(July 17, 2014 at 4:36 am)bennyboy Wrote: Hmmmm. In the context of this argument, when I say "useless," I'm referring to food consumption with no benefit provided to the species' survival or efficiency. I'm not saying these people's lives are unimportant to themselves or to their communities-- only that they are unnecessary for the species. A LOT of good would be done if we could reduce population numbers by about 80%. As for me, I'm useless as well, by that definition, though as a teacher I hope to have some influence on attitudes that could affect future consumption, and as a vegetarian, I hope to minimize the impact of my uselessness.
The problem with ANY ideas about food efficiency and distribution are that they will just increase the number of people who are useless (in the food production/consumption balance), until no good solution is possible.
Well I'm on board about reducing human population. 80% is a good target for a start. I'd like to see vast areas set aside where life and evolution can go on in a way that isn't all about fitting in at the margins of what little we make available. I recoil at the label of "useless" for people though. I suppose farmers are the most useful by your reckoning. Vegetarians are admirable for their efficient use of our limited resources. However I'm of the firm conviction that if God hadn't wanted us to eat animals He would never have made them out of yummy meat.
