Why Vegetarianism will not save the world

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by S.A.M., Sep 11, 2011.

  1. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    What hypocracy james, you havent referenced a single assumption you have made, like your comments that the CSIRO, the Heart foundation and NHMRC are all secretly against eatting meat but they advocate INCREASING meat consumption for no reason you seem able to articulate (because its rubbish)

    Your hypocrasy in calling chicken eggs "alive" even though not one of them will actually ever develop without human intervention (if left on the ground they will rot before a chicken becomes clucky)

    Your assertions on the energy useage of GRASS FEED beef

    ect ect. Every comment you make is just dogma, no different from the crap which spews through the religion section
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    @Asguard:

    Still on chapter one of the book. I like it, though like all "new converts" Keith has a tendency to get polemic about her stance. She was what I call a social vegetarian [ie embracing the culture due to political correctness] but from what I have read so far, her food choices are but a small aspect of her overall ideology and reflect her passion for social change and against the cult embraced by politically driven individuals [in favour of a cult which she wants to create and which she hopes will be equally or more politically driven]. As such she has a tendency to go to extremes at either end of the equation which is somewhat reflected in her writing.

    Nevertheless she makes some very good points about cost benefit analysis and the ignorance of politically motivated ideologues.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2011
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,788
    The sustainable carrying capacity of the planet.

    What is the number?

    How would we know?

    We are 'consumers' in the true sense of the word, and for all our talent of imagination and creativity, remarkably short-sighted when it comes to contemplating the downstream effects of our actions.

    We will encounter the same fates as any other species which overpopulates it's habitat.

    Nature's default state is balance, which is achieved through constant change.

    Our choice whether we are proactive or reactive participants.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Sam i would be interested to see how she deals with the pysical and mental health deficits which would be caused by losing our pets.

    For instance children who have grown up with pets have the same levels of allergies and asthma as country children which is ALOT less than those found in city children

    And the mental health benifits of having pets is ovious
     
  8. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,113
    Mess with my dog and you won't need to worry about eating ever again, Long Pig.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    During the cold war, high - rise buildings in Poland were used to grow cabbage to feed the people. Similar structures are being experimented with now, watered and fertilized by municipal sewage water that is cleaned completely by the process as well. Raising catfish and crayfish in large ponds located in and near big cities can provide a lot of low cost animal protein.

    Not everyone can eat corn - fed beef steak all of the time, sorry. Just as we cannot all wear big diamonds or drive an Earth Destroyer 9000 SUV, despite that we may wish to do so.

    Yes, our population numbers will diminish, one way or another, as global warming increases pressure on our food production and our clean water resources. This is in process as we speak. Improvements in our efficiency will become mandatory as the penalties in human lives begin to add up.

    However, we do well under pressure from the environment - that is how we evolved to this point. When it becomes obvious that we really need to address this issue, we will do so. The question is just how close to the brink do we get before we look up and change course.

    The mercury, lead, uranium and other pollution from China's coal fired power plants go around the planet twice before dropping on our heads and fouling our fields. Their top soil loss is less a hazardous pollutant than that stuff IMHO.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    The solution is everyone growing their own food.
     
  10. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    Well, when politicians make decisions on agriculture, all they talk about is we need more food, more more, to feed everyone, we need to feed the geowing population.
    Nobody talks about the fact that there is only so much we can produce.

    A farmer doesn't keep more cattle than he can feed. A house (ideally) should not have more children than it can feed.

    When will we start to talk about limiting the population size to suit the resources?
    Or are we going to continue to ravage until there is nothing left, and then die?
     
  11. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    The answer is simple.

    Quit the civilization! Anarchy! Back in the nature!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    You eat and you are eat. The stronger survive.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Balance restored. Hallelujah....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,113
    When third world nations are brought up to second world nation status their birth rates decline drastically. The improvement necessary to do this are minimal - stuff like cooking with bio-methane instead of wood or dung, hand pumped wells in villages, pottery water filters, cheap mosquito netting, solar powered CRT tvs and hand cranked radios. All of that stuff is currently being given to third world countries by charities in order to improve their lot. Programs like India's small business loans to women can do wonders for the people involved.

    SAM should know about some of these, perhaps she could share some (factual) information with us on them.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Yup. Of course, they have to be enforced but it's better than killing off people. And if you absolutely have to do something to drastically diminish human population I'd say birth-restrictions are your best bet.


    I said: "No one needs to be killed off"
    It would have been a waste of your time working on that list. It goes without saying that we can't have that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2011
  14. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    and what?
    there are zero agricultural/ecological issues for sustaining a paddock for pasture?

    which I guess leaves us with the chickens and pigs ....
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2011
  15. wsionynw Master Queef Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    Every politician on the planet will be dead a hundred years from now. They don't give a shit about the long term health of this planet, just so long as they still have a job after the next election. Sorry to lump them all in together, I know a small number do actually care about the impact we have on the ecosystem.
    It's not their fault of course, they serve us (at least in a democracy). We can force change if we really want to, politicians be damned, but we also only care about the short term because we don't live to see what happens to our great, great, great grand children.

