What would happen if whole world turns vegetarian????

[Kuldeep]

There has been a worry in the mind of yourwrong in thread "What is the vegetarian solution?" as

What would happen if whole world turns vegetarian????

I am quoting my view a reply to him, as:

Quote by: Kuldeep Please do not bother for full population. It would take few more centuries before ominvorous would convert to vegetarians. I can tell you based on health reason and development of some diseases, the trend has been initiated though!! Nature ecology and general environmentalists would take care of whole vegetarian population, if at all it would exist some day in future!!!!

In reality, if such a situation would arise or would have been the actual picture then, how the world would have been like!!! No slaughter houses, no killing of chickens, sheep, goats, cows, pigs...nice merry making for all those who are at the moment victims. Probably, our two set of canyon teeth would not have been there!

Let us imagine such all vegetarian human beings in world and then discuss!!!

[Heather]

The "canine teeth" that we have are not for eating animals. Animals who have real canines use them to capture their prey. I don't think anyone could deny that ours are wholly insufficient for that. It is generally agreed that they are more likely for hard shelled nuts, etc.

I think one large benefit if the meat industries where to suddenly go out of business is the positive environmental impact it would have. For example, rainforests are currently being cut down to clear land to support these animals at an astounding rate.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I protest the world by Bar-B-Queing on street corners offering steaks and burgers to all the poor conformist saps eating celery!

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Heather The "canine teeth" that we have are not for eating animals.

Heather, I don`t know how many times I have basically said the same thing. When people use that canine teeth shallow argument, I usually ask, "Oh, you mean those nubs?"

[nilan3000]

Is the debate on whether or not such a scenario is possible or whether or not such a scenario is good?

[5010]

If no one ate meat or used animal products, then the world would be very different.

All land used for raising animals for human consumption would shift to another purpose. A small portion of it would be for farming additional vegetables, since the per capita needs of vegetarians is smaller than omnivores. Slash and burning of rainforests would diminish, but logging and vegetable farming would still provide incentives for encroachment of such wildernesses.

Farm animals that are only valuable for human consumption by slaughter would become rare and humans would instead keep a smaller population of animals that promote good soil and vegetable maintenance. Water and energy consumption would be reduced at the farms, but also energy required to ship and refridgerate animals and meat would be reduced.

Farm animals that produce products without slaughter would be retained. There would still be wool, milk, eggs, etc. Vegetarian psychology would result in better living conditions for such stock, meaning higher costs to raise such animals as well as higher costs to care for animals that no longer produce those goods (instead of slaughtering them as soon as they are no longer productive). However, if this is cost-prohibitive, there would be incentive to replace such methods with artificial versions.

Predators, such as wolves and big cats would no longer compete with humans and would be allowed to be prolific. Humans would limit killing to only predators that endanger them more directly. However, the psychology of a vegetarian would result in a preference for fencing out predators and trapping + moving those that violate fences.

Products typically made from killing animals would shift to artificial manufacture. For example, gelatin would be produced by bacteria instead of animal bones. Higher demand for such items would create incentives to build large manufacturing facilities which in turn would enable economy-of-scale and reduce the price of artificial goods. Refining methods, such as for sugar and wine, would switch to using artificial alternatives instead of animal bones. Leather goods would not be available, and high demand for artificial leather would lead to more research into varieties of goods and applications than available from the current tech.

The absence of fishing would result in greatly increased life in the oceans and lakes at all levels. The fishing industry would be gone, but industries for farming of ocean plants would increase. Ships/boats would no longer be needed for fishing, but would still exist for transport, watersports, research, etc.

The shift in psychology that accompanies the less violent diet could result in other world changes but I am very uncertain how this would apply. Would people become less violent towards each other or would the basic principles of competition and survival keep us at the same level? Would the elimination of food/pet distinction cause an increase in the variety of pets we care for and domesticate? Would a less violent diet result in less violent appetites for entertainment (games/movies/etc)?

[Mr.Vicchio]

5010, you believe in utopias don't you?

Less meat =less violent world? That's a huge leap of imagination

[yourwrong]

Quote by: Kuldeep
Please do not bother for full population. It would take few more centuries before ominvorous would convert to vegetarians. I can tell you based on health reason and development of some diseases, the trend has been initiated though!! Nature ecology and general environmentalists would take care of whole vegetarian population, if at all it would exist some day in future!!!!

