# Why Are Goat Milk and Meat Not More Popular in the United States?



## DemonDragonJ (Apr 21, 2018)

In the United States, cow’s milk is currently the most popular type of milk for people to drink and beef is a very popular type of meat. However, I have been researching this subject, and I have learned that goat milk and goat meat are actually healthier for humans than are milk and meat from cows. Not only that, goats require far less space for grazing, so raising goats is both less expensive and better for the environment than is raising cows, so I find myself wondering why goats are not more popular than are cows as a source of food.

            Currently, the greatest drawback for goat meat and milk is their price, but that is specifically because they are not as popular as are cows. If goat milk and goat meat became more popular, the market for them would grow, and they would eventually become less expensive.

            What does everyone else say about this? Why are goats less popular than cows, and will that change at any time in the near future?


----------



## Nataly (Apr 21, 2018)

You think people here will drink goat milk
I doubt that


----------



## Xiammes (Apr 21, 2018)

Not counting familiarity, cows are much more useful in farming. They shit, produce milk, become beef, their hides make leather and relatively docile and easy to manage.


----------



## Djomla (Apr 21, 2018)

Because goat milk is disgusting?


----------



## Nataly (Apr 21, 2018)

Moreover, producing cow milk and raising cows for meat are big profitable _monopoly_ businesses, and why would corporations change their ways if they have been successful for so long. People won't accept a product like goat milk in US (even though it's more beneficial than cow milk for humans) , so why bother and put a lot of money into that production


----------



## mcpon14 (Apr 21, 2018)

Probably the cow people will prevent goat milk and meat from gaining traction in the market for those things.


----------



## Fëanáro (Apr 21, 2018)

I don't know, but goat's milk takes a bit of getting used to. Once you adapt, though, it's great. I drink it all the time, it's kinder to my stomach than cow's milk. After this many years drinking it, I'm completely adapted and now it's cow's milk that sometimes tastes odd to me.


----------



## ~M~ (Apr 21, 2018)

It’s about industrialization, whose biproduct is specialization. The United States could eat a lot more turkey, deer, bison, goose, rabbit, lamb, etc. But we can’t manufacture these meats to feed the nation despite them being native. There’s opportunity cost and we already have the structure built to raise cattle in particular since antiquity, not deer. 

I have dozens of deer in my 500 sq meter back yard. That’s a lot more meat than lamb and goat my friend. But I can’t hunt them because I’m in the city so they will basically never be eaten. What I’m saying is that there’s a lot of natural bounty and it does go to waste but it’s because we’ve become so efficient in other production methods. 

But onto goat milk, it is often used for cheese. Nothing wrong with that. I think chèvre is gaining popularity I’ve used it in many restaurants I’ve worked.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Apr 21, 2018)

Xiammes said:


> Not counting familiarity, cows are much more useful in farming. They shit, produce milk, become beef, their hides make leather and relatively docile and easy to manage.



Some goats have wool that can be used for clothing, they also produce milk and meat, and I imagine that their feces is far easier to clean up than is that of cows. Also, as I said, above, they require far less space for grazing; then goats can be raised in the same space as two cows.



Djomla said:


> Because goat milk is disgusting?



That is purely a matter of opinion, and I have had goat milk, and I believe that it is delicious.



Nataly said:


> Moreover, producing cow milk and raising cows for meat are big profitable _monopoly_ businesses, and why would corporations change their ways if they have been successful for so long. People won't accept a product like goat milk in US (even though it's more beneficial than cow milk for humans) , so why bother and put a lot of money into that production



Because the companies could actually save money by choosing goats over cows on account of the fact that goats require less land space and less food than do cows, and they also are not usually large enough to be dangerous to humans.


----------



## mcpon14 (Apr 21, 2018)

If a country where goat milk is a mainstay and many immigrants from there come over, they will set up little cultural hubs and it will expand from there and become popular, just like what some Asians did with soy milk.


