffalo or give up ranching.

Wyoming is not A desert(Arid), It is filled with Plaines/Steppes and is Semi-Arid, Get your facts straight. Many types of Cattle(Spanish and longhorn varietys) Dont need much water all they need to do is switch to those then they will be fine. Also their is little Demand for Buffalo meat if they switch form cattle to Buffalo their economy will collapse. Finally we dont Have a command economy the government cant force them to do what they want to to do in terms of economy like in the Soviet Union.

ranching in Wyoming is highly subsidized we could end those subsidies, which I am in favor of anyway. Demand for bison is quite high, much higher than production in fact. This is one reason bison sells for such a high price.
Almost the entire state of Wyoming is classified as having an aridic soil profile, it is a temperate desert.
longhorn cattle are only slightly more dry tolerant than other cattle breeds, nowhere near that of actual desert animals, most of the "dry tolerance" in LH is actually just eating water filled cactus, which is not an option in northern states, so their water needs would be comparable to other cattle breeds. buffalo, ostrich, camels, all of these would be a far better choice than any cattle breed MORE importantly there feeding style is the same as other cattle pulling the plants they eat out of the ground during feeding, which is highly destructive to marginal soils, requiring vastly more land per animal and supplemental outside feed than species that do not do this, such as buffalo and sheep. Water to grow feed is the leading use of water for livestock, not drinking as you obviously believe.
buffalo offer the advantage of being cold tolerant as well, not requiring housing during the winter, and being able to get water from snow.

[Sociobiology]

50 years ago scientists were panicking about shrinking food supplies, and then the Green revolution happened. Point is, this study is basically an extrapolation of trends without taking into account that, well, the future is unpredictable.

We're already seeing results with vat grown food. Simple fact is that technology advances exponentially, not linearly. We're going to see even more fantastical things 50 years from now than what people 50 years ago see now.

There are reasons to be panicked though, I don't think this article is over exaggerating our water supply problem.

to be fair worries about shrinking food supplies was why the green revolution happened. most of the people in question were already in famine conditions

[Sociobiology]

To Mavorpen, you are wrong that meat is not required for a balanced diet. It's required for evolution. The only reason why us, of all the apes, were able to grow a bigger brain, was because we fueled our bigger brains with large amounts of meat consumption. Meat, as you know, has greater caloric density than plants. Only a few vegan foods have a caloric density equalling or surpassing meat, the problem is that it's essentially pure fat and hard to grow or obtain (nuts). We could either consume boatloads of vegan foods to match the same amount of calories we can from meat, or, we can eat meat, preferably from live stock not fed with "human" crops like corn.

This is completely incorrect. Cooking helped us get more calories. It had nothing to do with eating meat.

And I really don't care if it helped us along with evolution. That's in the past. We're speaking of the present. Why can't you understand this? Moreover, if you're insinuating that it's necessary for future evolution, that's silly. Our brains are getting smaller, more efficient.

source for the highlighted?

[Mavorpen]

source for the highlighted?

It's not a bad thing, really.