UN wants world population to be on meat-free diets

[Rowan]

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...meat-free-diet


please tell me this is some kind of satirical sick joke. Im so mad I cant even type, i just want people to read it and tell me thats its going to be okay.


THIS IS WHY WE NEED TRUMP

[Heartless Angel]

More meat for me.

[Clint]

The UN can take their new world order agenda and go **** themselves.

[Yoko]

They should also ban wheat and wheat by-products.

[Pete]

Oh look a useless organization being useless. I'm surprised they haven't mandated that all food must be halal from this point on.

[Heartless Angel]

Give it time, their Muslim population is still increasing.

[OceanEyes28]

Yeah **** the environment

[Rowan]

Yeah **** the environment

why are all vegans the same?

Just beacuse I eat meat it doesn't mean I dont care about the environment.
Your sugguestion is akin to someone critisizing someone for using electricity because it causes pollution.
This is why I'm an advocate of nuclear power.

[Pete]

There's a difference between saying we should cut back and saying we should go full blown vegan. We'd probably benefit healthwise from consuming less red meat and cheese, but I'm not going to be mandated to do so unless it's by my doctor.

I also agree that nuclear power is the way to go, and if not that, I'm totally cool with wind power. I personally think those giant windmills are awesome

[Rowan]

There's a difference between saying we should cut back and saying we should go full blown vegan. We'd probably benefit healthwise from consuming less red meat and cheese, but I'm not going to be mandated to do so unless it's by my doctor.

I also agree that nuclear power is the way to go, and if not that, I'm totally cool with wind power. I personally think those giant windmills are awesome

Abusing almost anything can be detrimental to your health, that includes vegan foods and diets. I think if they want to adress the issue of the environment, instead of forcing people to eat a certain way, we should control our population first. Enforce a law which says you should only be allowed to have 2 children , anymore would mean a fine of $15,000 or something. Population control is key to saving our environment.

[Heartless Angel]

If the environment requires me to give up bacon, absolutely **** the environment.

[Michael Swayne]

The way I feel is, if whatever almighty being(s) is in charge wanted me to eat only plants, s/he/it/they would have made me into an herbivore. My cuspids are used for the tearing of meat, and my molars for the grinding of plants. While I do agree that one day the human population will continue to increase, I believe that there are other ways to combat this.

Like some sort of injection, taken periodically (like a child's vaccination schedule) that makes a person sterile until age 18. But this is not really the thread for my views on teenage pregnancy, just wanted to mention my suggestion of trying to slow the rapid increase in population and people breathing the same air as I am.

[che]

This post just reminded me of the Black Bush skit from Dave Chappelle where he's talking about the UN and he's like "you know what you should do? You should sanction me. Sanction me with your army. Oh wait, you aint GOT an army. Guess that means you need to shut the **** up!"

edit: found it. Sorta. RIP quality

[Rocky]

I'm surprised the UN is still relevant at this point.


...That's all I got l0l

[Kurt Zisa]

Id be interested to see if the UN have done anything further on this seeing as the article is over 6 years old now.

I feel like this is similar to the 'you should all be driving a hybrid' arguement. Yeah they give off less emissions but surely there are other ways to acheive the goal. I've always been supportive of the hydrogen powered cars that only give off water vapor ( i dont think its quiet that simple though)

[Alpha]

Abusing almost anything can be detrimental to your health, that includes vegan foods and diets. I think if they want to adress the issue of the environment, instead of forcing people to eat a certain way, we should control our population first. Enforce a law which says you should only be allowed to have 2 children , anymore would mean a fine of $15,000 or something. Population control is key to saving our environment.

Are you seriously saying that population control is less offensive to your sense of liberty than some kind of dietary recommendation?

[Pete]

I think that they should have mandatory IQ tests before giving out drivers licenses. I'm sure they could do the same for having kids. Or at least make it illegal to keep having kids just to get a welfare bump.

If you really want to clean the planet up, China needs to clean up it's act

[Rowan]

Are you seriously saying that population control is less offensive to your sense of liberty than some kind of dietary recommendation?

in a country where people are being paid to have children, where women are entitled to unlimited paid leave every time they have a kid without risk of losing their position, where in order to compensate for others life choices I am expected to appease these biased unjust laws to the point where its now affecting the food I eat,

yes. Liberty means something incredibly different to me than it does to you.

[OceanEyes28]

Haha okay. When I first responded, pretty much the only reactions were "This is why we need Trump," "More meat for me," and, "the UN can go **** themselves."

