By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://blog.alor.org/
Love Meat? Then to Support the Third World, Time to Give it Up! By Peter West
Kiss your tasty steak goodbye, because it simply consumes too many resources, and to keep the Third World population numbers exploding, food will need to be distributed according to the Marxist principle of equality.
“Americans will need to cut their average consumption of beef by about 40% and Europeans by 22%, for the world to continue to feed the 10 billion people expected to live on this planet in 2050, according to a new report. That means each person could have about a burger and a half each week. This calculation comes from the World Resources Institute, a global research nonprofit that supports better use of natural resources to sustain a growing population. Its research looks at agriculture, the climate crisis, poverty and gender, among other topics. Its final "Creating a Sustainable Food Future" report released Wednesday takes a closer look at the gaps in food production and global demand and makes several concrete recommendations on how to prevent a catastrophe. Eating less beef is one such suggestion in the 568-page report. About 9.8 billion people will live on the planet by 2050, that's up from 7 billion people in 2010. Demand for food is projected to outpace population growth, increasing by more than 50% as people's incomes in the developing world are expected to increase, according to the report. The demand for meat and dairy is expected to rise even faster, by nearly 70%. The global demand for ruminant meat, meaning beef, sheep and goat, is expected to be even higher, at 88%. But to keep up with food demands overall, the report predicts farmers are going to have to produce 56% more crop calories than in 2010 -- and that means that land nearly twice the size of India will be needed. Closing these gaps is "harder than often recognized," according to the report. The authors suggest there are several ways to keep people from starving and to keep the climate crisis at bay, but the most impactful way to do this may be to cut the consumption of ruminant meat.”
Even if there was a chance of feeding 10 billion people, with the population explosion in Africa, which has defied the traditional demographic transition thesis (more affluence, less babies), the problem immediately created is how to feed 20, 30, 100, 1,000 billion people. It only puts off the day of collapse, destroying civilisation for the sake of bleeding heartism. Instead, think, life boat ethics:
Leftist environmentalists also want to get rid of cats and dogs, which allegedly also have a “massive” environmental impact:
“With many Americans choosing to eat less meat in recent years, often to help reduce the environmental effect of meat production, UCLA geography professor Gregory Okin began to wonder how much feeding pets contributes to issues like climate change. All that meat has important consequences. Okin calculated that meat-eating by dogs and cats creates the equivalent of about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, which has about the same climate impact as a year’s worth of driving from 13.6 million cars. “I like dogs and cats, and I’m definitely not recommending that people get rid of their pets or put them on a vegetarian diet, which would be unhealthy,” Okin said. “But I do think we should consider all the impacts that pets have so we can have an honest conversation about them. Pets have many benefits, but also a huge environmental impact.”
Well, one has to draw a definite conclusion here, because everything has costs and benefits. Clearly for this camp their costs, environmental degradation, must outweigh the benefits e.g. something to pat. Environmentalism, after diversity is the latest, and most dangerous political weapon of the elites. The danger comes from elements of truth weaved into a greater tapestry of lies. The fear of ecological catastrophe will be used to eliminate the final embers of freedom. Will the people fight for once, just once? Pretty please with sugar on top.