Dont take this the wrong way..?

Question

In a question I anwsered here, About how if humans didnt kill some animals for like there meat but if we didnt there species would die from starvation because they would eat all the plants ect. I got a few thumbs down and i dont get why can someone give there opinion about this.. please dont take this the wrong way.

Answer 1

Well, the logic is fine.

In the UK we have deer, but we have no predators any more that would even look twice at one, save ourselves. In place where the deer population is high they NEED to be culled every year or so, because otherwise there wouldn't be enough food and they'd starve and become unhealthy. Better to have fewer healthy deer than many unhealthy ones.
Similarly with rabbits: we do have predators for them, but the buggers breed so fast there just aren't enough foxes or hawks to keep their numbers down. If an area becomes infested with rabbits it can do untold damage to the environment: they eat all the food (especially bad in farming areas) and undermine riverbanks, etc. So again, they need to be killed.

@ lizettadf

She didn't say all animals, she said some animals. I really think she meant wild ones which are hunted more than anything.

I quote "If no one were allowed to farm animals, farms would grow crops instead. The first thing to go would be all the animals. Once the rural landscape were rid of cattle, sheep, and the like, fields would get larger, for the convenience of the combine harvesters, and hedgerows would go. Wild animals like rabbits would now be a more major pest. No farmer would want animals eating the plants, and so the war on such animals would intensify. Grown in the fields would be domesticate species of food crops, and so the number of plant species would decline."

Domestication is one of the best things that can happen to animals. If the golden eagle tasted any good you can bet your life it wouldn't be nearly extinct.

I quote "In the wild, a sheep would have to look for food, compete for it, jockey for position in the herd, look out for predators, guard its offspring, and it one day would die because of some accident, perhaps a fall, some nasty illness, or it would become weak and have its throat ripped out by the local predators. By striking contrast, the life of a farmed sheep is rather different. A farmed sheep has complete protection from predators; all the food of exactly its favourite kind at its feet all day every day, for which it does not have to compete; no competition for mates; no need to guard offspring; free health care; free haircuts; it is very unlikely to die in childbirth, and unlikely to die a nasty death. True, half a ewe’s offspring are taken away and killed. However, in the wild, a ewe would lose most of its offspring anyway, and in nastier circumstances. By the standards of the natural wild, a sheep’s life is about as cushy as a life could possibly be."

This is true, animals in the wild invariably die violent deaths. the closest an animal will get to dying of old age is being picked by a predator because it it old and therefore an easier to target. Farmed animals almost invariably (maybe not battery farmed chickens) lead happier, healthier, less stressful lives than those in the wild, albeit not quite human standard lives.

- Animals turn plant food into less food, yes, but that food is much more nutrient and energy packed than ANY plant food, and once you consider the range on plants needed to get the nutrients missing from meat in similar amounts, and how far they might need to be transported, meat is more efficient.

@ bja faithandmisery

Deer cannot do that.

Secondly, the vast majority of land used for livestock couldn't be used for plants, due to poor relief, climate or soil. Crops cannot grow on land with too much rain, too little rain, slopes, places too hot/cold or places with a poor soil (ie, the majority of the land on the planet). Grass can, and animals fed on grass are turning land which otherwise would yield no food into food.
Yes, I know nowadays much is done intensively and they're fed crops grown on land, but in the USA that accounts for just 18% of cropland, according to official surveys. So, by getting rid of meat in the USA you'd get 18% more plant food, but lose much more than that in what was once meat. This would mean you'd need to clear more land probably, and as crops are much more intensive than animal farming it would be bad for the environment. A field of cows can support wild animals and flora, a field of crops cannot.
Of course, that lost meat would mean you wouldn't be getting lots of nutrients normally got from meat. These can mostly be got from other plants but these plants can only be grown in certain climates and harvested at certain times, and are often very tropical (unless they're done indoors).You cannot get all the nutrients needed in a diet from plants that can be grown in the US alone. I don't think the countries you currently import these foods from would be able to cope with the increase in demand were the world to go veggie, so while their may be enough food to feed everyone people would still be malnourished due to lack of nutrients.

Answer 2

Because the logic just doesn't work. First off, all the animals you eat are alive because of factory farming. They're not wandering the earth eating ferns until some great hunter overtakes them. The don't reproduce naturally, it is forced, and all according to how much meat is required. So if we ate less meat, the industry would create less cows. Now you can say that since we eat them, these animals get to live, but I think that if you really look at the life of an animal in these conditions, you might agree that it is not a life worth having. If a person treated a single dog the way they treat thousands of cows, they would be in prison. If you eat meat, you need to understand and accept the cruelty you are supporting. . You don't have to let it stop you, but you should at least be honest with yourself about it.

The other part here requires some understanding of biology. Basically, we get energy from the foods we eat. All that energy originally comes from the sun. Plants are able to convert sunlight into energy. Animals eat the plants, then get their energy. But for every step you take away from the original source, you lose a lot of that energy. The amount of plants that it takes for the cow to live to get the steak to you is about 10 times what you would need if you just ate the plants. Plants are far more efficient sources of food. When there were only a few people on this earth, it wasn't a problem, but with the overpopulation, we have to respect the resources and use her wisely.

So basically, you got thumbs down because you're incorrect. There are plenty of plants to support the animal population on this earth. Our consumption of animals is not helping the ecosystem, but hurting it.

Answer 3

If some one asks a question on here they should expect answers that they might NOT particularly agree with. Didn't they ask the question to hear other peoples opinions?

You have EVERY right to your opinion also, so don't let ANYONE make you feel bad for how you feel. But try to stay open minded, just like they should be.

Some people become VERY defensive when their beliefs are challenged. Every one has the right to their own opinion. Hopefully, everyone researches their beliefs so that they can back up their beliefs.

Answer 4

Not really...I mean some animals, like deer, can predict how much food there will be and they mate according to how much food there will be for their offspring. Besides, the animals most people eat are raised--it's artificial. All the land used for that could be covered in plants. You use so much more land to raise livestock than you do to grow crops--80% of the agricultural land in the United States is actually used for livestock or to feed livestock. All the grain that it takes to feed a cow could feed a ton of people...so it would actually SOLVE world hunger, not cause it....

Answer 5

I'm a big meat eater. Nothing wrong with your question at all.

Just ignore those people and keep asking whatever you want.

There are some people on here that just take things way too seriously.

Answer 6

You are right everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Keep on answering questions and don't take the ratings to seriously. Some people just like to be able to "click" on something.

Answer 7

You got a thumbs down because your opinion was wrong. There may be population problems for a couple generations, but nature is perfectly capable of handling things for herself. She does not need our help in any way.

Answer 8

Sorry I didn't realy get your question that much

Answer 9

I am a meat eater, and there is nothing wrong with that.