Meat, Famine and starvation

[madd0ct0r]

disclaimer:

The missus is writing a paper arguing that widespread, voluntary vegetarianism is a good option to reduce world hunger. So it's something I've been thinking about, although not in the same depth as her on the philosophical side.

IDEA 0 - We have a moral duty to help.

idea 1: Meat is now not required for a healthy diet, therefore meat is a luxury item consumed for it's taste (like wine)

Idea 2: Although the world currently produces just enough calories to feed everybody, millions starve due to politics, mismanagement, waste and inefficiency and good old cost of food.
Although going vege will not solve most of these problems, a simple increase in production capacity (and with only demand for basic foodstuff;see idea 4) should have a resultant decrease in basic food cost.

Idea 3: Animals may have no rights, they may have a right to life, but it's not being considered for this argument. Resources only.

Idea 4: Although becoming vege should, theoretically, 'free up' approx 8x the calories you previously consumed in meat, if a market for luxury still exists, farmers will use reassign the production to luxury vegetables (eg Organic or obscure variants of asparagus)
Hence, the diet shift has to voluntary and understanding, not achieved by legislation.

idea 5: It is assumed that the rate of increase of production of calories per capitia will remain the same for the foreseeable future. (It has been linear since 1950). On current trends, this growth will largely disperse into meat (1/8) meaning that the current food surplus will increase slightly. Of course, even now, people are starving.

Idea 6: It is considered that the 'cost' of vegetarianism will decrease as it becomes more popular. Restaurants, cafes, supermarkets ect will increase their vegetarian range to meet demand.

Idea 7: As the 'cost' may be expected to decrease, there seems no reason why vegetarianism would prevent somebody from further acts of sensible altruism over their life. It is not necessary to choose vegetarianism over charitable contributions for example. They are not mutually exclusive.



looking at idea 2, there seems a risk that poor farmers would be hurt more, and by extension poorer nations dependent on primary industry would be hurt more by lowering the cost of basic foodstuff.


thoughts?

[Twoyboy]

A few:

idea 1: Meat is now not required for a healthy diet, therefore meat is a luxury item consumed for it's taste (like wine)

Meat isn't required for a healthy diet, but many people do find it difficult to eat healthy without it, as a vegetarian diet needs some work to ensure iron and protein requirements are met. One former vegetarian friend of mine was eventually told by her doctor to just start eating meat because he couldn't come up with a sound nutritional plan that also met her likes and dislikes (she didn't like mushrooms, for instance). Doesn't mean meat is essential, but it's not as simple as "a luxury item like wine" for many people.

Idea 2: Although the world currently produces just enough calories to feed everybody, millions starve due to politics, mismanagement, waste and inefficiency and good old cost of food.
Although going vege will not solve most of these problems, a simple increase in production capacity (and with only demand for basic foodstuff;see idea 4) should have a resultant decrease in basic food cost.

Idea 4: Although becoming vege should, theoretically, 'free up' approx 8x the calories you previously consumed in meat, if a market for luxury still exists, farmers will use reassign the production to luxury vegetables (eg Organic or obscure variants of asparagus)
Hence, the diet shift has to voluntary and understanding, not achieved by legislation.

idea 5: It is assumed that the rate of increase of production of calories per capitia will remain the same for the foreseeable future. (It has been linear since 1950). On current trends, this growth will largely disperse into meat (1/8) meaning that the current food surplus will increase slightly. Of course, even now, people are starving.

All of these ideas are dependent on there being a profitable vegetable deficit to fill. Not being a farmer, I'm not sure what profit margin they are making, but I've heard it's slim. A drop in price might not be economically feasible, even with increased production. So unless these millions of starving people can afford it, no one's going to produce it anyway.

[Hillary]

Why does the planet going veggie increase the number of calories by 8x?

[Resinence]

Producing meat from livestock uses more land than growing the same amount of calories in vegetables and fruit and has more inefficiencies. I assume he means if that land was used not for meat but for vegetables and fruit there would be more food available.

This is pie in the sky madness, treating meat like a simple luxury item. I know most vegetarians assume people like meat simply because they are socialised to and could be weened off it but why do chimps eat meat? Simply because the other chimps do? Doubtful.

Vegetarian diets are much harder to follow properly than vegies make it out to be, as stated above some people simply dislike some vegetables and fruit that you really have to eat if you don't want to eat meat. What are they do to?