But now I'm getting messages about how I need to be more reasonable when speaking to meat eaters about animal agriculture and its effect on the environment.

Okay.

30% of the Earth's ice-free land is used to raise livestock, instead of being used to grow grain, fruit, or vegetables. Animal agriculture uses a huge amount of fresh water. 1.3 billion tons of grain are consumed by farm animals each year (or we could feed it to the hungry). They produce tons of greenhouse gases. Animal agriculture is responsible for rain forests being cut down and dead zones in the ocean. It's worth eating less meat (or no meat) to do better by this planet. And it's great that you support nuclear energy (round of applause), but what are you actually doing for your advocacy? If you write letters or petition your leaders, awesome, great. If you try to reduce your carbon footprint by riding a bike or something, well done, yay. If you like the idea of caring about the environment, the easiest way to reduce your impact on the planet is to eat less (or no) meat.

[LocoColt04]

I'm fine in the eat less meat camp. That's tougher when I'm in ketosis, but easier when I shift into paleo or, like now, am just a carb-hungry grain-devouring machine.

Having said that;
Science is doing wonderful things GROWING REAL MEAT the same way they grow replacement organs for people. When the cost for this sort of thing stabilizes, it will be a phenomenal alternative. Plus, because the meat is lab-grown, you don't have to worry about any chemicals from the feed.

[Rowan]

Haha okay. When I first responded, pretty much the only reactions were "This is why we need Trump," "More meat for me," and, "the UN can go **** themselves."

But now I'm getting messages about how I need to be more reasonable when speaking to meat eaters about animal agriculture and its effect on the environment.

Okay.

30% of the Earth's ice-free land is used to raise livestock, instead of being used to grow grain, fruit, or vegetables. Animal agriculture uses a huge amount of fresh water. 1.3 billion tons of grain are consumed by farm animals each year (or we could feed it to the hungry). They produce tons of greenhouse gases. Animal agriculture is responsible for rain forests being cut down and dead zones in the ocean. It's worth eating less meat (or no meat) to do better by this planet. And it's great that you support nuclear energy (round of applause), but what are you actually doing for your advocacy? If you write letters or petition your leaders, awesome, great. If you try to reduce your carbon footprint by riding a bike or something, well done, yay. If you like the idea of caring about the environment, the easiest way to reduce your impact on the planet is to eat less (or no) meat.

And how is my sugguestion for population control not an answer to this? The way things are going right now, we are doing more and more damage to the environment the more mouths there are to feed, regardless of whether or not people are eating meat. There are so many more detrimental factors to the environment due to overpopulation than there are to people being omnivores (which we are). My solution shouldn't impact anyones liberties, more a sugguestion of being responsbile and not overburden the world with heaps of children. The reason im offended is that now im having being told my diet is the reason for the world collapsing. Your solution doesn't impact those who are already vegeterain or vegan, we're all just supposed to adopt your world view and the world will be all sunshine and rainbows again. Its an absurd sugguestion that really does trigger me, because you are a minority who is sugguesting the world behave like you do, in order for us all to survive.

I hate the copy pasta but check some of these out;

Effects of human overpopulation

Some problems associated with or exacerbated by human overpopulation and over-consumption are:

"-Inadequate fresh water for drinking as well as sewage treatment and effluent discharge. Some countries, like Saudi Arabia, use energy-expensive desalination to solve the problem of water shortages.
-Depletion of natural resources, especially fossil fuels.
-Increased levels of air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination and noise pollution.
-Deforestation and loss of ecosystems that valuably contribute to the global atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide balance; about eight million hectares of forest are lost each year.
-Changes in atmospheric composition and consequent global warming.
-Loss of arable land and increase in desertification. Deforestation and desertification can be reversed by adopting property rights, and this policy is successful even while the human population continues to grow.
-Mass species extinctions from reduced habitat in tropical forests due to slash-and-burn techniques that sometimes are practiced by shifting cultivators, especially in countries with rapidly expanding rural populations; present extinction rates may be as high as 140,000 species lost per year. As of February 2011, the IUCN Red List lists a total of 801 animal species having gone extinct during recorded human history.
-High infant and child mortality.
-Intensive factory farming to support large populations. It results in human threats including the evolution and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria diseases, excessive air and water pollution, and new viruses that infect humans.
-Increased chance of the emergence of new epidemics and pandemics. For many environmental and social reasons, including overcrowded living conditions, malnutrition and inadequate, inaccessible, or non-existent health care, the poor are more likely to be exposed to infectious diseases.
-Low life expectancy in countries with fastest growing populations.
-Unhygienic living conditions for many based upon water resource depletion, discharge of raw sewage and solid waste disposal.
-Elevated crime rate due to drug cartels and increased theft by people stealing resources to survive. (shit, bit of a reach)
-Conflict over scarce resources and crowding, leading to increased levels of warfare.
-Less personal freedom and more restrictive laws. Laws regulate interactions between humans. Law "serves as a primary social mediator of relations between people". The higher the population density, the more frequent such interactions become, and thus there develops a need for more laws and/or more restrictive laws to regulate these interactions. It was even speculated by Aldous Huxley in 1958 that democracy is threatened due to overpopulation, and could give rise to totalitarian style governments.
David Attenborough described the level of human population on the planet as a multiplier of all other environmental problems.


