syrynxx: Also 'apocalypse' means 'revelation'; not necessarily a world-ending event. Just because John of Patmos had an apocalypse of the end of the world does not mean that apocalypse = "end of the world". You could have an apocalypse of where you left your car keys last night if God were real and helpful. But then, since you evidently have a liberal arts degree, you should know this, shouldn't you? Maybe this is an apocalypse that your parents wasted $50,000 on your college degree.
Bucky Katt: vegans are harmless. it's the self-righteous carnivores who are really annoying.
The_Sponge: Bucky Katt: vegans are harmless. it's the self-righteous carnivores who are really annoying.Yeah....I'm going to say no.Examples:1) PETA....can you find a pro-meat group that is even one quarter as annoying? You can't.
Acravius: The reduction is 1.5% from 16.5% of caloric intake, to 15% of caloric intake, worldwide, but since Europe and the Americas consume the most meat comparatively, essentially each North American and European needs to eat 2 of any of the following less; hamburger/Chicken Sandwich/pork Sandwich/sausage/bratwursts/rueben sandwiches etc. each week and then everything's much better.I know, its a lot, not to eat (800 calories a week) but I think most of us can spare it.
Gobobo: People have an adverse affect on the planet so we should ban them. Derp.
nulluspixiusdemonica: Not only do i love my addiction, I consume pretty much everything... heart, brain, face....When you've stopped spewing gluttonous spawn around the place with wild abandon, you get to preach to me about how my diet is messing with "your" world... until then, put a liver in it...
Acravius: Unless you would like to be forced into meeting the meat you are eating in the petting zoo out back of your restaurant
robohobo: nulluspixiusdemonica: Tell that to China, India, Africa, and the inner cities.
Acravius: @ LadyFortuna,Only if we continue to do the same stupid stuff we do today.We could produce all the fish the world needs if we just used 27.5 square miles of the pacific ocean to use the "Open Blue" technology that is now almost 10 years old.We could reduce the amount of Antibiotics used in farming if we allowed the final 10 days, prior to harvest for cattle to be fed grass instead of corn.These and more answers would start to allow the impact of humans on the earth to be less burdensome, but we would have to get rid of a lot of 1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's notions of what food production means.Industry, governments and companies have spent more than 100 billion dollars on creating technology to improve the capacity and efficiency of growing food, but it is not being widely adopted. We have a lot to upgrade to be a 21st century country, and a great deal of the country is resisting it due to "tradition".
Acravius: To keep eating the way we do now and maintain the status quo until 2065, when we start to begin to reduce the population after a peak of 9.5 Billion people.Otherwise there won't be enough meat on the planet, without resorting to other methodologies of creating meat - like cell propogation and cellular meat printing techniques that we already have started work on.Unless you would like to be forced into meeting the meat you are eating in the petting zoo out back of your restaurant, a little conservation now will go a long ways to keeping our current food production systems from needing to go to the next level of efficiency, which would probably take a lot of the pleasure out of the eating process.
nulluspixiusdemonica: robohobo: nulluspixiusdemonica: Tell that to China, India, Africa, and the inner cities.Hey now. Africa's making an effort... AIDS, senseless war, famine... Got to give them some credit for effort...[i.imgur.com image 620x455]
robohobo: Whatever that photo is, it looks farking delicious.
nulluspixiusdemonica: robohobo: Whatever that photo is, it looks farking delicious.It's meat... ergo... delicious...Technically, stuffed lamb heart... which is roughly 5x tastier than kidney....
x1v16: I used to be a self righteous vegan. I stopped because I entered into a relationship with a non vegan who had kids and it just got too inconvenient/costly to keep eating the way I had been for 2 years. I admire people who are vegan because they reduce overall suffering which I relate to as a sentient being, and because it is environmentally friendly. However, for me to be happy eating as a vegan would cost me over 1000 dollars a year, and when you have to kids in your life and you earn 20k a year throwing around that kind of cash so I can feel morally satisfied feels selfish. Honestly it is also extremely hard for me to resist animal byproduct food when people around me are eating it constantly.So, my passion in life changed from vegan-ism to helping to raise kids, but as I said I still admire those who donate money to charity, or try to spare suffering of people or animals more-so than is the norm.
Acravius: Actually most of the world has reduced it's production of "Gluttonous Spawn"In 1950-1955 the world reproductive rate was 4.95 (doubling roughly every 11.5 years)In 1980-1985, the world reproductive rate was 3.59 (doubling roughly every 22 years)Now in 2010-2015 the world reproductive rate is ~2.36 (doubling roughly every 33 years)In 2065 the world reproductive rate is expected to be 1.8 or so, so we'll have finally peaked out our fertility rate, at around 9.5 Billion people.
Want more stories with less ads? Try
It's what the cool kids are doing.It's also how we pay the bills.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Dec 17 2017 12:09:53
Runtime: 0.493 sec (493 ms)