You're Taggy

True. I cannot rename you, Taggy

World hunger is objectively only an issue because Africans and other non-whites cannot manage resources. There is enough food, water, etc in the world if only Africans could not waste it.

Feed the world is easy if we reduce meat consumption. Brazil, in this situation, has more then 70% of its agricultural lands producing meat (not considering lands unused), and almost 20% used to produce animal feed. The other 8-10% is used to produce vegetable, fruits, grains, whatever brazilians eat thats not meat.
10k m^2 of land used to produce meat is producing 54 kg/year in Brazil. The same to any fruit or grain goes from 2000 kg/year to 50000 kg. Some regions that produce meat using soybeans or corn produce about 200 - 300 kg/year (considering the land to keep the animal and the land to produce the grains).
(i could send links in portuguese if you want)

In the 90s meat that the US was eating was consuming enough to feed 800 million people.
(http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat)

and we could feed 10 billion (Council for Science and Technology, How Much Land Can Ten Billion People Spare for Nature?, Feb. 1994, pg. 13.)

And these numbers are getting higher . Amazon forest is already becoming a barbecue.

Global warming is going to cause a temperature rise in Scandinavia and Russia?

actually Siberia and the north Canadian islands are some of the most warmed by global warming. It's not an argument either way, though.

World hunger is objectively only an issue because Africans and other non-whites cannot manage resources.

here come the far-retard. maybe you should talk about Africain governments*, and the governments themselves aren't bad just since they're Africain. And you're likely saying this as an upholder of unsustainable and hazardous energy. And it's not as if whiteskins aren't starving, too, although you'd likely say the only reason they're starving is since they didn't eat the Africans yet. You're objectively wrong on this, don't wield "objectively" so care-free.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/zimbabwe-seized-white-farmers-land-now-some-are-being-invited-back/2015/09/14/456f66d6-45d2-11e5-9f53-d1e3ddfd0cda_story.html?utm_term=.8fc5a237423c


WE WUZ KINGZ

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mtsa0MT2H4I/maxresdefault.jpg

Climate change doesn't exist. But cutting down the whole Brazilian rainforest would mean less oxygen and the destruction of animals' habitats. You could make farms in deserts etc.

I'm a flat Earther and not even I deny climate change.

By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere.


Oh, indeed, we are short on oxygen, hmm.....

berdan, you've been expliqued why your plot here would fail awfully in much detail by Zephyrum thrice, so I don't know why you keep on going here other than closed-mindedness.

@Жұқтыру

Get out of my board!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wbhDhnsqE0

>non-whites cannot manage resources
>french farmers routinely trash vast amounts of produce in hissy fits to get more welfare money
>rome put a third of it's population on welfare in the form of free grain and then trashed their currency to help pay for it
>china has a gigantic population precisely because of efficient farming techniques that crushed food prices and made it plausible for large families without half of them starving at a young age due to food costs

(Deleted something catchy that made sense initially but on a second thought is false)

Edited 1/15/2017 20:51:27

>french farmers routinely trash vast amounts of produce in hissy fits to get more welfare money

>they still have surpluses

China is not shitskin.

Rome was not the modern idea of white. Different culture.