Quote: We shouldn't be feeding cows corn anyway, it is much healthier for them to eat grass and hay. Options to rapidly depopulate the earth are limited without inciting global anger, so I believe that both reducing and changing how we eat meat is the best option humanity has to reduce our impact on the environment. Voluntary sterilization as was mentioned earlier is also good, and needs to be applied to countries that have not yet stabilized their birth rates. Someone said the cows would starve (I hope this is a joke), no the demand for cows and other livestock will be reduced if everyone was to eat meat only once a day or less. As demand for meat dropped off we could use less land to grow inefficient corn and use more of it to grow food humans can eat, or plants like hemp for biofuel and other industrial uses.

The concept of a stable population is not popular in the USA and other developed countries. We are dependent on an ever growing economy and workforce to fund the pyramid scheme of social security. We need to realize that constant economic growth is unsustainable, and adjust those programs and our expectations accordingly. We may stave this off for a few generations by importing migrant workers to keep feeding the machine but this is also unsustainable.

Genocide is a terrible solution, but death will be the result of our reckless growth if we do not take steps to moderate it as a species."

1. As somebody who raises cows for a living I can tell you that corn is way more healthier than grass and hay. Have you seen a cow raised on grass? It looks skinny as hell. Have you ever tasted a cow raised on grass and hay? it takes like garbage.

2. So your solution would make all the cows eat grass... which we need to stop erosion in places like out west. Not only would this increase erosion but it also lead to more run off of cow manure. more cow manure escaping the fields where it would naturally settle and headed downhill would pollute our rivers and streams and cause MORE pollution not less.

3. Voluntary sterlization is already provided in those developing countries, you idiot. its called cutting off your balls for men and cutting your vagina for women. Damn.

4. "The cows would starve" First of all, it is "cattle" you two city idiots. Cows are female cattle and saying that the females would starve and the males wouldn't is just stupid and trollish.

5. With the droughts out west, the feed supplies all across the nation are at all time highs. These supplies are barely feeding our livestock and you think that it can feed Americans instead? No way. That social engineering would never work.

6. Because of these droughts, there isn't enough feed and feed prices are at all time highs. This raises the cost on meat prices in the supermarket.

7. "as demand for meat dropped off". You clearly have no idea about the reality of the situation. Eating meat is part of the American culture. It helps define what America is. To think that you are going to just force everybody to stop eating meat is absurd. It might work in France or Greece but Americans and more importantly American farmers will defend their meat, armed to the teeth with machine-guns, down to the last man, women, and child.

8. "we could use less land to grow inefficient corn and use more of it to grow food humans can eat, or plants like hemp for biofuel and other industrial uses." Im not sure what you mean by lesss land and more inefficient "corn" leads to a surplus. You seriously need to check your math. As for what we would do with this surplus, it would probably not go into biofuel because of the EPA.

9. Constant economic growth IS sustainable though. Due to the innovations in the internet, somebody can work right from home and contribute to the US economy without burning any fossil fuels at all. Somebody can open up a huge retail store, like amazon without a carbon footprint. We also have to realize that places like Luxemburg has incredibly small populations and land but they still are able to produce huge GDPs. Notice how Luxeburg isn't collapsing out of economy instability.

10. Actually research this crap before you post or else some idealist farmer like me will show you no mercy.

1: BS.
2: BS
3: Correct.
4: Correct.
5: Correct,US-Americans should die out.
6: BS.Who needs US-American meat?!
7: Fine,die if you want to,bastards.
8: Idc.
9: Halfway Correct
10: Correct Cruelest,50% of what you said is BS.

European cattle grows up perfectly with grass.Meat from European cattles is yummy.Meat from
American cattle: baaah.
US-Americans should die,this would decrease air pollution about 99%.
And we wouldn't have to feed 300 million(!) mentally ill and abnormous fat and very hungry
people anymore ;)
Also not everyone at this planet profits from a growing economy.
Thanks you very much
Your hero who fights for justice:
Batman
aka
The Dark Knight

Yeah........At least one of them woukd need to die out.
First Choice: USA
2.nd -"-: USA
3.rd -"-: USA

Somewhere at 10001 is China

No need to insults,and no you were right at first.
China and USA cause most of the pollution.More than Eurooe.Maybe you tried to be sarcastic but that's not working good at the internet.Third world countries cause LESS pollution.
Thx Irony you moron(^.^)

Edited 9/13/2015 23:08:05

I assume by 'Third World' you mean 'developing' since 3rd World is a Cold War term for places that weren't definitively capitalist or communist.

