Cj Verde wrote:
Colin Fontaine wrote:"Too many people" isn't an opinion, it's a fact of growth, don't you think there was a reason that up until 1800 the human population remained below 1 billion? Or that any other species on the planet does not overrun the place?
Colin, perhaps your mean it's a function of growth?
Also, most species do overrun their environment until they pollute it so badly the population collapses, like yeast.
Also, the population explosion coincides nicely with the availability if cheap, easily accessible fuel.
Tyler Ludens wrote:
John Seay wrote:He's saying that we eat too much meat and have too many people. There simply isn't enough space to raise enough sustainable meat for everyone in the country to continue to eat so much of it. I think that is a fair statement and that there is plenty of evidence to show this to be correct. Permaculture is more productive than industrial agriculture as a whole, which includes produce. There is no way to say a permaculture farm can produce more meat than that of a feed lot.
I don't think there is "plenty of evidence." Feedlot cattle spend most of their lives on grass, they are not born and raised in a feedlot. Food for feedlot animals comes from the land. The land does not magically produce more food simply because it does not have animals on it, quite the contrary, such land used to produce grains requires many more inputs than grassfed. There is plenty of space to raise grassfed because it is a more efficient use of the land. We may eat too much BAD meat, but there's no reason we can't eat an appropriate quantity of good meat, in my opinion. "Too many people" is an esthetic judgment often made by people who don't like other people. There is strong evidence for too many people living and eating the way we do now*, but we do not know the carrying capacity of the land for people living a different way, including permacultural and other natural meat-raising practices.