Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

darklucius    

darklucius Avatar Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to darklucius Block darklucius Invite darklucius to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 23
Consoles Owned: PC, PS2, Genesis
Video Games Played: TOO MANY
Date Signed Up:2/19/2012
Last Login:7/26/2012
Location:spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaccccceeee
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 292 total,  305 ,  13
Comment Thumbs: 1485 total,  2108 ,  623
Content Level Progress: 20% (2/10)
Level 29 Content: Peasant → Level 30 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 84% (84/100)
Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 215 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Content Views:11268
Total Comments Made:980
FJ Points:1925
No.

latest user's comments

#277 - Well, once battery technology gets better electric cars would …  [+] (2 new replies) 05/23/2012 on Eurofags win 0
User avatar #556 - jonnyp (05/23/2012) [-]
ill keep my TD5 defender thankyouverymuch.
User avatar #639 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
lol k
#259 - Pic still related... Electric cars are a bad idea any…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/23/2012 on Eurofags win 0
User avatar #263 - jonnyp (05/23/2012) [-]
i agree with you 100% with 100% of that, also all that nickle mining will be more environmentally damaging, than it is when i drive my land rover.
User avatar #277 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
Well, once battery technology gets better electric cars would be a good idea. But for now, electric cars should be reserved to prototype or concept vehicles and not consumer production...
User avatar #556 - jonnyp (05/23/2012) [-]
ill keep my TD5 defender thankyouverymuch.
User avatar #639 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
lol k
#250 - Oh. I'm used to the parking brake being a handle between the s…  [+] (6 new replies) 05/23/2012 on Eurofags win 0
User avatar #253 - jonnyp (05/23/2012) [-]
well now the germans are obsessed with making them electronic and lock the e-brake with a button.
#259 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
Pic still related...

Electric cars are a bad idea anyways. It's a good idea in theory, but in practice the technology we have for batteries just makes them impractical. They are too heavy, take too long to charge, run out too fast and still require methods that create a lot of pollution to mine, refine and assemble the materials for the battery... We need better battery technology before we go dumping money into putting millions of those things out on the road...
User avatar #263 - jonnyp (05/23/2012) [-]
i agree with you 100% with 100% of that, also all that nickle mining will be more environmentally damaging, than it is when i drive my land rover.
User avatar #277 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
Well, once battery technology gets better electric cars would be a good idea. But for now, electric cars should be reserved to prototype or concept vehicles and not consumer production...
User avatar #556 - jonnyp (05/23/2012) [-]
ill keep my TD5 defender thankyouverymuch.
User avatar #639 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
lol k
#247 - Picture  [+] (8 new replies) 05/23/2012 on Eurofags win 0
User avatar #248 - jonnyp (05/23/2012) [-]
Far left, parking brake, then clutch, brake, gas.
User avatar #250 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
Oh. I'm used to the parking brake being a handle between the seats... XD
User avatar #253 - jonnyp (05/23/2012) [-]
well now the germans are obsessed with making them electronic and lock the e-brake with a button.
#259 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
Pic still related...

Electric cars are a bad idea anyways. It's a good idea in theory, but in practice the technology we have for batteries just makes them impractical. They are too heavy, take too long to charge, run out too fast and still require methods that create a lot of pollution to mine, refine and assemble the materials for the battery... We need better battery technology before we go dumping money into putting millions of those things out on the road...
User avatar #263 - jonnyp (05/23/2012) [-]
i agree with you 100% with 100% of that, also all that nickle mining will be more environmentally damaging, than it is when i drive my land rover.
User avatar #277 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
Well, once battery technology gets better electric cars would be a good idea. But for now, electric cars should be reserved to prototype or concept vehicles and not consumer production...
User avatar #556 - jonnyp (05/23/2012) [-]
ill keep my TD5 defender thankyouverymuch.
User avatar #639 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
lol k
#1255 - You sure? I can't find any comments (other than yours) in this…  [+] (6 new replies) 05/23/2012 on For a Good Cause +1
User avatar #1257 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
You might have posts by anonymous users turned off. I'll post what he said:

1 "Actually, it takes a lot more resources to produce meat it does to produce an equivalent amount of plant food. For example, it takes about ten calorie's worth of corn and grains to produce one calorie of beef. There would be more food to go around if people stopped producing meat."

