[PublicAnimalNo9]

jeff744 wrote:

BeaverFever wrote:

Further: More than two-thirds of all agricultural land is devoted to growing feed for livestock, while only 8 percent is used to grow food for direct human consumption, according to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).

What happens to the livestock after we change over? If it is a mass annihilation of their populations then it is little better than simply eating them.

Not really. Finish off the existing populations and don't breed anymore.

Not that I'm down with that idea, I likes me steak and pork chops.

[jeff744]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

jeff744 wrote:

BeaverFever wrote:

Further: More than two-thirds of all agricultural land is devoted to growing feed for livestock, while only 8 percent is used to grow food for direct human consumption, according to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).

What happens to the livestock after we change over? If it is a mass annihilation of their populations then it is little better than simply eating them.

Not really. Finish off the existing populations and don't breed anymore.

Not that I'm down with that idea, I likes me steak and pork chops.

But what motivation would we have to continue to allow them to survive? Most of the animals we bred actually require human attention, many animals would die off without human monitoring and feeding.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

jeff744 wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

jeff744 wrote:

What happens to the livestock after we change over? If it is a mass annihilation of their populations then it is little better than simply eating them.

Not really. Finish off the existing populations and don't breed anymore.

Not that I'm down with that idea, I likes me steak and pork chops.

But what motivation would we have to continue to allow them to survive? Most of the animals we bred actually require human attention, many animals would die off without human monitoring and feeding.

Personally, I have NO motivation to quit eating meat so I can't really answer that

[herbie]

Rack of lamb.
Tofu.
Real tough decision there......

[Gunnair]

Brenda wrote:

FurryFriends wrote:

Well I wish I could say this was a pleasant first forum experience.... I admire what you guys stand for here, but the way I was attacked instead of politely informed of what I was doing wrong, you guys were just pretty harsh considering the circumstances. I dont know if this a friendly thing id like to be part of. Wish you all the best

I thought I was pretty nice... Guess I was wrong tho
I can't win...

You're getting it, Dutchie. Now go make me a sammich!

[Brenda]

Gunnair wrote:

Brenda wrote:

FurryFriends wrote:

Well I wish I could say this was a pleasant first forum experience.... I admire what you guys stand for here, but the way I was attacked instead of politely informed of what I was doing wrong, you guys were just pretty harsh considering the circumstances. I dont know if this a friendly thing id like to be part of. Wish you all the best

I thought I was pretty nice... Guess I was wrong tho
I can't win...

You're getting it, Dutchie. Now go make me a sammich!

Must be my ESL, but what part of "NO" am I misspelling, Scottie?

[BeaverFever]

Jeff, those farm animals only ever existed because humans selectively bred them for food production over thousands of years. There was never ever such a thing as wild Holstein or a wild Black Angus. The wild ancestors of our farm livestock were animals such as the wild boar and water buffalo of Africa and Eurasia some 4,000 years ago. The farm animals as you know them only continue to exist because humans selectively breed them. If there was no demand, then they would no longer be bred.

Not than I'm advocating for a veggie world. But I do think we eat waaay too much meat. I dont think the human body is configured to consume its weight in meat every year.

[Regina]

BeaverFever wrote:

Further: More than two-thirds of all agricultural land is devoted to growing feed for livestock, while only 8 percent is used to grow food for direct human consumption, according to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).

That has to do with the quality of the end product. If you have a good quality crop you get top dollar and it goes up the human food chain. If you have a poor quality crop then you get less and it goes down the chain to feed and other byproducts that may not even be consumed. Obviously everyone would like a top quality crop, but mother nature usually has other plans.

[andyt]

BeaverFever wrote:

Not than I'm advocating for a veggie world. But I do think we eat waaay too much meat. I dont think the human body is configured to consume its weight in meat every year.

I'm not sure about that. Our ancestors, I think, ate a lot of meat. But it was free range, grass fed, hormone free, and they ate all of the animal.

[BeaverFever]

andyt wrote:

BeaverFever wrote:

Not than I'm advocating for a veggie world. But I do think we eat waaay too much meat. I dont think the human body is configured to consume its weight in meat every year.

I'm not sure about that. Our ancestors, I think, ate a lot of meat. But it was free range, grass fed, hormone free, and they ate all of the animal.

I don't know if they ate a lot...remember, you couldnt just ride your brontosaurus up to a drive-thru like in the Flintstones. Hunting parties were dangerous mutli-day affairs and there was no refrigeration so meat spoiled quickly. And certainly, today's meat is not prehistoric either in terms of its addititives or its nutritional value.

But a better question is should modern, domesticated and relatively inactive and sedentary humans be looking to cavemen as the standard for our livestyle and biology?

[andyt]

Good question. I don't know the answer. Certainly how we eat these days isn't good for us, but I'm not sure meat is the culprit, or the only culprit, here.