Researchers from the Stockholm Water Institute claim that the earth will not be able to support 10 billion people or more, without a reduction in meat consumption. Not all experts agree with their starting assumptions
Politicians and others warn and worry about the progress of the "Iranian bomb".
There is a chance that with an "Iranian bomb" it will be possible to continue living, on the other hand, without water and food, existence will be much more complicated and difficult, since already today the prices of food are rising all over the world.
Some blame global warming. A significant part of the blame also falls on breeders who prefer crops for the biofuel industry in fields that until recently grew food for people and domestic animals, as soon as we said domestic animals we touched on one of the more significant reasons for the lack of current and future food, since for the cultivation of Amtza, large areas and a lot of water are needed, Too much water.
In a new report prepared by water scientists and published in "Science" http://www.sciencemag.org, the researchers write that "to prevent a global disaster that will occur as a result of a lack of food and water. The human population must switch to a vegetarian diet (almost completely) by 2050".
The researchers from the Stockholm International Water Institute say that "if the current trend continues, there will not be enough water to produce food for 9 billion people". According to their assessment, there will be enough water only if the human population derives only 5% of its caloric intake from food of animal origin.
Today, the human population produces about 20% of its caloric intake from meat, eggs and milk" in simple numbers: to get one calorie from cattle, a cow must be provided with 17 calories in grains that can be supplied as food for people. Seeds that need a lot of water to grow. Agriculture and the food industry consume more water than any other industry or human activity.
There is a constant amount of water on the surface of the globe, meaning that in order to grow enough food, people must reduce meat consumption.
The question is how do we do this? According to the researchers, "they will have to consume less meat", not because of moral sensitivity, nor because of the recognition of the need. Many people won't (voluntarily) replace a juicy umka with a soy patty because of the knowledge that the steak dries out wells. The reason for the change will be because of adoption costs. That is, as in most cases, "money will talk" here as well.
In fact, meat consumption is on the decline in the US, the peak of consumption was 2007 million tons in 25, while this year consumption dropped to 22 million tons. The main decrease was in the consumption of beef, when the causes of the decrease were health (from understanding the damages) and environmental, since meat production is a significant factor in the emission of greenhouse gases. However, probably the most important factor in the decrease in consumption was the increase in the prices of meat in general and of beef in particular. The rise in prices follows the rise in the prices of corn used to feed farm animals.
"Income does not rise as much as the increase in food prices and the result is less consumption of meat. According to the researchers, the trend of rising prices will continue to such an extent that many families will return to the custom of eating meat only on holidays and Shabbat.
The drought that has plagued Central America for the past two years is stimulating the trend and "hints" at the future. Since water is the main factor in agricultural crops in general and meat in particular, it will be necessary to give up the crop that consumes more water - the meat crop.
When you count the number of inhabitants on earth and the amount of food produced, the (ancient) question arises: how many people can the globe carry? The researchers only considered the food factor in question.
Today people in India eat very little meat and subsist on 200 kg of grains (cereals) a year. At this level of consumption, the earth can provide food for 10 billion inhabitants, but in the US, the average resident consumes 800 kg of grains, with the majority being consumed indirectly by eating animal products. If everyone ate like the average American, the planet would only be able to support 6 billion people. It is clear that today, when the world's population is 7 billion, there are millions of hungry people, but even most of the inhabitants do not consume like Americans. Population growth creates constant pressure for food supply, growth and pressure that will cause a situation where more people will be able to afford fewer grains, or in other words fewer and fewer people will be able to afford to eat meat. Wealthy populations imported grains (at a heavy price) to support meat eating. Another reason for the increase in the price of beef is rising consumption in developing countries such as China and India. The rising demand brings meat production closer to the maximum limit, the researchers say that "the world will not be able to produce much more beef". "Cows eat too much".
Not all animal food is equal because "cattle is a huge contributor to water waste" a waste that is hard to assume will continue unchecked. In addition to this, the efficiency of cattle in converting food into calories is as low as 6%, meaning that out of every 100 calories a cow eats, it "produces" only 6 calories (edible meat)"
Roosters and turkeys are four times as effective, pigs somewhere in between. The reason for the low conversion efficiency in cattle is the digestive system, which uses billions of protozoa to break down cellulose, so that a large part of the nutritional value feeds the "hitchhikers" and does not contribute to the growth of the cow.
And yet it turns out that when considering the amount of grains a cow needs to satisfy its needs and the needs of hitchhikers, beef is still (relatively) cheap in the US, cheap enough to contribute to the obesity epidemic.
It is clear that this situation will change, whether the meat eaters like it or not, "the ranks of the meat eaters will thin out when the prices rise" so say the researchers.
Although the researchers do not say this explicitly, the recommendation is clear - vegetarianism
Not all scientists agree with the recommendation of the Swedish researchers. Prof. Judith Capper, an animal expert from Washington State University says that the study includes some wrong assumptions.
