Natural Order

Reply

+230

#5 - cptcanada (04/01/2015) [+] (1 reply)

stickied by odstnsg

mfw im a lion in ten years

Reply

+4

#83 to #5 - electronicbacon ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

988 years*

Reply

+99

#18 - egosumproxi ONLINE (04/01/2015) [+] (21 replies)

stickied by odstnsg

The immediate effect would be more animals eating grass or plants or whatever. After a while it would ultimately result in the former prey animals' populations, with no predators to keep their' numbers in check, would probably reach plague proportions and destroy the ecosystem entirely...

It's like what I think when I hear a vegan say all people should stop eating meat. If humans stopped eating meat, what would we do with the billions of sheep and cows and other forms of livestock that we've bred up to meet our dietary needs? Killing them for no reason would be worse that eating them I'd think, but if we left them alive they's just keep breeding and create a bigger strain on food supplies.

Reply

-1

#37 to #18 - xxxos (04/01/2015) [-]

Most livestock is artificially inseminated, they would simply be killed for food like now or die of old age. That's the end. You don't see horses around, but no one killed them, they just went away naturally.

Reply

+1

#107 to #37 - egosumproxi ONLINE (04/02/2015) [-]

Search the term "brumby"...

Reply

+1

#66 to #37 - charagrin (04/01/2015) [-]

Uuhhh..theres still wild horses around mate. Not many due to culling, predation, lack of habitat, and whatnot, but thats on us. wildhorsepreservation.org/

Reply

+1

#108 to #66 - egosumproxi ONLINE (04/02/2015) [-]

We have feral horses in Australia too, we call them "brumbies".

Reply

-3

#38 to #18 - fishandkids ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

When someone says we should not eat meat, I always think of all the natural habitats we have to destroy to be able to fead every single human on the planet.

Reply

+2

#71 to #38 - nefarian (04/01/2015) [-]

We actually use a lot of our agricultural gains on feeding livestock, so as odstnsg get a new name said, it isn't really the case. egosumproxi's point is something to consider, however.

Reply

-2

#73 to #71 - fishandkids ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

So how do you think we're going to feed all those cows and other livestock? Either we kill them all (making the entire reason for everyone to stop eating meat pointless) or we keep letting them eat the amount they are doing now, if not more.

Reply

+2

#76 to #73 - nefarian (04/01/2015) [-]

I think they just eat up the grass they find everywhere. Then again, which consequences would that cause if we let out millions of livestock.

Reply

-2

#77 to #76 - fishandkids ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

which is my point. The only way we can make sure everyone can eat as much as they want while cutting out meat is to kill a lot of animals and/or their habitats so that we can grow the food we all would need. Then we also have places like in Iceland where large scale agriculture is impossible and they have lifestock in form of tumblrettes and fishing.

Reply

0

#51 to #38 - odstnsg [OP]ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

you are aware that thats not really the case?

Reply

-3

#52 to #51 - fishandkids ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

How do you asume we would get enough food to atleast feed the ones who are eating like they are today without destroying habitats so that we could farm everything we would need.

Reply

+1

#53 to #52 - odstnsg [OP]ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

by not wasting so many tons of food as we currently are doing

Reply

-2

#55 to #53 - fishandkids ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

Except that is never going to happen, especially if we're just going to stop eating meat. We also are going to need a **** ton more vegtables and fruits than are currently being produced if we're going to stop eating meat even if we didn't throw as much away as we are doing now. If you're going to assume everything is going to have the best case scenario possible at all times, you're going to be dissapointed.

Reply

0

#56 to #55 - odstnsg [OP]ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

that **** ton of more veggies and fruits will only end with more food wasted
and not wasting food doenst have to mean stop eating meat

Reply

-3

#58 to #56 - fishandkids ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

Considering the argument was that people should all stop eating meat, we kind of have to stop eating meat to stop eating meat. Also we would have to produce a **** ton more vegtables and fruits because everyone would be eating only that and you can't harvest them during winter so you need to stock up on it when you can. This would lead to a lot more food wasted because people are not going to guess exactly how much they are going to eat over a long period of time. Stop assuming we live in a perfect world where everything works out just right.

