Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Advocate Replacing Cattle With Insects
rhettb writes "Scientists in the Netherlands have discovered that insects produce significantly less greenhouse gas per kilogram of meat than cattle or pigs. Their study, published in the online journal PLoS, suggests that a move towards insect farming could result in a more sustainable — and affordable — form of meat production."
Eating is a selfish act. Pretty much all of life is a selfish competition.
Either get over it, or take your argument to its logical conclusion and stop living.
I hope you were just trolling.
which is totally what she said
And who gets to implement these rules, and how ? Very few people will ever voluntarily accept to have reproduction so closely monitored and restricted. It would be inhumane, degrading, and hypocritical.
I do agree with the education and empowerement of women, but they will never be able to do this if they have 6+ children.
So how do you reduce familly size in a humane manner ? The answer might surprise you, as it is paradoxal : get rid of infant mortality. This has been proven in every developing country : the FIRST step to reducing population is to completely eliminate infant mortality. Once nearly all children reach adulthood, people have less children, simply because they don't need to have as many. Once this happens, THEN education steps in and teaches people about family planning. Family planning should be tought at an early age, with high school and elementary school kids learning about condoms and safe sex. They will then disseminate this information to their parents.
Well, we don't have true democracy anywhere in the world. We vote for leaders, rather than vote on issues. I usually think that I'd much prefer to vote on issues, but considering how ignorant or misinformed people are on scientific issues, it would in fact be a bad idea to let the general public best decide on issues like this.
Thinking that Democracy is the ideal solution in all situations is rather foolish.
which is totally what she said
The easiest way to make food from a grassy hill with poor soil is a grazing animal. Farm equipment requires flat land. Humans can't live on grass. What else would you do, bulldoze the hills and dump on lots of chemicals to make food crops grow?
Now consider the beans you so love. What about the rest of the plant? You're wasting nearly all of the plant if you don't eat it, but you can't really eat it because you're human. Feed that to an animal though, and now you have more food.
Have you ever compared the meat bought at a random supermarket to the meat bought straight from a small farm where the animal has lived a really good life until it was taken to the butcher? Believe me, there is a MASSIVE difference - without wanting to mimic the vegan "meat tastes of fear!" line, you really can taste if the animal had a good life.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Well, we don't have true democracy anywhere in the world. We vote for leaders, rather than vote on issues
Is there some deficiency in how politics is taught in America that causes people to constantly conflate direct democracy with democracy and not realise that democracy and republic are orthogonal issues? Both direct and representative democracy are forms of democracy (rule by the demos - the people). Oh, and before you say we don't have direct democracy 'anywhere in the world', I suggest you visit some of the Swiss cantons.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I require blind trials before I'll accept such a claim, but it does seem plausible. A more active life and slower growth would have some effect on muscle structure and the amount of fat, which may very well result in different taste.