----------



## Aphrodite (Apr 21, 2018)

I ate curry goat a few times. Not to much of a fan. I mean it dont taste horrible but you can tell its not beef even though its close to tasting like beef.


----------



## Mider T (Apr 21, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> Currently, the greatest drawback for goat meat and milk is their price





Xiammes said:


> Not counting familiarity, cows are much more useful in farming. They shit, produce milk, become beef, their hides make leather and relatively docile and easy to manage.





Djomla said:


> Because goat milk is disgusting?





mcpon14 said:


> Probably the cow people will prevent goat milk and meat from gaining traction in the market for those things.


These. 


DemonDragonJ said:


> and I imagine that their feces is far easier to clean up than is that of cows.


That's not what he means.  Cows shit...alot.  Alot more than other domestic animals, their manure is nitrogen-rich and is used for farming. 

Goats poop in useless pellets.


DemonDragonJ said:


> I have had got milk


----------



## Xiammes (Apr 21, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> Some goats have wool that can be used for clothing, they also produce milk and meat, and I imagine that their feces is far easier to clean up than is that of cows. Also, as I said, above, they require far less space for grazing; then goats can be raised in the same space as two cows.



Cow manure is great fertilizer, they shit a lot and it is easily moved into the fields. Cows are simple the quintessential farming animal because every aspect of it is useful, even down to its shit. Goats are also well known farming animals, but they produce less milk and less meat so they aren't as good as cows for industrialization, also their shit isn't something that translates into fertilization as well. 

Once farm became industrialized, goats stopped being as relevant and only exist to the people who like its niche.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Apr 21, 2018)

Xiammes said:


> Cow manure is great fertilizer, they shit a lot and it is easily moved into the fields. Cows are simple the quintessential farming animal because every aspect of it is useful, even down to its shit. Goats are also well known farming animals, but they produce less milk and less meat so they aren't as good as cows for industrialization, also their shit isn't something that translates into fertilization as well.
> 
> Once farm became industrialized, goats stopped being as relevant and only exist to the people who like its niche.



You still have not addressed the fact that goats require far less land space for grazing, and thus will save farmers money in the long term, as well as the fact that that is better for the environment, because less forests need to be cleared for that grazing space.

And what about the fact that goat meat and milk are healthier for humans than are those of cows? I would expect that that fact alone would outweigh whatever benefits cows offer.


----------



## Mider T (Apr 21, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> You still have not addressed the fact that goats require far less land space for grazing, and thus will save farmers money in the long term, as well as the fact that that is better for the environment, because less forests need to be cleared for that grazing space.
> 
> And what about the fact that goat meat and milk are healthier for humans than are those of cows? I would expect that that fact alone would outweigh whatever benefits cows offer.


You don't need to farm grass, which is all these animals need.  Also you were just told what benefits goes offer, so I'm not sure why you're still acting like goats are superior.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Apr 21, 2018)

Mider T said:


> You don't need to farm grass, which is all these animals need.  Also you were just told what benefits goes offer, so I'm not sure why you're still acting like goats are superior.



They are, in terms of the nutritional content of their meat and milk, which is what humans consume. Most humans do not consume the leather and feces of cows, so any products from those animals beyond their meat and milk are only secondary to (i.e., less important than) their meat and milk.


----------



## Mider T (Apr 21, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> They are, in terms of the nutritional content of their meat and milk, which is what humans consume. Most humans do not consume the leather and feces of cows, so any products from those animals beyond their meat and milk are only secondary to (i.e., less important than) their meat and milk.


No.  Cows contribute more to nature and ultimately to the raising of other cattle.  They are longer lived, produce more milk and meat, and are generally a more useful animal.  Also goats consume grass quicker while cows graze (4 stomachs take longer to digest) and cows also don't clear a pasture clear like goats do.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Apr 21, 2018)

Mider T said:


> No.  Cows contribute more to nature and ultimately to the raising of other cattle.  They are longer lived, produce more milk and meat, and are generally a more useful animal.  Also goats consume grass quicker while cows graze (4 stomachs take longer to digest) and cows also don't clear a pasture clear like goats do.



