|
The problem is too many people of any description,
not meat-eaters
You have changed the basis of your argument to
attacking industrial nations, particularly
the United States. That is a different argument, with parts of which I am sure
many people would agree.
However, consider that the resources that the West
consume in such undeniably large amounts are mainly mineral, including
fuel.Their extraction is not destroying vast tracts of forest, the local
hungry people are, and the more local hungry people there are, the more forests
[wetlands,mangroves, woodlands and so on] will be destroyed until there are none
left.
If those habitats wont grow grain but will produce
edible meat or fish, hungry people will grow and eat meat or fish, unless you
suggest that it would be more biologically efficient for the people to eat the
grass trees or waterweed instead.
The exception is forestry products, the bulk of
which end up in the more developed Asian economies because of demand by
increasing population.Where do you think our woodchips end up? Are their
end-product users necessarily meat-eaters?
The recent, and continuing, clearing of land in
Queensland is indescribably disgraceful,but to blame it on non-vegetarian
humans, who evolved as omnivores, suggests a degree of fanaticism.
Cheers
Michael
.
| 