Thoughts?; I think you are focussing on the wrong problem, the problem is not a lack of food but too many people.

IDEA 0 - We have a moral duty to help.

Why?

idea 1: Meat is now not required for a healthy diet, therefore meat is a luxury item consumed for it's taste (like wine)

p: Luxury items are those things that we like but don't need.
p: We are now able to have a survivable diet without meat.
c: Meat is a luxury item.

While I somewhat agree with your conclusion, you seem to think it's easy to get the nutrients you need without eating any meat. It's far easier to just eat a little meat and mostly non-meat, boom you no longer need to go to extremes just to make up for things. However that would mean convincing people in the west that you don't really need to eat a steak the size of your face every single day. Good luck

Also what about people who are otherwise healthy but consume extremely calorie and protein dense food? Like say, everyone who has an exercise lifestyle? I suppose there is always whey protein and milk/cheese, however with greatly reduced livestock numbers it would quickly become more expensive. Any kind of bodybuilding is extremely difficult if not impossible on an all vegetarian diet. Actually I've yet to meet a "fit" vegetarian. "Skinny" yeah lots of them.

Idea 2: Although the world currently produces just enough calories to feed everybody, millions starve due to politics, mismanagement, waste and inefficiency and good old cost of food.
Although going vege will not solve most of these problems, a simple increase in production capacity (and with only demand for basic foodstuff;see idea 4) should have a resultant decrease in basic food cost.

Communism.
On the serious side, I'm all for minimalist lifestyles, but if some guy in another country has to starve so I can eat bacon and pancakes before a ride or workout I'll side with bacon every time, call it self interest. Or lack of blind idealism.

As to the rest, I dislike the vague implied tone that it is unnatural to enjoy or eat meat. It's not.

[Hillary]

Producing meat from livestock uses more land than growing the same amount of calories in vegetables and fruit and has more inefficiencies. I assume he means if that land was used not for meat but for vegetables and fruit there would be more food available.

Yes, I'm just interested where his 8x comes in. It is my guess this number is way above the reality. What tends to happen in these arguments is that you take the area used by livestock-rearing and assume this can all be used to grow the most efficient crops (i.e. most calories per hectare of land - pulses tend to be the best for this). Another little twist is to assume all livestock-rearing is done in the most inefficient way (i.e. they are all fed crops grown elsewhere). Of course, this assumption is nonsense. Not all land on which animals are reared is suitable for pulses. Indeed much of the land is not suitable for crops at all (hill farming for instance). Also not all livestock are fed with crops grown elsewhere.

Also, I seem to recall from previous threads that we haven't enough arable land globally to feed the world on a veggie diet.

That we eat too much meat is not in question of course

[Invictus ChiKen]

What do we do with all the livestock left? Also are we going totally vegan? No cheese, eggs ect. Then what of things like wool?

[madd0ct0r]

... why do chimps eat meat? Simply because the other chimps do? Doubtful.

>> Old argument of dubious value. Chimps don't have access to soya vats, and are not trouble by morals or ethics anyway. It is likely that early humans needed meat to grow our brains, but we don't need to hunt for it anymore.

IDEA 0 - We have a moral duty to help.

Why?
>>> Big enough for it's own thread. That's not just me ducking the question, its a huge arena in philosophy, and bears upon all forms of charity, either direct or implied.
Well. it is me ducking the question, but the missus is currently writing that section up, i'll post when she's done.
Short term answer : Under the UN bill of human rights, there is a right to not be starved. Thus we have a duty to not starve people, directly or not.
It also follows the golden law as well.

...
While I somewhat agree with your conclusion, you seem to think it's easy to get the nutrients you need without eating any meat. It's far easier to just eat a little meat and mostly non-meat, ...
>>>Absolutely fucking true. describes my diet pretty well.

Also what about people who are otherwise healthy but consume extremely calorie and protein dense food? Any kind of bodybuilding is extremely difficult if not impossible on an all vegetarian diet.
>>>
http://vegetarianbodybuilder.com/index2.html. google aside, it's not something I'd ever really considered. More into climbing then bodybuilding, and for climbers skinny = good. Most of the rugby boys I've known have bulked up using big tubs of whey protein, not hamburgers or bacon.

