3

votes

We will all be vegetarian by 2050?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created August 28, 2012 at 5:49 PM

What are your thoughts on this recent article yahoo published about a shortage of water forcing the world population to become Vegetarians?

link text

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19413)

on September 30, 2012
at 01:59 PM

What's on my land is my property, if government claims that it owns the water that falls on my property and that I may not dispense with it as I please, then I shall sue them for negligent trespass each time it rains! They can't have it both ways.

7e1433afbb06c318c4d90860d493c49d

(5959)

on September 30, 2012
at 11:27 AM

Stop eating a natural human diet on the basis of superstitious BS? No thanks. Been there, done that.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 30, 2012
at 02:09 AM

I'd say that's a pretty safe bet, JayJay. I certainly don't think even a sizeable minority is involved in food production other than interrogating the farmers at the local Saturday market.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on August 29, 2012
at 06:11 PM

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't think that a one-size-fits-all approach works for farming or, really, to diet. I see a lot of variance in traditional foods based on geography, and I think it's probably more sustainable to look at those geographic availabilities and limitations for food production. Maine is not Hawaii is not Nebraska is not ... wherever. I do believe usually this means a more moderate consumption (errr, not daily bacon?) follows logically.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 29, 2012
at 05:29 PM

JayJay, particularly. I think if you listen to the farmers in the trenches doing things sustainably, you'll hear the more moderate animal product consumption refrain. Rereading my comment, I don't want to make it sound like Salatin is promoting a one-size-fits-all-answers-all approach. He's all about maximizing producting in whatever niche is available.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on August 29, 2012
at 04:50 PM

Matt- were you replying to me or JayJay? I think that there's a lot of room available to raise additional livestock sustainably, but not if one thinks that the world can be low-carb/high-meat paleo. We could probably raise some meat for all, but not lots of meat for all. In that, I would add that I believe Salatin to be right on some accounts--that is, that we need to think more holistically in farming instead of using monoculture, etc. But still ultimately I believe it'd be a diet higher in plants than animals.

7278560e76901ded4081022b54c6e165

on August 29, 2012
at 02:15 PM

If it's still there.....

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:15 PM

Think Inuit? Inuit are an outlier, both geographical and dietary.

7278560e76901ded4081022b54c6e165

on August 29, 2012
at 02:14 PM

I'd down vote this if I could, too bad images aren't turned on to click the down arrow. About population, peace is never forever, and disasters happen. Just be prepared for what ever, find out how to continue living Paleo when the world goes nuts one way or another, it happened before and history repeats.

7278560e76901ded4081022b54c6e165

on August 29, 2012
at 02:06 PM

Lol! @raydawg good one

4fce8590b5453d379dddeaa649955eb9

(173)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:06 PM

environmental economist? your insight would certainly be interesting. Do you have any general reseverations about their predictions that you'd like to share? I'd love to hear an educated critique!

7278560e76901ded4081022b54c6e165

on August 29, 2012
at 02:05 PM

Think Inuit, they are meat and fat no veggies save the summer berries and seaweed. Although true most of their diet was fish, whale, but they also enjoyed caribou and polar near as well I think.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 29, 2012
at 12:28 PM

@JayJay, nearly all H-G and traditional diets I've seen documented have been plant-centric diets - starch-centric really. That's where the majority of calories come from. They are not meat-fests, as popularly romanticized in the paleo collective-consciousness. I don't know where the notion that a high-meat diet is the best way to thrive has come from. It's possible to thrive on such a diet, but it's neither efficient or sustainable.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 29, 2012
at 11:15 AM

If you think sustainable practices will produce more meat you're solely mistaken. Mr. Salatin (who I have a lot of respect for) has convinced people that you can do all this cool stuff with cows if you just follow them around chicken trucks. That works for his climate and locale, that's not going to work in very many other places. It's environmentally responsible and sustainable, but it is not peak production.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 29, 2012
at 04:37 AM

ecological pasture-fed meat because it drastically improves soil quality which is going to be kind of necessary for the future of farming.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 29, 2012
at 04:33 AM

ecological pasture-fed meat because it drastically improves soil quality which is going to be kind of necessary for the future of farming. It's not an economic reality that farmers can just take years off of farming crops on their land to rest it and rebuild topsoil, the economic reality entails grazing cows on that land via holistic management. And furthermore people need to make more use of mini-cows on small plots of land that aren't suitable for growing crops but have a lot of grass.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 29, 2012
at 04:31 AM