Reply

0

#64 to #58 - odstnsg [OP]ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

so while allready producing way more than needed and having enough to as well produce way more meat than needed would end in the need to produce even way more veggies and fruits when there are no more animals bred for food.
and about that winter part, that doesnt make much sense.
i never assumed such thing as a perfect world

Reply

-1

#101 to #18 - ChewyConor (04/02/2015) [-]

You're right about the habitats being destroyed. It's why they did the whole the reintroduction of wolves into areas of North America.
With regards to people not eating meat, just to be devil's advocate I expect they would want people to stop breeding animals for consumption, rather than just stop eating them and set all the animals free. Within a decade or so there would be no more meat.
It is feasible to feed about 10-12bn humans off the farmland we use currently use; lots of it for raising animals.

Reply

0

#100 to #18 - dongers (04/02/2015) [-]

Meat is murder, mandatory veganism is genocide

Reply

+3

#62 to #18 - junkbumpkin (04/01/2015) [-]

Luckily some domesticated animals can't breed on their own anymore, so they'd all just die out and leave a million carcasses rotting everywhere of which we couldn't eat cause vegans

Reply

+6

#97 to #18 - totallybraindeadz (04/01/2015) [-]

If humans stopped eating meat, we would still farm and kill these animals. Vegans generally don't do their research, in this world where efficiency is so important they make the childish assumption that they are just for food. We use huge amounts of animal parts in the production of practically everything.

There was a study, entitled Pig 05049 ( www.christienmeindertsma.com/index.php?/books/pig-05049/ ), where they tracked a SINGLE pig from the slaughterhouse to it's final destinations and noted down what it was used for. This one pig ended up in ammunition, medicine, photo paper, heart valves, brakes, chewing gum, porcelain, cosmetics, cigarettes, conditioner and bio diesel amongst other things.

Plus there was this post about cows www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/2224061/Cows

TLR Even if we all immediately stopped eating meat, the number of animals being farmed and killed would hardly change at all. Vegans need to grow up and tackle issues that are achievable like making sure the animals are well treated and slaughtered humanely, take a more pragmatic view.

Rant over, feel free to go about your business.

Reply

+1

#106 to #97 - nefarian (04/02/2015) [-]

That cow picture might prove mighty useful. Thank you.

Reply

+110

#4 - coronus (04/01/2015) [-]

Yeah, sure. destabilize all the food chains, kill all the predators with indigestible food, and leave the stupid, skittish prey species to overpopulate themselves to death.

Reply

+1

#6 to #4 - odstnsg [OP]ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

maybe they will start eating themselfs so that they need to be gone too and thats the plan?

Reply

+4

#7 to #6 - coronus (04/01/2015) [-]

I say we just feed them to the predators. Or maybe they scotch says that.

good idea, scothch. killll them aaallll

Reply

+2

#8 to #7 - odstnsg [OP]ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

so technically burn down everything
may that be right`?

Reply

+2

#10 to #8 - coronus (04/01/2015) [-]

Alcohol says: burn it all.

Reply

+2

#9 to #8 - coronus (04/01/2015) [-]

Hold on, I have to consult the scotch.

Reply

+2

#94 to #4 - madvulcan (04/01/2015) [-]

That's a bit like what's happening to Western society. Take away the claws of critics by calling their opinions abuse and hate speech, and you now have a new flock of useless people who have never been exposed to any ideologies but their own, seem to only exist to take up resources, and who apparently are so weak and timid that clapping makes them have a nervous breakdown.

Reply

+38

#13 - anointedbyfire (04/01/2015) [-]

Reply

+27

#17 - darksideofthebeast (04/01/2015) [-]

Being a vegan? Cool. Making your dog a vegan? not cool at all.
Making a wild animal vegan? You shoulda stopped about half way through the dog part.

Reply

+4

#22 to #17 - syntheticdoll (04/01/2015) [-]

Their mother should have stopped at the birthing part.

Reply

+2

#27 to #22 - odstnsg [OP]ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

or start with the aborting part at some point

Reply

+3

#28 to #27 - syntheticdoll (04/01/2015) [-]

Or just swallow them.

Reply

+2

#30 to #28 - odstnsg [OP]ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

thats also a possibility

Reply

+19

#50 - Jabberwocky (04/01/2015) [-]

Some animals are obligate carnivores and will actually die if they don't eat meat. But I suppose that's a sacrifice these lunatics are willing to make because "muh humane treatment".

