The UN expects that the world population will reach seven billion on 31 October, and experts predict that there will be at least nine billion humans on the planet by 2050. Global meat consumption is projected to double by 2050, too - a frightening prospect, considering the factory-farming nightmare required to raise and slaughter more than 55 billion animals and meat production's impact on nearly all environmental problems from climate change to deforestation to pollution.
The Worldwatch Institute estimates that the global livestock population has already increased 60% since 1961, and while people grow fat on bangers and bacon butties, countries around the globe are bulldozing huge swaths of land in order to make room for more factory farms to house all the additional chickens, cows, and other animals as well as for the huge quantities of crops needed to feed them.
Many more people can be fed from a given area of land if the crops aren't first fed to animals in order to produce meat. Animals require large amounts of food and resources but produce very little food in return. It takes three and a quarter acres of land to produce food for a person who eats meat and dairy products, while food for a vegan - someone who doesn't eat any animal products - can be produced on just 1/6 acre of land.
Even beyond the basic inefficiency of funnelling crops through animals, more fossil-fuel energy is used in meat production to operate feed mills and factory farms; transport animals many miles to slaughter in petrol-guzzling, pollution-spewing lorries; operate abattoirs and then transport the meat to processing plants.
And then there's water. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) reported that 200 scientists in 50 countries have identified water shortage as one of the two most worrying problems for the new millennium (the other was global warming). Between watering the crops grown to feed farmed animals, providing drinking water for the animals and cleaning away the filth in factory farms, trucks, and abattoirs, meat production places a serious strain on our water supply. It takes about 15,500 litres of water to produce 1 kilogram of beef, compared with just 1,000 litres to produce 1 kilogram of wheat.
And as if that weren't enough, climate change experts have produced overwhelming evidence that meat production causes climate change. Worldwatch Institute researchers estimate that raising animals for food causes 51% of global greenhouse-gas emissions each year. A 2006 United Nations report, Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, concluded that the livestock sector is a significant source of climate change and that the meat industry is "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."
We can't expect to have a liveable environment if we continue to squander the Earth's resources, pollute the environment, lay waste to arable land, and abuse animals to feed our unhealthy appetite for meat. I say "unhealthy" because diets rich in animal fats have been conclusively linked to higher rates of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, strokes and cancer. We'd do well to adopt vegan diets ourselves. Vegan foods provide all the nutrients that we need, minus the saturated fat, cholesterol and contaminants that are found in meat, eggs and dairy products.
Adopting a plant-based diet, in addition to safeguarding the increasingly populous planet and its inhabitants, would spare billions of animals the horrors of the meat, egg and dairy industries. In the UK, piglets have the tips of their teeth and their tails cut off without any pain relief. Chickens live in cramped cages or in filthy sheds, and animals have their throats cut at slaughter, often while still conscious. Animals are kept indoors, denied everything that is natural and important to them, and the first and only time most of them will breathe fresh air or feel the sun on their backs is when they're loaded onto lorries bound for slaughter. In other places around the world, the treatment of animals is even more horrifying.
If we are ever to create a cleaner - and kinder - world fit to support the many billions of us on this planet, we can't carry on the way we are going.
The logic against eating animals is irrefutable. In fact, the UN has made it clear that a global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, poverty and the worst effects of climate change. A 2010 UN report titled Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Production and Consumption: Priority Products and Materials states, "Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth" and "a substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products".
There have never been so many people on this planet, and now is the time to make the changes necessary to ensure a sustainable future for everyone.
Phil Pauley: Planet Earth Plc Launches Its Latest Innovation
Anushay Hossain: Seven Billion People & Women's Rights: What Is the Connection?
Glen Pearson: World's Population Is a Growing Crisis
Population 7 Billion - Pictures, More From National Geographic ...
World population to reach 7 BILLION in next few days | Mail Online
Veganism, in contrast, is a dead end, is actually highly dependent on exactly the kind of industrialized agriculture that causes environmental problems, and will never be adopted by more than a very tiny percentage of the population -- so why does this site constantly "push" it? It's not even environmentally feasible in parts of the world where arable land is in short supply -- which happens to be MOST of the planet.
Even intelligent people in this country don't realise that GM soya's main use in the UK is as feed for livestock. Much of the soya and maize that is grown on former rainforest and grassland is eaten by meat eaters in the UK.
That's right. We're one of the largest importers of soya in the world and it's used as animal feed.