Idea 2: wishful thinking

I'll side with bacon every time, call it self interest. Or lack of blind idealism.
As to the rest, I dislike the vague implied tone that it is unnatural to enjoy or eat meat. It's not.
>>>
That wasn't really intended. At most I was trying to duck the old "It's natural to eat meat argument and therefore we should". No implication intended. honest sirrah.

Yes, I'm just interested where his 8x comes in. It is my guess this number is way above the reality.
... Indeed much of the land is not suitable for crops at all (hill farming for instance). Also not all livestock are fed with crops grown elsewhere.
>>>To quote missus, "it's an oft-quoted stat in the literature, I can't be bothered to look it up for you right now." I'll have a skimread of her notes tonight and see if i can trace a source.

The general rule is 10% of the energy makes it to the next stage of the food chain. Thus, assuming sensible crop choices (like what would actually grow well in that field) and assuming low efficiency in some areas only (eg hill farming won't produce much crop / m2 but it didn't produce much meat either) an overall score of 8x seems reasonable.

Also, I seem to recall from previous threads that we haven't enough arable land globally to feed the world on a veggie diet.
>>> You what? source and science please. or at least the thread. That's a ridiculous statement.

That we eat too much meat is not in question of course
>>> It's where to draw the line though? Vegetarianism is an easy concept to talk about with nice clear guidelines. I suppose we could class ourselves by types of bear to describe diet but otherwise it get's quite complex. I eat a lot more protein then meat, and should the meat weight be cooked, uncooked, include bones?

Thanks for the clear replies though.
I'll try and get the other stuff promised done this evening.

oh. Invictus.

plan would be gradual winding down of livestock as market decreases. no vegan, not intrested in animal welfare, only in sensibly acting to try and reduce inequitable calorie distribution.

[Sarevok]

You cant make people give up cigarettes. I fail to see how you would convince the majority of world to abandon meat.

[Zixinus]

I know most vegetarians assume people like meat simply because they are socialised to and could be weened off it but why do chimps eat meat? Simply because the other chimps do? Doubtful

Or more importantly, why do primitive (yes, not PC word but it is an accurate one in this case) societies, that have been isolated until only a few decades or centuries ago, still have extensive hunting experiences? Why do the African Bushmen hunt for meat, if its a luxury item?

Because meat is an essential foodstuff, especially if you live a very active lifestlye because it is very difficult to make up the energy with plants. I recall a Ray Mears show with Siberian natives, where he showed that you need to eat several bagfulls of (to be fair, local) plants to get the same energy you can get from a big-sized stake they got from their herd.

That is why people are hard-wired to enjoy meat: energy-dense food. Humans evolved to store food and last for several days just on it. Plants were more plentiful as well as grub-food (small stuff) but meat supplied much more raw energy.

That said, people eating less meat and eating less would produce more healthier people: people eat too much meat (and thus become fat, something that our evolution views as a good thing but isn't in our lifestlye), myself included. However, meat is not a luxury at all and I cannot imagine how the hell could we safely replace lifestock farms with regular, plant-producing farms, giving the same amount of calories out or even more.

Especially when you consider that lifestock are fed on plants that usually cannot be used for human consumption,ie grass. Humans cannot digest grass.

[LaCroix]

I think there is one point which might she might want to clarify if she want's to do this paper.

Isn't there currently a massive overproduction in food, if looked at globally, to the point where food gets thrown away in bulk in industrial countries (just ask your local grocer how much he has to throw away because it's expired.)

Vegetarianism would increase food availability much, no doubt, but the question of fighting worldwide starvation is how to make people distribute the food better. So abolishing meat won't make things better magically.

[Temujin]

Yeah, I believe its been debated before that there is more than enough food production to end world hunger, it's the distribution that is the problem. Western countries produce and dispose of far more food than they need, while underdeveloped countries don't produce enough food, and can't or won't properly distribute any that is imported.

[Eleas]

You cant make people give up cigarettes. I fail to see how you would convince the majority of world to abandon meat.

Except we can make people cut down severely on cigarettes. Just like we can make people cut down on a diet which has steadily risen in meat content.

I love a good steak, but that shouldn't matter in the long run. It's healthier to eat a balanced diet, more difficult to produce meat, and more environmentally unfriendly. Meat has its place, but it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. The idea that, since we can't eliminate the eating of meat, we should therefore not make an effort at reducing people's meat intake, is nonsensical.

