No more meat?

[Trollgaard]

Depends on where you live...

The US of A.

[Republic of Tao Yuan]

Ah.. our nation should eat meat. They need nutritions and it's not just in vegetables.

[Yankee Empire]

Depends on where you live...

The US of A.

Well then of course not brother

[Kilobugya]

I don't like such call of alarmism.

Even we can't sustain the meat production that we middle-class westerner currently need (for eating two full meats a day) it doesn't mean we'll have to go to vegetarianism. At worse, it'll drive us back to pre-green revolution habits, eating meat less often (like only on sundays) or in smaller quantities (putting a bit of meat in the soup, the sauce of the pasta or on top of the pizza, but not a full 100-150g portion).

Why the need for such sensationalism "we'll have to become vegetarian !" while the real threat is "we'll have to cut on meat consumption" ?

Then, technology always goes forward. Meat production requires lots of water ? Well, it's not like the water is wasted. Most of the water used in meat production goes back to the available pool of water. The problem is that meat production requires clean water, and we get back dirty water. So we need better technology to clean water. Or to make drinkable water from sea water, something we already know how to do - it just requires energy. And there is plenty of energy available that we just have to learn to harness, from thorium-based breeders to fusion power to better harnessing of the sun power to deep geothermal energy to ...

Also, I've good hope that we'll do progress in synthetic meat production from stem cells, which should require much less energy, water, ... and doesn't require to kill any animal (which would appease the vegetarian). We are not here yet, but in the future...

So instead of alarmist calls, they should make a precise forecast of how much we would have to cut on meat consumption with currently available technology, and what are the future technology (not sci-fi dreams, but things we already know we can do them or already do in the lab, but just needs engineering to be available as streamlined mass-production) could change that. And then, finance research on the best ones. That's how we go forward.

[The Zeonic States]

I don't like such call of alarmism.

Even we can't sustain the meat production that we middle-class westerner currently need (for eating two full meats a day) it doesn't mean we'll have to go to vegetarianism. At worse, it'll drive us back to pre-green revolution habits, eating meat less often (like only on sundays) or in smaller quantities (putting a bit of meat in the soup, the sauce of the pasta or on top of the pizza, but not a full 100-150g portion).

Why the need for such sensationalism "we'll have to become vegetarian !" while the real threat is "we'll have to cut on meat consumption" ?

Then, technology always goes forward. Meat production requires lots of water ? Well, it's not like the water is wasted. Most of the water used in meat production goes back to the available pool of water. The problem is that meat production requires clean water, and we get back dirty water. So we need better technology to clean water. Or to make drinkable water from sea water, something we already know how to do - it just requires energy. And there is plenty of energy available that we just have to learn to harness, from thorium-based breeders to fusion power to better harnessing of the sun power to deep geothermal energy to ...

Also, I've good hope that we'll do progress in synthetic meat production from stem cells, which should require much less energy, water, ... and doesn't require to kill any animal (which would appease the vegetarian). We are not here yet, but in the future...

So instead of alarmist calls, they should make a precise forecast of how much we would have to cut on meat consumption with currently available technology, and what are the future technology (not sci-fi dreams, but things we already know we can do them or already do in the lab, but just needs engineering to be available as streamlined mass-production) could change that. And then, finance research on the best ones. That's how we go forward.

Why are you not running for office somewhere?!

[Jetan]

Oh well. By 2050 I'll be almost sixty and close to retiring. That means I'll be old enought to rant about the good old days and ignore all the young whippersnappers and their newfangled diets anyway.

[Williamson]

I don't like such call of alarmism.

Even we can't sustain the meat production that we middle-class westerner currently need (for eating two full meats a day) it doesn't mean we'll have to go to vegetarianism. At worse, it'll drive us back to pre-green revolution habits, eating meat less often (like only on sundays) or in smaller quantities (putting a bit of meat in the soup, the sauce of the pasta or on top of the pizza, but not a full 100-150g portion).