The entire reason that humans domesticated cattle in the first place was for their meat and milk, and, since those of goats are better than those of cattle, the entire reason for domesticating cattle is defeated.


----------



## Mider T (Apr 21, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> The entire reason that humans domesticated cattle in the first place was for their meat and milk, and, since those of goats are better than those of cattle, the entire reason for domesticating cattle is defeated.


They aren't though.  And a thing with more (and better) uses than something else, is a better thing.  I mean I just told you cows produce more milk and meat with less resources required.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Apr 21, 2018)

Mider T said:


> They aren't though.  And a thing with more (and better) uses than something else, is a better thing.  I mean I just told you cows produce more milk and meat with less resources required.



Quality is always better than quantity, and I believe that anyone who disagrees with that idea is a fool, and did I not state that goats require far less grazing space than do cattle?

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## Mider T (Apr 21, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> Quality is always better than quantity, and I believe that anyone who disagrees with that idea is a fool, and did I not state that goats require far less grazing space than do cattle?


I already addressed that and why it doesn't matter.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Apr 21, 2018)

Mider T said:


> I already addressed that and why it doesn't matter.



Can you not let me win even one argument? It has been so long since the last time the I actually won an argument with anyone that I do not even recall when that was.

And _how_ does it not matter?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Mider T (Apr 21, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> net


Not*


DemonDragonJ said:


> And _how_ does it not matter?


Scroll up, I've said it twice now.  Come up with better positions and you won't lose.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Apr 21, 2018)

Mider T said:


> Scroll up, I've said it twice now.  Come up with better positions and you won't lose.



I am not changing what I said; goat milk and meat are healthier for humans, and that is all that matters; everything else is secondary.

Reactions: Disagree 2


----------



## Mider T (Apr 21, 2018)

Well...you're wrong lol


----------



## Xiammes (Apr 21, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> You still have not addressed the fact that goats require far less land space for grazing, and thus will save farmers money in the long term, as well as the fact that that is better for the environment, because less forests need to be cleared for that grazing space.
> 
> And what about the fact that goat meat and milk are healthier for humans than are those of cows? I would expect that that fact alone would outweigh whatever benefits cows offer.



Grazing isn't that big of a problem for farmers, they are interested in production, cows produce more meat, more milk and their literal shit keeps the crops growing, they are more docile, easier to harvest. The farm is centered around the cows, thats all there is too it, Goats don't provide the same kind of benefit, so they mostly relegated to a niche.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Apr 21, 2018)

Xiammes said:


> Grazing isn't that big of a problem for farmers, they are interested in production, cows produce more meat, more milk and their literal shit keeps the crops growing, they are more docile, easier to harvest. The farm is centered around the cows, thats all there is too it, Goats don't provide the same kind of benefit, so they mostly relegated to a niche.



I already said that quality always triumphs over quantity, so what do you say about that?


----------



## Xiammes (Apr 21, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> I already said that quality always triumphs over quantity, so what do you say about that?



Quality does not trump quantity in these case. Its much more costly in time/resources to harvest goat milk and they simple produce less. If the world switched over goat milk, milk would be several times higher, as would cheese or any dairy product. Also farms would not be able to run without cows since they would no longer have the ability to fertilize the fields.

As farms grow bigger, they need more fertilizer, thus they get more cows. They harvest milk and fertilizer during the mean time. When the cow dies, they make leather out of its skin and sell the meat as beef. Excess cows are turned into beef/leather after they are born. 

You need to put some thought into what actually goes into production. Your point of goat milk being healthier does not trump the reality of operating a farm at any point in history.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Apr 21, 2018)

Xiammes said:


> Quality does not trump quantity in these case. Its much more costly in time/resources to harvest goat milk and they simple produce less. If the world switched over goat milk, milk would be several times higher, as would cheese or any dairy product. Also farms would not be able to run without cows since they would no longer have the ability to fertilize the fields.



