> I find your take on alternative forms of agriculture a little too optimistic.
I've read a lot about alternative agriculture systems and methods. Maybe that's where my optimism comes from.
> the figure of 75% it is not that simple
I know that 75% is not so simple. But meat industry needs cca 75% of the agriculture land and meat is produced mostly by feeding the animals seeds and vegetable oils, so ... yes, it's a guess, but if we'll account for other stuff, like antibiotics ...
> conformed by not edible material that would have to be produced anyway
The ruminants supply a fraction of our nutritional needs, so I would argue, that we don't need them and that we can switch to more sustainable (less land expensive) sources of food. I would return that "non-edible" areas into forests for wildlife/biodiversity, which they were previously and which could even reverse our climate/extinction events currently happening.
Other non-consumable material could be composted and/or left in the fields as a mulch. Exposed soil kills microbes/fungi in the soil.
> Would you pass a law banning having children
No, I would not, because I now know that there is better way.
That population is still growing is a result of our exploitation of poor countries, poverty, a lack of education, and our religious and governmental practices. As we see in western countries, the developed and educated countries have a tendency to stabilize their population.
So the current growth will stop on its own, in time. But we have to make sure that we set the correct example for the new billions, or we'll together eat the Earth dry, till nothing than deserts will remain.
No, that's bad formulation on my part (bad language skills and time pressure, i'm not used to debating on the net all day).
But I think that human civilizations does not have the right to live to the detriment of wild animals or that we have the right to destroy nature completely, just because we love our current food so much.
I've read a lot about alternative agriculture systems and methods. Maybe that's where my optimism comes from.
> the figure of 75% it is not that simple
I know that 75% is not so simple. But meat industry needs cca 75% of the agriculture land and meat is produced mostly by feeding the animals seeds and vegetable oils, so ... yes, it's a guess, but if we'll account for other stuff, like antibiotics ...
> conformed by not edible material that would have to be produced anyway
The ruminants supply a fraction of our nutritional needs, so I would argue, that we don't need them and that we can switch to more sustainable (less land expensive) sources of food. I would return that "non-edible" areas into forests for wildlife/biodiversity, which they were previously and which could even reverse our climate/extinction events currently happening.
Other non-consumable material could be composted and/or left in the fields as a mulch. Exposed soil kills microbes/fungi in the soil.
> Would you pass a law banning having children
No, I would not, because I now know that there is better way.
That population is still growing is a result of our exploitation of poor countries, poverty, a lack of education, and our religious and governmental practices. As we see in western countries, the developed and educated countries have a tendency to stabilize their population.
So the current growth will stop on its own, in time. But we have to make sure that we set the correct example for the new billions, or we'll together eat the Earth dry, till nothing than deserts will remain.