If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
we should eat less meat in west
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
according to this report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3559542.stm
is it not the west's fault that our countries get more regular rainfall and better soil than those in africa etc
surely the big problem isnt production of food, but distribution! noonoe ever addresses this do they
people in poor countries should grow food to keep them fed first, then cash crops afterwards with the surplus land, not the other way round
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3559542.stm
is it not the west's fault that our countries get more regular rainfall and better soil than those in africa etc
surely the big problem isnt production of food, but distribution! noonoe ever addresses this do they
people in poor countries should grow food to keep them fed first, then cash crops afterwards with the surplus land, not the other way round
0
Comments
Perhaps, but they need the money to run hospitals and schools. Following corrupted government policy.
If I remember the report correctly it was concerned about the trend toward more meat, rather than we get more rain here than there.
the thing about water and soil in my opinion is what i thinkis why we also have had regular food supplies for the past few hundred years
the problem is distribution of resources not lack of them
Actually, in the history of things (which i will gloss over because it will take ages to go through it all) meat is expensive, and until recently ie, last 50, 100, 200 years was a treat that was only had on a sunday, or a couple of times a week. Potatoes, bread, meat dripping and vegetables were more likely to be on a persons plate.
Why? potential mercury levels in tuna? Or that we're fishing an abundant species like cod to extinction?
Between a rock and a hard place
How do you patrol international waters? Who's responsibility is it?
I don't know, do they count the fish that is poached?
Watch out, cynic alert, bed time after the fast show.
It controls landing. If they fish too many, they ahve to be slung back to sea. Where they die.
Fishermen are self-interested, self-serving vermin anyway.
Well that makes loads of sense.
yum
It does. There's no financial incentive for "accidentally" catching too many fish.
Fish is the last wild food we eat and I dont think it will last, most of our fish will be farmed in 15 years.
As for meat, my concern over it is the amount of methane and other gases that they give out. Cows are amoung the biggest poluters of the world.
Don't be absurd! The only reason cows are great poluters, if any, is that humans have removed the trees that absorb the impact. Anyway, a single volcanic explosion is more poluting that anything else on the planet, sometimes collectivly for several decades.
They used to, until Western corporations and trade rules forced them to do otherwise.
Yes, i agree, but it's not like it's a problem that needs to be addressed. Cow's and their wild relatives will be shitting whether we want them to or not. What do you suggest? Extinction?
There used to be. Before people came along and screwed the ecosystem.
This quote, from the Matrix, is remarkably accurate. How can humans as a species behave in a way that destroys our surrounding environment so completly. Especially now, when we've grown to such large numbers as to be destroying the planet, with no-where else to go.
Denmark has 10's of millions of pigs for example, very unlikely in the wild.
but pigs, proportionally, are going to poop less than larger animals that would still exist in great abundance if it weren't for humans
It's not like the pigs are around for very long anyway is it?
I was just saying that having billions of cows and sheep farting cant be good for the enviroment.
lol, no I suppose not, humans are fairly shitty though