The world is not running out of resources. My immediate response to Dr Lao’s post. Here is a quote from P.J. O’Rourke’s book, All the Trouble in the World,
"Malthus said that population tends to increase faster than wherewithal, that there is a “constant tendancy in all animated life to increase beyond the nourishment provided for it.” He was wrong.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development is an international research agency formed by two dozen of the world’s wealthiest nations in order to promote the kind of economic policies that are supposed to make nations wealthy. The OECD collected economic statistics from everyplace where respectable statistics have been kept this century - thirty-two countries ranging in prosperity from Bangladesh and China to the United States and Japan. When the OECD got done nerd-wrestling this lump of numbers it was determined that, for each person in these countries, gross domestic product - measured in constant 1980 U.S. dollars - grew from $841 a year in 1900 to $3,678 in 1987. In the very period marked by the most astonishing population growth in mankind’s million-year history, mankind got real rich.
Life expectancy inindustialized nations is now 74.6, much longer than it has been anywhere before. And, according to combined World Bank and UN Department of Economic and Social Development figures, life expectancy indeveloping nations has increased from 44.2 years to 62.4 years just since 1960.
The World Bank publication “Social Indicators of Development 1990” states that worldwide infant mortality, a reasonable yardstick of diet and health care, decreased from ninety-six to fifty-three deaths per thousand live births between 1965 and 1988.
And the UN Food and Agricultural says that, from 1968 to 1990, per capita global food production rose by over 10 percent and chronic malnutrition declined by more than 16 percent. Meanwhile 2.8 billion people had been added to the world’s population.
There happens to be no empirical evidence to support the Malthus theory.
However, if mere disproof were enough to rid us of ideas, think of the things we’d be free from: the social sciences, groop therapy, raising taxes to decrease government spending."
Sorry about the rant, but it really winds me up when people start to talk about the Earth’s dwindling resources. Just because the tree-huggers say it, doesn’t mean it is so.
In fact, its now possible to make petrol, of virtually any octane, from methane, which is a greenhouse gas.
Max: Thank you. You are an honest man without jerky knees–I like that in a person! I disagree with you on your premise, but at least you’re honest and consistent.
I’m afraid I have to disagree with both the slippery slope premise, and the idea that we dislike PETA’s methods, not the message. I strongly dislike the message.
Animals do not have rights.
It’s bad enough these people believe animals have rights, but they make things worse by going about proselytizing with missionary zeal ala Mormons. That would be OK too, since I can always say no, but they also try to get their wacky beliefs enshrined in the legal code. At this point, people have to take a stand, and not allow quasi-religious nut cases to control other peoples’ lives.
Anthracite: Sorry, I know you said you didn’t want this to turn into another “PETA’s whacked out” thread, but you can’t discuss the issue without facing it.
I think we can, and have. It seems that most people do not see a slippery slope, at least not nearly to the extent that I do anyways. Which is an answer, albeit not the one I was hoping for. I guess it means my anti-establishmentness and distrust of authority has taken too firm a grip on me…
for the record, I haven’t met a cow, pig, or chicken that didn’t look good cooked. Turkeys I can pass on.
Now, I do see a slippery slope. I don’t see us having a society that would prevent it. I don’t see enough people willing to take control of their lives to prevent the ever well meaning government from stepping in to regulate another portion of their lives. Sure, it looks ridiculious now…
I don’t trust the media. They have gone from reactively reporting stories to todays “advocacy” journalism. All have a cause to push, and do so. So I don’t see it as being too much of a stretch. It may seem strange to us now, but it might not in 15-20 years.
I dunno, call me paranoid, but I see it as being possible.
From the California State Penal Code (link to sections 594-625c
IIRC this was a ballot measure not too long ago that the touchy-feely people of my state passed, believing that eating horses is ‘gross’. What’s next, laws against sodomy?
A very interesting reference, douglips. So evidently any equine cannot be consumed as food in CA. So even parts of “meat crazed America” has somewhat more restrictions than some European countries do.
I wonder, as a related aside, how many Americans in the 1880’s and 1890’s thought the idea of Constitutional Amendment allowing Prohibition was a likely scenario worthy of serious concern?
When I told my mom about vat grown meat she said that it would be good, but it would put cattle farmers out of business. I think it could help them though. If vat-meat is expensive then a lot of people will still eat real beef, and if it is cheaper then the rich people will order it at fancy restuarants and brag to their friends, “I ate cow today. It was yummy.”
That’s actually a common scenario in Sci Fi, where the “Real Meat” is so much more expensive than the vat-grown, it is a luxury reserved only for the rich.
Might as well weigh in on this. First of let me tell you that I am for animal rights, and the concept of banning meat wouldn't offend me in the least. To me, saying that eating animal flesh is a right is the same as saying cannibalism is a right. Your rights end when they cause suffering to others (and I include animals as others). And, yes, I'm aware of how much of an extremist that makes me sound like.
That said, I don't think anyone is going to lose their meat eating "rights" anytime soon. The will of the people still rules, and if somehow meat was made illegal in today's climate, people would be PISSED. I realize that to most people meat is food, and if the government tried to take away some food I liked, I'd vote them out in favour of a government that would reinstate my rights. Failing that, I'd riot. :D So until there's a demand for vegetarianism, I don't think you'll have problems getting meat from the grocery store. However, agree the reason people might be hostile to the movement is because of the slippery slope it might bring.
On the vat issue, then it would no longer be an issue for me. Same if they were somehow able to clone headless cattle (or something), the suffering point would be moot.