2 "Less CO2 might not be a good thing? For a guy using Darwin's image as your profile pic, you sound an awful lot like a right-wing creationist global warming denier."
User avatar #1258 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
I can see the comment you marked as #2, but not the one you marked as #1...

wtf funnyjunk.
User avatar #1260 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
That's weird, no idea man. Sorry.
User avatar #1261 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
Hmm... Well sorry for the harsh comment before. Just can't see who you're replying to I guess... xD
User avatar #1268 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
All good man, I enjoyed the debate.
User avatar #1273 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
:3
#838 - Who the **** said anything about animals eating corn?  [+] (8 new replies) 05/23/2012 on For a Good Cause +1
User avatar #1251 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
an anonymous
User avatar #1255 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
You sure? I can't find any comments (other than yours) in this thread that mention corn at all...
User avatar #1257 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
You might have posts by anonymous users turned off. I'll post what he said:

1 "Actually, it takes a lot more resources to produce meat it does to produce an equivalent amount of plant food. For example, it takes about ten calorie's worth of corn and grains to produce one calorie of beef. There would be more food to go around if people stopped producing meat."

2 "Less CO2 might not be a good thing? For a guy using Darwin's image as your profile pic, you sound an awful lot like a right-wing creationist global warming denier."
User avatar #1258 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
I can see the comment you marked as #2, but not the one you marked as #1...

wtf funnyjunk.
User avatar #1260 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
That's weird, no idea man. Sorry.
User avatar #1261 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
Hmm... Well sorry for the harsh comment before. Just can't see who you're replying to I guess... xD
User avatar #1268 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
All good man, I enjoyed the debate.
User avatar #1273 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
:3
#837 - You have a good point, however most livestock farms are locate… 05/23/2012 on For a Good Cause +1
#807 - Umm... wouldn't more plants and less animals result in far les…  [+] (30 new replies) 05/23/2012 on For a Good Cause +2
User avatar #817 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
less C02 in the atmosphere isn't necessarily a good thing. Remember that all plants breath C02, and that it's just as limited as O2. Just because the political trend right now is to say that C02 causes all of our problems doesn't mean that we should jump in and significantly change the makeup of our atmosphere.

And it isn't a matter of how much land it takes to produce animals vs how much land it takes to produce crops, its a matter of how much land total is being utilized. People farm livestock in different areas than they farm soy beans, corn, etc. For example, dairy is huge in colder midwestern states like Wisconsin, while corn is more southern or east coast. Getting rid the demand for livestock won't automatically raise the supply of vegetables and other plant product.

Very few plants contain certain essential nutrients for life, such as protein. We don't have enough protein in plant form to feed the world. Not even close. And it would take years and years to convert any large quantities of land into soy farms in order to make that possible. Plus, a lot of the land that isn't currently being used for vegetable farming CANT be used for vegetable farming, either due to deficient soil or climatology.
User avatar #837 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
You have a good point, however most livestock farms are located on land that would be just fine for crops as well. Sure, it would take a while to transition, but if you got rid of livestock farms and used the freed up space for crops, you would produce a lot more food overall. Think about it like this: Let's say it takes, oh, ten acres of land to produce enough food to feed one cow continuously (taking into account the time it takes for a crop to grow, so you would need to harvest it all and store it so you could feed the cow while the crop was regrowing). Plus, it takes a few years for a cow to mature. If you used that ten acres for a crop destined for human consumption, you end up with WAY more food than you do with the cow (again, taking into account the time it takes for a crop to mature versus the time it takes for the cow).

And you can in fact get all the nutrients you need from a purely animal-free diet.

Besides, what with cars and the fact that most of the planet is covered in plants anyways, the co2 shift created by using livestock space for crop space wouldn't really be all that significant.

Just stating the facts. I wouldn't recommend actually doing this, because meat is fucking delicious.
#823 - Womens Study Major (05/23/2012) [-]
Less CO2 might not be a good thing? For a guy using Darwin's image as your profile pic, you sound an awful lot like a right-wing creationist global warming denier.
#908 - ARRRGGGG (05/23/2012) [-]
You don't know what you're talking about. CO2 is a major greenhouse gas but not THE ONLY greenhouse gas. People act like CO2 is some kind of treacherous poison destroying out atmosphere when it has been pumped out by plants since before the dinosaurs.

