Nathalia Bailey Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 I'm not sure where in the forums I can put these remarks/questions so I figured I'd put it here. If anyone has any better suggestions please let me know. Lately I've been hearing people say that Americans should eat less meat because we don't have enough land to support all the animals, the animals are causing too much pollution, etc. But it seems to me, that if we encourage the opposite, that the world eat less grains, we'd have a more sustainable future. As we whole 9'ers know, diets based on grains are typically calorie/carb dense, nutrient poor diets. We also know first hand how much more satisfying and filling a meal of meat and veggies is than a meal of rice or pasta is. For example, this morning I ate a breakfast of eggs, bacon, sausage, and stawberries. It was actually a bigger meal than I usually have as I'm staying at a hotel and all this stuff was free with the stay, I decided to indulge a little. Yet I know I won't be hungry again until dinner time because it was so satisfying. Now imagine I had eaten that same breakfast but added a bagel/toast/cereal. I'd be hungry for lunch 3 hours later because of the accompanying insulin spike. I'd probably have some meat with that lunch, as well as with my dinner. I might even want a snack or two in between meals. Thus, because I added that grain to my meaty breakfast, I end up consuming more meat/food in general throughout the day than I would have if I had just foregone the grains. So doesn't it seem reasonable that if we, as a society, ate less grains, we would end up consuming a smaller volume of food overall? We could also convert those grain fields into vegetable fields or animal grazing fields. Obviously, the veggies and meat are more nutritious than the wheat, so we'd have our health improve. Possible objections and responses: 1) What about all the poop animals make? What, you think we're doing a good job with that now? If instead of dumping it all into silos we actually used it for its natural purpose, to go back into the soil and return the soil's nutrients, we would have less methane gas and nutrient poor soil problems. C'mon, manure's not a complicated thing, humans have been using it for thousands of years. Don't even get me started on our own poop. The other day I heard a chemistry professor say that nitrogen fertilizers are the most important invention of the world because without it there's no way that the soil would have enough nitrogen to feed the earth. Well it's not as if the nutrients in the earth just vanish into thin air, do they? Natural cycle: plants take up nutrients, animals eat plants, animals poop out plants with nutrients and it goes back into the soil. Break in cycle: sewage. (please look up humanure if you get mad at me about this part. yes, it requires a little bit of work, but just as much work as it takes to make sewage and clean up that pollution problem) 2) What about overpopulated and poor nations? A lot of those citizens suffer from terrible vitamin and mineral deficiencies that would most likely be solved by eating more meat/veggies and less grains. Now I understand it's a lot of people and maybe there really isn't enough land to make a conversion in that direction. But I've also been reading a little bit about genetically modified crops that minimize the antinutrient content in some foods. I'm no scientist, but that sounds like it's worth developing. 3) Grains are easier to grow and more durable than vegetables. Wow, I don't really know. I have no farming experience. I'd like to hear other thoughts and opinions on this! So now I ask you all, who have so kindly read my thoughts on the matter, to input your own opinions, objections, solutions, etc. Is a Whole 9 world feasible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.