Rattle your pitchforks and say #yes2meat


So you believe we’re overpopulated (even tho no one has proven it), so here’s my question: what would y’all have us do about it?

(Jeanne Wagner) #42

Yup I shared Dr. Berry’s post. My vegetarian friends have not said one word nor acknowledged the post (no likes)… but my cross fit friend talked about moderation in everything (1glass if wine per day =OK, 1 bottle of wine per day = not OK), and mentioned that basically all studies prove correlation and we all (mostly) believe it.

And that’s the problem right there.

(Banting & Yudkin & Atkins & Eadeses & Cordain & Taubes & Volek & Naiman & Bikman ) #43

Would that I could snap my fingers and half of humanity or more would disappear.

I’m afraid the best solution for the 2050 challenge, aside from lots of birth control, is the maximization of food production yields, the reduction of carbon emissions from industry and a general global wealth improvement as that seems highly correlated with lower birth rates.

A more ethically difficult option is more libertarian. More guns, more toxins, more disease, and so on. But rather than the Thanos solution, I’d like to see the planet’s yield improved sustainably to meet (and meat) the 2050 challenge.

I have been a donor to Population Connection (previously the Zero Population Growth organization) for years. And yes, fewer



“Ethically difficult” and “more libertarian” sure are interesting ways of spelling “human rights violations.”

(Banting & Yudkin & Atkins & Eadeses & Cordain & Taubes & Volek & Naiman & Bikman ) #45

I wanted to be polite. 2A absolutism sits very poorly with me, and yet, if that’s how rural people want to thin the herd, it’s libertarian and ethical questionable. Less so though than cramming people 3 million to a square mile with no food.


Didn’t realize there existed so many people out there who when hearing Scrooge say, “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population,” and thought #scroogewasright #teammalthus

(less is more, more or less) #47

I am decidedly anti-Malthusian, but I offer this graphic in light of my original post:

(Zack F) #48

My political cards on the table; in contrasts to the socialists on the tread I’m definitely on libertarian side of things and see coercion as the enemy of keto success (or any success I’d like to see in the world). Listen to how vegans talk, plot and seethe. We joke and have fun here. After all, ‘sugar is murder’ :grin:

That is why vegan advocates see the state power as their object. They’ve lost the nutrition argument and so they are hitching their kale thatched covered wagons to the environmental horse that is currently being made to say anything, no matter how ridiculous to create fear and garner power. Keto minds should be more stable than that and realize that we are all at this board because…wait for it…our personal choice and rights of association. Results and then persuasion among free agents from Atkins, Fung, Volek, D’Agostino, Noakes and countless others here and everywhere who serve the greater good far more than any KetoTsar could ever.

While vego-facism is pernicious and menacing, I’m heartened by the mainstreaming of quality meats and vegetables. Try finding grassfed/organics in a Kroger or Walmart 20-30 or often even 10 years ago. The large distribution channels are responding to demand and the prices have came down… While I wish farm/food subsidies would be ended, I’m not opposed multiple tiers of food quality in the context of an un-subsidized market. This a good thing. I don’t want to perfect or optimal to be the enemy of better for an individual or family. Again, more choice and more freedom are the answer.


KetoTsar would be such a great title, tho.

(Jane) #50

When they talk that meat-eaters should have to go outside of a restaurant to eat their meat (like smokers) so vegans don’t have to watch them consume charred flesh and be offended… I get a bit concerned.

I know this sounds far-fetched now. But???

(Doug) #51

Would be ~794 square feet or ~74 square meters for each person, though. Where are the golf courses, sheep ranches and taverns going to go? The world’s wealth in $100 bills would cover New Hampshire, too.

The U.S. has 4.3% of the world’s population but commonly uses 15 to 30% of various resources and makes 30% or more of the world’s solid waste. If things were “equal” our consumption would have to decline so far that it’s a non-starter. Same, really, for the world as a whole - the 10% wealthiest use about 60% of the stuff. This genie is not going back in the bottle.

We do live in ‘interesting times.’ Humans have increased the rate of species extinction many hundreds, even perhaps a thousand times over. In my lifetime alone, world population has gone from less than 3 billion to over 7.5. The developing world is increasing population like crazy. The U.S. is currently 3rd in world population, but in 30 years Nigeria will probably have surpassed us. :open_mouth: :smile:

It really depends on the context and view of the conversation. Objectively, we’re already really screwing up the world really badly in some ways. Sure, things are not ‘equal’ - and they’re not going to be. I agree there are some really greedy people, and that the mega-rich have wealth, power and influence that few if any would say are not out-of-balance. Human nature is that capital accumulates in the hands of the few, not the many, and this is true even just considering given countries that are said to be “rich.”

For all the “ifs” - there is already enormous population pressure. We are having huge effect on animals and plants worldwide, on the environment and even the weather. We’re going to tack on another couple billion people fast.

The consequences of this are still substantially unknown. Are we going to kill off the plankton, incubate some new more-horrible-than-ever disease, etc.? People mostly don’t make changes until they are really forced to. As a race, I think we have to learn the hard way, over and over again. When finally pushed to the brink, we’re pretty good at responding, however.

(Zack F) #52

Why can’t they eat their tofu outside?

(Jane) #53

How about everyone mind their own business and quit tending to mine and eat whatever the hell they want???


(Zack F) #54

You’re much less wordy than I. Thank you. You may delete my post. :slight_smile:

(Doug) #55

Zack, great post. :slightly_smiling_face:

:smile: Man, I had to laugh at that. :clap:

(Running from stupidity) #56



Sure it could go back in, if we eat the rich.

I don’t think that’s human nature at all. Tribalism is, sure, but humans are generally remarkably well used to cooperating. Our species wouldn’t have survived without working together. In my experience, people who think humans are by nature awful are projecting themselves onto others.

And I must ask the question again, if you really think we are overpopulated (even tho projections are that we are not overpopulated, and that the birth rate is going to level out here in 2050, as that tends to happen when nations become “more developed”), what would you have us do about it?

(Jane) #58



(Running from stupidity) #59

(Doug) #60

Solar radiation only varies by about 0.1% from minimum to maximum, however, and the cycle only averages about 11 years. It does affect the earth’s climate, to a small extent, and so do volcanic eruptions, things like El Niño or not, etc.

I don’t know what’s going to happen with our climate, and not predicting total gloom here - there are some interesting things like plants growing significantly faster with the increased carbon dioxide in the air. I do think it’s pretty hard to get around human activity as the cause of most of the temperature increase we’re witnessing. We’ve taken the air concentration of carbon dioxide from roughly 280 (before the Industrial Revolution) to 414 now.

The earth makes a lot more CO2 than we do, 4 or 5 times more. Its absorption is very much in balance with the production, though, barring very rare events like huge volcanic eruptions that meaningfully change things for a year or two. It’s like our beloved energy-balance ‘CICO’ deal - if we take in 2000 calories a day and get rid of 2000, we’ll tend to stay the same weight. If we alter one or the other by 400 or 500 calories, then things change relatively fast.