To environmental vegans: if people should reduce consumption of feedlot beef because it's bad for the environment (they should) then you should increase consumption of feedlot beef and wild game because it's good for the environment. And let's not forget about pigs and food waste, that's a big part of Fairlie's book. Certainly we must reduce food waste first, but there will always be a lot of food waste that can be recycled into pork. And in the mean time while we still have more food than the world needs (especially without feedlots) I think we ought to eat the hell out of...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 29, 2012
at 04:26 AM

Vegetarian diets for nobody http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130203.htm it's more efficient to eat 2 ozs of feedlot beef per day, and that's not with improved efficiency of pastures. And that number will increase as the massive grain agriculture further destroyed productive croplands. (partially due to feedlot beef...) + hunted rabbits and deer and whatnot. Any way you slice it, a lowish meat diet is going to be the most sustainable. Or a highish meat diet depending on how efficient people can actually make grass farming

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 29, 2012
at 04:20 AM

It depends on who you can get meat from. I get it from a company obsessed with efficiency. Their grazing method is an intelligent use of grass energy monitoring, controlled rotational grazing, and anything technological they can find that improves yields. They have so much meat they're begging people to buy it, that's efficiency. Alas they aren't in the grocery market...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 29, 2012
at 04:18 AM

and it doesn't entail vegetarians diets for me, which is the most important part of this discussion :) not that starvation isn't important, but what's important to me is to know what I -should- do

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 29, 2012
at 04:17 AM

Well okay it might or it might not. But that doesn't change what one should do. Make sure to support only the best farms and force change via supply and demand. If people don't do that then that sucks, but that's an inevitable suckage.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on August 29, 2012
at 03:13 AM

That was a deciding factor for us too. If each person in my home ate 1/2 lb meat a day we'd go through 14 lbs/week meat. I'm not willing to buy CAFO meat for ethical reasons (even beyond health), so even with $6/lb pastured ground beef I'd spent close to $350/month on meat alone--not to mention eggs or other protein sources. If you add in roasts, the cost goes up significantly. We don't even eat steaks or other fancy cuts now, because it's just too damn expensive for pastured meat. If I were to spend $500+/month on meat for a family of 4, + $ for fats, fruits, veg, and starch? Yikes.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:55 AM

Oh, and let me help you with the population boom problem. It's called a freezer. Yup, I can shoot a few deers PER YEAR and freeze those babies. Sure back in the day they had to work harder making pemmican, or fermenting and such...likely still wasting a good bit of the kill due to spoilage? But hey, there are points where modern marvels lead to less waste improving our ability to sustain a larger population.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:53 AM

Oh, and let me help you with the population boom problem. It's called a freezer. Yup, I can shoot a few deers PER YEAR and freeze those babies. Sure back in the day they had to work harder making pemmican, or fermenting and such...but hey, there are points where modern marvels lead to less waste improving our ability to sustain a larger population.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:49 AM

Okay, so sustainable agriculture and pasture management leads to more meat overall. So maybe if distribution were more equal worldwide, and everyone ate "paleo," do you think everyone would be able to eat as much meat as they wanted? I somehow doubt that. I'm talking about the "I'm going to eat 2-3 lbs of meat a day because I want to" folks. I don't see that as particularly health-promoting OR sustainable, even if we convert the grain-growing land to livestock pasture. With proper distribution, more people could eat meat, but not necessarily unlimited.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:47 AM

Pfft.....I call BS on thhq and Matt. Fine, you can "survive" on a non meat centric diet. Is that why anyone here adopted paleo though? Ya, I thought not. Otherwise we would all "survive" on McDonalds and KrispeeKreem (or however its spelled). Your assumptions about "most hunter-gatherers" seem to be off. I would bet you I personally could hunt and kill over a pound worth of meat EVEN TODAY in this decimated environment of the North America. What makes you think our ancestors couldn't? Small, large, and marine life all included?

E791387b2829c660292308092dc3ca9b

(831)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:45 AM

The problem in heavily farmed areas is that frequently their water comes from aquifers. The aquifers aren't refilling at anywhere near the rate that the water is being removed. So some traditional farming areas are getting close to the end of their water supply.

Ef26f888ed248de197c37a4cb04ef4a7

(584)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:45 AM

Less meat but better quality should be the message, imo. It's pretty easy to do meat free days when you have starches and vegetables. Eggs and dairy can be cheap as well.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:42 AM

I'll vote you up and say at least the same "cream answers" seem to be rising to the top on both acounts.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:32 AM

By the way this DOES NOT EQUAL LESS MEAT....in fact it leads to more.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:31 AM

Persistent question that as been squelched on a number of occasions. IMO your prediction is totally incorrect. The next shift will be an every more pointed effort to support sustainable local farming efforts and support sustainable practices...along with a return to reincorporate homesteading into daily life.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:29 AM

Persistent question that as been squelched on a number of occasions. IMO your prediction is totally incorrect. The next shift will be an every more pointed effort to support sustainable local farming efforts by local farmers and to reincorporate homesteading into daily life.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:27 AM

I am really confused as to how this is supposed to work. We are not losing water. If theres water on the planet, it stays on the planet. If anything would force a shortage it would be overpopulation in dry areas. And if that happens, I suggest the most likely result is that people will just go thirsty and die (unless they start desalinating sea water, or recylcing pee etc) After all, we are not in the habit of sending much of our food to starving countries, why would water be any different?

