English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

47 answers

we would all starve

2007-08-10 06:04:29 · answer #1 · answered by wildeyedredhead 5 · 3 8

interesting question! I often wonder this... i'm led to believe the following would happen...

Many "live stock" species would become extinct as they are too dependant on human intervention to help them give birth, or in some cases, mate.

less rain forrest and farm land would be reclaimed to grow crops to feed the animals that people eat. More land would be used for food directly consumed by humans, ergo there would be more food for the worlds growing population.

In addition to less rain forrest being cleared, our carbon emisions and effect on global warming would dramaticly fall

If people were not eating animals because they were enlightened and recognised the implications of speciesisim then it would be harder for people to adopt views that were rasist or sexist or xenophobic.

We'd also all live longer and encur less medical costs, and if your british that means your tax money going on better things!

all in all the world would be a much better place

also it would be possible for vegans to both eat out and eat well at the same time... "can i have the veggie supreme with an italian base, but NO cheese anyone?"

2007-08-10 10:06:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

if everyone in the world stopped killing animals, it would be a sign of respect for them. then, with people respecting other's lives more, maybe we would stop killing eachother. Since factory farms wouldn't be producing so much greenhouse gases, the climate problem would go down, the foodchain would be how it was supposed to be, with people eating plants. Whoever says that the animals would overrun us is an idiot. People stop killing animals is not the same as no animals dying. Animal who were actually supposed to eat meat would eat meat, and animals who were supposed to eat plants would eat plants. If anything, the world would be more in balance.

2007-08-10 09:24:48 · answer #3 · answered by satchelcat 2 · 0 0

Well, considering that we artificially inseminate all livestock now, I'd say we'd have less (domesticated) animals; there is no way they'd take over the world. Many animals raised for meat production can't mate because they're just too large.
Besides, what are you imagining? That we would just abandon the animals in the farms? I'm sure we'd do something to take care of all the animals, including sterilizing most of the population of livestock.
In any case, there is absolutely no way that we would suddenly stop killing animals. People are addicted to meat and dairy and eggs. It would take a long time of gradually decreasing demand until we stopped killing animals, and naturally, meat producers would stop breeding as many animals to meet the demand.
Most people don't care what happens to the animals from which their meat/dairy/eggs/leather came. It's going to take a long time to help people understand that we don't need to enslave animals for our happiness and health.

2007-08-10 06:18:56 · answer #4 · answered by vegetable 3 · 5 0

Some anti-vegetarians like to bring up the fact that cows produce 1/4 of the damage caused to the ozone layer so they are "doing the world a favour by eating meat". In fact, aminals are forced to keep reproducing so there wil be enough meat for everybody. So if the world stopped eating meat, there would be no demand. There would be a lot less animals in the world. Only what farmers wanted to raise for their own pleasure, wild animals and domestic pets. There would also be a lot less cruelty and a lot of angry meat eaters!

2007-08-10 06:22:55 · answer #5 · answered by amandasjg 3 · 6 0

World Peace.

2007-08-13 11:44:40 · answer #6 · answered by majnun99 7 · 0 0

Global warming would be reduced. They manufacture cows through means of artificial insemination. That's why there is an inordinate amount of livestock overconsuming grass, and depleting the available amount of land. If people stop breeding animals to kill there will be no animals to kill and it will improve the environment . The methane gas passed by the overpopulation of cows is yet another carbon released. Phase out factory farming and you will have less of a carbon footprint. There would also be more available water. It takes entirely too much non-renewable water to get 1 lb of beef.

2007-08-10 06:24:18 · answer #7 · answered by Standing Stone 6 · 2 1

It depends on what we do with the animals we currently have. If they are just let loose, you’d see a lot of death and destruction, both human and animals. There might be a population explosion, until the number of other predators catches up.

If we paid to keep and not breed them, in a few years they would die off.

What it would mean for you and me. As it stands right now, here is a SHORT list of things we would have to do without or modify greatly:

there would be no new housing as we know them, no concrete, no asphalt road, most food currently on the market would disappear, you couldn’t buy a new car or get replacement parts, most paint, wallpaper, carpet, no plywood, or drywall, some ceramic tiles and no foam rubber, steel, airplanes, sunscreens, deodorants, soaps, shampoo, wool, felt , down, leather, vitamins and mineral supplements, x-ray film, latex surgical gloves, thermometers, tires, insulin, computer, photocopiers. Say goodbye to treatments for anemia, emphysema, malaria, stroke, heart attacks in all we’d lose about 350 pharmaceuticals no circuit board, don’t for get brushes art supplies, drums, piano, etc.

With just that short list, it would also mean no computer networks, no cell phones. Your house would look a lot different and wouldn’t be as energy efficient. Most of the music you listen too would disappear, and you wouldn’t have cd’s or radios to listen too.

Basically life as we know it would end.

2007-08-10 07:40:22 · answer #8 · answered by Richard 7 · 0 2

All the other anwers were wrong, We could still eat things like soy, and the animal population would not explode. If there wasnt an animal explosion before humans why would there be one during our rain? They would move slowely back into towns and we wouldnt stop them and slowely things would get back to the time before civilization. Think of humans as the asteriod that will kill all mondern day animals (including ourselves) if we stopped killing it would be slow but we would start seeing new species develop and we would become part of the food chain.

2007-08-10 06:09:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7 1

Actually, the animals would probably keep their own population in control. That's natural selection. It's only human's effect on animals that is causing them to become overpopulated. We overbreed them for factory farming, pump them full of antibiotics and growth hormones so they are "healthy"... but that's a whole different ballgame.

2007-08-10 06:24:11 · answer #10 · answered by bchlis 2 · 5 0

There just wouldn't be a meat industry anymore. How would the animal population grow? It's not like the meat industry gets animals from the wild. They're all born and raised in factory farms and die in the slaughter houses. None of them are ever free so it's not like the outside animal population is really affected by people eating meat.

2007-08-10 06:11:39 · answer #11 · answered by Bats 5 · 4 2

fedest.com, questions and answers