I am no expert in economics, but, if goats became more popular, their products would eventually become less expensive as the market for them grew and the methods for raising them became more efficient.

Also, I have another question: what should people do if they wish for healthier milk and red meat? Somehow, I imagine that attempting to make bison meat (which is also healthier than beef) more mainstream would be a very difficult endeavor.


----------



## Xiammes (Apr 21, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> I am no expert in economics, but, if goats became more popular, their products would eventually become less expensive as the market for them grew and the methods for raising them became more efficient.
> 
> Also, I have another question: what should people do if they wish for healthier milk and red meat? Somehow, I imagine that attempting to make bison meat (which is also healthier than beef) more mainstream would be a very difficult endeavor.



It isn't just about raising them, its the fact that cows are simple more efficient and produce a lot more product to sell. Farms feed the country, so they need to produce a lot of food, cows are simple the best at producing a lot of food and product. Goats have a niche, its why farms do raise them but they can't take control over the supply in the same way cows can.

If people want to eat healthier, they need to spend a lot more money. The simple matter of the fact is that higher quality food requires more specialization and can't be produced at a high level. Its supply and demand, look at venison, there are a ton of deer every where, you can get your permits and go kill one for some pretty tasty dinner, but do you think a couple thousand hunters are able to feed a entire the entire country deer meat? So they only way to eat venison is to either hunt it yourself or pay someone to do it for you, which they can't sell to every person who wants it, so they raise the price and people willing to pay it get to eat it.

There are farms that dedicate themselves to selling high quality meat, happy cows produce higher quality meat, but they are much more time consuming and slow to produce, so the price is really high for them.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Apr 21, 2018)

Xiammes said:


> If people want to eat healthier, they need to spend a lot more money. The simple matter of the fact is that higher quality food requires more specialization and can't be produced at a high level. Its supply and demand, look at venison, there are a ton of deer every where, you can get your permits and go kill one for some pretty tasty dinner, but do you think a couple thousand hunters are able to feed a entire the entire country deer meat? So they only way to eat venison is to either hunt it yourself or pay someone to do it for you, which they can't sell to every person who wants it, so they raise the price and people willing to pay it get to eat it.



Are you saying that there is no way to eat healthy food and save money?


----------



## Xiammes (Apr 21, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> Are you saying that there is no way to eat healthy food and save money?



Depends where you live, but food that is harder to make and produce will always cost more then what can be mass produced. There are some foods that are really good for you and can be mass produced, but the general rule of thumb is that its typically lower quality stuff that is more easily mass produced.

The solution is GMO's, science will be able to produce healthier and more meaty animals, they can make crops more nutritious, they can be modified to be naturally bug restistent so they can produce more of them and less are damaged.


----------



## John Wick (Apr 22, 2018)

americans are stupid and don't realise that you can enjoy meat other than beef.


----------



## Ashi (Apr 22, 2018)

John Wick said:


> americans are stupid and don't realise that you can enjoy meat other than beef.



Like lamb right?


----------



## John Wick (Apr 22, 2018)

Stephanie said:


> I ate curry goat a few times. Not to much of a fan. I mean it dont taste horrible but you can tell its not beef even though its close to tasting like beef.


----------



## Eros (Apr 22, 2018)

I would drink goat milk if it were widely available. I want to try goat meat.


----------



## John Wick (Apr 22, 2018)

Eros said:


> I would drink goat milk if it were widely available. I want to try goat meat.


can be tough if you don't know how to cook.


----------



## Eros (Apr 22, 2018)

John Wick said:


> can be tough if you don't know how to cook.


A gay man who doesn't know how to cook is like a lesbian who doesn't know how to build stuff, useless. I can cook.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Xiammes (Apr 22, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> I make a conscious effort to avoid GMO's at all costs and always purchase organic food whenever I can, I also will never own a self-driving car, and I also intend to never purchase laboratory-grown meat, as that is simply too disturbing, even for me.