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:25 AM

I am really confused as to how this is supposed to work. Water is not destroyed, or lost. It remains on the planet, in circulation. If you drink it, you pee it out. If an animal drinks it, its the same. If it evapourates, it rains down again. If anything would force a shortage it would be overpopulation in dry areas. And if that happens, I suggest the most likely result is that people will just go thirsty and die (unless they start desalinating sea water, or recylcing pee etc)

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:16 AM

*To clarify, I think nutrient needs should be met, but beyond that I think there's a lot of wiggle room for healthy people.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:13 AM

I've read (and not commented on) several of your recent posts along this line of thought and I've got to say that I agree. I'm not positive there'll be a major shift in paleo, though. I'm not really seeing a lot of cohesiveness. I am by all accounts more WAP/Archevore/whatever than paleo, though, so my bias probably shows. I don't think that eating bacon and steak every day is sustainable, but if you do whole-animal eating then I think moderate consumption makes a lot of sense. That is something I like about Jaminet's writing, that adequate protein is just fine.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:10 AM

I haven't yet read Fairlie's book, so I'm commenting on your last paragraph. I think that's the key, really. There IS substantial potential to increase efficiency, but I'm not entirely confident the agricultural system will change before there's some sort of implosion. (Not to be all morbid or anything.)

1c67bc28f4e44bbb8770b86df0463df3

(6719)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:58 AM

Yahoo News - as useful as tits on a bull.

1c67bc28f4e44bbb8770b86df0463df3

(6719)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:56 AM

LMFBO..........

B6114a1980b1481fb18206064f3f4a4f

(3924)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:44 AM

Almost all water in the world is currently owned in the form of water rights. Whether the owners use, sell or give away the water is often not up to them. What they can or can't do with it is part of their water rights. This is basic economics. You may not like it, but it's been part of our culture for hundreds of years.

782d92f4127823bdfb2ddfcbcf961d0e

(5231)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:36 AM

I think their o6:o3 ratios will be off.

B6114a1980b1481fb18206064f3f4a4f

(3924)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:35 AM

Nemesis, they are basing this on the idea that it would free up more non-irrigated, arable land for crops for humans instead of pasture or crops for livestock. For example, in most of the tallgrass prairie states like Missouri, Iowa, Indiana and Illinois farmers do not irrigate most crops. I definitely do not agree with their conclusion that we will all be forced to become vegetarians, but they are correct that our food systems will change as a result of water shortages.

F9638b939a6f85d67f60065677193cad

(4266)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:29 AM

Bullshit. I can buy pork tails, snouts, maws, kidneys, tongues, livers, feet, chicken feet, gizzards etc for way super cheap and get more calories and more nutrition than I can if I purchase kale and broccoli and lentils.

724ac8ed9ddc603e87adf6cfb901a8d8

(325)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:19 AM

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too, Nemesis...sort of missing part of the equation, no?

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19413)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:11 AM

The article is a fluff piece intent on selling scarcity, so that they can later fleece the public. Your fear means that their propaganda is working on you.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19413)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:07 AM

Whomever downvoted you is an asshat.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19413)

on August 29, 2012
at 12:57 AM

Why don't we execute the author of that fluff piece, then, the world will have less water wasted!

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on August 29, 2012
at 12:48 AM

When rats reach a certain population threshold, they all go mad and kill each other.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 28, 2012
at 11:05 PM

Guess this is true if you cant/dont hunt, fish, or otherwise doe any homesteading such as raising your own chickens or gardening.

7cf9f5b08a41ecf2a2d2bc0b31ea6fa0

(4176)

on August 28, 2012
at 10:26 PM

I got downvoted for this, makes perfect sense

C836b2644e7319bb957fbb794a97708e

on August 28, 2012
at 10:21 PM

I agree. There are many scenarios and it could be any of them. I meant support in a broad term. War over diminishing resources is just one possibility.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on August 28, 2012
at 10:18 PM

Then how do they plan on watering all of the crops?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 28, 2012
at 09:52 PM

That's been a refrain for some 100+ years now. I don't think the planet will reach its carrying capacity before a population implosion occurs. The cause? Who knows... though I think climate change is going to screw over the most highly populated areas of the world.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 28, 2012
at 09:49 PM

Very true, thhq. The meat-centric paleo diet is very first-world, most hunter-gatherers would be hard pressed to have the portions of meat some in our community consuming daily at every meal.

