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

    right here james

    the rest is just fluff designed to hide you lies and illogic. Further more you draged the heart foundation and the NHMRC into it

    There for, for refusing to post EVIDENCE for you statements, and refusing to retract it, i call for your banning

    edit to add: these are YOUR rules james, retract it, surport it or face the conquences you impose on everyone else (thread locked and you banned)
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    which still leaves you with the problem of explaining on what grounds it is equivalent

    all you've done is talk bullshit about how you are right without the need to clarify your statements

    yeah sure
    whats your point, minus the bullshit?

    what you are doing is spending more time obfuscating your statements rather than clarifying them.

    Technically its called bullshit.

    I mean but if you would prefer to just make statements that on face value appear totally false and inaccurate and label anyone who points this out to you as a bullshitter, that's your prerogative.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    You own the book, don't you?

    Why don't you quote me the part that says "We at the CSIRO considered vegetarian diets vs meat diets and we have concluded that a meat diet is best..."

    or something along those lines?


    YOU were the one who started going on about your favorite CSIRO diet. Then YOU mentioned the Heart Foundation and the NHMRC.

    So, if anybody has dragged in these organisations, it's you.

    Call away.

    What has happened here is that you started by going off on a thread tangent about your favorite diet. Then, when I simply pointed out that the diet is a diet for meat eaters - an obvious truth - you got all hot and flustered. The rest has been you blustering and blathering about my supposed lies, hypocrisy and illogicality. And now, since you can't produce the goods to prove me wrong or catch me in a lie, you want me banned?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    It's ridiculous to feed ruminants protein. The whole point is that a ruminant is a cellulose-to-protein conversion engine. They have a bacterial culture in that gigantic gut that digests the cellulose and turns it into more bacteria, and then the cattle digest the bacteria.

    In the USA we used to feed cattle alfalfa, which is a bloody legume! As if feeding them high-protein cereal wasn't enough, then they started eating high-protein beans! At one time they even got fish meal.
    We'll just convert to hydroponics. More efficient, smaller footprint.
    More than that. The efficiency ratio of agriculture (farming and animal husbandry) to hunting and gathering is much higher than 6:1. I can't find any reference, but I seem to recall an article many years ago hypothesizing that an eternally Paleolithic human population couldn't grow much beyond 100 million. So it would kill off more like 99% of us.
    Nonetheless, regardless of how you feed them, domestic cattle are an environmental nightmare. Whether you grow grain and feed it to them or simply let them graze, they need a much larger area of feed-growing land per pound of meat than any other common food animal. As I mentioned before, simply switching from beef farming to dairy farming increases the efficiency of the food cycle by a factor of ten.
    It turns out that the best contraceptive is prosperity. Even in the Third World, as their per capita GDP rises from starvation to mere poverty, where people used to have 12 children they now have only 8. The population is almost universally predicted to stall just barely into eleven digits near the end of this century, and then start dropping. The turning point was in the early 1980s, when the second derivative of population went negative and stayed there.
    Ironic, isn't it? One of the primary advantages of having a formal government with continuity is supposed to be that it will adopt a long-term perspective and worry about our great-great grandchildren, not just the people who are alive, voting and paying taxes today.
    Why is it that people like my wife and me, who have no children, often feel that we care more about the future than our friends and neighbors with children?
    Indeed. Let's hope that civilization keeps advancing.
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    No it doesn't, I have already clarified on what grounds I think they are equivalent, in this thread no less.

    For example, not all Beef and Sheep farming takes place in areas that need to be clear felled first.
    Not all sheep and beef farming requires grain to be successful.
    Not all sheep and beef farming occurs in areas that can actually be used for anything else, for example, sheep farming can be carried out in areas that would require irrigation to grow anything useful.
    Ploughing a field, then spreading superphosphates to it looses more nutrients to water than grazing it with cattle or sheep - even if superphosphate is required.
    Diffuse pollution from effluent runoff can be mitigated or prevented with proper riparian management.

    As I have said, a well managed sheep and beef farm does not neccessarily have to be any more damaging to the environment then a corn farm. Tell me, do you know what the prime cause of the expansion of the Gulf dead zone is? Yes, I know it's a natural phenomenom, however there is something that humans are doing that means that it is getting worse.

    It has something to do with all that Corn and Maize farming in the mississippi catchment.

    The only person bullshitting here is you.

    If you had, you would understand what my point is.

    The problem is that you're not addressing the statements that I have actually made, and technically, that is called bullshit.

    You have yet to address any of my actual statements.

    Take this statement of yours, for example:
    Made in response to this comment:
    Nothing in that statement implies that Sheep & Beef farming has zero environmental impact. Not by any remotely reasonable interpretation.

    The only thing that that statement says is that comments about the amount of water consumed growing grain for cattle, and the amount of land being cleared to grow grain for cattle, and the amount of grain consumed by cattle, and how much less protein per kg beef cattle have then the grain they consume, are only valid if you're talking about grain fed beef, however, not everywhere has access to grain fed beef, and so arguments against grain fed beef, are really only effective as arguments against factory farmed meat, not meat eating in general.

    None of which implies that grass fed beef is without impact, or even that grass fed beef has less impact then horticultural farming.

    Is that clear enough for you?
  9. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    hydroponics? your joking right. Surpose your right that it would give a smaller footprint concidering it would kill everyone in a few years.