"The main issue that I and other scientists disagree with about the report is that it is based on the incorrect assumption that the efficiency of meat production, which has greatly improved in the last 30-50 years, will not increase in the next forty years. It seems unlikely that in a period of 40 years we will all become vegetarians or reduce meat consumption significantly."
Dr. Caper added that the study incorrectly estimates that it will be possible to grow grain on border areas such as steep, rocky or dry areas that are currently used for raising animals. "There are enough good pastures for raising animals and they can turn parts of the plants that are indigestible into good animal protein."
And I will add the permanent motto: the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment!
20 תגובות
Compare it to what you want, the fact is that man abuses animals for gastronomic pleasure. Along the way, he destroys his health, harms the environment and encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria. Compare it to the Holocaust, don't compare it to the Holocaust, just don't play it innocent.
Asaf Shalom
Your argument about the reduced effectiveness of green leaves because they support the gut bacteria population distorts reality. That population allows ruminants to produce energy from cellulose, something that a human or a chicken cannot do.
So they utilize non-grain foods. In addition, the same population makes it possible to synthesize protein from non-protein nitrogen compounds such as urea and uric acid, so that the Hagar leaves are more efficient than the monogastrics if you take into account the whole food and not just grains.
Best regards
gift
ל
the guide of the universe
It says "on the surface of the ball there is a constant amount of water", an amount of water without additions,
Where did you get the "drinkable" from?
This is your addition.
Add what is not written in the report and claim that it is a mistake? ? ?
It seems that the main argument that this report relies on is wrong.
The argument that the amount of potable water is constant. As in Malthus' mistake, here too it must be assumed that the technological development will lead to an ever-improving ability to desalinate water.
The earth, given constant technological improvement, will be able to accommodate more and more people, up to tens of billions and maybe more.
Growing meat can be done in the future in laboratories, with nutrients, almost without KA, and without the need for suffering. (I wonder if it will be kosher)
The main problem for me is: how dense can humans be before they decide to go crazy and slaughter everyone around them.... That is, how crowded will it be before it causes permanent social instability.
Bobo,
I never said anywhere that a human life is equal to an animal life. However, while the victims of the Holocaust number in the millions, the victims of the meat industry number in the billions.
Hitler also opposed smoking and drinking alcohol.
Why wait 50-100 years if possible now? Do you know how much suffering can be prevented in such a period of time?
For the earth sciences and also for Uri, your comparison to the holocaust is fundamentally wrong, it is impossible to compare humans to animals. And if you still want to compare, you will come to many absurdities, if an animal is equal to a person and killing an animal is murder, then a cat that eats a mouse should be imprisoned or killed, or maybe we will eat it because it is a murderous animal anyway, the nature of the animal world is that an animal eats other species. And if you compare an animal to a person then you can compare a person to an animal and understand that a person can eat animals just as an animal can eat animals.
If you have already mentioned the Holocaust on the subject, one of the most moral people of the last century, Hitler was a vegetarian and opposed to cosmetic experiments on animals, this is an example of the twisted morality that exists among many vegetarians and this allows them to indulge in the Holocaust.
In any case, in another 50-100 years, most people will be vegetarians for cost reasons when In vitro meat
will be significantly cheaper than animal meat.
R.H.
I would say that suffering is the feeling or state that a conscious being is in when it feels pain, fear, distress, etc.
You can think of different definitions for suffering but we will both agree that when a person says he suffers then he means a negative thing he would like to avoid. If the definition is not acceptable to you then give your own definition and we will continue from there.
Do insects have the same awareness that is needed to feel suffering? If I'm not mistaken fruit flies have pain receptors but is that enough to say they feel pain in the sense of being aware of it and wanting it to stop? Is it even possible to attribute desires to these animals? Every time I came across an expert opinion on the matter the answers were either negative or neutral.
If we return to mammals and birds, then it is known for certain that they feel suffering, so in my opinion it is proper for every person to examine his moral principles and his way of life and see if he causes suffering to those animals unnecessarily.
Regarding the Holocaust, I think what all those who are disgusted by the analogy miss is that no one is trying to lower the value of human life or give them less respect, but on the contrary, to increase the respect we have for animals.
R.H.
The holocaust is well documented, so you and I are aware of its horrors, but you are not aware of the horror that goes on every day, hour by hour, among our fellow animals in the industrialized economy. That's why you don't like the comparison and see it as contempt.
Watch the documentary film Earthlings, it is a documentation and "pillar of fire" of the animals.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142
Then you decide
Uri, what is the definition of suffering? Do you test kidneys and heart so you know the ant is not suffering?
The ugly comparison to the holocaust is nothing but an expression of the perception of the depravity of human life, which is developing more and more in our districts.
You have an error in your response. Where you wrote:
"A reminder of reality to all the blurbs (above): people always breed beyond the threshold of starvation. Always."
