If everyone was vegan would it solve world hunger?

[dwixi]

I think I heard somewhere that it takes 7 pounds of food to produce 1 pound of meat.

Okay lots of what we feed animals can't be eaten by humans, but we could use that land to grow human food

There's is the downside that if everyone was vegan we would genrally live longer so would have more mouths to feed

[jaydeschizo]

I'd have to go with, we would starve to death.

There is simply not enough agracultural land available to support the entire human species switching to a plant based diet. A lot of meat is cultivated using land that is unsuitable for plant based agracultural endeavours

[Daffy Duck]

Nope. The problem with world hunger is not food.

[Victor Vikingr]

I second what the guy with the bill said.

[funchy]

The reason people starve in today's world has more to do with other people than it has to do with diet.

But, yes, it's true producing meat is EXTREMELY wasteful. Not only are you wasting 6-8x the land and grain to fatten up the animal, you waste massive amounts of fresh water. We take clean fresh water for granted, but lack of clean drinking water is sickening or killing is on the magnitude malnutrition. Cholera, hepatitis, intestinal parasites, dehydration, and contaminants all endanger peoples' lives. Yet people dump thousands of gallons into producing a single livestock animal. Estimates put the amount of water required to produce a single pound of beef at 2,500 GALLONS!

The Cost of Meat—The Environment Argument | Wise Bread

The "we only graze animals on un-farmable land" doesn't work. In the US, about 70% of our *farming* crop land is growing grain to throw away for livestock to eat... not including the acres for the animals themselves. Drive through a farming area, look around, and imagine that 7 out of every 10 acre of grain is so cheap it's thrown away for a pig or cow to eat. That's in addition to the massive numbers of beef farmers running their cattle on taxpayer-owned government-subsidized parkland. Bison and wild horses on public lands are corraled (& auctioned) and/or shot to "control their numbers" to keep beef farmers happy. [I personally am involved in horse rescue, and one of the problem the horse community faces is the massive roundup of wild horses done by the federal BLM to keep cattle ranchers happy and beef artificially cheap]

There is a huge hidden cost of meat production, not just in wasted food, but in wasted fresh water, land, and environmental damage.

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by jaydeschizo

I'd have to go with, we would starve to death.

There is simply not enough agracultural land available to support the entire human species switching to a plant based diet. A lot of meat is cultivated using land that is unsuitable for plant based agracultural endeavours

Fruits, greens, seeds, and nuts are all very efficient uses of land. Seems to me there'd be an abundance of free land if people switched to raw vegan and got off a heavy grain diet...

[seeker5]

The problem with world hunger isn't food, nor is it land space. It's the political system in those countries that prevent an efficient system for the distribution of food to arise. There's countless stories of how food has arrived in those countries with hunger only for the local warlords or corrupt politicians to appropriate it all to themselves (sometimes in violent ways) while leaving people to die of hunger.

[AttractIt]

Just think of places like Africa,
I think they have more meat than we have here in Israel,

But still...

[FoxGarden]

While it would not necessarily END it...I think it would certainly help it!

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by seeker5

The problem with world hunger isn't food, nor is it land space. It's the political system in those countries that prevent an efficient system for the distribution of food to arise. There's countless stories of how food has arrived in those countries with hunger only for the local warlords or corrupt politicians to appropriate it all to themselves (sometimes in violent ways) while leaving people to die of hunger.

*yes*

[liamona]

Originally Posted by funchy

The Cost of Meat—The Environment Argument | Wise Bread

The "we only graze animals on un-farmable land" doesn't work.

I think it could, if it were given a fair chance. I thought the article you quoted made some good points about pastured animals and their ancient role in preserving the earth's health:

"In traditional farming, the animals ate grass, crop wastes, and kitchen scraps that people could not eat, and turned them into food that people could eat. Their manure provided the soil with needed nutrients as a natural and biodegradable fertilizer, and it was a cycle that sustained the environment, the animals, and the people."

