Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Crops are rarely used to feed people. Something like 70% of the feed crop in the world is given to animals. If we ate the grain, instead of feeding it to animals, then there would be ten times more food for human consumption. It's a biological principle, as you become a higher level consumer, there is less energy available.

Wade, you could just start your own farm, and grow and give loads of food to the poor people, who would then make you a god in their society, because you fed them and gave them money.

At 5/6/08 01:54 AM, WadeFulp wrote: If there is already a topic about this, please link me.

For those who are not aware there is a global food shortage.

Not really. There's lots of food. There's enough food for everyone to eat ~3500 calories a day.
However, much is thrown away.

At 5/6/08 06:50 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote: Crops are rarely used to feed people. Something like 70% of the feed crop in the world is given to animals. If we ate the grain, instead of feeding it to animals, then there would be ten times more food for human consumption. It's a biological principle, as you become a higher level consumer, there is less energy available.

Couldn't agree more. It take 4 time the energy to produce a kilo of beef proteine as a kilo of soya protein.

Couldn't agree more. It take 4 time the energy to produce a kilo of beef proteine as a kilo of soya protein.

Sweet! Someone who agrees with mah crazy lib-ur-al views.

At 5/6/08 07:23 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: Couldn't agree more. It take 4 time the energy to produce a kilo of beef proteine as a kilo of soya protein.

But, beef tastes better. Fuck soy.

At 5/6/08 07:40 PM, hippl5 wrote:

At 5/6/08 07:23 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: Couldn't agree more. It take 4 time the energy to produce a kilo of beef proteine as a kilo of soya protein.

But, beef tastes better. Fuck soy.

It's not just soy, it's all types of grain.

You tell someone who is starving and has had to scavenge for food all their life that they can't have any because you'd rather eat beef.

Your opinion is an example of someone from a rich country taking a shit on the world for their own luxury. Beef tastes like shit after a month without it anyway.

At 5/6/08 07:46 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote: It's not just soy, it's all types of grain.

You tell someone who is starving and has had to scavenge for food all their life that they can't have any because you'd rather eat beef.

Sucks for them, get jobs or starve.

Your opinion is an example of someone from a rich country taking a shit on the world for their own luxury.

So? I'm selfish, I can get what I want if I have the money for it. Yay for delicious beef jerky.

At 5/6/08 07:46 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote:

At 5/6/08 07:40 PM, hippl5 wrote: But, beef tastes better. Fuck soy.

I agree

It's not just soy, it's all types of grain.

You tell someone who is starving and has had to scavenge for food all their life that they can't have any because you'd rather eat beef.

This is about fuel, not beef, they raise livestock in poor countries too, mainly for milk and labor.

Your opinion is an example of someone from a rich country taking a shit on the world for their own luxury. Beef tastes like shit after a month without it anyway.

No, he's a guy who has the same god damn opinion as the rest of us, beef tastes better than grain to most people. But let's not forget that this is about FUEL.

BTW YOUR opinion is irrelevant.

At 5/6/08 07:49 PM, hippl5 wrote:

At 5/6/08 07:46 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote: It's not just soy, it's all types of grain.

You tell someone who is starving and has had to scavenge for food all their life that they can't have any because you'd rather eat beef.

Sucks for them, get jobs or starve.

They don't have jobs, and they don't have food. We are talking about third world countries who are living below the poverty line; Not America/UK/Australia.

At 5/6/08 07:53 PM, Prinzy2 wrote:

At 5/6/08 07:49 PM, hippl5 wrote:

At 5/6/08 07:46 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote: It's not just soy, it's all types of grain.

You tell someone who is starving and has had to scavenge for food all their life that they can't have any because you'd rather eat beef.

Sucks for them, get jobs or starve.

They don't have jobs, and they don't have food. We are talking about third world countries who are living below the poverty line; Not America/UK/Australia.

Well, that's what I was saying, they don't have jobs, so they are starving. If they can't get a job, tough shit. Why should we feed them if they give us nothing in return?

At 5/6/08 07:55 PM, hippl5 wrote:

At 5/6/08 07:53 PM, Prinzy2 wrote:

At 5/6/08 07:49 PM, hippl5 wrote:

At 5/6/08 07:46 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote: It's not just soy, it's all types of grain.

You tell someone who is starving and has had to scavenge for food all their life that they can't have any because you'd rather eat beef.

Sucks for them, get jobs or starve.

They don't have jobs, and they don't have food. We are talking about third world countries who are living below the poverty line; Not America/UK/Australia.

Well, that's what I was saying, they don't have jobs, so they are starving. If they can't get a job, tough shit. Why should we feed them if they give us nothing in return?

Because they happen to be human too.

The point I was making is that it doesn't matter if we make fuel out of food, because it's not the reason why there is a world shortage on food.

