How do we allow the world to be like this?

Domi said:
I have already stated I am not Vegan and certainly do not believe in it.

However if all everybody ate was easily grown grain crops , fruit and vegetables we could easily wipe out famine world wide.

My argument is we simply choose not to and that goes for almost everything else the evil corporations sell to us.
Click to expand...

If Africa hadn't doubled in population in 50 years then many wouldn't be in the plight they were either. Why advocate we give up what we eat because they can't cross their legs?

Take Ethiopia, the country we all know for the famine in the 80s. In 1950 it's population was just under 19 million, in the 80s it hit double that at around 40 million. Now it's at over 80 million.

That's a four fold increase in 65 years. It's taken a hell of a toll on the countryside and been a major contributor to the droughts over he last 60 years. The increase in population means more firewood is needed, more firewood means more deforestation, more deforestation means more runoff and flooding yet less water storage. Fields become barren and water just disappears. People starve.

Over the last few years the ethiopia have been trying to change all that. In many places now chopping down trees are banned and replanting is going on in a big way to help with these problems.

A good overview of it is in a guardian article from a couple of months ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-to-restore-land-across-one-sixth-of-ethiopia
 
Amp34 said:
If Africa hadn't doubled in population in 50 years then many wouldn't be in the plight they were either. Why advocate we give up what we eat because they can't cross their legs?

Take Ethiopia, the country we all know for the famine in the 80s. In 1950 it's population was just under 19 million, in the 80s it hit double that at around 40 million. Now it's at over 80 million.

That's a four fold increase in 65 years. It's taken a hell of a toll on the countryside and been a major contributor to the droughts over he last 60 years. The increase in population means more firewood is needed, more firewood means more deforestation, more deforestation means more runoff and flooding yet less water storage. Fields become barren and water just disappears. People starve.

Over the last few years the ethiopia have been trying to change all that. In many places now chopping down trees are banned and replanting is going on in a big way to help with these problems.

A good overview of it is in a guardian article from a couple of months ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-to-restore-land-across-one-sixth-of-ethiopia
Click to expand...

And even after billions in "charity" the same problems still exist.
 
Janesy B said:
Multiquote!
Click to expand...

Was on my phone...:p

Nate Silvers said:
Eating meat is natural? Go bite into a chickens neck, a rabbits back, a pigs arse gonads and all. Like a real natural meat eater. Nobody is going to do it are they? It's not human nature, if you we are talking 1000% natural with no cooking, no tools, (like we lived for 99% of the time we've been here) we'd rather eat a peach or an apple.
Click to expand...

I suggest you go and learn a bit more about human evolution and history... The reason we started cooking our meat (and much food in general) is because humans could derive more energy from it over raw food. More efficient use of available energy is a good thing.

More detail here http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/eating-cooked-food-made-us-human-study-finds

Nate Silvers said:
I don't eat soya or palm oil. You do realize soya is grown for animals not humans? We basically buy the leftovers for a very high price, the animals get the cheapest deal - free! Your numbers are wrong on deforestation too regarding animal agriculture. Look at Australia, it's all grass fed beef and the top soil is completely screwed because of it.

rHtZUIH.png


Animal agriculture is the number one polluter.
Click to expand...

I don't wanna hear the we have to eat protein myth. It's nonsense. There's not even a medical term for protein deficiency.[/QUOTE]

Most Vegans and vegetarians eat soya as one of their main forms of protein, along with pulses and beans. They replace meat with other forms of protein, which the body needs, along with the vitamins that come with it...

If you don't, good for you, you are in the minority...

Here is an example of what the rest of vegetarians and Vegans do for their protein http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.php (note: soy milk and Tofu)

As for the numbers they are reasonable on a worldwide scale. Beef certainly is a greater cause of deforestation but my numbers are sound. I will see if I can find the data I used to back it up.:) I'm also not suggesting raising animals isn't bad for the environment, rather suggesting that the idea just being Vegan means you aren't supporting the agribusiness system... That's quite frankly *******.

Nate Silvers said:
Of course I realize I buy food which should be free from agriculture businesses but I'd rather give them money for food which brings about positive affects than negative. Going vegan is sustainable on a large scale. If everyone ate paleo we'd need 6 planets.
Click to expand...

Food which brings about a positive effect? Don't kid yourself, you're still chopping down trees even if you eat organic (which I try and do to)

Nate Silvers said:
More than 1,600 banana farms are safeguarding the health of nearly 269,000 acres (109,000 ha) of land through Rainforest Alliance training and certification. If you care so much perhaps you should donate? :p

https://secure3.convio.net/ra/site/...on=form1&_ga=1.75023762.1887280685.1418593730
Click to expand...

