I was being totally serious and I mean literally inedible, or at least “not for human consumption”.
nicecupoftea
1

I’m glad you clarified that. What I getting, more than anyone else, is that you’re pretty much anti-meat. I won’t argue with you on that, but it’s not the same issue as the costs of feeding the population, most of whom are meat eaters to one degree or another, on whom you will have to use governmental coerce to convert to vegetarianism.

I stand by my original points. Though organics and localism are fine for lifestyle groups, they are not going to provide for a population (which will probably reach about 9 billion almost no matter what we do, unless we want to follow the People’s Republic model). The world can feed itself at over 9 billion souls, without using all the available land and sea for food production, and with meat, by progressively adopting modern agricultural methods. Will there be problems? Of course. But read the “ag” magazines. They aren’t “blind” to eutrophication, antibiotic resistance, etc., etc. Neither are they blind to hunger and its eradication.