No force is needed. It is a natural cycle.
Religion of sorts has always been practiced by humans, instigated by lightning or earthquakes or something else (mainly incredible natural events). It is obvious to me that such beliefs are primitive as that is where they stemmed from. We are bound to rise above them eventually.
I wouldn’t count on it Mark 
and should that be sink below rather that rise above 
My argument is not confined locally. It is looking at the issue globally. Enough food can be produced to feed everyone so you merely share it out.
Come on now Meg step it up a bit.
You will see. You will ALL see. My words are right. I will rule the world. It is either my way or no way.
You shall all bow down to me!
Oops. Got a bit carried away there.
Poorer countries can be quite capable of producing a lot of food but the political systems and corruption have rendered them very poor at doing so.
The populations tend to move to cities where they live in shanty towns often without employment and hunger and disaster are never far away.
The other issue is that land is often owned by large companies who grow crops like coffee which is sold overseas making large profits but not being used to feed people locally.
Contraception is not well used in poorer countries where women have little say in their lives. You only have to look at the practice of marrying off girls who are still children and are pregnant at a very young age or having miscarriages as they are so young and undernourished.
Contraception is not an option for them. It may seem logical to us with the benefit of a Western way of thinking.
Well said. You can be my deputy when I decide to take over the world 
.
Neither is mine, I am talking about countries in places like Africa where villagers run a couple of cows or goats.
There is more to life than eating , there is the dignity which comes with providing for your family .
If I lived in a country where there was little fertile land would I want to swap my couple of animal for bags of grain given to me and sit at home twiddling my fingers and eating a boring diet of just grain.
No thanks, I will graze my animals over a wide area and use their waste to make my small patch of land fertile in order to provide some variety to my diet.
I would need to breed my cows to obtain milk. another valuable addition to a healthy varied diet.
Of course you would but in theory the land could be made fertile and given over to producing veggies. Animals grazing ruin land. Vast areas are no longer able to have any plant life on them due to animals munching away. The land turned in to deserts.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=over+grazing+in+africa+&pc=MOZI&form=MOZSBR
Who knows how many dead from starvation because of it?
…that is because of the over production of animals in some areas.
Is it the Hindus in India who never eat beef but always keep at least one cow, using everything the cow supplies during it’s life time all it’s excrement even is taken and used.
When the cow dies it is buried respectfully.
They live on the milk etc the cow supplies and sell the off spring.
The only income they have is from this revered cow.
Grain only grows because of the cow’s fertiliser.
Take away their cows and they cannot grow grains or anything else.
You can’t win this argument. It makes no sense to use animals as a form of protein.
See my point? You simply cut out the middleman.
As for undeveloped countries having no option but to continue to keep animals whilst the transition occurs so be it but other countries, such as America could easily cover any shortfall.
This post was made in 1997. Production has risen since…
U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists
No because of it. No other way enters their minds.
And anyway you are using an example where the people involved have very few options: as in the country is underdeveloped. These people can be discounted. Reducing this argument down to such local levels is counterproductive and misleading. These are the very people who need to be cared for by the developed countries.
After all why argue about feeding the world at all? It is to show that developed countries have the option to create enough food for ALL should they so wish. Underdeveloped countries are too weak to stand on their own feet, and like I have already mentioned: have very few options available to them.
You are sooooo competitive Mark I am not . There is no 'argument ’ to win as far as I am concerned just different opinions.
I think in order to ‘win’ anything with me you would need to change my opinion and you have failed to do that .
I also think you are taking a very narrow view from the stance of someone who lives in a developed country and can walk out of their house and have the option of a choice of food and activities to fill your time .
You might change your mind sitting in some small village far away with just your bag of grain and nothing to give you meaning to your life (except possibly reproducing the species and having offspring who are malnourished living on a restricted diet) .
I don’t think you are reading my replies :shock: ?
Already answered the above … it is nothing to do with them!
The strong look after the weak. The weak do not figure at all in this argument.
No Mark, the strong in this world will never 'look after the weak ’ unless it suits them, you are anticipating a perfect world. The strong dominate the weak and force their will upon them .
What if not everyone wants to live on grain I assume you are going to force you will upon them :shock:
Nope. This is just an argument about overpopulation and whether enough food COULD be produced to feed everyone. I’m just saying we could produce enough if we wanted. Nothing more.
True Julie 
and the animals give purpose and meaning to their life .Life is not just about filling stomachs…
What is the point of that Mark 
I could do lots of things but in isolation they mean nothing…
What is the point of a lot of things .
An argument is an argument and from what I can see of it loads of them are complete cobblers - just like this one I suppose, though I have raised some thought provoking awesome points (as usual).
Precisely Mark , you must have been reading the ‘wisdom’ thread again
