Save the Planet-Stop eating meat!

This is a recast title that parallels a different thread I started. This one posing its question just a little more directly.

YouTube

Have a look at that video first and then comment on whether or not you think the issue of using the worlds resources this badly may eventually precipitate a natural Apocalypse, or whether it may actually become the line in the sand that will serve as a rallying cry for earth loving, people-before-animals extremists, who will foment revolution against the overfed, over resourced, coronary hardened corpulence that is much of the first world?

I will shut my fangs in succulent steaks at least three times a week no matter what!

Should the world vanish because of that, so be it!

The problem is not wether we eat meat or not. We have eaten meat from the dawn of human history and the planet is still here.
The problem is that we are far too many people on this planet.

Well said, Fabian, I say you set the example for the world by not reproducing. What do you say?

Originally posted by Seitse
Well said, Fabian, I say you set the example for the world by not reproducing. What do you say?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
My reproducing or not doesn't have any effect of the overpopulation of the planet. Not more than me eating a good juicy steak, anyway.

How many is a reasonable number of people so we can live in balance with the nature? And continue eating what our bodies need? One billion? Less?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
My reproducing or not doesn't have any effect of the overpopulation of the planet. Not more than me eating a good juicy steak, anyway.

How many is a reasonable number of people so we can live in balance with the nature? And continue eating what our bodies need? One billion? Less?

1) If we reinstate death penalty, but this time for any crime, we will
considerably lessen the burden on the planetary resources, or

2) (Since we don't "need" meat other than to fortify food with B12 and
D - though I'm not sure exactly where they get those vitamins
from...) Agricultural skyscrapers may be a good solution.

Originally posted by Jigtie
Solutions:

[quote]
1) If we reinstate death penalty, but this time for any crime, we will
considerably lessen the burden on the planetary resources, or

2) (Since we don't "need" meat other than to fortify food with B12 and
D - though I'm not sure exactly where they get those vitamins
from...) Agricultural skyscrapers may be a good solutio ...[text shortened]... osals-for-3d-city-farms-sustainable-ecological-and-agricultural-skyscrapers/

Take a pick.

Originally posted by Seitse
What about death penalty for any crime plus no meat plus soylent green as only allowed food?

Originally posted by Seitse
The world has a lot of available space.

Thinking outside the box (sic!), what we should consider is not how to control population growth, but how to distribute it evenly throughout the world's geography.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Perhaps it's better to concentrate human presence and human activities in smaller but denser areas?

Originally posted by Jigtie
Solutions:

[quote]
1) If we reinstate death penalty, but this time for any crime, we will
considerably lessen the burden on the planetary resources, or

2) (Since we don't "need" meat other than to fortify food with B12 and
D - though I'm not sure exactly where they get those vitamins
from...) Agricultural skyscrapers may be a good solutio ...[text shortened]... osals-for-3d-city-farms-sustainable-ecological-and-agricultural-skyscrapers/

Take a pick.

I was being sarcastic, man.

I don't think birth control is the answer, since in the poorest areas of the world having kids means money*, so it's kind of stupid from a burgeois NGO tree hugger or a fat-ass bureaucrat to come and preach "don't screw and if you do then wear a condom", when the desperate need is for education, employment, and basic service infrastructure.

* That is, the more kids you have, the more hands you have to work the ground, fish, hunt, or, unfortunately, send the kids to the streets to beg for coins

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I'm not sure that distributing human presence and human activities evenly around the world would be the best idea. Perhaps it's better to concentrate human presence and human activities in smaller but denser areas? Or not, I don't know.

One thing I do know is that we are too many. And this will be our apcalypse. Then the rest of the nature can reestabl ...[text shortened]... off without the presence of human beings.

A smaller world population will save our world.

Originally posted by Jigtie
I have a dream. That one day we will live in cities floating on the sea, or
built in the desert. Cities that will be completely self-sustained and in
harmony with the natural environment that surround them. Energy will be
produced by bacteria (http://www.physorg.com/news4421.html), wind,
sunlight and what other natural sources we have at our disposal. ...[text shortened]... ew raw material).

Nature won't even know we're here. (Except for where we are of course) 🙄