Also, to address the above posts, switching purely to a plant diet could be horrendous. Plants are not huge sources of protein like meat is. It would take a much more varied diet and more effort to get the same nutrients. Also, variety is good. If we eliminated meat, we would do what we're doing now except on a grander scale: focus on a few specific "cash crops" and particular staple crops and deny varied food choices necessary for a balanced diet. This would be further exacerbated by the general lack of protein in plants. Then, when some famine hits, the region would suffer from widespread hunger.

More farming would mean more sapping of the soil's nutrients and a possibility of reaching a point where soil becomes unsuitable to growing crops for a few years and food shortages occur.
User avatar #1272 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
if we globally switched to a vegetarian diet, it would necessitate varied crops. Besides, as I said before, if we eliminated animal farms that would free up a lot of space for more crops. Corn might be a cash crop, but the world only needs so much corn. At some point, it wouldn't be profitable to produce corn because the market would be so saturated that the cost to produce it would be less than what someone is willing to pay for it, which would also help force the production of varied crops.

Again though, wouldn't want to actually do that. Just discussing theoretically if it was possible, and what its effects would be.
#1275 - ARRRGGGG (05/24/2012) [-]
Oh god I just realized what your avatar was.

If the world population continues exploding like it is now, then we'll need to start growing more vegetables to feed the world. If not, then there's really no reason or desire to do so. A lot of land used for livestock is unsuitable for growing crops and animals produce much more than just meat. Just a cow can produce dozens of products other than meat like lard, leather, fertilizer (necessary for the breakneck production rates of crops we have) and much more. Also, overproduction of crops is a bad thing. That in itself can lead to an artificial famine because when the price of crops fall to unbearable levels, farmers tend to produce more to make up the shortfall until it's not even profitable to ship the food out (Great Depression).

What also happens is a specialization of crop. In South America, countries have dedicated their entire agricultures to the production of coffee beans (among other crops) because of its high export value. The result is other items are heavily imported, driving their prices up above what the average person can (or wants to) afford. They then must resort to the limited variety that is domestically grown. In the end, you have the typical person living off of beans and maybe another type of vegetable that is cheap at the moment.

Of course, this is all predicated on the assumption that free trade will remain far into the future. Lots of things will work one way in theory and another way in practice. Our views are not as well developed as someone specializing in international crop markets and very likely to be wrong. It's an amusing mental exercise nonetheless.
User avatar #1276 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
I'm noticing a pattern here among the naysayers. All the problems you list with my idea are problems that already exist. Sure, some people have terrible diets already, and some crops only grow in certain areas, but those problems already exist and will not worsen with the implementation of a global vegetarian diet.

Also, farmers just need to be smarter about how they grow crops. Just like any well run company, when prices start to fall because of market surplus, you restrict your production. Farmers are apparently fucking retarded if their response to a market surplus issue is to produce more...

And pretty much everything else that you need animals to get we can do without. For clarification, I only mean to stop producing animals for slaughter. Keeping cows for milk or chickens for eggs would be fine, as they actually produce quite a bit compared to what they eat, and could be easily confined to areas not suitable for crops.
#1277 - ARRRGGGG (05/24/2012) [-]
Yes, I picked problems already existing because we know that these kinds of problems have happened and are likely to occur in the future. Theoretical events are much harder to predict and much less likely to occur. I can say with a lot more certainty that x event will happen based on history and current events than y event will happen based on my theoretical projection of the future.

Also, I've come to the conclusion that neither side really has any argument for either significantly reducing meat production or for maintaining current meat production levels. They're more of "that would be nice, but not necessary" arguments.

I think you've already noted the pros for crop expansion and cons for meat. Switching to a purely vegetable, or heavily reducing the meat in, diet would require a dramatic shifting of the economies of the world and require several businesses to close down. Meat interests would definitely fight that with the result that there would not be a unified response to a closure of meat production in the world's governments.

Most significantly, why do we need more food? There's enough grain in the world to feed everyone a 3000 something calorie diet. Not to mention the numerous amounts of other food we have. A balanced diet is important. Meat is part of that balanced diet. It's what enabled us to evolve such unusually large brains.
User avatar #1278 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
Well, we will need more food at some point. The worlds population is exploding because medicine allows us to live longer and people refuse to stop having insane amounts of kids. We need to do what China is doing globally. That is, restrict the number of people being born. Maybe have some sort of licensing program too so that only people capable of handing a child can have one...

