TED Conversations

Erik Richardson

Teacher, Richardson Ideaworks, Inc.


This conversation is closed.

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?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 27 2011: I would like to add something to my final comment about the fact we are already are having resource wars. I don't have long to live. Most of you, if you are in your 20's, 30's, 40's and even 50's will outlive me and those who are younger and those younger still, will inherent a world where they are free to do what they need or they are not, and they are capable of thinking critically, and most are not. Critical thinking seems to take place along and within extremely tightly controlled borders. I still have not read one post, anywhere, not just here, but other sites, that mention ridding ourselves of the institutions we already have that clearly don't work, are not working and cannot be fixed!! Those are causes of the problems we have. Sorry about that. So with that in mind, if, and it might be a big if, the earth undergoes any major changes, oh, such as global warming, a reduction in natural resources, the extinction of many species, a growing population, growing, growling polarization over the issues and what to do about them, stressing and using political influence, beliefs, moral and religious positions of rigidity, and special interest group concerns because, well, they want their rights too!, the rise and spread of pollution, with no end in sight, what will happen if global warming really does complete itself, or we have a shifting of the poles, which has happened before? Well, one thing is that Greenland will be exposed. It is a bit bigger than the United States and has a tremendous amount of natural resources to rape, but, it belongs to Demarck. If the poles shift or melt, there are at least 200 mountains and ranges in the Antarctic and a tremendous land mass. More resources and space. And most likely it will be warmer climate. Much of a country, that is close to 1/6 of the earth's land mass will be warmer, with the availability of resources that have remained frozen. Russia. American won't stand for this shift in power. Resource wars, or no poli-economies

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.