Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bushcraft Chatter' started by ickyan, Mar 4, 2010.
Depends on what the alternative is. It sure beats mass starvation.
One rather suspects that, where an ever expanding population is the cause of the problem, that another potential solution presents itself?
Thats for sure Red. Until we've got zero population growth though we'll have to muddle by with chemical vegan agriculture or fully integrated organic smallholding. I know which I'd prefer.
I think Jeffrey Dahmer may have been onto something. If we eat the criminals, we would be doing away with a massive lump of the population. Then, we could eat the homeless, another problem solved!
"Pea 'n' ham. Frae a chicken! Now that's clever "
Yeah, but that's not exactly pretty either. Given the choice between (a) watching a substantial proportion of of the population die (and doing my bit cleaning up the resultant mess) or (b) changing my diet, I think I'd prefer option B, thanks. Even ZPG isn't enough - you'd need to get rid of a lot of the people currently walking around first. Although I am doing my bit by not procreating. (Unlike certain other people on this thread who like to mang on about population, eh Rob? )
yeah, yeah, yeah.
There is a great deal we could do to proactively manage population growth however Dunc - and we are choosing to do nothing. Its not an "either / or" situation. This in which one can elect to mitigate both the probability (by managing population levels) and the impact (by managing food types and farming). It is woefully incompetent risk management to elect a single countermeasure without examining its efficacy, cost or alternatives.
The choices are either
a) Let the population continue to expand by changing eating habits. This will of course mean a greater number of people die when the population reaches a point at which even the most rudimentary diet cannot support the numbers
b) Choose to adress population growth (not current population) AND manage food production to ensure that it is sustainable until population falls back (naturally) to the levels that the country can sustain long term
Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to measures to manage population growth. But I think you're presenting a false dichotomy - we can change eating habits and address population growth and alter our food production systems, and I'm pretty sure we're going to need to do all three. What I was objecting to was the idea of ruling out the option of changing eating habits - again, this makes it even harder to achieve a solution via the other two remaining routes.
What I was alluding to with my (admittedly rather snide) remark to Rob is that 99 times out of 100, when someone focusses on population growth first, they mean other people. Me, I'm of the opinion that changing my own behaviour is easier than changing other people's, so that's where I should probably start. What irks me slightly about your comment upthread is the implication of "Other people should do things they don't want to so that I don't have to."
population eh ?
this is a must view for you then
dont forget your beer
This thread (with it's pros and cons etc) reminds me of my late Gran's (God bless her) attitude to vegans/vegetarians. She had lived through two World Wars and had a very definate view of life.
I offer this as a glimpse into a previous generation's perspective;
Vegetarians were either;
a) Working class kids who were faffing about at Uni instead of learning.
b) Students/Folk who preferred "a comfier flat soled shoe" or had "changed seats on the bus".
c) Middle class folk with upper class prententions, who hadn't ever missed a meal, and had the "sheer luxury" to be fussy.
d) Folk who were too attached to their cats. (A skinned cat and a skinned rabbit look remarkably similiar. There was a scarcity of cats during the war for some reason...)
My Gran was of the view that Vegans/Vegetarians were the "johnny come lately" to the dining table and were only doing it to be fashionable.
During the war there were more folk eating veg, (rabbit, pigeon, squirrel etc. as well) than at probably any other time in recent history. Dig for Victory and rationing etc.
To cure the Obesity epidemic my Gran would probably bring back U Boats.
Everytime I see Catherine Tate's "Gran" impression I have to smile, it's so true to life.
Granted, but changing eating and farming without addressing population growth makes the problem (and ultimate number of deaths) even worse since when the population hits a tipping point it will be higher than now. Its actually counter productive.
Yes. But no one has the guts to suggest it.
Least not those liberated earth mother types
what about my recipie??
It is a curious thing about diet, right eating and what have you, but if you think about it the majority of the human race has survived without any real scientific knowledge about it.
Myself notwithstanding, and being a little bit beyond my ideal weight, how many of us calorie count every meal and figure out the nutrition.
I am not a strict vegetarian, but I eat less meat than most contemporary people (but then I guess people of my parents generation also ate less meat cos there was less of it)
I am not aware that I suffer from any dietary deficiencies. I think we all have an instinct to eat what we need to eat. How that might work out in the wilderness I don't know.
Not a veggie, but make every effort to ensure all meat purchase is free range / humanely kept and slaughtered.
This is more expensive, which means I buy less, waste less, and enjoy more.
I admire vegetarians in truth, how anyone can get past the smell of a bacon sandwich without crumbling has ten times my self control
Completely with you on all points there.
I started cutting down on my meat consumption when I was skint. Then I moved into a house with 6 veggies! One of them being my veggie girlfriend so this helped. So now I eat very little meat and am happy this way. It is better for the animals and the planet (i'm not preaching), and I have moved quite rapidly to being someone who said 'I could never be a vegetarian' to someone who eats meat maybe twice a month. It seems like the majority of people fell like if a meal hasn't got meat in it then its not a proper meal. Having a vegetarian girlfriend who is a fantastic cook has shown me that this really isn't true. Now why does she have to be on the other side of the world?
Alas, I think the BSE issue in the 90s showed that feeding creatures their own DNA was not such a great idea. Can't be sure without a bit of research but I suspect that there would be a similar effect in humans. Oh well ...
The problem with all the books on poisonous and non-poisonous plants that I have seen do not identify any plants that are non-poisonous that have no plants that may look similar, and are poisonous. As for your book on poisonous plants, I will be willing to bet that it doesn't include nearly all that are poisonous and probably don't show you how to identify them in all stages of growth. I someone knows of a book that only give you plants that are safe to eat and that have no poisonous plants that look similar, I would like to get a copy. Thanks
A patch 10 feet by 10 feet will grow around a half bushel of most grains. So unless you are very limited in space you can grow grain. You can grow winter wheat and then follow by soybeans or probably other beans the same year and only lose about half the yield on the second crop.