Either that, or we need to seriously ramp up our food production in preparation, because our population isn't just increasing, but it's increasing more rapidly than it ever has before. We need to get a head start on increasing our food production because at current reproduction rates what we are currently able to supply now probably won't be enough in 100 years or less...
#1279 - ARRRGGGG (05/24/2012) [-]
Population growth rates are actually decreasing. But good point. We might as well tinker with the technology needed in case we do hit a critical point.
User avatar #1281 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
didn't create a link for some reason, gonna have to copy/paste it to see it...
#1283 - ARRRGGGG (05/24/2012) [-]
Addendum: Take a look at this link for further proof.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQfU1HCK3t8&feature=related
#1282 - ARRRGGGG (05/24/2012) [-]
World population is increasing but the growth rate is slowing down. Wikipedia is the quickest source I found that was on an international scale but if you put in some time you'll find other credible sites corroborating this trend.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

If you'll examine the below link, you'll see that population growth is most prevalent in poor countries while modernized nations are either at a standstill or even are declining in population. As the third world countries begin modernization and catching up, population growth is expected to decline as parents will neither have the time or motivation for so many kids. If they do not modernize, then half of those kids are going to die of starvation, disease, and war.

www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_pro_pop_gro-people-projected-population-growth
User avatar #1284 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
Interesting. However, I still doubt your sources, which show population declining. Even if the growth rate falls, I find it extremely hard to believe that it would fall into the negative, causing total population to fall as well. Medical research will only continue prolonging our life spans, and as long as there is at least one birth for each death the world population will continue to rise.

TL;DR: I agree that the growth rate of the world's population may be falling, but your sources show the world's population decreasing, which I find hard to believe as that would require less than one birth for every death.
#1285 - ARRRGGGG (05/24/2012) [-]
It's certainly believable. I doubt population will stop growing overall before 2050, but birth rates in third world countries (they multiply like rabbits) should substantially reduce as the conditions that cause people to reproduce so much go away. People in Africa have so many children because they think of it as an investment. When you're 50 and can't work but need to go to the doctor, 2 children won't be able to pay for you. 10 on the other hand... So even though it makes absolutely no sense at first glance, the troll logic that is international affairs will probably reduce population as conditions improve globally.
User avatar #1286 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
Yes, i get all that, but I find it very unlikely that population will fall. People will stop having kids as fast as they do, but will there really be so few births that the birth rate falls below the death rate?
#1287 - ARRRGGGG (05/24/2012) [-]
I won't give you a definite answer for that because that is so far into the future in such a chaotic and unpredictable system that nobody can say what will happen with a significant degree of certainty. I can just say that eventually population growth will decrease significantly from its current levels if it continues to follow current trends.
User avatar #1288 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
Interesting. Anyways, I need to sleep nao. thank you for the discussion. :3
#1289 - ARRRGGGG (05/24/2012) [-]
yw
User avatar #1280 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
http://www.dreamdirt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Buy-Iowa-farmland.jpg
User avatar #828 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
You can believe in global warming and still not think that drastically reducing the CO2 in our atmosphere is a good thing. In fact, by global warming standards, that would be saying that it would drastically DECREASE the temperature of our earth. That sounds desirable to you?

And to your other point, we don't feed animals corn lol. Whoever gave you that idea is an idiot. We feed animals silage, which is made from the stems and leaves of shit we don't eat, stored in a silo with water for years, and fermented down to a paste. Again, if you want to eat that, be my guest. I'll stick with beef, thanks.
User avatar #838 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
Who the fuck said anything about animals eating corn?
User avatar #1251 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
an anonymous
User avatar #1255 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
You sure? I can't find any comments (other than yours) in this thread that mention corn at all...
User avatar #1257 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
You might have posts by anonymous users turned off. I'll post what he said:

1 "Actually, it takes a lot more resources to produce meat it does to produce an equivalent amount of plant food. For example, it takes about ten calorie's worth of corn and grains to produce one calorie of beef. There would be more food to go around if people stopped producing meat."

