Why doesn't meat help meat eaters be healthy?

[Unkotare]

There is no “overpopulation.”

 

[Woodznutz]

There is no “overpopulation.”

There has been for decades. The earth can't sustain our population naturally. We must add chemicals to some areas and destroy others.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There has been for decades. The earth can't sustain our population naturally. We must add chemicals to some areas and destroy others.

Chemicals are better than mass starvation. Much better.

 

[Woodznutz]

Chemicals are better than mass starvation. Much better.

It sets the table for greater mass starvation in the future.

 

[Unkotare]

There has been for decades. ....

No, there has not.

 

[Unkotare]

.... The earth can't sustain our population naturally. ....

It can and it is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It sets the table for greater mass starvation in the future.

We need to starve billions now, so we don't starve billions later?

Like someone else said, you first.

 

[westwall]

The predator cannot be happy, because he subconsciously feels guilt and realizes his insignificance.

On which planet is that?

You sound like wimp.

 

[westwall]

There has been for decades. The earth can't sustain our population naturally. We must add chemicals to some areas and destroy others.

Sure it can. The Earth's carrying capacity is around 20 billion people with no major technology.

 

[Woodznutz]

We need to starve billions now, so we don't starve billions later?

Like someone else said, you first.

I'm not the problem.

 

[Woodznutz]

Sure it can. The Earth's carrying capacity is around 20 billion people with no major technology.

Have you factored in wars, social upheavals, droughts, famines, and natural disasters?

We're using major technology in order to survive now; AI, robotics, computers, machinery, chemical fertilizers, hybrid plants, mechanical irrigation, pesticides, etc. Nothing 'natural' here.

 

[Woodznutz]

We need to starve billions now, so we don't starve billions later?

Like someone else said, you first.

Millions are going starve now despite our best efforts.

How Many People Are Starving Around the World?

Considering how many people are starving around the world today, people in developed countries should take action, even just by calling or emailing their political representatives about addressing global poverty.

borgenproject.org

I don't think adding 13 billion more people is a very good idea.

 

[Unkotare]

Have you factored in wars, social upheavals, droughts, famines, and natural disasters?

We're using major technology in order to survive now.

When the global population was less than 1/10th what it is now we still had wars, social upheavals, droughts, famines, and natural disasters.

 

[Woodznutz]

When the global population was less than 1/10th what it is now we still had wars, social upheavals, droughts, famines, and natural disasters.

And it led to poverty, disease, and starvation. The potential for this is 10x greater now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not the problem.

But you're a good start.

If we tried to feed the current population with no chemicals we'd use much more land and natural resources to grow less food.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Millions are going starve now despite our best efforts.

How Many People Are Starving Around the World?

Considering how many people are starving around the world today, people in developed countries should take action, even just by calling or emailing their political representatives about addressing global poverty.

borgenproject.org

I don't think adding 13 billion more people is a very good idea.

I'm sure everyone will give your thought the respect it deserves.

 

[Woodznutz]

But you're a good start.

I'm not the problem.

If we tried to feed the current population with no chemicals we'd use much more land and natural resources to grow less food.

That's called sustainable agriculture. Chemical agriculture isn't.

 

[Woodznutz]

I'm sure everyone will give your thought the respect it deserves.

When did people start to think?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's called sustainable agriculture. Chemical agriculture isn't.

Sustainable agriculture will take twice the land. Maybe more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When did people start to think?

When did you stop?