0a9ad4e577fe24a6b8aafa1dd7a50c79

(5150)

on August 28, 2012
at 08:54 PM

I bet it wouldn't even gel up due to the lack of minerals and protein =(

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 28, 2012
at 08:33 PM

Could a vegan be made into acceptable bone broth?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 28, 2012
at 08:32 PM

History is also full of people who didn't/don't eat meat because it's too expensive and hence unavailable. This isn't vegans vs paleos. The possibility of meat at every meal is a new development.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 28, 2012
at 08:28 PM

The lab grown meat scenario just might push me over the veg edge....how do you make bone broth out of a glob of protoplasm...pass me the algae smoothie....

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 28, 2012
at 08:25 PM

There's plenty of water in the ocean so obviously the best option is seafood.

  • Fc64db6a555559762432d503a1dbad19

    asked by

    (1478)
  • Views
    2.1K
  • Last Activity
    1260D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

20 Answers

17
0a9ad4e577fe24a6b8aafa1dd7a50c79

on August 28, 2012
at 06:47 PM

I will NEVER be a vegetarian again. I'll hunt the vegetarians for meat if I have to after all the vegans have been picked clean in the first week of 2050.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 28, 2012
at 08:33 PM

Could a vegan be made into acceptable bone broth?

0a9ad4e577fe24a6b8aafa1dd7a50c79

(5150)

on August 28, 2012
at 08:54 PM

I bet it wouldn't even gel up due to the lack of minerals and protein =(

782d92f4127823bdfb2ddfcbcf961d0e

(5231)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:36 AM

I think their o6:o3 ratios will be off.

1c67bc28f4e44bbb8770b86df0463df3

(6719)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:56 AM

LMFBO..........

8
2e5dc29c61f97d335ffb990508424719

on August 28, 2012
at 06:48 PM

No. End of story. History is full of those who said the end in neigh, they are always wrong. It is propaganda by people with an agenda. Nothing more. In the 1840's it was the Millerites. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerism A good nay-sayer always projects doom to a date when they will no longer be held accountable, say 40 years into the future. The book, The Population Bomb was written in 1968. It was wrong yet it still gets quoted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb This is not the last time you will see this story in your life. I remember also in the 1980's stories about us running out of food by the year 2000. Be mindful of true conservation but don't lose sleep over this one.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 28, 2012
at 08:32 PM

History is also full of people who didn't/don't eat meat because it's too expensive and hence unavailable. This isn't vegans vs paleos. The possibility of meat at every meal is a new development.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:55 AM

Oh, and let me help you with the population boom problem. It's called a freezer. Yup, I can shoot a few deers PER YEAR and freeze those babies. Sure back in the day they had to work harder making pemmican, or fermenting and such...likely still wasting a good bit of the kill due to spoilage? But hey, there are points where modern marvels lead to less waste improving our ability to sustain a larger population.

7278560e76901ded4081022b54c6e165

on August 29, 2012
at 02:05 PM

Think Inuit, they are meat and fat no veggies save the summer berries and seaweed. Although true most of their diet was fish, whale, but they also enjoyed caribou and polar near as well I think.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:47 AM

Pfft.....I call BS on thhq and Matt. Fine, you can "survive" on a non meat centric diet. Is that why anyone here adopted paleo though? Ya, I thought not. Otherwise we would all "survive" on McDonalds and KrispeeKreem (or however its spelled). Your assumptions about "most hunter-gatherers" seem to be off. I would bet you I personally could hunt and kill over a pound worth of meat EVEN TODAY in this decimated environment of the North America. What makes you think our ancestors couldn't? Small, large, and marine life all included?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:15 PM

Think Inuit? Inuit are an outlier, both geographical and dietary.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 28, 2012
at 09:49 PM

Very true, thhq. The meat-centric paleo diet is very first-world, most hunter-gatherers would be hard pressed to have the portions of meat some in our community consuming daily at every meal.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 29, 2012
at 12:28 PM

@JayJay, nearly all H-G and traditional diets I've seen documented have been plant-centric diets - starch-centric really. That's where the majority of calories come from. They are not meat-fests, as popularly romanticized in the paleo collective-consciousness. I don't know where the notion that a high-meat diet is the best way to thrive has come from. It's possible to thrive on such a diet, but it's neither efficient or sustainable.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:53 AM

Oh, and let me help you with the population boom problem. It's called a freezer. Yup, I can shoot a few deers PER YEAR and freeze those babies. Sure back in the day they had to work harder making pemmican, or fermenting and such...but hey, there are points where modern marvels lead to less waste improving our ability to sustain a larger population.