2 "Less CO2 might not be a good thing? For a guy using Darwin's image as your profile pic, you sound an awful lot like a right-wing creationist global warming denier."
User avatar #1258 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
I can see the comment you marked as #2, but not the one you marked as #1...

wtf funnyjunk.
User avatar #1260 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
That's weird, no idea man. Sorry.
User avatar #1261 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
Hmm... Well sorry for the harsh comment before. Just can't see who you're replying to I guess... xD
User avatar #1268 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
All good man, I enjoyed the debate.
User avatar #1273 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
:3
#79 - Worked for me. First 18 years of my life, dentist always told … 05/23/2012 on dentist appointment +1
#113 - Lunch: Actually the most important.  [+] (1 new reply) 05/23/2012 on Breakfast 0
#135 - Womens Study Major (05/23/2012) [-]
False Breakfast starts your metabolism for the day and you need the energy after not eating for around 8 hours to go through your daily processes
#797 - >mfw I immediately recognized the font for the Steve-o one …  [+] (33 new replies) 05/23/2012 on For a Good Cause +3
User avatar #802 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
not to mention that the world is already in a global food shortage compared to the number of people currently alive, and that's including meat. If everyone were to stop eating meat, there simply wouldn't be enough protein and calories in the plant products being grown, and people would starve. Not to mention the impact on our C02 and Oxygen levels if we were to have billions of more plants and billions of less animals. Save our world and continue eating meat!
#819 - Womens Study Major (05/23/2012) [-]
Actually, it takes a lot more resources to produce meat it does to produce an equivalent amount of plant food. For example, it takes about ten calorie's worth of corn and grains to produce one calorie of beef. There would be more food to go around if people stopped producing meat.
User avatar #807 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
Umm... wouldn't more plants and less animals result in far less co2 in the atmosphere? I mean, I'm no expert or anything, but I was always taught that more plants means more o2 and less co2...

Also, given current space requirements, you would actually be able to feed more people with a pure vegetarian diet. The amount of land you need to raise animals for food compared to the amount of food you get from them is far more than it is for plants, all things considered. And even if you have the most efficient system possible, an animal will still eat more food than it produces.
User avatar #817 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
less C02 in the atmosphere isn't necessarily a good thing. Remember that all plants breath C02, and that it's just as limited as O2. Just because the political trend right now is to say that C02 causes all of our problems doesn't mean that we should jump in and significantly change the makeup of our atmosphere.

And it isn't a matter of how much land it takes to produce animals vs how much land it takes to produce crops, its a matter of how much land total is being utilized. People farm livestock in different areas than they farm soy beans, corn, etc. For example, dairy is huge in colder midwestern states like Wisconsin, while corn is more southern or east coast. Getting rid the demand for livestock won't automatically raise the supply of vegetables and other plant product.

Very few plants contain certain essential nutrients for life, such as protein. We don't have enough protein in plant form to feed the world. Not even close. And it would take years and years to convert any large quantities of land into soy farms in order to make that possible. Plus, a lot of the land that isn't currently being used for vegetable farming CANT be used for vegetable farming, either due to deficient soil or climatology.
User avatar #837 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
You have a good point, however most livestock farms are located on land that would be just fine for crops as well. Sure, it would take a while to transition, but if you got rid of livestock farms and used the freed up space for crops, you would produce a lot more food overall. Think about it like this: Let's say it takes, oh, ten acres of land to produce enough food to feed one cow continuously (taking into account the time it takes for a crop to grow, so you would need to harvest it all and store it so you could feed the cow while the crop was regrowing). Plus, it takes a few years for a cow to mature. If you used that ten acres for a crop destined for human consumption, you end up with WAY more food than you do with the cow (again, taking into account the time it takes for a crop to mature versus the time it takes for the cow).

And you can in fact get all the nutrients you need from a purely animal-free diet.

Besides, what with cars and the fact that most of the planet is covered in plants anyways, the co2 shift created by using livestock space for crop space wouldn't really be all that significant.

Just stating the facts. I wouldn't recommend actually doing this, because meat is fucking delicious.
#823 - Womens Study Major (05/23/2012) [-]
Less CO2 might not be a good thing? For a guy using Darwin's image as your profile pic, you sound an awful lot like a right-wing creationist global warming denier.
#908 - ARRRGGGG (05/23/2012) [-]
You don't know what you're talking about. CO2 is a major greenhouse gas but not THE ONLY greenhouse gas. People act like CO2 is some kind of treacherous poison destroying out atmosphere when it has been pumped out by plants since before the dinosaurs.

Also, to address the above posts, switching purely to a plant diet could be horrendous. Plants are not huge sources of protein like meat is. It would take a much more varied diet and more effort to get the same nutrients. Also, variety is good. If we eliminated meat, we would do what we're doing now except on a grander scale: focus on a few specific "cash crops" and particular staple crops and deny varied food choices necessary for a balanced diet. This would be further exacerbated by the general lack of protein in plants. Then, when some famine hits, the region would suffer from widespread hunger.