At 5/6/08 07:58 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote:

At 5/6/08 07:55 PM, hippl5 wrote: Well, that's what I was saying, they don't have jobs, so they are starving. If they can't get a job, tough shit. Why should we feed them if they give us nothing in return?

Because they happen to be human too.

Not good enough.

At 5/6/08 08:02 PM, hippl5 wrote:

At 5/6/08 07:58 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote:

At 5/6/08 07:55 PM, hippl5 wrote: Well, that's what I was saying, they don't have jobs, so they are starving. If they can't get a job, tough shit. Why should we feed them if they give us nothing in return?

Because they happen to be human too.

Not good enough.

It's not good enough that people are starving, suffering on a daily basis, and living a life that you couldn't handle for thirty days? Is your cheeseburger really worth it?

At 5/6/08 06:40 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Food isn't in short supply, it just needs to be redistributed.

That is part of the problem (though if it was redistributed there wouldn't be all that much going spare), but the price of transporting food around the world is a huge burden on the economy, not to mention further depleting the fuels that are being replaced by biofuels. The real solution is to grow crops where they are needed rather than transport everything.

That also is only temporarily the problem. At the moment enough is produced to feed everyone, with the correct distribution. But most estimates have another 4 billion mouths to feed in the next 50 years, and no amount of redistribution can feed all of them...

At 5/6/08 06:50 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote: Crops are rarely used to feed people. Something like 70% of the feed crop in the world is given to animals. If we ate the grain, instead of feeding it to animals, then there would be ten times more food for human consumption. It's a biological principle, as you become a higher level consumer, there is less energy available.

That figure seems a little steep to me. The fact is people in developed countries may throw grain away to cattle/livestock as they have a massive excess currently, but in developing countries they tend to have animals graze on the land. Most grazing territory is in areas that are unsuitable for crop growth (not enough light, steep slope, not enough water, poor soil quality etc) and therefore there is no sacrifice of grain at all. It is true that there is a higher energy drain producing cattle instead of grain, but if cattle graze pastures where grain can't be grown there is no energy drain and therefore no problem with nations eating beef/drinking milk etc.

At 5/6/08 01:54 AM, WadeFulp wrote: If there is already a topic about this, please link me.

For those who are not aware there is a global food shortage. People in other parts of the world are starving from a lack of food. Droughts and rising oil prices are part of the problem, but one of the problems is using food crops to make fuel. This is something that can be changed. We can't stop a drought, and it maybe hard to control the price of oil, but damn it, we don't have to turn food into bio-fuel!

Umm, it DOES help the environment and is a renewable resource,,, we can always get other plants to satisfy the hunger issue...

That figure seems a little steep to me. The fact is people in developed countries may throw grain away to cattle/livestock as they have a massive excess currently, but in developing countries they tend to have animals graze on the land. Most grazing territory is in areas that are unsuitable for crop growth (not enough light, steep slope, not enough water, poor soil quality etc) and therefore there is no sacrifice of grain at all. It is true that there is a higher energy drain producing cattle instead of grain, but if cattle graze pastures where grain can't be grown there is no energy drain and therefore no problem with nations eating beef/drinking milk etc.

I agree with you 100%.

Most of the world's grain, however, isn't grown by grazing. You would be hard pressed to find a company that still grazes their cattle in a developed country. Most of the world's grain is imported or grown in developed countries, and if that grain was used to feed people instead of animals, there would be much more grain available for developing countries.

At 5/6/08 08:09 PM, mariomaster123 wrote: Umm, it DOES help the environment and is a renewable resource,,, we can always get other plants to satisfy the hunger issue...

No, we are finding other plants for fuel. Know your issue.

At 5/6/08 08:05 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote: It's not good enough that people are starving, suffering on a daily basis, and living a life that you couldn't handle for thirty days? Is your cheeseburger really worth it?

Fuck the cheeseburger, it's the beef jerky that's kick-ass. And yes, it's worth it because spending money on starving strangers gives nothing in return. Who said I can't handle their life for thirty days? Maybe I can't, but I'm not in their position.

At 5/6/08 08:19 PM, hippl5 wrote:

At 5/6/08 08:05 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote: It's not good enough that people are starving, suffering on a daily basis, and living a life that you couldn't handle for thirty days? Is your cheeseburger really worth it?

Fuck the cheeseburger, it's the beef jerky that's kick-ass. And yes, it's worth it because spending money on starving strangers gives nothing in return. Who said I can't handle their life for thirty days? Maybe I can't, but I'm not in their position.

Wow, you get a big ol' fail for being an un-empathetic bitch.

Go flaunt your general distaste for living creatures elsewhere.

At 5/6/08 08:20 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote:

At 5/6/08 08:19 PM, hippl5 wrote:

Stupid shit all around.

This isn't about beef, this isn't about human rights, this is about food and bio-fuel.
Stick to the fucking topic, up till you two, this thread has been full of intelligent posts about alternate sources of fuel. Read the god damn title, "Making fuel out of food=criminal".
It's about turning corn into combustible material, NOT feeding cows to feed people.

At 5/6/08 08:20 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote: Wow, you get a big ol' fail for being an un-empathetic bitch.

I think most people are just as uncaring as me, they just won't admit it.

Go flaunt your general distaste for living creatures elsewhere.

Living creatures that contribute to nothing except overpopulation. We pick off animals if theres too many of them, why not humans? They're starving, so lets end their misery. We'll have more crops to use as fuel for ourselves, everyone wins, except the useless starving people.

At 5/6/08 08:29 PM, hippl5 wrote:

At 5/6/08 08:20 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote: Wow, you get a big ol' fail for being an un-empathetic bitch.

I think most people are just as uncaring as me, they just won't admit it.

Probably true, hence the many problems of the world today.

Go flaunt your general distaste for living creatures elsewhere.

Living creatures that contribute to nothing except overpopulation. We pick off animals if theres too many of them, why not humans? They're starving, so lets end their misery. We'll have more crops to use as fuel for ourselves, everyone wins, except the useless starving people.

Oh, so we kill them for population control?

Or, we could just educate them and help establish successful economies in their countries, which would lead to lower birth rates, and lower estimated population growth.

At 5/6/08 08:33 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote: Oh, so we kill them for population control?

Or, we could just educate them and help establish successful economies in their countries, which would lead to lower birth rates, and lower estimated population growth.

Creating buildings for them and getting them food and paying for their education costs a lot more than paying for a few hundred snipers. Even if birth rates do lower, births will still continue. We will get nothing in return, so screw helping other countries, we should hoard the money for ourselves.

Although... we could make factories instead and use them for cheap labor?

Creating buildings for them and getting them food and paying for their education costs a lot more than paying for a few hundred snipers. Even if birth rates do lower, births will still continue. We will get nothing in return, so screw helping other countries, we should hoard the money for ourselves.

Although... we could make factories instead and use them for cheap labor?

So we should send snipers to other countries for the express purpose of causing negative population growth, and spark a war with most developed countries in the world, instead of launching a humanitarian campaign that would garner the support of the rest of the world?

That makes sense.

At 5/6/08 08:33 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote:

I think most people are just as uncaring as me, they just won't admit it.

Probably true, hence the many problems of the world today.

Oh, forgot to add, how is not caring causing problems? I'm being neutral here, they get stuck in a shit-hole, that's their problem, I'm not the cause. Why should I put any effort when there's people with your mentality who will help instead?

Oh, forgot to add, how is not caring causing problems? I'm being neutral here, they get stuck in a shit-hole, that's their problem, I'm not the cause. Why should I put any effort when there's people with your mentality who will help instead?

So many people are content to sit on their asses and do nothing, not much gets done.

At 5/6/08 11:39 AM, Malachy wrote:

I agree..BUT,
If you are taking money in the form of subsidies from the government, you need to realize that there will be strings attached to that money.

No theres won't be.

Theres not even a string attached saying "If you take our subsidies, you have to do something remotely productive". Farm Subsidies are a joke.

If you aren't taking any money from the government, you should be allowed to do whatever the fuck you want with the land, but if you take money from the government, you will have to follow the government's rules. So, if the government says "you can have this money, but you can't sell your corn for biofuel" you have the choice to not take the money, but by taking the money you also agree to follow what they say.

Again, Farm Subsidies are a joke. Some farmers take government money, spend it year after year, and don't even make a profit. Basically, the government are bitches when it comes to saying "Fuck you, fund your own damn farm"; even if there WAS a ban of selling corn as biofuel, the government would likely STILL give subsidies to people doing that.

At 5/6/08 08:41 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote: So we should send snipers to other countries for the express purpose of causing negative population growth, and spark a war with most developed countries in the world

You're right. That is a bad idea and we don't get much in return. And the damn developed countries won't mind their own business.

Lets go with the factories instead for cheap labor.

So many people are content to sit on their asses and do nothing, not much gets done.

And some of them hypocritically preach that we should help. I'm being honest about my laziness and selfishness.

At 5/6/08 08:49 PM, hippl5 wrote:

At 5/6/08 08:41 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote: So we should send snipers to other countries for the express purpose of causing negative population growth, and spark a war with most developed countries in the world

You're right. That is a bad idea and we don't get much in return. And the damn developed countries won't mind their own business.

Lets go with the factories instead for cheap labor.

Same result, you can't force everyone in a country to work in a factory just so you can reduce population growth. My argument is actually plausible.

So many people are content to sit on their asses and do nothing, not much gets done.

And some of them hypocritically preach that we should help. I'm being honest about my laziness and selfishness.

If 95% percent of the population of the U.S. wants something done, and bitch about it to no end, the government has no choice but to take action. So it is better to preach and not act then do nothing at all.