"Is there a better way to organize scarce resources than the mixed economies we have now? Something that could work in the real world?"
Your question explicitly implies that there could be a problem, you imply that resources are scarce (and those resources I assume are ones like food, water, shelter, and a means of producing revenue), and you also mention organization. Most interestingly though, you point our attention to "mixed economies".
So, as I read your question the situation became "how to solve global scarcity without using mixed economies". So, you take mixed economies away and you have one global economy. Your solution is to find a better way to "organize scarce resources", so a global economy would do this if it were given the authority. A 'New World Order', in this sense, would be the system of governance that would control the global economy.
It was the answer that you asked for.
Isn't the ruling class just as enslaved as the "cattle"? What does the ruling class gain by having human cattle!? If you know anything about economics, you should know that money is always accounted for. Businesses know what the total production cost of something is, and tries to keep it as low as possible, so the price the consumer pays isn't too high, and covered in that end price is the business's profit... so who's getting the money? If the ruling class isn't eating people, and it's not profiting from the cattle's currency... what else is there? Power? If you're a farmer of cattle, what power do you have but over your cattle??? Basically, if you have power over nothing, doesn't that mean that you have no power, and if you have power over oppressed people you only have as much power as the oppressed people?
The power of the ruling class is only as good in quality as the power of it's slaves... as a ruler you would need to tend to your slaves, as a slave yourself, for whatever benefit comes by being a slave owner... this would make the difference moot. Slaves would have just as good of lives as the slave owners.
If you're running a farm of people, you would expect something in return, right? And because there are only the bourgeoisie (the farmers) and the proletariats (the cattle) who will be giving you anything for your trouble as a farmer, but the cattle itself? Maybe you're "farming" because you don't want to be cattle... isn't that a freedom?
... I don't know why I'm giving this time, it's just as stupid as saying "The sky is a venomous, soul-eating spirit that works for Scope to give you bad breath... and Scope is the anti-christ!". If you really look at this idea you would see right through it.
There is a lot more to this question than meets the eye. Mainly, who will be focusing, and how.
In any case though, we need to do both. Until we make up our minds on the two questions that I've stated above, we should all do our own parts, in each field. The economy, because our own personal financial situations are the trees of the economy's forest. The same goes for the environment, if we undo something, as individuals, the most that we can do is to redo it.
Basically, we each have to be responsible for everything. Politics concerning these issues too, because we as individual we have the power through government to do things politically, we have to deal with politics as well... but some people seem to think that too many people in government ruins government... so there's the first hint of "who", that I mentioned earlier.
I tend to think that people aren't being responsible enough, in any way, but that this is caused by a social illness of sorts. Consumerism, capitalism, the fear of socialism, our dependance on the media, etc. It's a huge problem, seemingly all encompassing, universal, and it is becoming more and more native to our society every day. We need to start rejecting this lifestyle, and start living realistically.
There was a time when most of the goods made and sold in America were goods that would increase our GDP... those were things that people wanted to buy! Not HiDef televisions or 20" rims from China, Japan, and Taiwan, they were tractors, or mills, or sewing machines, or property, or whatever else would help them work... built in America, for money... and then used to make more money elsewhere.
Our social decay is our complacency, our unwillingness to buckle down, and our lack of education or, more importantly, our lack of concern. We just don't care as we should. Go into any bar or pub, watch people... they're drunk and over 21, the burden of the nation is on them... watch what they do... listen to what they say. NOTHING OF GREAT IMPORTANCE. It's always about someone else, or about something that happened to them... or what they were told to think about this or that. It's never like "Fuck guys, what are we going to do? What is the problem real problem, because this shit isn't working anymore."
Anyhow, I'm rambling now. Point is, be responsible.
A year ago or so I went through what seemed like a week long process to set up a perfect government, it was just a thought experiment. With the tools that we have available today, something new... and at the center of the government (which was socialistic in nature) was the internet... well, to be more accurate, an intranet.
I don't think people are really looking at it as a viable tool, maybe because the way the government works today would be threatened by it... maybe because we don't have a system that is fool-proof. I don't know really, but I think that it should be taken more seriously, this may be the tool that brings about true democracy, or socialism, depending on it's use.
Why should intelligence be linked to not eating meat?
Well, intelligent beings, I think, would be concerned about the future. We cannot have meat as we do today, forever, and it is much more efficient to grow plants than to grow plants to feed cattle. If you'd think about it a little harder there would be no need to "cut the shit". A huge quantity of grain produced in the world is dedicated to cattle. In fact, if you count calories from grain that it takes to feed cattle, and then count the end result of feeding the cattle and butchering it, etc, you'd find that meat is far far more expensive to produce and store than meat.
Efficiency will be important sometime in the future, when the world is overcrowded with people and labor is handed over to machines. It sounds like science fiction, and it is for now, but that's the most logical solution to many problems. People won't have jobs as they do now, so maintaining a personal garden won't be difficult, but I see community farming becoming popular before personal farming.
Even if you ignore the entire side of the debate that deals with the treatment of animals, or the suffering of animals, there are still very important questions about human nature and morals that need to be worked through... Where do we want to be in 50 years? Still slaughtering animals (more than we do now), in an even more careless fashion for so many more people who just want something to snack on for a minute... or do we want a self sustaining civilization that doesn't feel like it requires meat, that has an overabundance of food that is actually healthy?
It's not a personal problem so much as it is a societal one... but that doesn't mean it's not a moral issue.
The fact that we still eat meat even though we have a higher intelligence shows you that it makes sense to do so, no?
Not all people use their intelligence to do anything truly good... they, like animals, only seek to keep themselves happy... which is why this topic is an issue at all.
Meh, we're higher order animals. It's what we do. All predators do it: cause undesired pain to their prey, which are usually other sentient beings.
What exactly is a "higher order"? If you're saying as predators, let's see how well you fare in a pin with a leopard (or even in the wild, with a leopard). If you're talking about intelligence, why if we are so "high" in the order, are we still eating meat? There are plenty of healthy alternatives that cost much less in the way of work required, resources needed, associated pain, environmental impact, etc.
Is a cheetah immoral for choking their prey to death or sometimes eating them alive? Do you yell at the discovery channel animals for doing what they do?
Animals, like cheetahs, don't have a sense of morals... Humans do, and yet it seems to make little difference. Also, there isn't a cheetah grocery store to go to, and they are strictly carnivores, we are not. We have moral choice, many morally acceptable options that are just as good if not batter tasting, and we have the ability, physically, to choose... and you say that meat is perfectly acceptable?
How do you feel about cannibalism?
