"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> 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.

People need the nutrients in meat, and without education, they won't know
how to get it from other sources. Farm animals also produce eggs and milk.
Forcing large populations to go vegan WILL result in malnutrition.

> 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.

I'd say most people can live on a vegetarian diet just fine, but I'm not
convinced that everyone can live on a vegan diet.

> > 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.

It has everything to do with it. In a village of 50-100 people, you could
educate the lot on how to properly nourish themselves without animal
products from farm animals. Even within such a small group, there would be
people who might have deficiencies if they didn't follow the instructions
right.

Now multiply that times all the people in the U.S.

-Rubystars