One I doubt that many people will be around in several centuries. Mostly likely either nuclear anninalation or some massive disasters will either kill of all humans or most humans. Second habitats would still be destroyed as we would need more farm land. Third our economy is based of all the processed crap we eat if we converted to vegetarismn even slowly most companies would go out of business. Finally none of this matters because its never going to happen.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Those in extreme parts of the planet where insufficient plant matter can grow to sustain families will cease to function

The vegatative option would not allow the Eskimo of pre-freezer days to survive. So it seems natural that man is an omnivore, a mechanism we evolved in order to sustain ourselves, to alwyas gain protein.

Perhaps it more about appreciating what we eat, not just as a slab of meat but as a living creature slaughtered for us to gain energy.

Perhaps it would be more efficient if protein and vitamins were only provided as pills, it would speed up our functions and stop the waste of packaging and transport of foodstuffs that is so wasteful of energy.

[5010]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Less meat =less violent world? That's a huge leap of imagination

I agree. A world without omnivorous humans is a huge leap of imagination. In order to participate in this 'what if' topic, we have to do a bit of leaping.

Do I believe less meat = less violence? Between man and animals, yes. Between man and man? I only wonder, not believe one way or the other.

[Jubloz]

Culture would certainly be immensely different. Livestock oriented groups, specifically pastoralists and agriculturalists, would crumble. Hunter and gatherer societies would probably survive, although they'd be simply reduced to gathering. A lot of people, especially in regions where relying and depending on variety, would likely starve and disease would spread as a result. Specifically those peoples who live in harsher habitats, such as rocky hillsides, deserts, or snow covered lands.

Many cultural variations would vanish, or at least change. Most Italian food wouldn't exist, therefor Italians would inevitably change. Ranchers would be relatively pointless, therefor a lot of the culture, such as dress and art associated with them, would change and disappear. A variety of social interactions would collapse, such as bridewealth, the act of a man giving livestock to the family of their bride as compensation (which eases a lot of social stigmas and fuses people together into alliances that actually lead to a lot of peace).

Overall, some groups would change but would probably do well, whereas others would crumble and therefor become more competitive for resources, thus leading to warfare and death in certain regions.

[Humble Servant]

Car insurance rates would increase due to the increase in car vs animal collisions

[Jubloz]

Quote by: Humble Servant Car insurance rates would increase due to the increase in car vs animal collisions

All the major car building corporations would likely have to equip snowplows on all their vehicles to avoid being sued. :confused:

[Kuldeep]

@Heather &SHW

I too said once that the purpose of canines for humans and carnivorous animals is different. Heather, thinking of world's conversion to veg. would affect envirinment widlye is quite wise !!

@nilan3000
In fact, it is not a debate but expression of view points, what world would have looked like or would look like, if whole world would have been or would become "Full Vegetarian".

@5110
Thanks for detailed analysis.

Quote by: 5010 The shift in psychology that accompanies the less violent diet could result in other world changes but I am very uncertain how this would apply. Would people become less violent towards each other or would the basic principles of competition and survival keep us at the same level? Would the elimination of food/pet distinction cause an increase in the variety of pets we care for and domesticate? Would a less violent diet result in less violent appetites for entertainment (games/movies/etc)?

Coming directly to your conclusive para, Yes, you very right to think that we would have a less violent world with low profile human mind due to veg. diet. This can be easily deduced from animal to animal comparison (carnivorous virsus herbivorous). If animals behaviour is dependant on diet, then why not humans, who are also animals but social ones.

I do not however think competition, greed, selfishness, fight for rights ...etc would go away from the society. It is possible to have some decline but marginally.

@yourwrong
I do agree with you that anything is a possibility as "Future". In OP it is just a assumed hypothesis, in view of Nonvegetarains starting thinking to change to Vegetatrainsm due to health and other reasons; If world would have been Full Vegetarains to begin with or turn in future, how World would be different than the present scenario!!!!

@Arawn-ap-Hywel

No, those who soley are dependant on meat would not possibly change to Vegetarainism. They would remain unique humans even then!

Then, it has argued by many others that sufficient proteins are avaiable from veg. foods as well, soya for example. It is not only for proteins and energy we take food, we have taste buds. Before getting energy, we enjoy food in mouth. Simple consumption of syntheitic protein tablets won't suffice out purpose of living and fulfill enjoyment of food eating. All type of animals take food since they like the taste of food first, hunger and energy purpose are secondary after effects!!!

