TED Conversations

Erik Richardson

Teacher, Richardson Ideaworks, Inc.

TEDCRED 500+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Can we sustain the population AND the ecosystem without converting to vegetarianism?

Setting aside the ethical questions about humane treatment of animals and the ethics of killing them if we don't need to (important and interesting questions, mind you), let us consider it just from the standpoint of logistical feasibility.

If you don't think we have reached that level yet, at what point would we? That is, under what conditions would the answer tilt to the negative?

+6
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 27 2011: I think a more apt question would be along the lines of, "SHOULD WE, try and sustain.... with the continuation of beef and other meats, rather than can we?"
    I love meat. But, if say I was asked about a trade off, like enough water, or where do I personally draw the line at dirty drinking water, and meat, which would I choose? And that might be a real part of the equation regarding the production of food for (estimated 2030 - 9 billion people). That is because I do think in terms of ALL OF THEM EATING and not just those who can afford to. By that time, the number of people in the world who will be able to afford food, will be very small compared to those who cannot. At the present, out of just about 7 billion humans, over 1/2 live, sorry, are forced to live, on less than one US dollar a day!! That is pathetic, evil and intentional and it can be changed. Just above that line, are even more billions living on a little bit more but that is still a painful, starving and intentionally induced poverty and chances are because of the competitive corrals we are herded into, many of them will fall below that $1.For those now alive, discussing these kinds of ideas, problems and what to do, that should be unacceptable, except that the cause for it, most are not willing to change. That should be unacceptable but most people just push it aside because they can't think out of the box. There are many ways to create food, even synthetic foods, that can be good for health, nutritional, non-polluting to the environment, tasty, look good, taste and smell like meat and very importantly can be automated and massed produced and transported to feed everyone. Isn't that the real goal here or is it just for those who are far above that $1 figure? So, do we make everyone richer? Take away competition? What? We get rid of money and monetary systems, but hey, most refuse to go there, so to my thinking, nothing is new, no serious attempts, just lots of talk. We are already having resource wars.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.