Any plant you eat has been genetically modified through thousands of years of breeding. Also it wouldn't be laboratory grown meat, they would be raised as any other cattle or grown as any other crop. Don't let the propaganda get to your head, GMO's are a good thing, anyone telling you otherwise are people who are being feed lies by people afraid of going extinct.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Apr 22, 2018)

Xiammes said:


> Any plant you eat has been genetically modified through thousands of years of breeding. Also it wouldn't be laboratory grown meat, they would be raised as any other cattle or grown as any other crop. Don't let the propaganda get to your head, GMO's are a good thing, anyone telling you otherwise are people who are being feed lies by people afraid of going extinct.



I know fully well that humans have been selectively breeding both plants and animals for generations; that is how wolves were turned into dogs, wild pheasants into chickens, and so forth. I know that wild bananas and wild corn were once smaller and less palatable to humans than are their current domesticated counterparts. However, those organisms are still produced via the normal methods for their species; I was referring to boycotting food that is engineered in a laboratory, because such food could threaten farmers and their business.

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## Xiammes (Apr 22, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> I know fully well that humans have been selectively breeding both plants and animals for generations; that is how wolves were turned into dogs, wild pheasants into chickens, and so forth. I know that wild bananas and wild corn were once smaller and less palatable to humans than are their current domesticated counterparts. However, those organisms are still produced via the normal methods for their species; I was referring to boycotting food that is engineered in a laboratory, because such food could threaten farmers and their business.



Farmers are the ones who use these lab engineered crops, they aren't harming farmers who use them. The labs have no ability to just start up a mega farm.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Apr 22, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> Are you saying that there is no way to eat healthy food and save money?



I'm going ever so slightly off topic, but good healthy food is widely available across most of the first world and I don't think you have to spend much money to eat healthy. Frankly, they're probably the cheaper meal choices. Vegetables, nuts, grains, bananas, eggs, chicken, cheeses, canned tuna and seafood are all widely available and less expensive than ordering a pizza. They're actually cheaper than a lot of fast food. You can get a whole (inorganic) rotisserie chicken at whole foods for like seven bucks, can't you? That's about as much as a fast food order of burger, fries and a coke.

When I was training last year I spent a few weeks watching my diet more carefully, and I think I ended up saving money by eating healthier. Broccoli and carrots in various broths, and chicken meals -- these cost almost nothing and are plenty nutritious and healthy. 

The only snag on my end is that, like xiammes, I don't pay much attention to organic versus nonorganic and don't think it makes much of a nutritional difference. So I don't buy organic.


----------



## Eros (Apr 22, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> That is a very stereotypical thing to say, and also very offensive and presumptuous. I am a heterosexual male, and I not only can cook, I enjoy cooking, as do all the chefs at the restaurant where I work, who are nearly all heterosexual males (except for one, who is a heterosexual female).


You should also know that sometimes VAK and I banter with one another. I am well aware that some lesbians are unable to build stuff and that some gay men cannot cook to save their lives.


----------



## Island (Apr 22, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> I was referring to boycotting food that is engineered in a laboratory, because such food could threaten farmers and their business.


Who cares?

Progress marches on. Two hundred years ago, you'd be arguing that we shouldn't have factories because it'd put all the artisans out of business, but here we are today living way better lives because of industrialization.

Some of the technologies you mentioned have the potential to change the world in ways our ancestors couldn't even dream of. Don't be a Luddite; lab-grown food and self-driving vehicles will be great for humanity.

Also, there is a point where quantity is more important than quality, especially when quantity means feeding people who would otherwise not have access to the food you're growing.


----------



## Pocalypse (Apr 22, 2018)

First breast milk and now goat milk. 