I'm pretty darn liberal, but it's people like this that make saying so unfathomably frustrating.

Reply

0

#102 to #50 - ChewyConor (04/02/2015) [-]

They said they want to genetically modify them to be able to eat other things.

Reply

+1

#69 to #50 - nefarian (04/01/2015) [-]

Some? Almost every single carnivore dies without meat nutrition. Humans can only do it because we're omnivores, and even then you have to pay a lot of attention to what you eat.

Reply

+1

#105 to #50 - anon (04/02/2015) [-]

It goes even crazier than that if you actually read it.
They want to change the carnivores genetic code to made them vegetarian, then they want to control the reproduction of animals so they dont reproduce out of control. Because reproduction control is more humane than being eaten alive. Its a circle jerk of retardation.

Reply

+10

#2 - omegez (04/01/2015) [-]

results

Reply

+9

#60 - nudybooty (04/01/2015) [-]

The site had a pole titled "Should humans phase out predators?". I know most said no, but the amount of people who actually said yes concerns me.

Reply

+7

#35 - Garude ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

I vote we throw all the people who think this is a good idea into a hungry lion pit.

Reply

+7

#16 - crazycommando (04/01/2015) [-]

<Mfw trying to turn wild animals into vegans...

go one go give him some grass.....become his next meal, more oxygen for the rest of us you bumbling fools

Reply

+3

#23 to #16 - syntheticdoll (04/01/2015) [-]

We should support feeding the predators by hand otherwise it's "discrimination" ->problem solved.

Reply

+2

#31 to #23 - odstnsg [OP]ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

but only by vegans

Reply

+3

#32 to #31 - syntheticdoll (04/01/2015) [-]

Also SJWs

Reply

+7

#1 - logickid (04/01/2015) [-]

ANIMALS EAT ANIMALS

Reply

+2

#11 to #1 - skyrimdovah (04/01/2015) [-]

You used my thing, hooray for minor achievements.

Reply

+5

#3 to #1 - odstnsg [OP]ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

and for some reason it is a problem for some people
and i dont get why those tree huggers want to **** the natural balance so much

Reply

+6

#54 - superanonymouspers ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

this is satire right? Like the onion?

C'mon, someone prove to me that this is fake.

Reply

+6

#19 - iforgetwhattosay (04/01/2015) [-]

have they never heard the concept of "don't play god"?

Reply

+5

#42 - komandantmirkoo (04/01/2015) [-]

i suggest they each go up to a predatory animal. preferably one that can kill and eat something the size of a human, and talk to it.

but seriously. we need carnivores to control the herbivore population.

here's one of the reasons why.

Reply

+5

#34 - soyfriedbryce (04/01/2015) [-]

******* christ, its like these people didn't take middle school biology. Ever heard of a keystone species you ******** ? Grey wolves for example, are a keystone species in the americas. That means that without them, the ecosystem would fall apart. Now I realize this isn't 100% eliminating them, however, the part of them that makes them important IS the predation. If they stop eating meat, then the smaller animals will grow with numbers unchecked. Eventually the grass, berries, and seeds would no longer be able to keep up with the population, and only two things will happen. We'll have to do a little squirrel genocide, or they'll start trying to eat other foods, like MEAT. Jesus...

Reply

+5

#14 - lapsushominum ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

To go beyond the intuitive reasons alone as to why this is a horrible idea and put it in terms of refuting their original goal: if their goal is to reduce suffering this will not achieve that goal in the long run. They would spend resources getting the predators to stop, the prey species would overpopulate. Best case scenario the prey species starts to decline before their food is eradicated, but then they suffer as they starve to death. Worst case scenario they cause horrible damage to their ecosystem and then starve to death too. If the prey species goes extinct and support is withdrawn from this program as a result, the predators then also suffer as they starve to death.

Not that I think this would ever seriously be considered, but it truly is a terrible idea.

Reply

+1

#20 to #14 - odstnsg [OP]ONLINE (04/01/2015) [-]

but since its an idea there are people who want others to consider it and thats pretty damn awful

Reply

+4

#47 - anon (04/01/2015) [-]

Yeah, you go ahead and "fix" whats been working for centuries before humans even existed you stupid, stupid egocentrics. There's a reason for the way things are, it keeps populations balanced. Why don't you feed the starving children in Africa before you **** with animals?

Reply

+4