Developing countries are polluting more and more, and the rate of pollution is rising disproportionately compared to wealthier states. However, much of this is down to exploitation by Western and Chinese firms in those states who are using the availability of cheap labour and lax regulations to get at resources that wouldn't be financially viable in their own countries.

The rapid rise in pollution from these states is basically in line with what the West went through from the 1920's to the 50's and what China has undertaken since the 70's. The difference is that both of those regions used its own capital to invest in resources and built their own corporations (or nationalised versions) which served to strengthen their governments powers.

The widespread use of FDI in developing states is encouraging governments to be weaker and weaker on regulation causing more and more pollution. Not to mention more political instability.

The developing world, as a whole, pollutes more than either the US or China, but that's a group that includes well over half the worlds population.

Insect farming. That's nice. Not really. I mean, yeah. Not really though.

Nah......USA + China=
2.3 billion peeps(milliardsif you're no englishmen)
And 1.st world surely owns above 1-2 billion together.So 1 billion is too poor,making
2 billion inhabitants of developing countries.
De ergo USA+China is more or at least the same amount.(We've got 7 billion/milliards of people).

Irony,your last comment was totally moonshine.

Dark Night, have you considered killing yourself for the cause of not feeding mentally ill and retarded folk? I hear you support this cause greatly, EU-Europeans should be killed off.

The article link :
https://legacy.carnegiescience.edu/news/war_plague_no_match_deforestation_driving_co2_buildup


I believe it is possible to sustain without killing anybody if we "tax" children. Families that have more will pay more to government. It could also be called the "new citizen" care law.

Children are new citizens that receive services without paying back (as public school in most countries).

-------------

I have found a solution along the lines. If the *children benefits* is reduced or scale less with number of children, families will make less to save finances.


It is actually a nice article :

http://www.worldwatch.org/nine-population-strategies-stop-short-9-billion




I *discovered* scientific forums and some topics discuss population control. Some solutions is education, sex education and quality of life.
With sex education, you can avoid unwanted children.
With education, you may make better life choices, trying to give more to a single kid or have more interests than *tribal sex rites*.
With quality of life, children are sometimes used to work for family or in factory. So it may make sense for some families to make many children as a free workforce.

Wouldn't the large amount of horses, sheep, goats, pigs, and cattle Genghis and his hordes brought while they killed produce natural gases?

Those all actually helped the food supply.

Again i must say, overpopulation is not an issue. The issue is distribution. And primarily, the distribution is issued in Africa, Middle East, Southeast Asia and Latin America.

Does economic equality help population stability ?

Higher income is often linked with less children.

Top 20 countries (70% world population); more factors can be added; maybe I will add practical population density (let's face it, Moscow and European Russia do not have 9 folk per square kilometre.

http://imgur.com/DTpLXsk

Looks like population density is winning so far.

http://imgur.com/a6geY00

Edited 9/19/2015 05:46:18

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-s-war-on-air-pollution-may-cause-more-global-warming/


Cleaning air can also increase global warming.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-energy-causes-global-warming/20231


Nuclear Reactor also increase global warming with *long* wave radiation....






------------------------------------------

It seems to be written by trolls. I don't see how nuclear is not un-ecological. Radiation from nuclear *should* be about the same as the one coming from the ground naturally to respect International Max Rad Units.




******

What actions can be taken to stop energy consumption ? Is animal power less polluting ?

Is human/animal labor less polluting than machines ?




It is possible for a reverse industrialization ? Human replacing machines. Job for everyone and *useless* product output greatly reduced.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deindustrialization

Edited 9/23/2015 01:43:22

Truthfully, the only way we'd be able to stop pollution caused by manufacturing would be to spend trillions in order to mine metals from mars/moon and manufacture them there, then ship them to Earth.

Or stop manufacturing.

How about better recycling ?

Examples :


Fill your own bottle. Wine industry new option for consumers.

More recycling centers.

Full value of "material" paid to consumer.

A crafting center.

Currency on base matters like metals/wood. Alternative currency.
It becomes wealth and people care.