Hyped af to find out what type of milk is next

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Apr 22, 2018)

Island said:


> Progress marches on. Two hundred years ago, you'd be arguing that we shouldn't have factories because it'd put all the artisans out of business, but here we are today living way better lives because of industrialization.
> 
> Some of the technologies you mentioned have the potential to change the world in ways our ancestors couldn't even dream of. Don't be a Luddite; lab-grown food and self-driving vehicles will be great for humanity.
> 
> Also, there is a point where quantity is more important than quality, especially when quantity means feeding people who would otherwise not have access to the food you're growing.



First, I am definitely not a Luddite, as I very much like technology; I build my own computers, I have numerous music-playing devices, and I work in technical support. However, I do not care how safe self-driving cars are, I will never trust the safety of my very existence to an unthinking, unfeeling machine. Also, such vehicles could very likely lead to humans being completely helpless without technology, akin to those seen in _Wall-E.
_
Second, this may seem very harsh, but I believe that this planet is overpopulated, so feeding more people would make that situation worse; over seven billion people live on this planet, which I believe is six billion too many; it is no wonder that everything is so expensive, that countless people are starving, and that jobs are so difficult to find, because too many people are competing for too few resources.

Third, I definitely agree that progress is always occurring, but the type of progress that I wish to see occur is the elimination of fossil fuels in favor of nuclear fusion and solar power, as well as an easy and inexpensive method of purifying water for human consumption. I will never surrender my freedom and autonomy to a machine, because we humans must always be in control.

Fourth, if, by some hellish chance, laboratory-grown meat becomes popular, what shall happen to all the domesticated farm animals that currently exist? Humans will still need to kill them to keep them from breeding out of control, so all their meat will be wasted, and that is a very bad thing.

Also, @Xiammes, I think that genetic engineering could be very beneficial for humanity, but only if it was done on humans, themselves, rather than the food that we eat. For example, genetic engineering could eliminate baldness, hirsutism, obesity, asthma, Down's syndrome, dwarfism, acne, and also prevent humans from attracting the bacteria that cause body odor.


----------



## Island (Apr 22, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> First, I am definitely not a Luddite, as I very much like technology; I build my own computers, I have numerous music-playing devices, and I work in technical support. However, I do not care how safe self-driving cars are, I will never trust the safety of my very existence to an unthinking, unfeeling machine. Also, such vehicles could very likely lead to humans being completely helpless without technology, akin to those seen in _Wall-E._


This makes you a Luddite by definition. Luddites are people who are opposed to _new _technologies, not _current _technologies. You basically went down the list of the most relevant emerging technologies and stated your opposition to them.

Also, who cares if the machine is unfeeling? You don't need feelings to drive a car.



DemonDragonJ said:


> Second, this may seem very harsh, but I believe that this planet is overpopulated, so feeding more people would make that situation worse; over seven billion people live on this planet, which I believe is six billion too many


Okay, let's see your proof that there should only be one billion people in the world.



DemonDragonJ said:


> it is no wonder that everything is so expensive, that countless people are starving, and that jobs are so difficult to find, because too many people are competing for too few resources.


1. The world is not overpopulated. The United States alone produces enough food to feed the entire world.
2. If there were less people, there would be fewer to take specialized roles. This is called division of labor, and as long as specialized roles are necessary, more people = better.
3. There is no shortage of resources; we have more raw materials on this planet than we'll need for a _very _long time.

Literally everything you said here is objectively wrong.



DemonDragonJ said:


> Third, I definitely agree that progress is always occurring, but the type of progress that I wish to see occur is the elimination of fossil fuels in favor of nuclear fusion and solar power, as well as an easy and inexpensive method of purifying water for human consumption.


We can have all of these things _and _GMOs. Technologies aren't mutually exclusive.



DemonDragonJ said:


> I will never surrender my freedom and autonomy to a machine, because we humans must always be in control.


Nobody said you had to.

There are already factories that are almost entirely automated. Your opposition to self-driving cars but not pre-existing automation is arbitrary.