More farming would mean more sapping of the soil's nutrients and a possibility of reaching a point where soil becomes unsuitable to growing crops for a few years and food shortages occur.
User avatar #1272 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
if we globally switched to a vegetarian diet, it would necessitate varied crops. Besides, as I said before, if we eliminated animal farms that would free up a lot of space for more crops. Corn might be a cash crop, but the world only needs so much corn. At some point, it wouldn't be profitable to produce corn because the market would be so saturated that the cost to produce it would be less than what someone is willing to pay for it, which would also help force the production of varied crops.

Again though, wouldn't want to actually do that. Just discussing theoretically if it was possible, and what its effects would be.
#1275 - ARRRGGGG (05/24/2012) [-]
Oh god I just realized what your avatar was.

If the world population continues exploding like it is now, then we'll need to start growing more vegetables to feed the world. If not, then there's really no reason or desire to do so. A lot of land used for livestock is unsuitable for growing crops and animals produce much more than just meat. Just a cow can produce dozens of products other than meat like lard, leather, fertilizer (necessary for the breakneck production rates of crops we have) and much more. Also, overproduction of crops is a bad thing. That in itself can lead to an artificial famine because when the price of crops fall to unbearable levels, farmers tend to produce more to make up the shortfall until it's not even profitable to ship the food out (Great Depression).

What also happens is a specialization of crop. In South America, countries have dedicated their entire agricultures to the production of coffee beans (among other crops) because of its high export value. The result is other items are heavily imported, driving their prices up above what the average person can (or wants to) afford. They then must resort to the limited variety that is domestically grown. In the end, you have the typical person living off of beans and maybe another type of vegetable that is cheap at the moment.

Of course, this is all predicated on the assumption that free trade will remain far into the future. Lots of things will work one way in theory and another way in practice. Our views are not as well developed as someone specializing in international crop markets and very likely to be wrong. It's an amusing mental exercise nonetheless.
User avatar #1276 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
I'm noticing a pattern here among the naysayers. All the problems you list with my idea are problems that already exist. Sure, some people have terrible diets already, and some crops only grow in certain areas, but those problems already exist and will not worsen with the implementation of a global vegetarian diet.

Also, farmers just need to be smarter about how they grow crops. Just like any well run company, when prices start to fall because of market surplus, you restrict your production. Farmers are apparently fucking retarded if their response to a market surplus issue is to produce more...

And pretty much everything else that you need animals to get we can do without. For clarification, I only mean to stop producing animals for slaughter. Keeping cows for milk or chickens for eggs would be fine, as they actually produce quite a bit compared to what they eat, and could be easily confined to areas not suitable for crops.
#1277 - ARRRGGGG (05/24/2012) [-]
Yes, I picked problems already existing because we know that these kinds of problems have happened and are likely to occur in the future. Theoretical events are much harder to predict and much less likely to occur. I can say with a lot more certainty that x event will happen based on history and current events than y event will happen based on my theoretical projection of the future.

Also, I've come to the conclusion that neither side really has any argument for either significantly reducing meat production or for maintaining current meat production levels. They're more of "that would be nice, but not necessary" arguments.

I think you've already noted the pros for crop expansion and cons for meat. Switching to a purely vegetable, or heavily reducing the meat in, diet would require a dramatic shifting of the economies of the world and require several businesses to close down. Meat interests would definitely fight that with the result that there would not be a unified response to a closure of meat production in the world's governments.

Most significantly, why do we need more food? There's enough grain in the world to feed everyone a 3000 something calorie diet. Not to mention the numerous amounts of other food we have. A balanced diet is important. Meat is part of that balanced diet. It's what enabled us to evolve such unusually large brains.
User avatar #1278 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
Well, we will need more food at some point. The worlds population is exploding because medicine allows us to live longer and people refuse to stop having insane amounts of kids. We need to do what China is doing globally. That is, restrict the number of people being born. Maybe have some sort of licensing program too so that only people capable of handing a child can have one...