Had to write:
"People sometimes reproduce beyond their hunger threshold and sometimes not. It varies from case to case."
Asaf
I am interested in knowing whether the water we consume in different ways does not at some point return to the same cycle, to the same constant amount of water, on the surface of the earth.
to me,
What is the connection with insects, do insects suffer? Apparently not, so they are irrelevant. In contrast, our fellow mammals and birds, as well as other vertebrates, can suffer. Do you think we shouldn't consider their suffering, just because they don't belong to the species we belong to?
Morality is built on economic principles. That is, we learn to behave effectively for the human race.
In other words, it can be said that murder is not economic for the human race, and therefore it is immoral.
The popularity of vegetarianism/veganism has increased because of data such as those described in the article. As a group we understand that this behavior is not economical for us so we develop feelings of compassion towards the animals that will make us behave in the correct economic way.
If science had not developed vitamins and food supplements, I doubt we would be so beautiful.
It turns out that being a vegetarian is not only moral, but also economic..
to me,
Any clever argument of yours cannot cover the reality of millions of animals, living in captivity in concentration camp conditions
with disgraceful treatment and mass murder. These are living creatures like me and you (think about your dog or cat). For them to compare what is happening to them to the holocaust is contempt for what is happening to them.
For you they are just "animals" - so there is no problem.
The Jews were also only a sub-race, not something human - so there is no problem.
If you compare torture, incarceration, humiliation, pain, and the mass murder of tens of millions in one year for every year and with the first intention of hitting an insect on a car windshield,
Not only do you not know what morality is. You have lost your human image when you even avoid the very existence of reality.
At least be honest and make a statement - I don't care if they all die and suffer - I like the taste and I'm comfortable.
to H.P.
Assuming you are a bigger expert than the study authors
(Stockholm International Water Institute)
And according to a logical analysis of your "clear and clear" response,
According to your "morality" and "logic" we will reach a state where a natural environment will be
Only in history books and movies,
In the "biotechnological" "chemically engineered" world you describe
could all sources of food from nature,
The only source of food in the world will be the recycling of... the eaters,
First the poor hungry ones will be recycled and then those (fertilizers) who will die a natural death.
Is this the world you wish for your children?
God bless you!
Thank you for the interesting article.
A small note, like most articles on the subject, the data compares eating beef with vegetarianism. The absolute majority of meat eaters do not eat meat but poultry and fish which consume much less food. It is not true that avoiding beef means vegetarianism.
And to the "Earth Science" commenter, if you compare the killing of animals to the holocaust, your morals are fundamentally distorted (and besides, this is a serious violation of Goodwin's Law). Have you never killed any living thing? Why do you travel by car? There is no doubt that while traveling in a car you kill hundreds of innocent insects that get in your way. Have you ever accidentally stepped on an ant? Can you compare a person who carelessly stepped on an ant to a person who ran over a pedestrian? According to your equation, you deserve to rot in prison for the rest of your life for continuously disregarding the lives of thousands of insects that you carelessly killed. A pseudo-moral approach like yours can cause cheapness in human life instead of respect for animals.
There is no problem with moral vegetarianism, but it should come from a starting point that the problem is not the use of animals, but the moral erosion of the person who enslaves the animals for his needs. Such a starting point will allow moral vegetarianism without distorting the human scale of values that "Earth Science" sins against.
This article is simply disconnected from reality like 50% of the writer's articles.
There is enough water if you pour water. Anyway it will happen.
It's just a matter of time until the Chinese start building dozens of nuclear reactors to generate electricity for water desalination and the whole world will follow.
Those who will not have money to pray for water (Bangladesh for example) will simply die or learn to drink sea water (did we mention Bangladesh already?)
vegetables? what is this joke
It is better to invest all resources in biotechnology and chemical engineering of basic food production industrially in order to produce food.
Whoever does not open it or have the money to buy the food produced will simply die (again).
Otherwise he will die in biological wars.
A reminder of reality to all the blurbs (above): people always breed beyond the threshold of starvation. Always.
People will destroy everything in the way so as not to starve.
Hence, in order to save nature, it is desirable to work on food supply in a way that does not exploit nature = industry.
Along the way, you can inject them with food that prevents pregnancy and substances that reduce birth, but that's another story (tuff trips, for those who are interested)
I am also in favor of reducing the population 1000000000 less Chinese and 1000000000 less Indians and of course 1000000000 less Muslims and then there are "only" 4000000000 which is not necessary to reduce by half
But the ones who are really worth getting rid of are all the baby boomers who need it the most
Thank you Assaf.
However, we should not coldly tribalize a mass slaughter and call it about 22 tons of meat or 24 tons of meat.
A real murder is taking place at this very moment, compared to which the Holocaust is dwarfed
http://www.adaptt.org/killcounter.html