Should we...?!
Should we...?
should we stop killing animals for food? why?
Answers:
Andy B: The amount of crops would SHRINK. If the domestic animal population dropped, the human population no longer would need to support it.
If humans ate at a lower trophic level (such as 2) we would get more energy in proportion to biomass. Here's a diagram
Sun: 17,000,000 kilocalories goes to producer producers get 20,810 kilocalories - goes to herbivore- herbivore gets 3,368 kilocalories - goes to level 1 carnivore- level 1 carnivore gets 383 kilocalories- goes to level two carnivore- level two carnivore gets 21 kilocalories - decomposers get 5 kilocalories.
If everybody in the world were a vegetarian, the human population would be much more sustainable. We get 10 times more energy in proportion to biomass from plants.
Farmers wouldn't kill all the animals at once. It is unrealistic to think that everyone would go vegetarian at once (and there will likely always be people who aren't). As demand for meat goes down, farmers just don't replace the cows they slaughter for food. The cows would be reproduced below replacement rate, and the cow population would drop.
"No farmer would want animals eating the plants, and so the war on such animals would intensify. Grown in the fields would be domesticate species of food crops, and so the number of plant species would decline."
-It's called Biological Pest Control. That's how we control them now, and that's how we will control them then. I like this doomsday sounding scenario you quoted.
Anyway, if you don't care about animals, why would you care about rabbits? Animals die, right? It's natural. And if you care so much about the environment, why don't you know how it works?
Also, how does living longer make quality of life better? I would rather be running from a hawk than stuffed into some cage my entire life.
I at least can back up my claims with scientific facts, not whimsical assumptions.
@AndyB: First off, you are wrong about cropland and livestock. As of 2000 54% of the world's cropland is used for meat production.
65% of US grain goes directly to livestock and fisheries.
Overgrazing results in topsoil loss. Biodivirsity in those regions is greatly reduced as a result. Rangeland usually are homes for birds, mammals, etc only because the rangeland has invaded thier habitat. Topsoil erosion can also lead to desertification.
And yes, considering the trophic level exaple above, considering the energy consumed to biomass, the fields would shrink. Mammals and birds would thrive.
If you don't want to be a vegetarian, that's fine, but don't go making stuff up. Any environmental scientist would agree, if everyone was a vegetarian, the environment would be much better off.
"I mean, would you rather be in a stone age tribe where the life expectancy was about 19, you were starving most of the time and there was always the threat of another tribe coming round and killing you because it made them look hard, or in prison."
-I'm sure many people would disagree with you. Plenty of people would still chose a low quality of life free than in captivity.
Source(s):
Environmental Science Student
Living in the Environment 13th edition/ editor G Tyler Miller Jr./published 2004
no then the earth would be over populated with animals
NO checks and balnces animals over populate massive diseases spread killing millions of living organisms the reason people die nauturley to conserve resources for future people
Yes we should stop killing animals for food. Screw overpopulation, animals were here before us. We can't share?
NO Because I really love meat.
Well we don't need to kill them to live a healthy life.
So yes we should stop killing them for food.
But that is unlikely, What we should be focusing on, is more regulations on the meat/dairy/egg industries. That would be more realistic.
Now I know that just because there are more rules put in place, that it doesn't mean everyone will follow them (and I know that they always find ways around the rules too). but I don't think that they should be able to do just about anything they want to these animals, just because it is cheap, or efficient.
The real problem is that these animals are being tortured, they live horrible lives, and die horrible deaths, that is something no living thing should have to go through, whether they are cows or people.
There needs to be more restrictions on these industries, As far as for the animals. And the rules put in place should be enforced. That's the way it should be.
These animals were not put here for us to torture and kill.
It just isn't right, that they have to suffer and die for us, especially because we don't need to eat them to survive, and live a healthy life.
I do think that it would be great if we stopped killing them all together, but... Meat- eaters as a whole are too selfish and misinformed for that to ever happen.
Vegetarianism isn't good for the animals. If enough people went veggie to actually affect the industry at all, and the demand for meat decreased, it would mean animals which were surplus to requirement. You're kidding yourself if you think that would mean they'd live happily ever after, as they couldn't be sold no one would want to keep them, and they'd still be slaughtered.
