A lot of people believe we are reaching "peak population" where world population will begin to decline.
The main indicator or fertility among women is education, not religion or resources. The more educated women are, the fewer kids they have, worldwide. And the world has gotten dramatically more educated and wealthier in recent years. Fertility is highest among the starving where children are seen as an old-age pension.
Fertility is also highest in countries that have little economic freedom and little respect for the rule of law. The only reliable institution in these places is the family so might as well have a big one.
Trends toward education and affluence mean the population growth should slow but if it does not, it will be ok.
I got it from a properly credentialed but probably crackpot scientist whose name I can't remember and I can't find the reference, so take it for what it's worth. Still, one can hope it's true.
It's been going on a lot longer than my generation--at least since the end of the 18th Century when Malthus predicted that the rising population would eventually be unable to sustain itself. Time and again technology has forestalled the disaster--will it continue to do so indefinitely or will we reach a point where it no longer can? Who knows? I am very confident however that the human species will not last as long as the dinosaurs (about 40 million years).
As by Webster
veg·an
\ˈvē-gən also ˈvā- also ˈve-jən or -ˌjan\
noun
: a person who does not eat any food that comes from animals and who often also does not use animal products (such as leather)
: native word for bad hunter
Fuck them! More bacon and steak for me!!!!!!!'
But the industrial farming method used in the US has been destroying our soils since before the dust bowl. It is hard to believe that the technologies will stay ahead of dead ground. Not to mention the phosphates clogging our waterways. Sure, we can crank out a crop, but do you really think this method is sustainable for even the next century?
Despite this thread being about Das cunt being some sort of toll, there are some good points in here. And there is also a whole lot of that typical TGR assumption making portrayed as researched fact.
How and what we eat is a whole lot more important than if you are a vegan or not. Eating locally produced foods is perhaps the single biggest thing that you can do to lower your food CF. That would basically not allow for processed foods in almost every case, so no need to mention those as the second thing to be done. Going organic gets second place then. And third would to be to avoid the industrial organic producers, such as Persue Organic. As while these operations are technically following organic production rules, they tend to create a lot of waste to maintain profit levels. Not to mention their carbon use.
I am a organic farmer. We sell a majority of what we grow locally. Now with that in mind I have to say this post is false and full of baseless information.
First and foremost organic is not a efficient system. It uses archaic methods that require more inputs and generally yields 20-50% less than conventional. That means we have to farm more land to produce the same amount. Cutting trees and filling wetlands...
http://www.science20.com/agricultura...ay_farm-110209
And like you said industrial agriculture can still be local and organic. In fact more organic farms (10%) are owned by corporations than conventional (3%).
And second-- the "eating local reduces footprint" mantra has been debunked over and over. In reality it is so inefficient that eating local increases the CF quite a bit.
http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/t...of-local-food/
Like I said I am a organic farmer who relies on selling local. This reality is not good for my conscience as many people who buy from me think they are doing the world a favor by buying overpriced food. But in reality eating local organic has no benefits other than knowing exactly where your food was grown and by whom.
"...But implicit in the argument that local farming is better for the environment than industrial agriculture is an assumption that a “relocalized” food system can be just as efficient as today’s modern farming. That assumption is simply wrong. Today’s high crop yields and low costs reflect gains from specialization and trade, as well as scale and scope economies that would be forsaken under the food system that locavores endorse...Forsaking comparative advantage in agriculture by localizing means it will take more inputs to grow a given quantity of food, including more land and more chemicals—all of which come at a cost of carbon emissions...In order to maintain current output levels for 40 major field crops and vegetables, a locavore-like production system would require an additional 60 million acres of cropland, 2.7 million tons more fertilizer, and 50 million pounds more chemicals. The land-use changes and increases in demand for carbon-intensive inputs would have profound impacts on the carbon footprint of our food, destroy habitat and worsen environmental pollution..."
http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/t...of-local-food/
^^lol I just posted that piece several posts back^^
The thing is people like myself want to farm - I don't give a fuck about growing the most efficient crop--> I care about not having a 9-5. I grow what pays.
OTOH many people like to drive into the country and buy food or wine. I simply fill this need and it works for me. More or less Im providing a product for the elite who can afford it.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Pass the brie please.
Well it's not all bad-> The soy that was processed into tofu created a lot of soy meal byproduct that without cattle would go to waste. Corn from ethanol, whey from cheese... The list is endless. We simply create a lot of food waste that animals eat and produce food from. To nix them compleat would be inefficient.
This just in: how do you know if someone is a vegan?
Don't worry, they'll tell you.
Ok, I'll see myself out.
Where per capita GDP exceeds $4600 per year, the forest area of that country is stable or growing.
ssssshhhhhhhhh!!!! we haven't sold all our quarters for this fall yet!
But yes and no. We are told by our customers that our meat is way better than store bought. Though that could be the butcher hanging time or that they are lightly grained who knows. We buy organic grain mix which I don't think does a thing but its part of the market. Though it hurt this year when a griz ate a couple hundred pounds.
Bookmarks