Would giving up meat solve world hunger?

I could go either way on this. On the one hand, some animals, especially cattle, consume a lot of resources. The arguement goes that 20kg of food are required to grow 1kg of beef. With so much arable land going to raise a lesser portion of food, would...

it be better to use that land for crops instead of meat for the purpose of feeding more people? There are many grains and vegetables which can provide protein, and a vegetarian diet does not necessarily lead to a protein deficiency if done right.

On the other hand, hunger today is mostly a distribution problem and a political problem, caused by injustice rather than a lack of food. And, animal husbandry for raising meat is, in many places, more lucrative than growing crops, and has helped a lot of people out of poverty. You still have animal products like eggs and milk that are nourishing too. Furthermore, animal herds are seen as a status symbol and source of property in many cultures, especially in Africa. Meat is also a symbolic, even religious food in other cultures. If everyone gave up meat, how would this all be affected?

What are your thoughts?

The real cause of hunger is over-population. This is the reason why 2/3s of humanity live in hunger squalor and hopelessness.

Eating meat is inefficient. We certainly would have much more food for people if we ate lower on the food chain and ate grains instead of feeding them to animals and eating meat. This is one of the arguments for vegetarianism. Also feedlots and slaughterhouses are some of the worst polluters so if everyone became vegetarian the world would be cleaner as well. Large swaths of rain forest have been razed to make pasture to produce cheap beef.

If all the grain we feed to livestock were given to the hungry without also introducing birth control this would cause a population explosion until hunger returned. If we do not control our numbers nature will through hunger.

Well if we all gave up meat, farmers would loose jobs I think it also would strongly effect the economy. Plus humans are rely on meat for allot of nutritional values of course these could be artificial done, and I digestion would be messed up so we would have to pull of slow. I would definitley quite to solve the world hunger issue I would give my life for it. I couldn't possibly understand what some people go threw.

Well I think that one person giving up meat wouldn't really make any difference to world food hunger, because as you mentioned the main is reason isn't the lack of food resources but the political and distribution issues. Countries such as America and UK have an overload of food where a lot of it goes to waste, if this food was distrbiuted within the world in correct portions then world food and hunger would not exist today. However reason for less distribution is that it could have an effect on the economy, transportation of food may not be easy to some palces around the world or the place could be within a war where the transportation of anything is very dangerous.

Even if you did decide not to eat meat, the share of your meat will probably go to waste instead feed others. however I'm glad that someone has come to think of the consequences.

NO. IT WILL NOT. IF EVERYONE GIVES UP EATING MEAT, THEN THE MEAT WOULD JUST SIT ON THE GROCERY STORE SHELVES TO ROT. THEN THAT WOULD JUST WASTE THE FOOD AND MAKE YOU FEEL EVEN WORSE ABOUT WORLD HUNGER.

I believe that we don't have to give up meat entirely but it really wouldn't be that hard to. I am a vegetarian... and I am perfectly healthy! We can still hunt, in fact, we NEED to hunt, otherwise animal populations will become overrun with diseases... so maybe there is where our meat should come from, rather than raising it in mass quantities. Raising cattle just consumes too many resources... they destroy the land aswell. We need to grow so much corn to feed to them.. and if we didn't have to feed them, we could grow other friuts and veggies for us to eat.

No, the problem is distribution of food and not animals...

great answer filletofspam...
I believe overpopulation is the most severe problem we face.
zero population growth was once an important issue.
recently I attended a neighborhood festival, approached the local national organization of women group, and asked if they had any info on local zero pop groups. the young woman giggled and said "that is sooo 60's"
yikes! couldn't believe my ears.

okay, I didn't answer the question. sorry.
I am vegetarian.
overgrazing by livestock is the leading cause of desertification worldwide. the grasses are consumed by the livestock, the soil erodes and the land becomes a desert. in africa, this has been going on for centuries. during roman times, northern africa was the granary of the empire, much as kansas and nebraska are for the united states today. but after northern africa was devastated by pastoral nomads and their herds of cattle in the sixth century, it gradually became a barren wasteland. soil erosion is over 2 billion tons each year in the us (90% due to livestock agriculture) and is rampant throughout much of africa. the increase of carbon dioxide due to forest clearing, as well as the tremendous methane production of huge herds of cattle, contributes a great deal to the greenhouse effect and to global warming.
there is also the problem of distribution and whether roads are being built to deliver the food, whether money is available to feed the victims of the latest famine, or whether corrupt politicians are benefitting from the various aid arrangements.
I think that something could be done with agricultural education, land management, etc. but I am not sure we are the country to do it. we have the worst, most wasteful diet in the world and use twice the energy per capita on food production than the less developed countries use per capita for all purposes

there are programs that distribute to 3rd world countries... my family donates to them at christmas time rather than giving gifts, I could get you the site if you wanted.