[Axiomatic]

How exactly does increasing the production of food in countries which ALREADY OVERPRODUCE FOOD help anyone in any way? All you end up having is more of those festivals where you burn a lot of wheat and swim in rivers of tomatoes in the streets because that's the only way to keep the prices down.

The chief problem with this solution is that what it would do is create even bigger food surpluses in places where more food is not needed. In other words, five tons of soy in Finland are of no use to a starving man in Kenya.

[Akhlut]

Some areas cannot grow enough high quality food plants for people to eat; in desert areas, it is more economical and environmentally friendly to herd livestock that can eat desert plants rather than try to irrigate to hell and back a field for growing wheat or corn or potatoes. And most of those desert plants (grasses, thorn bushes, etc.) are inedible as far as people go, but can be transfered into calories via camel or goat.

Similarly, in a lot of areas in the world today, livestock serves a dual purpose. In addition to being meat, chickens and pigs act as garbage disposal. You can't store last night's dinner too well and it is starting to look toward the tail end of edible, so it is better for you to store those calories in your chicken (from which you can get eggs AND meat) or your pig. Your cow helps you plow your field and gives you fuel for your fire and fertilizer for your fields via its manure. Chickens also keep pesky bugs from eating your gardens. Goats give you milk and wool, as do sheep. And on it goes. Aside from the first world (where one sees most of the problems with food wastage), livestock is seldom, if ever, used solely as a source of meat.

[Eleas]

How exactly does increasing the production of food in countries which ALREADY OVERPRODUCE FOOD help anyone in any way? All you end up having is more of those festivals where you burn a lot of wheat and swim in rivers of tomatoes in the streets because that's the only way to keep the prices down.

Good question. I'll counter with one much like it: how exactly does that follow from what I or anyone else said? I spoke of reordering agriculture, partially in order to suit an encourage a more balanced diet. In what way, shape or form did I state that the goal ought to be an increase in food production? It is precisely the overproduction of food, coupled with the horrendous demands it makes on the biosphere, that should worry us.

The chief problem with this solution is that what it would do is create even bigger food surpluses in places where more food is not needed. In other words, five tons of soy in Finland are of no use to a starving man in Kenya.

Or, you know, we could use a lot of that arable land, not to mention the clean water, nutrients and energy used, in order to do something useful.

[Eleas]

Some areas cannot grow enough high quality food plants for people to eat; in desert areas, it is more economical and environmentally friendly to herd livestock that can eat desert plants rather than try to irrigate to hell and back a field for growing wheat or corn or potatoes. And most of those desert plants (grasses, thorn bushes, etc.) are inedible as far as people go, but can be transfered into calories via camel or goat.

Similarly, in a lot of areas in the world today, livestock serves a dual purpose. In addition to being meat, chickens and pigs act as garbage disposal. You can't store last night's dinner too well and it is starting to look toward the tail end of edible, so it is better for you to store those calories in your chicken (from which you can get eggs AND meat) or your pig. Your cow helps you plow your field and gives you fuel for your fire and fertilizer for your fields via its manure. Chickens also keep pesky bugs from eating your gardens. Goats give you milk and wool, as do sheep. And on it goes. Aside from the first world (where one sees most of the problems with food wastage), livestock is seldom, if ever, used solely as a source of meat.

That is true. But by the same token, you have no need for a thousand pigs to do away with your household garbage (except if you happen to go by the name of Brick Top, of course). To reduce one's use of anything is not the same thing as ceasing it entirely. I view it in much the same way as buying a fuel-efficient car. We could field similar arguments against energy efficiency in general, in fact.

Right now, we produce (wastefully) a lot of food that either (a) will end up thrown away or (b) is eaten out of habit and only - in the quantities it's ingested - serves to fuck the body up. If this had not been funded by an entrenched industry and/or been part of a "lifestyle", then we would likely see a reduction.

[Akhlut]

Some areas cannot grow enough high quality food plants for people to eat; in desert areas, it is more economical and environmentally friendly to herd livestock that can eat desert plants rather than try to irrigate to hell and back a field for growing wheat or corn or potatoes. And most of those desert plants (grasses, thorn bushes, etc.) are inedible as far as people go, but can be transfered into calories via camel or goat.

