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? )One rather suspects that, where an ever expanding population is the cause of the problem, that another potential solution presents itself?
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.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.
Completely with you on all points there.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.
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 ...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!
As an experiment I've been vegetarian for 12 months, got my blood tested and all was fine so it certainly isn't unhealthy for me to eat no meat (quite probably the opposite).
But because I don't want to be too annoying, I do eat meat when visiting other peoples places, which makes me veggie for about 5 out of 7 days now.
I'm not experiencing any problems eating no meat when hiking but in a survival situation I would have to eat animals because my knowledge of plants is not great enough... Did get a small book of poisonous plants, so that's a start at least
Yeah, I agree.
when I was little every house around had a big garden. This wasn't just an outside playground, but it was actively cultivated land. Everybody grew something, took a kind of pride in it too, and the occasional glut was passed around or turned into jam and chutney. Nowadays folks pave it over, park cars, build patios and decks on the garden lands.
It's amazing though how much food one small garden can produce.
The only real problems are finding enough land to grow grain. Oats and barley thrive in our cool damp climate but they're a lot of work to process.
They could be grown, stooked and dried, bunched into sheafs, and those unworked sheafs given in small bunches to hens though. They'd thrive and give eggs. Still need to obtain enough flour for human needs though.
I think the answer is that there is no one answer. I do think raising awareness of just where and how our food comes about is no bad thing.