F9638b939a6f85d67f60065677193cad

(4266)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:29 AM

Bullshit. I can buy pork tails, snouts, maws, kidneys, tongues, livers, feet, chicken feet, gizzards etc for way super cheap and get more calories and more nutrition than I can if I purchase kale and broccoli and lentils.

7
Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 28, 2012
at 09:35 PM

I posted this on the other thread about this article:

We can't say the same about a well-managed pasture. On a pasture most of the water stays in the local water cycle. The cows drink some water, pee much of it out, perspire, breathe and it all ends up in the grass they eat and in the atmosphere where it falls as rain. You take water out of the system only when the animal leaves to go to slaughter, but I fail to see how that would implicate animals over plants, as by far the most water per calorie in food is from fruits and vegetables!

Simone Fairlie addresses water usage in his book in chapter 7 http://www.scribd.com/doc/94009929/Meat-a-Benign-Extravagance page 142. He is dealing with a different statistic, but he makes some good points about the plausibility of animals on pasture being water-wasters. The history of estimating cattle water usage has been rather...interesting to say the least. He notes that most beef is rain-fed, and if you are feeding cows on highly irrigated crops then that is wasteful, but that isn't the way it has to be.

Also there is substantial potential to improve the efficiency of pasture ranching so whatever figures they're using don't necessarily apply to what's going to happen when the agricultural system changes

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 29, 2012
at 04:37 AM

ecological pasture-fed meat because it drastically improves soil quality which is going to be kind of necessary for the future of farming.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 29, 2012
at 04:18 AM

and it doesn't entail vegetarians diets for me, which is the most important part of this discussion :) not that starvation isn't important, but what's important to me is to know what I -should- do

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 29, 2012
at 04:31 AM

To environmental vegans: if people should reduce consumption of feedlot beef because it's bad for the environment (they should) then you should increase consumption of feedlot beef and wild game because it's good for the environment. And let's not forget about pigs and food waste, that's a big part of Fairlie's book. Certainly we must reduce food waste first, but there will always be a lot of food waste that can be recycled into pork. And in the mean time while we still have more food than the world needs (especially without feedlots) I think we ought to eat the hell out of...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 29, 2012
at 04:20 AM

It depends on who you can get meat from. I get it from a company obsessed with efficiency. Their grazing method is an intelligent use of grass energy monitoring, controlled rotational grazing, and anything technological they can find that improves yields. They have so much meat they're begging people to buy it, that's efficiency. Alas they aren't in the grocery market...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 29, 2012
at 04:26 AM

Vegetarian diets for nobody http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130203.htm it's more efficient to eat 2 ozs of feedlot beef per day, and that's not with improved efficiency of pastures. And that number will increase as the massive grain agriculture further destroyed productive croplands. (partially due to feedlot beef...) + hunted rabbits and deer and whatnot. Any way you slice it, a lowish meat diet is going to be the most sustainable. Or a highish meat diet depending on how efficient people can actually make grass farming

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 29, 2012
at 04:33 AM

ecological pasture-fed meat because it drastically improves soil quality which is going to be kind of necessary for the future of farming. It's not an economic reality that farmers can just take years off of farming crops on their land to rest it and rebuild topsoil, the economic reality entails grazing cows on that land via holistic management. And furthermore people need to make more use of mini-cows on small plots of land that aren't suitable for growing crops but have a lot of grass.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:10 AM

I haven't yet read Fairlie's book, so I'm commenting on your last paragraph. I think that's the key, really. There IS substantial potential to increase efficiency, but I'm not entirely confident the agricultural system will change before there's some sort of implosion. (Not to be all morbid or anything.)

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 29, 2012
at 04:17 AM

Well okay it might or it might not. But that doesn't change what one should do. Make sure to support only the best farms and force change via supply and demand. If people don't do that then that sucks, but that's an inevitable suckage.

5
Medium avatar

(3213)

on August 28, 2012
at 06:42 PM

Not if you know how to hunt and fish.

3
2336245491a87ee15d4fb8f8f8283909

(1173)

on August 28, 2012
at 07:47 PM

Stupid! It's trendy to blame animals for consuming too much of the crap GMO corn, wheat and soy that could be ruining the health of more humans world wide. If you don't want animals consuming too much of your grains and other crap crops, put them on grass lands where they belong.