I have several direct debits set up for reforestation and environmental charities and donate a fair chunk of money as it is. I'll have a look into the link and see if they are also worthy of some money however.

Either way, just because there are some bananas farmed in conjunction with the Rainforest Alliance does not mean the majority of bananas are...

I'm a huge advocate of reforestation/regreening and rewilding, both for the environment and for the wildlife that lives in it.

Nate Silvers said:
Also the pharmaceutical industry is created for meat, dairy and egg eaters. Find me a hospital full of sick vegans. You say "when populations expand above the lands natural capacity deaths ensue". Well go vegan then and use less resources :)
Click to expand...

Oh dear. This just sums it up, along with several other comments you made in the above quotes. So now Veganism protects you from TB/HIV/Ebola and every other illness? Overconsumption and consumption of the wrong kinds of food are a problem for many, that doesnt mean a healthy diet of fruit, veg, grains, pulses and meat is bad for you. Eating Maccy D's all day is however... Don't mix the two up. Just like people shouldn't insist all vegetarians/vegans are skinny, pasty and weak.

The essentially vegan diets of many ethiopians would disagree with you there. The major issue is not over browsing of domesticated animals, it was/is the lack of productive land and water. Yeah, sure we could ship in huge amounts of food so people can continue procreating in these areas or we can just say (and be far more environmentally sensible) that perhaps quadrupling your population in 65 years is not a good idea...?
 
Last edited:
OldCoals said:
And even after billions in "charity" the same problems still exist.
Click to expand...

That is because all charity does in these cases is help to increase the population in countries that have no leadership or infrastructure in place to cope with it. It is a vicious circle. Giving these countries dribs and drabs of money just solves a small problem for a little while, thus increasing the population, thus increasing the need for more money.

It is a horrible situation. I read the other day about the work done on a proper malaria vaccine and how close they are and thought that is great news...but then in the same thought realised how that would just increase the population even more in undeveloped countries and probably cause even more problems and suffering. :(
 
Jono8 said:
That is because all charity does in these cases is help to increase the population in countries that have no leadership or infrastructure in place to cope with it. It is a vicious circle. Giving these countries dribs and drabs of money just solves a small problem for a little while, thus increasing the population, thus increasing the need for more money.

It is a horrible situation. I read the other day about the work done on a proper malaria vaccine and how close they are and thought that is great news...but then in the same thought realised how that would just increase the population even more in undeveloped countries and probably cause even more problems and suffering. :(
Click to expand...


If you make improvements that increase "Efficiency" you dont actually change any of the fundamentals. All you do is push the system closer to its ultimate limit!

What this means is when the system ultimately breaks down, it will do so in an even more catastrophical manner!

The world of the next 100 years is unlikely to be a pleasant place!
 
Amp34 said:
If Africa hadn't doubled in population in 50 years then many wouldn't be in the plight they were either. Why advocate we give up what we eat because they can't cross their legs?

Take Ethiopia, the country we all know for the famine in the 80s. In 1950 it's population was just under 19 million, in the 80s it hit double that at around 40 million. Now it's at over 80 million.

That's a four fold increase in 65 years. It's taken a hell of a toll on the countryside and been a major contributor to the droughts over he last 60 years. The increase in population means more firewood is needed, more firewood means more deforestation, more deforestation means more runoff and flooding yet less water storage. Fields become barren and water just disappears. People starve.

Over the last few years the ethiopia have been trying to change all that. In many places now chopping down trees are banned and replanting is going on in a big way to help with these problems.

A good overview of it is in a guardian article from a couple of months ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-to-restore-land-across-one-sixth-of-ethiopia
Click to expand...



By Kevin Myers


Thursday July 10 2008

No. It will not do. Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us, yet again. It is nearly 25 years since Ethiopia's (and Bob Geldof's) famous Feed The World campaign, and in that time Ethiopia's population has grown from 33.5 million to 78 million today.

So why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none. To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn't count.

One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet again, captures the tragedy of . . .

Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially. Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.

There is, no doubt a good argument why we should prolong this predatory and dysfunctional economic, social and sexual system; but I do not know what it is. There is, on the other hand, every reason not to write a column like this.