Similarly, in a lot of areas in the world today, livestock serves a dual purpose. In addition to being meat, chickens and pigs act as garbage disposal. You can't store last night's dinner too well and it is starting to look toward the tail end of edible, so it is better for you to store those calories in your chicken (from which you can get eggs AND meat) or your pig. Your cow helps you plow your field and gives you fuel for your fire and fertilizer for your fields via its manure. Chickens also keep pesky bugs from eating your gardens. Goats give you milk and wool, as do sheep. And on it goes. Aside from the first world (where one sees most of the problems with food wastage), livestock is seldom, if ever, used solely as a source of meat.

That is true. But by the same token, you have no need for a thousand pigs to do away with your household garbage (except if you happen to go by the name of Brick Top, of course). To reduce one's use of anything is not the same thing as ceasing it entirely. I view it in much the same way as buying a fuel-efficient car. We could field similar arguments against energy efficiency in general, in fact.

Right now, we produce (wastefully) a lot of food that either (a) will end up thrown away or (b) is eaten out of habit and only - in the quantities it's ingested - serves to fuck the body up. If this had not been funded by an entrenched industry and/or been part of a "lifestyle", then we would likely see a reduction.

I was mostly commenting on such phenomena in rural/agrarian areas in developing nations. Your average Vietnamese peasant family, for instance, is only going to have maybe a dozen pigs total to act as a garbage disposal. In industrialized nations, you almost never see people utilizing livestock in such a manner, except in agrarian areas, and, even then, to a much, much smaller extent than in developing nations. We don't herd cattle in the US like the Masai do, nor do we keep pigs like Haitians. We could certainly do a lot of things a hell of a lot better, including simply not eating so much meat so often. A simple reduction of eating 10% less beef a year could reduce cattle numbers in the US by over 3.5 million animals, representing a tremendous savings in resources.

[Eleas]

I was mostly commenting on such phenomena in rural/agrarian areas in developing nations. Your average Vietnamese peasant family, for instance, is only going to have maybe a dozen pigs total to act as a garbage disposal. In industrialized nations, you almost never see people utilizing livestock in such a manner, except in agrarian areas, and, even then, to a much, much smaller extent than in developing nations. We don't herd cattle in the US like the Masai do, nor do we keep pigs like Haitians. We could certainly do a lot of things a hell of a lot better, including simply not eating so much meat so often. A simple reduction of eating 10% less beef a year could reduce cattle numbers in the US by over 3.5 million animals, representing a tremendous savings in resources.

All too true. I'm also concerned about retaining huge monocultures of the same type of livestock. Contagions are traditionally adept at exploiting genetic uniformity, and it's not exactly ideal for health purposes ever. And while milk is quite useful, rearing such huge amounts of cattle can't be the best way of using resources even if they have to be spent on livestock.

[madd0ct0r]

2 pigs at most, and only one if you're in a 3rd floor apartment.
trust me.

ok. Some interesting graphs wot I made.





These are pretty quick and crude - I've not accounted for the portion of crop kcal that get's fed to the animals, nor the portions due to honey, fish, dairy ect. Data from FAOstat.
I dropped the correction factor to 5x for the above and below reasons.


I've been unable to qualify the 8x statement I made earlier. Best source seems to be this:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Au ... k.hrs.html

also found this:

Beef cattle eat seven pounds of grain for every pound consumed

From "A New Era of World Hunger?" FES Briefing Paper 7 August 2008

also, best summing up I've seen so far of the affect the go vege idea has on the worlds poor (it's bad):
http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm


lots of food for thought so far. ho ho.

chillingly, also just realised this.
my earlier statement about wine cuts both ways - alcohol is a heavy consumer of resources, although it does tend to transfer the kcals quite well - wine was the major staple for north Italian peasants not so long ago.
it has definetly made the staple -> luxury transtion though.

[RedImperator]

Vegetarian diets are much harder to follow properly than vegies make it out to be, as stated above some people simply dislike some vegetables and fruit that you really have to eat if you don't want to eat meat. What are they do to?

If not eating meat means other people don't starve to death, the only morally acceptable course of action would be to suck it up and deal with it, like a grownup. Food allergies are one thing, but simple dislike is another thing entirely.

On the serious side, I'm all for minimalist lifestyles, but if some guy in another country has to starve so I can eat bacon and pancakes before a ride or workout I'll side with bacon every time, call it self interest. Or lack of blind idealism.

Good to see you have your priorities in order.