Why the need for such sensationalism "we'll have to become vegetarian !" while the real threat is "we'll have to cut on meat consumption" ?

Then, technology always goes forward. Meat production requires lots of water ? Well, it's not like the water is wasted. Most of the water used in meat production goes back to the available pool of water. The problem is that meat production requires clean water, and we get back dirty water. So we need better technology to clean water. Or to make drinkable water from sea water, something we already know how to do - it just requires energy. And there is plenty of energy available that we just have to learn to harness, from thorium-based breeders to fusion power to better harnessing of the sun power to deep geothermal energy to ...

Also, I've good hope that we'll do progress in synthetic meat production from stem cells, which should require much less energy, water, ... and doesn't require to kill any animal (which would appease the vegetarian). We are not here yet, but in the future...

So instead of alarmist calls, they should make a precise forecast of how much we would have to cut on meat consumption with currently available technology, and what are the future technology (not sci-fi dreams, but things we already know we can do them or already do in the lab, but just needs engineering to be available as streamlined mass-production) could change that. And then, finance research on the best ones. That's how we go forward.

this was probably the smartest thing said this whole thread.

[Greed and Death]

Desalination plants and cross country network of pipes to deliver the fresh water. problem solved.

[Sociobiology]

it would be far cheaper to mine a mountain flat and sprinkle it on the ocean.

I want to see inland crab farming to go with the fish farming.

I don't see how that would be cheaper or have the same effect.

the up-welling you are referring to involve billions of tons of water, the mineral concentrations is not that high, so you would have to build truly massive number of pipes and pumps. simply mining the minerals directly would be much cheaper.

[Sociobiology]

it would be far cheaper to mine a mountain flat and sprinkle it on the ocean.

I want to see inland crab farming to go with the fish farming.

Of course, the solution to problems associated with industrial monoculture is more industrial monoculture.

I'm not aware of any outstanding problems with inland fish farming, which is usually bi-culture anyway.

fully modernized industrial farming has few problems, newer precise seeding technology greatly decreases the problems of disease sustainability.

the problems with industrial livestock is greater, which is why I support vat meat and free range point slaughter.

[Sociobiology]

This is an entirely economic argument, so you wouldn't have a choice in the matter. The pressure of prices from supply and demand will ensure, if present trends continue, that meat will be too expensive to be anything but a delicacy. There simply isn't enough freshwater to ensure otherwise.

That just doesn't seem possible. Meat is so cheap! I can go out and get a McDouble for $1.00. That has two burger patties on it. I can't, or don't want to, imagine a future where the same thing costs what, $100 or more? Is that the type of price increase we're talking about?

mc donalds has already invented a meatless burger that tastes just like it's normal burger. but no one wanted it because they tried to market it as healthier, forgetting that if people are eating at mc donalds they don't care if it is healthy.

and meat is cheap now but many ranchers are killing their herds early because they cannot feed them, so the price will rise quickly.

[Sociobiology]

I don't like such call of alarmism.

Even we can't sustain the meat production that we middle-class westerner currently need (for eating two full meats a day) it doesn't mean we'll have to go to vegetarianism. At worse, it'll drive us back to pre-green revolution habits, eating meat less often (like only on sundays) or in smaller quantities (putting a bit of meat in the soup, the sauce of the pasta or on top of the pizza, but not a full 100-150g portion).

Why the need for such sensationalism "we'll have to become vegetarian !" while the real threat is "we'll have to cut on meat consumption" ?

Then, technology always goes forward. Meat production requires lots of water ? Well, it's not like the water is wasted. Most of the water used in meat production goes back to the available pool of water. The problem is that meat production requires clean water, and we get back dirty water. So we need better technology to clean water. Or to make drinkable water from sea water, something we already know how to do - it just requires energy. And there is plenty of energy available that we just have to learn to harness, from thorium-based breeders to fusion power to better harnessing of the sun power to deep geothermal energy to ...

