Is Vegetarianism the Only Solution for Keeping People Fed in the Future?
Debate Rounds (4)
Hello, my name is Ryan and today i am going to be supporting a claim that the only sure-fire solution to feed al of the world's growing population is through vegetarianism.
If you or I post a statistic, fact, or otherwise important piece of information, it should be followed by a citation. If it isn't it should be discarded as fiction.
I look forward to this discussion, and eagerly await the appearance of my opponent.
As it stands, 40% of the land on Earth's surface is consumed by farm land. Of that, 7.9 to 8.9 billion acres are dedicated solely to the raising, housing, and feeding of livestock. Twenty six percent of the land on earth is used for livestock grazing.  As you can see, that's a lot of wasted space.
We may be able to get more technology to speed up the growth of plants, or make them more efficient, but the only sure fire way at the moment to increase food yield to deal with or rising population would be to remove livestock from the equation, and use the left over fertile land as farmland.
If you take the grazing land alone and convert it into farm land, we could easily double the food produced, if not triple it. Long story short, it's a waste of space for less food on the table.
What the body needs isn't beef and meat, what it needs is what's inside. Protein, which you can get from various assorted beans, fish (technically a livestock, but I count them out because of how efficient the fish farms have become) and other plants. I know very well that no method of protein delivery can ever be as orally pleasing as a big juicy medium-rare steak, but it isn't really something we should look towards if we want to feed a large population.
Getting rid of livestock wouldn't just give us more food, it would also help the environment.
Globally, 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to livestock, more than emissions from transportation related sources.
In the United States alone, livestock is responsible for 55% of erosion, 37% of all applied pesticides, and 50% of all anti-biotics consumed. 
In addition, 90% of oats and 80% of corn produced in the U.S are funneled directly to the animals that yield significantly less bang for your buck.
A lot of the protein in plants or legumes is not accessible to human beings. Take the garbonzo bean (you may know it as a chickpea). Lots of protein, but only 1% of it can be used by humans. It's cause of the phytic acid.
Medium rare? Heathen! Steak should be consumed blood rare. 1 minute on either side, high heat and it's done. But I digress.
There's too much concern about the environment. We need to transform nature to better serve the needs of man. Why should the rights of tees and critter be more important than those of human beings, who after all are capable of understanding their plight. Now this doesn't mean that pollution should be allowed, since that is an act of aggression, but we need to do away with this notion that it is evil for man to attempt to ameliorate scarcity by improving the world in which he has found himself.
Animals are good for you. They have everything you need. Fats, protein, vitamins. They are tasty, and they are tasty because they are a complete food, especially when cooked very lightly so that the vitamins are not destroyed and the proteins are not denatured. So quit worrying about the future, do some flyer shopping, find yourself some affordable beef, learn how not to ruin it with excessive cooking, and dig in. We'll all be dining on animal flesh for some time yet to come. And to everyone else, you guys should all be vegetarians so that there is more beef left for me.
There are several leafy greens capable of providing your daily dose of protein, least tasty being the legume. Spinach, however, is a good alternative.
I have tried blood rare in the past, it seems too much like mush for me. (Probably didn't help that I got my steak from the local O'Charlies)
I agree, it would be best if we can force nature to bend to our whims. Just imagine it! Our planet sustained by giant co2 scrubbers, huge sprawling farms both far above and below sea level, the ability to efficiently clean the ocean.
Sadly, with our current abilities, that dream will stay science-fiction for some time. For now we will have to try and live with the eco system, because if it were to collapse we would go down with it.
I must say I agree, we shouldn't worry about the right of trees and critters, we have inherited this earth through our superior intellect, our superior evolution, and our remarkable ability to adapt to our surroundings. I just think we should try to preserve animals because they are, quite simply, pretty to look at.
We will be eating animal for quite a while yet, this debate was intended to be in the 'If we can't find a more efficient way to grow food in the next 60 years' format. On a side note, I am saving up to go and get some good Kobe Beef. I will have it cooked medium rare :).
Thank you for a good first completed debate, it was fun.
Welcome to debate.org this was a fun debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Forever23 11 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had much better conduct an made more convincing arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.