"In years past, most of the manure from livestock returned to enrich the soil."

"Deprived of the manure and continually doused with chemicals, our nation's soils are losing their texture and ability to retain topsoil, the rich layer without which food production becomes seriously endangered."

EatWild.com has an article called "Grassfarming Benefits the Environment" with some good citations, like the one from a study done on traditional farms with livestock versus ones with just crops:

"Managed Grazing as an Alternative Manure Management Strategy."

This was the conclusion:

"Managed Grazing and Environmental Quality
Monitoring Project research has documented benefits associated with managed grazing systems on water chemistry, physical habitat, and biological indicators of streams. The results showed that the managed grazing systems produced meaningful improvement in stream quality when compared to the continuously grazed sections of streams. Pastures used in the managed grazing operations involved in the Monitoring Project were also documented to provide beneficial habitat for grassland birds as well as frogs and toads.

Summary
The Monitoring Project has documented a number of benefits to soils and streams as a result of transition to managed grazing. These benefits are derived, in part, from the system of "grassed" paddocks and manure management by the livestock themselves. In addition, the large proportion of manure handling performed by the cattle in a managed grazing system reduces the requirements for manure storage and handling adding financial and quality of life incentives for consideration of this strategy as a manure management alternative."

[Fullcrum]

I can't speak with tons of experience on the matter, but I do know that animals are an integral part of most ecosystems, and that people tend to do best when following nature's example. So animals should be included as part of the total package, and if we can eat them in such a naturally structured environment, all the better for world hunger.

The truth is animals DO convert land that's not arable into food for humans.

As others have said before, world hunger has several causes, including political corruption and inefficient food distribution.

One country can feed the population of many others if the food is distributed efficiently. An important historical example of this is Herbert Hoover's distribution of food to post WWI Europe. Because of his entrepreneurial skills and experience with his many global business interests, he was able to use his underfunded Food Administration to distribute food to 100 million Europeans! If that's not amazing, I do not know what is.

Anyway, back to animals. Liamona has hit it on the head by talking about managed grazing. Though meat may not be the ideal in health for all humans, meat is an important food in agriculturally poor areas where the only plant food that will grow is grass. Many anthropologists spend their lives studying this kind of stuff, to understand how food affects the rise and fall of civilizations.

People in many parts of the world only survive due to grazing. Should the human race sacrifice our ability to "conquer" such uninhabitable places because of a philosophy of "veganism"? I think not.

On the other end of the continuum, you have superfoods that can tolerate poor environment and still spit out human-worthy food. Maca is a good example, being one of the highest elevation edible plants grown in the world. It's a crucifer and provides nutrients found in things like kale, cauliflower, broccoli and collard greens to people where these plants would die, as well as other cool things like adaptogenic compounds.

The science of natural food production has not 100% caught up with the practice, and there are still questions in the air (if you feed a mountain goat the superfood maca, will that have a meaningful effect on the quality of meat). However, solving world hunger is as much about eliminating corruption and efficient distribution as it is about effective methods of production.

Hopefully, some group will demonstrate an efficacious agricultural strategy in a very poor region of the world and solve the hunger issues there. The people who are closest to this goal, I believe, are the permaculturalists. Time will tell.

[IAmKatie]

Originally Posted by seeker5

The problem with world hunger isn't food, nor is it land space. It's the political system in those countries that prevent an efficient system for the distribution of food to arise.

I think this is so sad, especially when children learn about world hunger. They typically want to send food immediately. It's very sad to find out that it probably wouldn't do a bit of good.

[Brutha]

I think this is so sad, especially when children learn about world hunger. They typically want to send food immediately.

That because of the way child are usually taught about world hunger.
Parents say stupid thinks like you should eat everything on your plate because children in Africa starve. As a result you have a lot of people in America that simply eat to much and get fad.

[Andrew Michaels]

Going vegan would end world hunger. Going raw vegan would regenerate the earth. Read about it here.