Also, I've good hope that we'll do progress in synthetic meat production from stem cells, which should require much less energy, water, ... and doesn't require to kill any animal (which would appease the vegetarian). We are not here yet, but in the future...

So instead of alarmist calls, they should make a precise forecast of how much we would have to cut on meat consumption with currently available technology, and what are the future technology (not sci-fi dreams, but things we already know we can do them or already do in the lab, but just needs engineering to be available as streamlined mass-production) could change that. And then, finance research on the best ones. That's how we go forward.

Part of this has already been done

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-expenditures.aspx

production is already highly streamlined the problem now is availability of resources to put into production, water production is not something that can be reasonably done on the individual level only large agribusinesses and the government have the resources to undertake such construction, and neither is a popular option right now.
oh and for the most part you do not get back dirty water you get back sugar and cellulose.

[Sociobiology]

I don't like such call of alarmism.

Even we can't sustain the meat production that we middle-class westerner currently need (for eating two full meats a day) it doesn't mean we'll have to go to vegetarianism. At worse, it'll drive us back to pre-green revolution habits, eating meat less often (like only on sundays) or in smaller quantities (putting a bit of meat in the soup, the sauce of the pasta or on top of the pizza, but not a full 100-150g portion).

Why the need for such sensationalism "we'll have to become vegetarian !" while the real threat is "we'll have to cut on meat consumption" ?

Then, technology always goes forward. Meat production requires lots of water ? Well, it's not like the water is wasted. Most of the water used in meat production goes back to the available pool of water. The problem is that meat production requires clean water, and we get back dirty water. So we need better technology to clean water. Or to make drinkable water from sea water, something we already know how to do - it just requires energy. And there is plenty of energy available that we just have to learn to harness, from thorium-based breeders to fusion power to better harnessing of the sun power to deep geothermal energy to ...

Also, I've good hope that we'll do progress in synthetic meat production from stem cells, which should require much less energy, water, ... and doesn't require to kill any animal (which would appease the vegetarian). We are not here yet, but in the future...

So instead of alarmist calls, they should make a precise forecast of how much we would have to cut on meat consumption with currently available technology, and what are the future technology (not sci-fi dreams, but things we already know we can do them or already do in the lab, but just needs engineering to be available as streamlined mass-production) could change that. And then, finance research on the best ones. That's how we go forward.

Why are you not running for office somewhere?!

because he makes an intelligent, honest, well thought out argument
and you just can't do that in politics.

[L Ron Cupboard]

I don't see how that would be cheaper or have the same effect.

the up-welling you are referring to involve billions of tons of water, the mineral concentrations is not that high, so you would have to build truly massive number of pipes and pumps. simply mining the minerals directly would be much cheaper.

Still sounds wrong to me.

[Sociobiology]

the up-welling you are referring to involve billions of tons of water, the mineral concentrations is not that high, so you would have to build truly massive number of pipes and pumps. simply mining the minerals directly would be much cheaper.

Still sounds wrong to me.

well I really cant refute a gut feeling other than to say it is unfounded.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Still sounds wrong to me.

well I really cant refute a gut feeling other than to say it is unfounded.

I've been trying to find something online that would justify either of our viewpoints but came up empty.

[Williamson]

Why are you not running for office somewhere?!

because he makes an intelligent, honest, well thought out argument
and you just can't do that in politics.

i would have lol at that, but that's true anyway.

[Mavorpen]

I'm in the first world, and I'm allergic to all starch/grain foods, anything with over about 5 grams of refined sugar, and a lot of vegetables. I'm not going to sacrifice my health over some holy cause.

And what is this allergy called?

[The De Danann Nation]

Well no not literally ALL gone, but a new study has shown that in a few decades we'll have to radically alter our diets.