3
7cf9f5b08a41ecf2a2d2bc0b31ea6fa0

on August 28, 2012
at 07:04 PM

7cf9f5b08a41ecf2a2d2bc0b31ea6fa0

(4176)

on August 28, 2012
at 10:26 PM

I got downvoted for this, makes perfect sense

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:42 AM

I'll vote you up and say at least the same "cream answers" seem to be rising to the top on both acounts.

2
Ef26f888ed248de197c37a4cb04ef4a7

on August 29, 2012
at 02:49 AM

Eat less meat but better quality meat should be the message. I know everyone raves about sustainable/grassfed/organic meat but in reality most paleos are still buying factory farmed meat most of the time. I've moved away from a meat heavy diet mainly because of the cost and it's been an easy shift.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on August 29, 2012
at 03:13 AM

That was a deciding factor for us too. If each person in my home ate 1/2 lb meat a day we'd go through 14 lbs/week meat. I'm not willing to buy CAFO meat for ethical reasons (even beyond health), so even with $6/lb pastured ground beef I'd spent close to $350/month on meat alone--not to mention eggs or other protein sources. If you add in roasts, the cost goes up significantly. We don't even eat steaks or other fancy cuts now, because it's just too damn expensive for pastured meat. If I were to spend $500+/month on meat for a family of 4, + $ for fats, fruits, veg, and starch? Yikes.

2
96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19413)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:10 AM

The people who write these things have an agenda. That agenda is to commoditize water so they can sell it. It used to be that municipal water supplies were owned by local government and in most cases water was provided for free.

Then, privatization came in, and what was once free, is now a profit center and a monopoly.

Fluff stories like this are designed to get the public to accept a shortage mentality, so that later on, they can be ripe for fleecing. They saw people buying bottled water and it was clear to them that if they're willing to pay for bottled, they'll be willing to pay for tap.

There are already towns where it's illegal to collect rain water, because somehow, doing so is "stealing" from the government. But really, it's competition with with water company that they're protecting against.

It's not about vegetarianism, though the implication there is that pushing this means pushing soy, corn, and wheat, and the same (kind of) people that profit from this, have dollar signs in their eyes as they plan and plan and plan on also owning water.

It won't surprise me one bit to learn that they'll try to tax air next.

Those who follow their advice are sacrificing their health and finances in order to enrich the liars.

B6114a1980b1481fb18206064f3f4a4f

(3924)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:44 AM

Almost all water in the world is currently owned in the form of water rights. Whether the owners use, sell or give away the water is often not up to them. What they can or can't do with it is part of their water rights. This is basic economics. You may not like it, but it's been part of our culture for hundreds of years.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19413)

on September 30, 2012
at 01:59 PM

What's on my land is my property, if government claims that it owns the water that falls on my property and that I may not dispense with it as I please, then I shall sue them for negligent trespass each time it rains! They can't have it both ways.

2
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 28, 2012
at 09:22 PM

This comes back to the persistent question of sustainability of paleo... that's a serious question, no doubt that SAD meat is unsustainable, I question the sustainability of paleo meats/proteins, particularly in the manner and quantity folks are consuming them currently. The next big shift in paleo will be to a more moderate animal product intake, I predict.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:32 AM

By the way this DOES NOT EQUAL LESS MEAT....in fact it leads to more.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:16 AM

*To clarify, I think nutrient needs should be met, but beyond that I think there's a lot of wiggle room for healthy people.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on August 29, 2012
at 04:50 PM

Matt- were you replying to me or JayJay? I think that there's a lot of room available to raise additional livestock sustainably, but not if one thinks that the world can be low-carb/high-meat paleo. We could probably raise some meat for all, but not lots of meat for all. In that, I would add that I believe Salatin to be right on some accounts--that is, that we need to think more holistically in farming instead of using monoculture, etc. But still ultimately I believe it'd be a diet higher in plants than animals.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 29, 2012
at 11:15 AM

If you think sustainable practices will produce more meat you're solely mistaken. Mr. Salatin (who I have a lot of respect for) has convinced people that you can do all this cool stuff with cows if you just follow them around chicken trucks. That works for his climate and locale, that's not going to work in very many other places. It's environmentally responsible and sustainable, but it is not peak production.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 29, 2012
at 05:29 PM

JayJay, particularly. I think if you listen to the farmers in the trenches doing things sustainably, you'll hear the more moderate animal product consumption refrain. Rereading my comment, I don't want to make it sound like Salatin is promoting a one-size-fits-all-answers-all approach. He's all about maximizing producting in whatever niche is available.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on August 29, 2012
at 06:11 PM

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't think that a one-size-fits-all approach works for farming or, really, to diet. I see a lot of variance in traditional foods based on geography, and I think it's probably more sustainable to look at those geographic availabilities and limitations for food production. Maine is not Hawaii is not Nebraska is not ... wherever. I do believe usually this means a more moderate consumption (errr, not daily bacon?) follows logically.