Either that, or we need to seriously ramp up our food production in preparation, because our population isn't just increasing, but it's increasing more rapidly than it ever has before. We need to get a head start on increasing our food production because at current reproduction rates what we are currently able to supply now probably won't be enough in 100 years or less...
#1279 - ARRRGGGG (05/24/2012) [-]
Population growth rates are actually decreasing. But good point. We might as well tinker with the technology needed in case we do hit a critical point.
User avatar #1281 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
didn't create a link for some reason, gonna have to copy/paste it to see it...
#1283 - ARRRGGGG (05/24/2012) [-]
Addendum: Take a look at this link for further proof.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQfU1HCK3t8&feature=related
#1282 - ARRRGGGG (05/24/2012) [-]
World population is increasing but the growth rate is slowing down. Wikipedia is the quickest source I found that was on an international scale but if you put in some time you'll find other credible sites corroborating this trend.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

If you'll examine the below link, you'll see that population growth is most prevalent in poor countries while modernized nations are either at a standstill or even are declining in population. As the third world countries begin modernization and catching up, population growth is expected to decline as parents will neither have the time or motivation for so many kids. If they do not modernize, then half of those kids are going to die of starvation, disease, and war.

www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_pro_pop_gro-people-projected-population-growth
User avatar #1284 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
Interesting. However, I still doubt your sources, which show population declining. Even if the growth rate falls, I find it extremely hard to believe that it would fall into the negative, causing total population to fall as well. Medical research will only continue prolonging our life spans, and as long as there is at least one birth for each death the world population will continue to rise.

TL;DR: I agree that the growth rate of the world's population may be falling, but your sources show the world's population decreasing, which I find hard to believe as that would require less than one birth for every death.
#1285 - ARRRGGGG (05/24/2012) [-]
It's certainly believable. I doubt population will stop growing overall before 2050, but birth rates in third world countries (they multiply like rabbits) should substantially reduce as the conditions that cause people to reproduce so much go away. People in Africa have so many children because they think of it as an investment. When you're 50 and can't work but need to go to the doctor, 2 children won't be able to pay for you. 10 on the other hand... So even though it makes absolutely no sense at first glance, the troll logic that is international affairs will probably reduce population as conditions improve globally.
User avatar #1286 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
Yes, i get all that, but I find it very unlikely that population will fall. People will stop having kids as fast as they do, but will there really be so few births that the birth rate falls below the death rate?
#1287 - ARRRGGGG (05/24/2012) [-]
I won't give you a definite answer for that because that is so far into the future in such a chaotic and unpredictable system that nobody can say what will happen with a significant degree of certainty. I can just say that eventually population growth will decrease significantly from its current levels if it continues to follow current trends.
User avatar #1288 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
Interesting. Anyways, I need to sleep nao. thank you for the discussion. :3
#1289 - ARRRGGGG (05/24/2012) [-]
yw
User avatar #1280 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
http://www.dreamdirt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Buy-Iowa-farmland.jpg
User avatar #828 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
You can believe in global warming and still not think that drastically reducing the CO2 in our atmosphere is a good thing. In fact, by global warming standards, that would be saying that it would drastically DECREASE the temperature of our earth. That sounds desirable to you?

And to your other point, we don't feed animals corn lol. Whoever gave you that idea is an idiot. We feed animals silage, which is made from the stems and leaves of shit we don't eat, stored in a silo with water for years, and fermented down to a paste. Again, if you want to eat that, be my guest. I'll stick with beef, thanks.
User avatar #838 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
Who the fuck said anything about animals eating corn?
User avatar #1251 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
an anonymous
User avatar #1255 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
You sure? I can't find any comments (other than yours) in this thread that mention corn at all...
User avatar #1257 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
You might have posts by anonymous users turned off. I'll post what he said:

1 "Actually, it takes a lot more resources to produce meat it does to produce an equivalent amount of plant food. For example, it takes about ten calorie's worth of corn and grains to produce one calorie of beef. There would be more food to go around if people stopped producing meat."

2 "Less CO2 might not be a good thing? For a guy using Darwin's image as your profile pic, you sound an awful lot like a right-wing creationist global warming denier."
User avatar #1258 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
I can see the comment you marked as #2, but not the one you marked as #1...