    We look back through human history and cringe at the brutality, lack of technology, ignorance, etc. Humans in the future will no doubt look the same way upon us and our many fuck ups.
     
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Not the claim I was making.

    Do some research, come back with a real argument, and try again.
     
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    if you are not trying to suggest that beef inflicts a lesser ecological effect than crops (when its grass fed) what is it exactly you are talking about?
    :shrug:

    (coming from a region that exclusively has grass fed stock, if you think it involves simply setting up a fence I suggest you do some research .....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,360
    Asguard:

    I have made no comments at all about any secret beliefs of the CSIRO or the Heart Foundation or the NHMRC.

    So, you can stop making things up.

    A fertilised chicken egg is certainly alive. Do you deny it? Whether it is viable or not depends, as you say, on whether it is incubated properly.

    I see no hypocrisy in any statement I've made on that subject, and you haven't shown any.

    Then your clear and information-filled posts should easily refute my "dogma". You're doing everybody a service, Asguard! Well done.
     
  19. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    For lying and interlectual dishonesty i call for your immidate banning for a period of no less than 1 day. Im being kind concidering you called for SAM to be PERMIDENTLY banned for "lying and interlectual dishonesty"
     
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Read my posts and figure it out for yourself, some basic honesty (from you) would be appreciated.

    Here, I'll spell it out for you, seeing as how you're clearly incapable of figuring it out for yourself.

    In terms of environmental damage.

    Dairying > Grain fed Beef > Grass fed beef >≈ Tilled horticulture.

    I would even go as far as suggesting that a well run sheep & beef farm probably does no more damage then a corn farm (i've gone into substantially more detail elsewhere, as James, for example can attest).

    Quit trolling.

    When you're done tilting at windmills and strawmen, feel free to address the point I was actually making.
     
  21. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    there's nothing approximate about it

    According to the United Nations, "Ranching-induced deforestation is one of the main causes of loss of some unique plant and animal species in the tropical rainforests of Central and South America as well as carbon release in the atmosphere."[5]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production

    In a world of diminishing safe water
    supplies it is worth bearing in mind that animals fed on grain need much more water than grain crops.[6] In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1.[7] The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the direct harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits for human consumption. A person existing chiefly on animal protein requires 10 times more land to provide adequate food than someone living on vegetable sources of protein.


    Did you mean to say 54.1 ≈ 1.1 or 10.1 ≈ 1.1

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    As long as its merely a suggestion as opposed to a reference about the actual state of affairs ....I mean even potatoes give more protein per acre than beef.

    For example, most people may consider beef to be a high protein food. While that is correct in
    terms of protein per kilogram, it is not true in terms of protein per hectare. That is because of
    beef’s low yield (kilograms per hectare) relative to other food products. On a per hectare basis,
    even potatoes have considerably more protein than beef.

    http://askmorenow.com.au/EnvImpactsOfAnimalAgri_Part2.pdf


    All you have done is get overly defensive about your statements.
    At least I have offered references to the claims I make.

    All you do is pander about how you have already discussed them in detail elsewhere ..... hardly a platform to start dishing ridicule from
    :shrug:
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2011
  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Again, not what I said.

    The symbol I used was this:
    >≈ Which has the same meaning as this: ≳ 2273 GREATER-THAN OR EQUIVALENT TO.

    Which should have been obvious from the context of my post.

    Not the argument I was making.

    That's because so far all you have done is offer bullshit misrepresentations of what I have said.

    What precisely are you suggesting here?

    Have you bothered looking at the other active thread that's related to this? You know, the one started by James?

    What I'm doing is refusing to pander, and refusing to spoonfeed you.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,360
    Asguard:

    This statement remains unrefuted.

    You're right. It's a deliberately meat-heavy diet. It has been compared to the Atkins diet.

    I have no argument with that. It's a healthy living plan ... for meat eaters.

    I have at no time made any statement about the CSIRO believing that meat eating is unhealthy. With its thousands of employees, I'm sure there are some that believe that, but it's not an organisational position. Nor it is an organisational position that a vegetarian diet is harmful.

    Good for the Heart Foundation.

    I didn't realise I had an ideology. What is it? And why is it illogical? Please explain.

    What I've actually said and what you seem to think I've said are two quite different things. Maybe that's your problem.

    Why don't you simmer down and go back and read what I've written previously? You need to get a little perspective.

    Where have I lied?
     

Share This Page