Rubystars wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>Rubystars wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
>>>>farm animals.
>>>
>>>
>>>That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most
>>>wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do the
>>>right things have to stop.
>>
>>They could figure it out. The point is, farm animals
>>aren't necessary to feed people.
>
>
> At the population we have now, I think they are.

No, absolutely not. Farm animals consume more calories
than they yield in food value. More agriculture is
devoted to feeding animals than to feeding humans.

Remember: this isn't the point. People want meat, and
there's nothing wrong with expending resources to
produce it. But if the goal is the most calories from
the smallest possible input of resources, meat is
absolutely unnecessary.


> If there was a smaller population broken up into villages, etc. then sure,
> we wouldn't need farm animals, but we do right now.

Population density doesn't have a thing to do with it.