Food shortages could force world into vegetarianism, warn scientists

Water scarcity's effect on food production means radical steps will be needed to feed population expected to reach 9bn by 2050

Leading water scientists have issued one of the sternest warnings yet about global food supplies, saying that the world's population may have to switch almost completely to a vegetarian diet over the next 40 years to avoid catastrophic shortages.

Humans derive about 20% of their protein from animal-based products now, but this may need to drop to just 5% to feed the extra 2 billion people expected to be alive by 2050, according to research by some of the world's leading water scientists.

"There will not be enough water available on current croplands to produce food for the expected 9 billion population in 2050 if we follow current trends and changes towards diets common in western nations," the report by Malik Falkenmark and colleagues at the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) said.

"There will be just enough water if the proportion of animal-based foods is limited to 5% of total calories and considerable regional water deficits can be met by a … reliable system of food trade."

Dire warnings of water scarcity limiting food production come as Oxfam and the UN prepare for a possible second global food crisis in five years. Prices for staples such as corn and wheat have risen nearly 50% on international markets since June, triggered by severe droughts in the US and Russia, and weak monsoon rains in Asia. More than 18 million people are already facing serious food shortages across the Sahel.

Oxfam has forecast that the price spike will have a devastating impact in developing countries that rely heavily on food imports, including parts of Latin America, North Africa and the Middle East. Food shortages in 2008 led to civil unrest in 28 countries.

Adopting a vegetarian diet is one option to increase the amount of water available to grow more food in an increasingly climate-erratic world, the scientists said. Animal protein-rich food consumes five to 10 times more water than a vegetarian diet. One third of the world's arable land is used to grow crops to feed animals. Other options to feed people include eliminating waste and increasing trade between countries in food surplus and those in deficit.

"Nine hundred million people already go hungry and 2 billion people are malnourished in spite of the fact that per capita food production continues to increase," they said. "With 70% of all available water being in agriculture, growing more food to feed an additional 2 billion people by 2050 will place greater pressure on available water and land."

The report is being released at the start of the annual world water conference in Stockholm, Sweden, where 2,500 politicians, UN bodies, non-governmental groups and researchers from 120 countries meet to address global water supply problems.

Competition for water between food production and other uses will intensify pressure on essential resources, the scientists said. "The UN predicts that we must increase food production by 70% by mid-century. This will place additional pressure on our already stressed water resources, at a time when we also need to allocate more water to satisfy global energy demand – which is expected to rise 60% over the coming 30 years – and to generate electricity for the 1.3 billion people currently without it," said the report.

Overeating, undernourishment and waste are all on the rise and increased food production may face future constraints from water scarcity.

"We will need a new recipe to feed the world in the future," said the report's editor, Anders Jägerskog.

A separate report from the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) said the best way for countries to protect millions of farmers from food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia was to help them invest in small pumps and simple technology, rather than to develop expensive, large-scale irrigation projects.

"We've witnessed again and again what happens to the world's poor – the majority of whom depend on agriculture for their livelihoods and already suffer from water scarcity – when they are at the mercy of our fragile global food system," said Dr Colin Chartres, the director general.

"Farmers across the developing world are increasingly relying on and benefiting from small-scale, locally-relevant water solutions. [These] techniques could increase yields up to 300% and add tens of billions of US dollars to household revenues across sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia."

Well.....shit. There goes my Whataburger. I think we need to quadruple the funding into research of Invitro Meat.

I would say this image accurately describes my reaction to this thread.

[Vareiln]

This will affect the Third World, not the First World.

[Mavorpen]

This will affect the Third World, not the First World.

How?

[Vareiln]

This will affect the Third World, not the First World.

How?

Think about where the most population growth is concentrated, along with the least access to water, and poor food distribution.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Well no not literally ALL gone, but a new study has shown that in a few decades we'll have to radically alter our diets.