wtf funnyjunk.
User avatar #1260 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
That's weird, no idea man. Sorry.
User avatar #1261 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
Hmm... Well sorry for the harsh comment before. Just can't see who you're replying to I guess... xD
User avatar #1268 - amsel (05/23/2012) [-]
All good man, I enjoyed the debate.
User avatar #1273 - darklucius (05/24/2012) [-]
:3
#4 - Picture 05/23/2012 on Men's rules +1
#77 - Comment deleted 05/22/2012 on literally 0
#143 - Taped a straw to my cat's tail. The cat didn't notice it at fi… 05/22/2012 on Pure Evil 0
#1 - I lol'd at the end. Sleeping on the couch as a punishment make…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/22/2012 on Men's rules +5
#3 - lexoheight (05/23/2012) [-]
dude, i recently got suspended for having my feet on a table
#4 - darklucius (05/23/2012) [-]
#25 - Picture 05/22/2012 on FINE I TALKED ABOUT IT NOW... +3
#22 - Frankly, you use the word frankly too much... 05/22/2012 on FINE I TALKED ABOUT IT NOW... +2
#1327 - LOLOLOL 05/22/2012 on nicecontentbro's profile 0
#1 - Picture 05/21/2012 on So much win +3
#1325 - Old comment? Old comment.  [+] (2 new replies) 05/21/2012 on nicecontentbro's profile 0
User avatar #1326 - mayormilkman (05/21/2012) [-]
I'm still not into that. I'm just saying...
User avatar #1327 - darklucius (05/22/2012) [-]
LOLOLOL
#1 - Only time I've been able to infect madagascar was the one game… 05/21/2012 on Damn Madagascar 0
#1 - She hates spending her own money. She has no problem spending yours. 05/21/2012 on Money +2
#19 - Imma delete this so princedickfart don't get banned (in case a… 05/21/2012 on darklucius's profile 0
#3 - Reverse /b/ and funnyjunk and you'd almost be right. Except /b… 05/21/2012 on truth 0
#18 - Picture 05/21/2012 on darklucius's profile 0

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #22 - drvvatson (07/29/2012) [-]
Hey, watsonthewise here. I lost my old profile due to password recovery failure so im just adding all my old friends again.
User avatar #20 - bosskiss (07/11/2012) [-]
here is a guide that may help you with your audio output problems[just follow the steps]

You need to login to view this link 0PConvertible.aspx

also if none of this works can you provide me with some of your laptop specs
User avatar #21 to #20 - darklucius (07/11/2012) [-]
I already tried messing with all the options I could find on my computer. Nothing made them any louder. I think the problem is that the speakers I'm trying to use aren't amplified.

I do have speakers that are amplified, and they work great, but they aren't exactly portable either... Having a smaller set that I can take with me is why I'm trying to figure out this problem...

Also, it's a Toshiba Sattelite P755. Not sure what other specs you need...
#17 - princedickfart Comment deleted by darklucius [-]
User avatar #19 to #17 - darklucius (05/21/2012) [-]
Imma delete this so princedickfart don't get banned (in case anyone rolls it), but if anyone requests it here on my profile I'll repost it...
User avatar #5 - AwesomeJT (05/03/2012) [-]
im guessing either your a gay or another retarded little bitch
User avatar #6 to #5 - darklucius (05/03/2012) [-]
Neither actually. Straight and intelligent. Not sure what sexuality has to do with that though.

I should probably leave this site though. All the retards get butthurt when I start slinging intelligent comments around.
User avatar #7 to #6 - AwesomeJT (05/03/2012) [-]
yea funnyjunk isn't good for people who...you kno have an opinion, try 9gag (in all seriousness) 9gag i think is more open to that kind of stuff
User avatar #8 to #7 - darklucius (05/03/2012) [-]
You know, it's kinda fun here. Pissing off all the opinionated little retards. Watching them roll around in their own **** because they think thumbing someone down means they won an argument. Rather entertaining.
User avatar #9 to #8 - AwesomeJT (05/03/2012) [-]
lol it actually is, but um your kinda doing that same thumb thing O_o
#10 to #9 - darklucius (05/03/2012) [-]
By celestia... you're right. I take back any negative thumbs I gave you for the duration of our conversation...
User avatar #11 to #10 - AwesomeJT (05/03/2012) [-]
its fine, i need to stay out of front page anyways xD, everytime i go there something bad happens....
#12 to #11 - darklucius (05/03/2012) [-]
>mfw 99% of the things people post on this site
>mfw 99% of the things people post on this site
#13 to #12 - AwesomeJT (05/03/2012) [-]
its more (just made this so it sucks, kinda liek windows 7 paint)
User avatar #4 - lazaman (04/28/2012) [-]
If you want the Disks, Gonna need an adress. Deleted mah Post.
User avatar #2 - redwolfradolf (03/28/2012) [-]
Your profil pic made me lol.
#3 to #2 - darklucius (03/28/2012) [-]
/squee
/squee
User avatar #1 - darklucius (02/19/2012) [-]
lolwat
 Friends (0)