So even people who think that they are being green by buying local beef could be consuming 16 pounds of GM soya for every pound of meat they eat. And feeding it to their kids.
Meat is not labelled with where the feed has come from and that's why there is such a big demand for GM crops even though very few people would knowingly choose to eat them.
Soya crops and maize use in animal feed also account for the highest percentage of worldwide pesticide sales.
Whether or not you want to eat meat is your personal choice but don't fool yourself it's healthy or green. And certainly don't fool yourself that the sort of meat that is being sold in most shops today is 'natural.'
By the way, the grain to meat conversion ratio of 16:1 is over-inflated, particularly re: beef, even though cattle are relatively "inefficient" converters (averaging a 7:1 ratio), since even cattle brought to market weight in feedlots for the last months of their lives spend most of their lives and put on most of their weight grazing on forage crops that are inedible by humans, not eating maize or soya (or, more precisely, the BY-PRODUCTS of processing maize and soya for other uses, often human consumption, like distiller's grains and soybean oil). Even for animals raised largely on grains and other feed crops (e.g., commercially produced chickens and hogs), the conversion ratio is about 2:1 for chickens and about 3.5:1 for hogs. Exaggeration is never persuasive, except when addressing the ill-informed -- which I find many vegans are.
Why should we alter our normal diet to try to cope with the irrational birthrate powered by religions and some governments ? In my opinion, you should try to rethink you strategy and combat the CAUSES of this situation, not try to turn us all into herbivores. We are not physically equipped to be herbivores.
If you choose to abuse your own body, you have a right to do so, but don't try to force your unnatural modifications on all of us. I didn't tell you it's imperative for you to get a tattoo or piercings, or cut off your arm to better stand out in the ever-growing population, now did I ?
"We are not physically equipped to be herbivores." Humans are well equipped to eat fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, beans, etc.
"don't try to force your unnatural modifications on all of us."--This sentiment in a nation that eagerly awaits and celebrates the return of the McRib or dines on Gummi Bears and chicken nuggets is phenomenal. Talk about "unnatural modifications" in the diet.
Humans are omnivores, not herbivores. We are equipped TO EAT vegetables, agreed, but can't live and stay healthy ON JUST vegetables. The physiology of the human body isn't adapted to it.
There is a big difference between "can eat" and "can survive healthy by only eating". Try to find out what the difference is, pls.
Secondly, if we follow your argument, what happens when the population reaches 40 billion? What do we do then? No, the problem needs to be solved now via education. Is it reasonable to ask people in the Uk to stop doing X, Y or Z because of what people are doing in India, Malaysia, China? If you were talking about treating an addict, your proposition would be considered 'enabling' to the addict, allowing them to carry on behaving destructively.
The best argument against eating meat is that most people are simply buying a piece of red stuff wrapped in cellophane in the supermarket and pretending they don't know how it got there. Most people, if asked whether they would be prepared to actually go to a farm, catch and cut the throat of a pig or cow, chop it up and cook it, would say 'yuk, no'. So, not thinking about it and letting someone else do it is an act of Very Bad Faith, very hypocritical, and it's something I personally reject. It's about the only thing I have ever found that resonates with practically everyone.
I think the answer is no.
That doesn't make a person a hypocrite.
The point I am making is if killing and preparing an animal not something you can imagine doing yourself, then I think you're in dodgy territory if you ask someone else to do it for you.
Do I care about the exploitation of Columbian coffee plantation workers, and their circumstances? Yes, and we can do something about it by drinking equitable coffee and saying no to coke.
It would be unwise for anyone to change their behaviour on the basis of a single article which cites facts and figures the reader hasn't verified. But to ignore the very striking claims in this piece would be to rationalise and let a very narrow and superficial form of selfishness ("I like eating animal products") determine your behaviour. Yes, I am a vegan and, like Mimi Bekhechi, I'm biased. But if you eat meat and dairy products, you're biased too. Wouldn't the smart and responsible thing be to recognise that, and also recognise that your bias is potentially causing a lot of harm in the world? And look into it?
Large meta-study conducted by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health shows there are no links between eating unprocessed meat, even red meat, and heart disease or obesity diabetes:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2271.full.pdf+html?sid=f2a23c9e-aae8-4bdf-9226-1104cafb008b
Agro-ecology, which employs both animal husbandry and crop cultivation, can "feed the world":
http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Sept10_Salatin.pdf
http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16-49_agroecology_en.pdf
Well-managed rotational grazing confers environmental benefits:
http://vimeo.com/8239427.