    Firtly it wastes water which is the single most limited resorce in Australia and secondly it would lose all the essential minerals we get from our food. Everyone would die of cardiac and nerological problems caused by potassium, sodium and calcium levels being all over the place.

    Edit to add: oh and sure they need a reasonable sized area but concidering the land which is being wiped out by saltification of the landscape (not only making that land usless, but requiring farming to be moved to new areas) and the destruction of the waterways caused buy plant farming its hardly more destructive.

    Intensive doesnt equal good, it equals BAD
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2011
  10. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Seconded. Personally, I think if I found a supermarket that sold grain-fed beef, I might actually consider boycotting it.

    I thought this article was interesting: Lab grown sausage six months away.
  11. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member


    But what kind of carbon footprint does that have? and do you feed it agar? Wonder what the nutritive content is...
  12. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    I hate to keep bringing this up, but it is a very viable alternative to what we are currently doing. Vertical Farming. Many of you love to cite Wiki, so here is the Wiki citation:


    One of the advocates web site:


    ...and the recent Scientific American article on this topic:


    You can actually control the plants nutritional environment and prevent pests without pesticides with this methodology. It makes good sense in an increasingly urban human world to at least give this some serious thought rather than just trying the same old stuff while hoping for different results.

    If the farm is watered top down with urban sewage it 'kills 2 birds with 1 stone' - cleaning up a cities sewage and producing food for its inhabitants. As the trend towards increasing urbanization continues it just makes good sense to utilize city space to our best advantage.
  13. Emil Valued Senior Member


    wiki,Food synthesizer:

    The food synthesizer (or food processor) was a common receptacle used aboard 23rd century starships and starbases for synthesizing foods and beverages. These food receptacles served as a supplement to the ship's chef and were predecessors to 24th century replicators. Unlike replicators, where food orders were made by voice command -- food orders given to food synthesizers were made by program tapes or cards inserted into a slot.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Not true.

    Pasture fed animals are essentially solar energy converters.

    Which is why they have been raised for many thousands of years with almost NO input of energy except from the sun.

    Vegetables for human consumption won't grow on most pasture land though and can indeed be very energy intensive to till, plant, irrigate, care for and harvest.

    The cost to grow Sweet Corn = TOTAL OF ALL COSTS $2,902.46 per acre





    Of course one has to also consider the many millions of tons of by-products of meat production which are also useful to the world.



    For instance, we produced ~ 22,700,000,000 sq ft of leather in 2008.

    http://www.tannerscouncilict.org/ict stats2008.pdf

    We also produced about 300,000 tons per year of Gelatin (60% is used in other food products, 40% in manufacturing).


    Or: http://beefmagazine.com/cowcalfweekly/0325-cattle-byproducts-save-human-lives/

    Etc, etc

    People who make these comparisons want you to forget that only about 55% of a steer ends up as food for human consumption, but virtually ALL of the cow (or pig or chicken) is in fact used.

    Last edited: Sep 12, 2011
  15. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    The technology of hydroponics is in its infancy. It barely works, and in its actual commercial applications (cut flowers in Africa and South America, recreational drugs in North America) it's not even true hydroponics. Give it a few more generations and most of the problems you identified will have been overcome.

    Of course that is unlikely to happen. The human population is going to peak at about ten billion within two more generations, and then start falling. We can easily continue to feed all those people with the vast expanses of undeveloped land in the still-sparsely populated Western Hemisphere. The only reason people are starving today is that their despotic leaders intercept the gigantic shipments of food our many charitable organizations send them, sell it, and use the money to buy weapons, limousines and villas. If people are still starving in 2085, that will still be the only reason.

    So there will be no pressing need to develop the technology of hydroponics.
    But there isn't enough of that pasture land, to feed enough livestock, to provide everyone on the planet, with what we Americans consider a minimum daily ration of meat. Enormous tracts of forest are being cleared for grazing cattle. Even if everyone were willing to eat the meat of some less environmentally destructive herbivore, we'd still run out of natural pasture. If I'm not mistaken, even if we stopped eating the meat of cows and chickens and only drank their milk and ate their eggs, which would increase the efficiency of grazing by one thousand percent, there still would not be enough natural pasture to provide milk and eggs to the entire human race. And of course very roughly half of the human race is lactose-intolerant so that wouldn't even work!
  16. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    the only reason humans can suvive on hydroponics without injury is because thats not ALL we eat. Otherwise we would die.

    There is a reason hydroponic tomatoes taste bland and watery, its because they are. Ive tried them on various occasions and always come to the same conclusion, you would get more nutruents from cardboard than from hydroponic tomatoes. Now vine ripened tomatoes are full of flavor why? because they spend the maxium amount of time soaking up the nutrients from the soil

    But all this is irrelivent because adoucette is right, the energy costs from fruit and veg, ESPECIALLY hydroponics are astronomical compared to grass feed meat, if its hunted the only requirments are a bullet and transportation, if its raised on a farm thats STILL vertually the only requirements, the only time water is used on most free range farms is when the country is in drought, the rest of the time its rain and sun that are the only inputs.
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    This is evil.

    It is the dark side of the farm
  18. Pineal Banned Banned

    yeah, if only meat production wasn't based on even more agriculture per pound of protein she would be so right I'd go out and eat raw tripe.
  19. handyman Registered Member


    From there on it's everyone's choice on what to eat or not

Share This Page