Think about it, the second farmers couldn't sell their livestock, the second they couldn't make a profit, they wouldn't keep them any more. Keeping animals isn't cheap, and to keep them, without profit, would be hugely expensive to any farmer. How many do you reckon would be prepared to make that kind of loss?
Now, what'd happen then? Maybe a few wild pigs or goats would stay alive, but for the most part it would be impossible to release them into the wild. The vast majority would have to be slaughtered.
I quote "If no one were allowed to farm animals, farms would grow crops instead. The first thing to go would be all the animals. Once the rural landscape were rid of cattle, sheep, and the like, fields would get larger, for the convenience of the combine harvesters, and hedgerows would go. Wild animals like rabbits would now be a more major pest. No farmer would want animals eating the plants, and so the war on such animals would intensify. Grown in the fields would be domesticate species of food crops, and so the number of plant species would decline."
Domestication is one of the best things that can happen to animals. If the golden eagle tasted any good you can bet your life it wouldn't be nearly extinct.
I quote "In the wild, a sheep would have to look for food, compete for it, jockey for position in the herd, look out for predators, guard its offspring, and it one day would die because of some accident, perhaps a fall, some nasty illness, or it would become weak and have its throat ripped out by the local predators. By striking contrast, the life of a farmed sheep is rather different. A farmed sheep has complete protection from predators; all the food of exactly its favourite kind at its feet all day every day, for which it does not have to compete; no competition for mates; no need to guard offspring; free health care; free haircuts; it is very unlikely to die in childbirth, and unlikely to die a nasty death. True, half a ewe’s offspring are taken away and killed. However, in the wild, a ewe would lose most of its offspring anyway, and in nastier circumstances. By the standards of the natural wild, a sheep’s life is about as cushy as a life could possibly be."
This is true, animals in the wild invariably die violent deaths. the closest an animal will get to dying of old age is being picked by a predator because it it old and therefore an easier to target. Farmed animals invariably lead happier, healthier, less stressful lives than those in the wild.
@ Brennan R
I've checked my post, and I can't find anything anywhere mentioning the amount of crops grown (although I suppose something similar can be inferred from my first quote), or i fact a lot of the points you made, and I'm unsure how some of them relate to what I actually said.
I'm very familiar with how biomass and the food chain are interlinked.
It is true, we would get more energy did we only grow plants (although with grass-fed animals the whole point is redundant but we certainly wouldn't get as many nutrients, from that land.
Man cannot live on bread alone. It is a fact, that not all the nutrients needed for a diet can be got on almost every part of the world without animal products. Hence, what you'd need is more large greenhouses and more imported food, even though less food would need to be grown. If everyone were to go vegetarian (and I realise it wouldn't happen all at once but it's simpler to describe it like that) then the amount of things like soy being grown abroad would increase to meet demands, and this would probably mean more destroyed rainforests.
Also, only a small percentage of US cropland is used for animals, so it wouldn't be that much of a shrink in crop levels anyway.
I hardly think what I quoted is a doomsday scenario. OK, it's a bit over the top, but it's hardly unthinkable.
Still, fields used for animals are quite a haven for small mammals, birds and wild flowers, at a time when hedgerows are increasingly being destroyed. If all these fields were filled with crops, the populations of these things would decrease.
And yes, as a matter of fact, I would mind something like that happen. Just because I like rabbit stew doesn't mean I don't like seeing them in fields and things.
In general farmed animals (in fairness, not things like battery chickens, but that's a slightly different issue) are healthier, stronger and less stressed than their wild counterparts, especially if they're kept outside.
I realise in the US animals might not be treated as well as they should be a lot of the time but, not living there, it doesn't actually affect me (that's not to say it's perfect here but it's certainly better).
I mean, would you rather be in a stone age tribe where the life expectancy was about 19, you were starving most of the time and there was always the threat of another tribe coming round and killing you because it made them look hard, or in prison. Frankly I'd rather be in prison: it may be hard but it's not as hard as what life back then would have been.