It will win no friends, and will provoke the self-righteous wrath of, well, the self-righteous, letter-writing wrathful, a species which never fails to contaminate almost every debate in Irish life with its sneers and its moral superiority. It will also probably enrage some of the finest men in Irish life, like John O'Shea, of Goal; and the Finucane brothers, men whom I admire enormously. So be it.

But, please, please, you self-righteously wrathful, spare me mention of our own Famine, with this or that lazy analogy. There is no comparison. Within 20 years of the Famine, the Irish population was down by 30pc. Over the equivalent period, thanks to western food, the Mercedes 10-wheel truck and the Lockheed Hercules, Ethiopia's has more than doubled.

Alas, that wretched country is not alone in its madness. Somewhere, over the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, Kalashnikov-toting, khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts.

Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually

hyperactive indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world.

This dependency has not stimulated political prudence or commonsense. Indeed, voodoo idiocy seems to be in the ascendant, with the next president of South Africa being a firm believer in the efficacy of a little tap water on the post-coital joystick as a sure preventative against infection. Needless to say, poverty, hunger and societal meltdown have not prevented idiotic wars involving Tigre, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea etcetera.

Broad brush-strokes, to be sure. But broad brush-strokes are often the way that history paints its gaudier, if more decisive, chapters. Japan, China, Russia, Korea, Poland, Germany, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 20th century have endured worse broad brush-strokes than almost any part of Africa.

They are now -- one way or another -- virtually all giving aid to or investing in Africa, whereas Africa, with its vast savannahs and its lush pastures, is giving almost nothing to anyone, apart from AIDS.

Meanwhile, Africa's peoples are outstripping their resources, and causing catastrophic ecological degradation. By 2050, the population of Ethiopia will be 177 million: The equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today, but located on the parched and increasingly protein-free wastelands of the Great Rift Valley.

So, how much sense does it make for us actively to increase the adult population of what is already a vastly over-populated, environmentally devastated and economically dependent country?

How much morality is there in saving an Ethiopian child from starvation today, for it to survive to a life of brutal circumcision, poverty, hunger, violence and sexual abuse, resulting in another half-dozen such wide-eyed children, with comparably jolly little lives ahead of them? Of course, it might make you feel better, which is a prime reason for so much charity. But that is not good enough.

For self-serving generosity has been one of the curses of Africa. It has sustained political systems which would otherwise have collapsed.

It prolonged the Eritrean-Ethiopian war by nearly a decade. It is inspiring Bill Gates' programme to rid the continent of malaria, when, in the almost complete absence of personal self-discipline, that disease is one of the most efficacious forms of population-control now operating.

If his programme is successful, tens of millions of children who would otherwise have died in infancy will survive to adulthood, he boasts. Oh good: then what?I know. Let them all come here. Yes, that's an idea.
Click to expand...
 
Good article (although a heck of a lot of waffle!) :)

If anyone is actually interested in helping the people, rather than their own conscience, then donating to a charity like Population Matters which, rather than sending food over to prolong the population increase, works on empowering and educating women and aims to help reduce family sizes (and reduce the exodus from countries by emigration of the younger, more educated members).

It's a far better long term spend of money!
 
I like how normal farming causes human trafficking but vegan farming solves that with "factory production of vegetable protein"

I didn't know butchers where generally victims of trafficking
 
smoove said:
You make me sick, are you honestly that pig ignorant? id love to take away your lovely stable lifestyle and see where you stand then.
Click to expand...

Calm down....You must have a lovely stable lifetyle too, posting on OCUK forums from your computer/ tablet/ smart phone - using your internet that you pay for monthly. Its the work of our society that allows you to do this, so get off your high horse. You have completely misread the point of the OP and have interpreted this as a thread about all that is wrong with the world (starving kids in africa etc...)

I'm not ignorant...The OP is talking about the US/ UK governments and I think its a fair comment that most people in these countries have a very good quality of life compared to other people who are starving and homeless around the world. Therefore....I didnt understand OPs rant about how atrocious our governments are when in fact I'd rather live in the UK than anywhere else in the world which means it can't be all bad.
 
Duke said:
If you're going to do this, you want to make sure any MP has some real life employment history before going into politics. Second jobs for them isn't always a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I think people can make up their own minds whether they want to vote in career politicians or people with experience of the outside world. (I would only vote for the latter though)

2nd jobs are bad because they provide conflicts of interest.

Duke said:
Already voted against.
Click to expand...

Not really. People were never offered PR and most people didn't even know there was a vote on AV because a) the media didn't talk about it, and b) the two main parties didn't talk about it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom