This article points to the increasing lack of food for the increasing world population as a probably cause of war. It is interesting that Jihadists come from desert countries that are already overpopulated relative to agricultural land and water. Only oil which is now losing value keeps some of them relatively secure.
http://fortune.com/2014/12/21/why-the-next-world-war-will-be-fought-over-food/
Here is one of the comments pointing out one method for attacking the problem. Other comments point out the dangers of excessive births in places lacking resources. It is unfortunate that this compassionate man who has never been married does not support the right of his billion followers to plan their own families.
“50% of the world is obese, whilst 50% is hungry.
Huge tracts of land are used to grow sugar: how does that “feed” the world?
Even larger areas are used to grow cereals/soya/corn simply to feed livestock, often kept in the most horrendous corralled conditions causing pollution at the same time.
Growing most of these crops uses ridiculous quantities of fresh water: do we need to really remind ourselves how scarce that is becoming? It’s arguable whether some of the war is being fought at the moment aren’t because of increased tension in arid regions where water is the number one resource that they are majorly deprived of.
Cutting out or cutting down meat will lead to the following immediate bonuses.
1. Less soil loss. In case you hadn’t noticed it’s disappearing rapidly, and when gone there will be no way of producing any food. 2015 is the International Year of Soil.
2. Much less freshwater needed to grow crops easing tension for that resource.
3. Much less in the way of hydrocarbons needed by agriculture, both to field machinery to grow crops and also produce chemicals/fertilisers.
4. Huge tracts of land can then grow grass and to be grazed: there we are, was still producing meat for the carnivore, but they’re going to eat less and it will be better quality.
5. Further huge tracts of land can then be re-afforested, massively enhancing the carbon budget for the world and returning weather cycles to something nearer to normality.
I appreciate that this all seems a little utopian to some people. However, what is wrong with the proposal?
Naturally, the big resistance will be the airheads in government obsessed with their own power base, and the short-term election cycle that stops making the essential and radical decisions needed for us to have a planet worth living on in 30 years time, and one which will feed as all, equitably. The other major resistance point is of course the corporate world which has stitched up most of the political world. Who is going to do something about that? Or do we have to leave it so late that we end up having a war?”