Some economists, such as Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams argue that third world poverty and famine are caused in part by bad government and bad economic policies. Most biologists and sociologists see overpopulation as a serious threat to the quality of human life."


But sure, lets all become vegan.

[LocoColt04]

What if we started eating other humans?

Meat-eaters keep eating meat, and population control occurs naturally.

[Heartless Angel]

People taste like crap though.

[Clint]

Any environmental problems the world is facing right now won't be solved if people stopped eating meat. People have been eating meat for hundreds of thousands of years, and it's only a problem now. The issue isn't deforestation, or emissions, or this imaginary carbon footprint bullshit. The problem is that there are too many people. And it's all because of China and India. Those ****ers reproduce like rabbits. 2.675 billion people between both countries. If we just drop a few hundred nukes across their most populated cities, we can drastically reduce the human population.

So yeah, I agree with everything Rowan is saying about overpopulation. Eating less meat solves nothing. Killing Chinese and Indians solves everything. #SuperFunChineseAndIndianGenocide

People taste like crap though.

People taste like pork, actually.

[Pete]

What if we started eating other humans?

Meat-eaters keep eating meat, and population control occurs naturally.

Alright Jonathan Swift.

Poor people are gamey and probably taste like meth

[LocoColt04]

Oh, that's a fair point. I prefer my meats unaffected by hazardous materials.

[Taco-Calamitous]

Those ****ers reproduce like rabbits. 2.675 billion people between both countries. If we just drop a few hundred nukes across their most populated cities, we can drastically reduce the human population.

But one of my texts said that China was one of the leaders in environmentally efficient technological innovations, or something? Also, they have like a 2 child policy now, right? (Up from 1 child, but yeah). Why don' we bomb the African and South American countries, where they're chopping down all of our rain-forests? I think in certain countries in Africa, they're still having 6+ children to a family, anyway. I guess we wouldn't have anyone to exploit economically anymore though, so that would suck (though we could still take their resources; they don't need to be alive for that).

[Rocky]

can someone eat me please

I'll even get you Eden to do it

[che]

Haha okay. When I first responded, pretty much the only reactions were "This is why we need Trump," "More meat for me," and, "the UN can go **** themselves."

But now I'm getting messages about how I need to be more reasonable when speaking to meat eaters about animal agriculture and its effect on the environment.

Okay.

30% of the Earth's ice-free land is used to raise livestock, instead of being used to grow grain, fruit, or vegetables. Animal agriculture uses a huge amount of fresh water. 1.3 billion tons of grain are consumed by farm animals each year (or we could feed it to the hungry). They produce tons of greenhouse gases. Animal agriculture is responsible for rain forests being cut down and dead zones in the ocean. It's worth eating less meat (or no meat) to do better by this planet. And it's great that you support nuclear energy (round of applause), but what are you actually doing for your advocacy? If you write letters or petition your leaders, awesome, great. If you try to reduce your carbon footprint by riding a bike or something, well done, yay. If you like the idea of caring about the environment, the easiest way to reduce your impact on the planet is to eat less (or no) meat.

Well, I know you care pretty deeply about this topic (that most people don't care about), so a 4 word response from you was like, Okay. You don't have to be "more reasonable" about talking to the people in this topic who aren't taking it seriously if you don't want to. But telling all of us in here we need to write letters to congress, or stop eating meat (harder than writing a letter tbh), but you write a 4 word response? What are youuuu doing? Your responsibility should be to educate!

[Rowan]

I am actively trying to eat less meat, but It's certainly not for moral reasons.