[Akhlut]

Also what about people who are otherwise healthy but consume extremely calorie and protein dense food? Like say, everyone who has an exercise lifestyle? I suppose there is always whey protein and milk/cheese, however with greatly reduced livestock numbers it would quickly become more expensive. Any kind of bodybuilding is extremely difficult if not impossible on an all vegetarian diet. Actually I've yet to meet a "fit" vegetarian. "Skinny" yeah lots of them.

They can hunt and eat invasive animal species or species that have lost their natural controls. Wild boar, nutria, white-tail deer, Eurasian collared doves, pigeons, etc.

On the serious side, I'm all for minimalist lifestyles, but if some guy in another country has to starve so I can eat bacon and pancakes before a ride or workout I'll side with bacon every time, call it self interest. Or lack of blind idealism.

And this is part of the reason why 19 guys flew airplanes into buildings 9 years ago, as well as the supreme dislike of America in developing nations.

[Akhlut]

I was mostly commenting on such phenomena in rural/agrarian areas in developing nations. Your average Vietnamese peasant family, for instance, is only going to have maybe a dozen pigs total to act as a garbage disposal. In industrialized nations, you almost never see people utilizing livestock in such a manner, except in agrarian areas, and, even then, to a much, much smaller extent than in developing nations. We don't herd cattle in the US like the Masai do, nor do we keep pigs like Haitians. We could certainly do a lot of things a hell of a lot better, including simply not eating so much meat so often. A simple reduction of eating 10% less beef a year could reduce cattle numbers in the US by over 3.5 million animals, representing a tremendous savings in resources.

All too true. I'm also concerned about retaining huge monocultures of the same type of livestock. Contagions are traditionally adept at exploiting genetic uniformity, and it's not exactly ideal for health purposes ever. And while milk is quite useful, rearing such huge amounts of cattle can't be the best way of using resources even if they have to be spent on livestock.

As I recall, cloning's taken off hugely among the cattle industry, and artificial insemination even more so. And because every animal is so closely related and packed in unsanitary conditions that make them prone to infections, they just casually mix in antibiotics with their feed a few weeks before slaughter.

Yeah, no way that's going to end in disaster at some point.

But, on the whole, American livestock raising only makes sense in light of the fact that it makes large profits in the short term and gets enormous amounts of meat to people who want 1/2 pound thickburgers from Hardee's and Carl's Jr.

[Axiomatic]

I have not yet seen a mechanism by which the starving people would suddenly gain access to all this extra food being grown ON A DIFFERENT GODDAMN CONTINENT.

Look, if it were just a question of getting enough food produced SOMEWHERE on planet earth to feed everyone, there wouldn't be any famine. Regardless of whether or not the land being used to produce the food I consume produces meat or grain, it doesn't help the starving guy unless someone is actually willing to load up that food and transport it to him for free.

it's possible I'm entirely confusing the point of all of this, but if the idea is NOT to increase food yields, as Eleas appears to be saying...then what the hell does any of this have to do with starving people? The only connection I see to them is the idea that we need to make food production more efficient by reducing the amount of meat we produce, so that there will be more food for starving people. In which case I reiterate - FOOD HERE, STARVING FOLKS WAY WAY WAY OVER THERE. The situation of the starving folks does not in any way alter no matter how much the amount of food here, which they'll never be within a hundred miles of, changes.

[sirocco]

Back to the whole "Solving the World Hunger" problem :

1- People suffering from famine are already vegetarian. they eat whatever crops, leaves, roots they can find around. So going vegetarian is hardly a solution.

2- In said poor countries, animals are not only food but represent also a long term investment. Some people buy a house, other prefer having cattle. They only kill a goat/cow/sheep/pork when they have no other actual alternatives. So these people too are vegetarian (except the occasional glass of milk and boiled eggs)

3- It still will be a good idea to increase the food production but the most difficult thing would be to convince those people that they should keep the same diet. Because the richer you got, the more meat you want to eat. I think the best bet would be to have meat insanely more expensive than other products.

4- Yeah! The food should be produce where the people are currently starving. Since they often suffer from massive erosion or water shortage problems, that would actually improve their lifestyle too.

[Mayabird]

Sirocco, I think the argument is that the rich countries should eat less meat, not that the poor countries should. We really don't need to eat giant hunks of meat for every meal.

And yes, I am also very annoyed how any mention of "maybe we could eat a little less meat" gets turned into some all-or-nothing bullshit where people pretend there's no middle ground between eating several double cheeseburgers a day and going vegan and damned if they're going to give up their burgers.