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Jubloz Culture would certainly be immensely different. Livestock oriented groups, specifically pastoralists and agriculturalists, would crumble. Hunter and gatherer societies would probably survive, although they'd be simply reduced to gathering. A lot of people, especially in regions where relying and depending on variety, would likely starve and disease would spread as a result. Specifically those peoples who live in harsher habitats, such as rocky hillsides, deserts, or snow covered lands. Many cultural variations would vanish, or at least change. Most Italian food wouldn't exist, therefor Italians would inevitably change. Ranchers would be relatively pointless, therefor a lot of the culture, such as dress and art associated with them, would change and disappear. A variety of social interactions would collapse, such as bridewealth, the act of a man giving livestock to the family of their bride as compensation (which eases a lot of social stigmas and fuses people together into alliances that actually lead to a lot of peace). Overall, some groups would change but would probably do well, whereas others would crumble and therefor become more competitive for resources, thus leading to warfare and death in certain regions.

I think you have over exaggerated the possible effect. 5010 anylsis seems to be a better possibilty. The main effect would be on meat industry and to some extent on leather industry. Pets and raring of animals for non-meat purpose would continue unaffected. Humans have special nature of adaptation, I do not think there would much of problem !!!

[Jubloz]

Quote by: Kuldeep I think you have over exaggerated the possible effect. 5010 anylsis seems to be a better possibilty. The main effect would be on meat industry and to some extent on leather industry. Pets and raring of animals for non-meat purpose would continue unaffected. Humans have special nature of adaptation, I do not think there would much of problem !!!

It would be a very drastic change, with very drastic results. Humans are very good at adapting, but historically it takes a decent amount of people dying to get there. Yes, a lot of cultures, especially non-Western, would be effected without the means to readily access proteinacious foods; a lot of people would die or, at best, starve and live on the brink. Being vegetarian is fine, but wanting the whole world to conform to it is shortsighted.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Jubloz ...a lot of people would die or, at best, starve and live on the brink. Being vegetarian is fine, but wanting the whole world to conform to it is shortsighted.

I don`t think Kuldeep when he posed his question meant a sudden shift over night to vegetarianism. It would definitely be gradual, and with gradualism there is ample enough time for adjustments to come about without the automatic grim picture you have painted.

Your depiction is what is shortsighted, because the change to vegetarianism would definitely be a farsighted event in the future. That said, wanting the world to adopt vegetarianism is not shortsighted -- it is indeed farsighted and the most practical way to feed a burgioning population.

[5010]

I agree that uncivilized people remaining at certain climates need meat in their diet because plant life is not readily available. However, with civilization including shipping/trade there is no longer this requirement.

Therefore, for me to consider what if the world human population goes veg presumes it 1st becomes civilized.

[Vivid]

If we grew soy or wheat instead of raising cattle, we would have far more free land, actually - good for growing forests or setting up solar or wind power - and a much lessened environmental impact. Not only that, but we might see decreases in methane emissions, which is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, because there would be far less cow farts. Lol, silly, but true.

From what I understand, you could grow something like 15 pounds of grain for every pound of beef. A pound of beef has slightly less calories than a pound of wheat - both are somewhere near 1000 calories a pound according to random web pages. But we would then need a protein source. This means that we would need to grow soy, probably, as the main source of protein other than animal products or dairy, are beans. There is about twice as much protein in beef as soy, per gram, but as far as grams of protein per acre vs cows... Heres a random internet source that comes close to answering:

"Meat production took more land (6 to 17 times as much), water (4.4 to 26 times), fossil fuels (6 to 20 times), and biocides (a lumped-together category of pesticides and chemicals used in processing -- 6 times as much). In fact, meat lost in every category."

Seeing the Forest: Soy vs Meat

Whether they compared meat vs soy in terms of pounds per acre or calories per acre or protein per acre, soy still wins by a landslide. So, if we all went veggie, we could restore lots of forests. Or build a lot of wind towers and solar panels on all that previously cleared land.

[Jubloz]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I don`t think Kuldeep when he posed his question meant a sudden shift over night to vegetarianism. It would definitely be gradual, and with gradualism there is ample enough time for adjustments to come about without the automatic grim picture you have painted. Your depiction is what is shortsighted, because the change to vegetarianism would definitely be a farsighted event in the future. That said, wanting the world to adopt vegetarianism is not shortsighted -- it is indeed farsighted and the most practical way to feed a burgioning population.

It was never specified that everyone turning vegetarian would not occur over night but over a lengthy time span, so I went with the assumption that this was being presented as a "what if this suddenly happened?" question, not a "let me make a thread to convince everyone of a Utopian idea." So, if we're going to get detailed, exactly what time span are we talking about? A month? A year? A century?

If it were over a short period of time than yes, it would kill a lot of people. Do you have a counter argument to this? And regardless of whether it happened over night or over 10 years, it would drastically change numerous cultures; if you deny this you're very ignorant to what a small change can do to a society, let alone one as drastic as what's being presented.