Ef26f888ed248de197c37a4cb04ef4a7

(584)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:45 AM

Less meat but better quality should be the message, imo. It's pretty easy to do meat free days when you have starches and vegetables. Eggs and dairy can be cheap as well.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:49 AM

Okay, so sustainable agriculture and pasture management leads to more meat overall. So maybe if distribution were more equal worldwide, and everyone ate "paleo," do you think everyone would be able to eat as much meat as they wanted? I somehow doubt that. I'm talking about the "I'm going to eat 2-3 lbs of meat a day because I want to" folks. I don't see that as particularly health-promoting OR sustainable, even if we convert the grain-growing land to livestock pasture. With proper distribution, more people could eat meat, but not necessarily unlimited.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:29 AM

Persistent question that as been squelched on a number of occasions. IMO your prediction is totally incorrect. The next shift will be an every more pointed effort to support sustainable local farming efforts by local farmers and to reincorporate homesteading into daily life.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:31 AM

Persistent question that as been squelched on a number of occasions. IMO your prediction is totally incorrect. The next shift will be an every more pointed effort to support sustainable local farming efforts and support sustainable practices...along with a return to reincorporate homesteading into daily life.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:13 AM

I've read (and not commented on) several of your recent posts along this line of thought and I've got to say that I agree. I'm not positive there'll be a major shift in paleo, though. I'm not really seeing a lot of cohesiveness. I am by all accounts more WAP/Archevore/whatever than paleo, though, so my bias probably shows. I don't think that eating bacon and steak every day is sustainable, but if you do whole-animal eating then I think moderate consumption makes a lot of sense. That is something I like about Jaminet's writing, that adequate protein is just fine.

2
E45c5a1c8df73da5e03bb6e7e90f8420

(644)

on August 28, 2012
at 08:37 PM

Crops require vast amounts of water as well- not as much to produce lb per lb but still, tons of water is irrigated to grow crops. It would be so orderly if we were to all somehow become vegetarian (as if that is the solution) but the world simply does not work that way. It is far more likely that there will be wars over water (and whoever has the most will certainly eat whatever they want, meat included)...ever heard this quote: "If you think wars over water are bad, wait until we start fighting over water." Who knows what is going to happen over the course of our lifetimes, but I am sure things are going to be getting pretty crazy by 2050- It's projected there will be 9 billion people on the planet by then- and vital resources, such as water, are finite. (Of course there is always salt water, but that requires tons of energy to desalinate).

2
A1a7413b99e03bc77f02d95c4170ea43

on August 28, 2012
at 07:10 PM

Also, listen to the wording of the article:

"So vegetarianism, the scientists say, is one option to combat the water shortage."

So let's hear some other options! Why only report on that one option? Obviously written from the point of view of a vegetarian. Not worried. Should we be more responsible with our water? Of course. Will we all be eating a meatless diet within 40 years? I don't think so.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 28, 2012
at 08:25 PM

There's plenty of water in the ocean so obviously the best option is seafood.

7278560e76901ded4081022b54c6e165

on August 29, 2012
at 02:06 PM

Lol! @raydawg good one

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19413)

on August 29, 2012
at 12:57 AM

Why don't we execute the author of that fluff piece, then, the world will have less water wasted!

1
C836b2644e7319bb957fbb794a97708e

on August 28, 2012
at 09:30 PM

If we keep growing in population at this rate the planet wont be able to support all of us vegetarian or no.

C836b2644e7319bb957fbb794a97708e

on August 28, 2012
at 10:21 PM

I agree. There are many scenarios and it could be any of them. I meant support in a broad term. War over diminishing resources is just one possibility.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on August 29, 2012
at 12:48 AM

When rats reach a certain population threshold, they all go mad and kill each other.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 28, 2012
at 09:52 PM

That's been a refrain for some 100+ years now. I don't think the planet will reach its carrying capacity before a population implosion occurs. The cause? Who knows... though I think climate change is going to screw over the most highly populated areas of the world.

1
Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 28, 2012
at 08:22 PM

They're right in a way....when meat is scarce and expensive people quit eating it. Wild seafood is already scarce and expensive. The question is more whether you can afford to pay the price to eat the way your ancestors did.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 28, 2012
at 11:05 PM

Guess this is true if you cant/dont hunt, fish, or otherwise doe any homesteading such as raising your own chickens or gardening.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 30, 2012
at 02:09 AM

I'd say that's a pretty safe bet, JayJay. I certainly don't think even a sizeable minority is involved in food production other than interrogating the farmers at the local Saturday market.