Food shortages could force world into vegetarianism, warn scientists

Water scarcity's effect on food production means radical steps will be needed to feed population expected to reach 9bn by 2050

Leading water scientists have issued one of the sternest warnings yet about global food supplies, saying that the world's population may have to switch almost completely to a vegetarian diet over the next 40 years to avoid catastrophic shortages.

Humans derive about 20% of their protein from animal-based products now, but this may need to drop to just 5% to feed the extra 2 billion people expected to be alive by 2050, according to research by some of the world's leading water scientists.

"There will not be enough water available on current croplands to produce food for the expected 9 billion population in 2050 if we follow current trends and changes towards diets common in western nations," the report by Malik Falkenmark and colleagues at the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) said.

"There will be just enough water if the proportion of animal-based foods is limited to 5% of total calories and considerable regional water deficits can be met by a … reliable system of food trade."

Dire warnings of water scarcity limiting food production come as Oxfam and the UN prepare for a possible second global food crisis in five years. Prices for staples such as corn and wheat have risen nearly 50% on international markets since June, triggered by severe droughts in the US and Russia, and weak monsoon rains in Asia. More than 18 million people are already facing serious food shortages across the Sahel.

Oxfam has forecast that the price spike will have a devastating impact in developing countries that rely heavily on food imports, including parts of Latin America, North Africa and the Middle East. Food shortages in 2008 led to civil unrest in 28 countries.

Adopting a vegetarian diet is one option to increase the amount of water available to grow more food in an increasingly climate-erratic world, the scientists said. Animal protein-rich food consumes five to 10 times more water than a vegetarian diet. One third of the world's arable land is used to grow crops to feed animals. Other options to feed people include eliminating waste and increasing trade between countries in food surplus and those in deficit.

"Nine hundred million people already go hungry and 2 billion people are malnourished in spite of the fact that per capita food production continues to increase," they said. "With 70% of all available water being in agriculture, growing more food to feed an additional 2 billion people by 2050 will place greater pressure on available water and land."

The report is being released at the start of the annual world water conference in Stockholm, Sweden, where 2,500 politicians, UN bodies, non-governmental groups and researchers from 120 countries meet to address global water supply problems.

Competition for water between food production and other uses will intensify pressure on essential resources, the scientists said. "The UN predicts that we must increase food production by 70% by mid-century. This will place additional pressure on our already stressed water resources, at a time when we also need to allocate more water to satisfy global energy demand – which is expected to rise 60% over the coming 30 years – and to generate electricity for the 1.3 billion people currently without it," said the report.

Overeating, undernourishment and waste are all on the rise and increased food production may face future constraints from water scarcity.

"We will need a new recipe to feed the world in the future," said the report's editor, Anders Jägerskog.

A separate report from the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) said the best way for countries to protect millions of farmers from food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia was to help them invest in small pumps and simple technology, rather than to develop expensive, large-scale irrigation projects.

"We've witnessed again and again what happens to the world's poor – the majority of whom depend on agriculture for their livelihoods and already suffer from water scarcity – when they are at the mercy of our fragile global food system," said Dr Colin Chartres, the director general.

"Farmers across the developing world are increasingly relying on and benefiting from small-scale, locally-relevant water solutions. [These] techniques could increase yields up to 300% and add tens of billions of US dollars to household revenues across sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia."

Well.....shit. There goes my Whataburger. I think we need to quadruple the funding into research of Invitro Meat.

They were saying food would run out right about now in the 60s. Overpopulation's been a scare since Tertullian in 200 AD. I don't buy it.

[Mavorpen]

How?

Think about where the most population growth is concentrated, along with the least access to water, and poor food distribution.

Hilariously enough, the water shortage, and poor distribution of food is in part because of the First World's consumption of meat.

[Vareiln]

Think about where the most population growth is concentrated, along with the least access to water, and poor food distribution.

Hilariously enough, the water shortage, and poor distribution of food is in part because of the First World's consumption of meat.

Exactly. So the First World will be unaffected while the Third World continues to starve.
And sadly, nothing will change.