DemonDragonJ said:


> Fourth, if, by some hellish chance, laboratory-grown meat becomes popular, what shall happen to all the domesticated farm animals that currently exist? Humans will still need to kill them to keep them from breeding out of control, so all their meat will be wasted, ans that is a very bad thing.


We already control how often livestock breed, bruh. We'd just gradually phase them out by not letting them reproduce.


----------



## Smoke (Apr 23, 2018)

Because they're nasty.

Also, goats have sideways pupils, which makes them the Devil's pet and we God fearing Americans don't want none of that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Apr 23, 2018)

Island said:


> Okay, let's see your proof that there should only be one billion people in the world.



I chose that number completely at random, so I have no proof.



Island said:


> 1. The world is not overpopulated. The United States alone produces enough food to feed the entire world.
> 2. If there were less people, there would be fewer to take specialized roles. This is called division of labor, and as long as specialized roles are necessary, more people = better.
> 3. There is no shortage of resources; we have more raw materials on this planet than we'll need for a _very _long time.
> 
> Literally everything you said here is objectively wrong.



What evidence do you have to support that?

Also, forget resources for a moment; the world has limited physical space for its people, so, if the world's population increases too much, the world shall be so crowded that people will barely be able to move, at all, akin to sardines in a can.

Also, not everyone contributes to society equally, and the greater our population becomes, the greater the percentage of people there will be who are too lazy to get a job and contribute. I believe that people need to be concerned about doing something to limit the population of this planet so that we can limit the number of lazy slackers who leech off others.



Island said:


> We already control how often livestock breed, bruh. We'd just gradually phase them out by not letting them reproduce.



I cannot speak for everyone, but eating other animals is one way of demonstrating our superiority and dominance over them; if people stop raising animals for food, how else we we show our dominance over them?


----------



## Island (Apr 23, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> What evidence do you have to support that?


Here:



> Hunger is caused by poverty and inequality, not scarcity. For the past two decades, the rate of global food production has increased faster than the rate of global population growth. The world already produces more than 1 ½ times enough food to feed everyone on the planet. That’s enough to feed 10 billion people, the population peak we expect by 2050. But the people making less than $2 a day — most of whom are resource-poor farmers cultivating unviably small plots of land — can’t afford to buy this food.


 is a HuffPo article on the subject. I might have misspoke when I said the US produces enough for the whole world, but there is certainly enough food for the world. The problem is purely political.

As for population growth, you can see the United Nations projections for population  divided by both country and region. If you want to see world population projections, click the drop-down menu and go to World.

As you can see, it's estimated to peak at ~10-11 billion. It's also worth mentioning that . We'll eventually reach a point where the world is developed enough that population will slow to a crawl or even decrease.



DemonDragonJ said:


> Also, forget resources for a moment; the world has limited physical space for its people, so, if the world's population increases too much, the world shall be so crowded that people will barely be able to move, at all, akin to sardines in a can.


This is falsifiable by simple math.

There are 37 billion acres of land on Earth. If the world population hits 10 billion, that's 3.7 acres per person. For perspective, that's _three football fields_ per person.



DemonDragonJ said:


> Also, not everyone contributes to society equally, and the greater our population becomes, the greater the percentage of people there will be who are too lazy to get a job and contribute. I believe that people need to be concerned about doing something to limit the population of this planet so that we can limit the number of lazy slackers who leech off others.


What.



DemonDragonJ said:


> I cannot speak for everyone, but eating other animals is one way of demonstrating our superiority and dominance over them; if people stop raising animals for food, how else we we show our dominance over them?


Bruh.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Mider T (Apr 23, 2018)

DemonDragonJ said:


> I cannot speak for everyone, but eating other animals is one way of demonstrating our superiority and dominance over them; if people stop raising animals for food, how


Zoos?


----------



## Smoke (Apr 24, 2018)

Also for love companions.

Or sex slaves.


----------