Originally Posted by dwixi

I think I heard somewhere that it takes 7 pounds of food to produce 1 pound of meat.

Okay lots of what we feed animals can't be eaten by humans, but we could use that land to grow human food

There's is the downside that if everyone was vegan we would genrally live longer so would have more mouths to feed

[ar81]

There is enough food to feed humanity, but our system prevents millions of people from having access to a minimum amount of food to survive.

We have advanced technology to heal people and do things that would be miracles centuries ago, but our system prevents everyone to have access to health. So millions die because of preventable diseases.

There are overworked people and there are unemployed. Work is not equally distributed.

You have banks that collect interests from borrowers, they make money with other people's work, and also they collect taxes via socialist subsidies. And we call that capitalism.

[Andrew Brunelle]

If everyone was vegan, then there would be a gigantic population explosion that would dwarf what we think of as overpopulated. There would be way too much food, mostly genetically modified corn and soy because that's what most animals get fed. There is a law of nature where if you increase a species' food supply, it increased their population. Agriculture did it to us humans and look where it has us now. We're on the brink of tearing all of nature down for just us. Killing off millions of species for just one. Just imagine how complex the problem would get if there were twice as many humans, or 1.5 times as much. It would be an all-out free-for-all.

Not to mention that there would be a new epidemic, "The B-12 epidemic."

[Brutha]

There is a law of nature where if you increase a species' food supply, it increased their population.

Actually it works the other way around.
As food supply goes up children mortality goes down and parents feel the need to have less children.

Those countries which have the most food like Europe, the US and Japan have the lowest birth rate.

[Herbivore]

Should the human race sacrifice our ability to "conquer" such uninhabitable places because of a philosophy of "veganism"? I think not.

I think so. The tendancy of humans to conquer places they shouldn't be, and wouldn't be without technology, gets them into trouble. Living un-naturally is why humans have dis-ease, and so many other issues.

PS - veganism May be a "philosophy", but plant-based eating was the original humans diet before they found themselves in a environment that was uninhabitable.

[Herbivore]

Not to mention that there would be a new epidemic, "The B-12 epidemic."

Awww, and you we're so close to having a believable post....until this. Most b-12 deficiencies are in meat-eaters. A healthy human makes B-12(as do other animals). Meat industries use this as propaganda, giving us half the truth.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Herbivore

Most b-12 deficiencies are in meat-eaters.

I think everyone ought to pay attention to their B12 status.

A healthy human makes B-12(as do other animals). Meat industries use as propaganda.

Even vegan health advocates stress how important B12 is:

"The only reliable vegan sources of B12 are foods fortified with B12 (including some plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals) and B12 supplements. Vitamin B12, whether in supplements, fortified foods, or animal products, comes from micro-organisms."

[ProjectX]

I think something like 45% of the world population eat meat on a very regular basis like Americans. Probably even less. There are 800 million Hindus in India, mostly vegetarian. A lot of Africans are too poor to eat meat as well as other third world countries.

The issue is not diet, its inequal distribution of food.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

If everyone was vegan, then there would be a gigantic population explosion that would dwarf what we think of as overpopulated. There would be way too much food, mostly genetically modified corn and soy because that's what most animals get fed. There is a law of nature where if you increase a species' food supply, it increased their population. Agriculture did it to us humans and look where it has us now. We're on the brink of tearing all of nature down for just us. Killing off millions of species for just one. Just imagine how complex the problem would get if there were twice as many humans, or 1.5 times as much. It would be an all-out free-for-all.

I'm sorry for asking, but is this said in jest? I can't always spot humor when I am online.

Lack of food isn't what is keeping our population in check. Some of the countries with the highest birth rates also tend to be some of the poorest countries. No access to birth control does that.

How about all the money the world's people waste on gourmet fancy meats instead is used to buy free birth control for everyone on the planet? Two huge environmental problems solved at the same time.