1
11b7b7ba720a5cd43c74a0ef99a16adb

(3448)

on August 28, 2012
at 07:05 PM

The article is based on the assumption that raising meat isn't environmentally friendly (neither though, is raising crops).

I wonder how they would reconcile this with the recent stories about lab-grown meat. If they can pull it off as hoped, then eating meat would become significantly more "green" than being a vegetarian.

Could we see a day in the future when Greenpeace protests vegetarians, because of the damage their lifestyle does to the planet?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 28, 2012
at 08:28 PM

The lab grown meat scenario just might push me over the veg edge....how do you make bone broth out of a glob of protoplasm...pass me the algae smoothie....

0
997ebd6fda08ac3203352e8183c0e975

on September 30, 2012
at 10:36 AM

jesusveg:) visit my blog bevegetarianbygod.wordpress.com

7e1433afbb06c318c4d90860d493c49d

(5959)

on September 30, 2012
at 11:27 AM

Stop eating a natural human diet on the basis of superstitious BS? No thanks. Been there, done that.

0
B6114a1980b1481fb18206064f3f4a4f

(3924)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:55 AM

Water rights are a huge concern in the world right now because water has become a scarce resource. Surface water is not usually a problem once rights have been worked out because it is renewable (although this year's drought is causing huge fights and court cases about how the water remaining in rivers and lakes can be used). If climate change and world population growth continues as predicted, however, surface water will become more scarce and we will continue to fight over it and change our population centers and food systems in response to it. Clean surface water is becoming even more scarce and again, rights will need to be worked out and changes made. Ground water, however, is a non-renewable resource and we are using it up fast. As it becomes more scarce, we will have to make huge changes in the way we live, where we live and how most of us eat. This is basic economics. It does not mean doom. It does not mean vegetarianism. It just means change. We will have to change.

This article has taken a very real concern - water shortages - and made a huge, erroneous conclusion - that we will all be forced to become vegetarians. This is not true. As an environmental economist, I work in this field everyday and I hate this type of sensationalism. No doubt change is coming. It has to. But there's no reason to scare people with crazy, false conclusions.

4fce8590b5453d379dddeaa649955eb9

(173)

on August 29, 2012
at 02:06 PM

environmental economist? your insight would certainly be interesting. Do you have any general reseverations about their predictions that you'd like to share? I'd love to hear an educated critique!

0
F9638b939a6f85d67f60065677193cad

(4266)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:32 AM

Increasing our capacity to feed more and more people is the fuel of our population explosion. Doing anything to perpetuate it is insanity.

0
0b4326a4949718451a8571b82558dc10

on August 28, 2012
at 07:16 PM

I will start killing my own house pets (rabbits, guinea pigs, gerbils) before I become vegetarian...

We will not all be vegetarian...I will find a way if need be

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19413)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:07 AM

Whomever downvoted you is an asshat.

-1
1c67bc28f4e44bbb8770b86df0463df3

on August 29, 2012
at 01:57 AM

Pfffft. Water shortage my azz. By 2050 the United States Of America will have solved the worlds energy 'problem' and there will be so much clean water, folks will be DROWNING in it. Seriously.

7278560e76901ded4081022b54c6e165

on August 29, 2012
at 02:15 PM

If it's still there.....

-2
4fce8590b5453d379dddeaa649955eb9

on August 28, 2012
at 10:47 PM

What im hearing from people hear is largely 'the article is probably right' I second the post concerning doomsday predictions but then we are in a ecologically unique situation and the result could very well be unique also ... To our detriment.

I really hope they'll get something out of in-vitro meat though and i dont understand all the horror about it. If scientists can grow meat that is biochemically safe to ingest, contains good animal protein and doesn't harm us the way artificial ingredients/processed foods usually do, then i'll happily gobble it down, hell i'll ask for seconds!

We should also remember that the exponential population increase seems to be facing a halt. As poor people attain a better standard of living they will have fewer kids. Also new technologies are coming up all the time and i hope technology can save us and our health as a species. What would really help us at the moment would be a strictly enforced, global one-child policy.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19413)

on August 29, 2012
at 01:11 AM

The article is a fluff piece intent on selling scarcity, so that they can later fleece the public. Your fear means that their propaganda is working on you.

7278560e76901ded4081022b54c6e165

on August 29, 2012
at 02:14 PM

I'd down vote this if I could, too bad images aren't turned on to click the down arrow. About population, peace is never forever, and disasters happen. Just be prepared for what ever, find out how to continue living Paleo when the world goes nuts one way or another, it happened before and history repeats.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!