Your edit actually was what I was asking about. Your argument makes a lot of sense and I will take it into consideration. I would like to beg your indulgance and ask one other question. It is my understanding that most foods that humans can digest do not provide enough calcium for bone health. I have two friends who are vegan and both have been perscribed calcium suplaments by their doctors. My question is this, if we were to entrirely give up milk, from cows or other sources, where would we get the needed cacium from. I know that degenrative bone diseases were a major problem for pre-agricultural humans.
That's where the fact that vegans have to pay VERY close attention to having a variety of foods in their diet, and making sure they eat enough of everything. Personally, I'm not actually a by definition vegan, as I personally do it for what I call animal rights. Personally, I don't believe we have the right to domesticate and control any animal (yeah, I'm one of those whack jobs that thinks animals should have the same exact rights as people), but I see the predator/prey relationship as completely natural. Basically, I don't think it's right to control the animal and raise it, but hunting it is okay. On top of this, I don't like seeing animal products wasted and thrown away, so I would rather eat it myself then let it go to waste, as the animal already died (or was otherwise tortured, and if you don't think milk is torture, just do some research into how much PUSS there is in your average gallon of milk) for the purpose of being ingested, and to do otherwise would be an insult to what that animal died for.
But for actual vegans, who don't find their calcium through the cheese quesidilla that their friend isn't gonna finish, it's a balancing act. Spinach I know provides calcium, as do plenty of breakfast cereals, and most soy and rice milks are enriched with it. Though I do question the source of the calcium used to enrich said cereal and "milk."
Mmmmmm...soy beans
|
We will especially stop breeding them in South America where the need for pasture is reducing the rainforest.
Only if we could convince all humans to give up beef as a food source. I think that would be nearly impossible since many cultures rely on cattle not just for food but for status. The type of action you are talking about would all but destroy many Middle Eastern, African, Asian, and Pacific Island indiginous cultures.
How many cattle are raised purely for beef? Answer most of them. Ergo, if we stop eating beef, there will be no reason for the vast majority of the cattle to exist and we will stop breeding them quite so extensively. this will reduce the number of cattle by a large amount which will decrease their emissions by a similar amount. We will especially stop breeding them in South America where the need for pasture is reducing the rainforest. If you're going to be dismissive, it's generally a good idea to know what you're talking about first.So because we stop raising cattle, the entire species is going to disappear? I don't think so.A lot of vegans also quote the amount of methane gas that cattle release into the air, since methane is a greenhouse gas.Damn those cows! They need to stop farting!Yeah, I always laugh at that one. Personally, my thought is that the cows exist, they're going to fart whether we raise and eat them or not. So really, trying to blame global warming on another species' flatulence, and using that as a reason to guilt trip people into changing their diets, is in my opinion misleading and underhanded.
I only included the factoid because it is in most vegan's arguement for people going vegan.
Except that if we weren't going to eat them, we wouldn't raise them so they wouldn't exist.
** spoiler omitted **
So we have a controlled breeding situation, where the number of cattle inseminated is kept at a level managable by the rancher that owns them. You think turning them loose and allowing them to breed as they will is gonna REDUCE the number of cattle? A Bull is gonna get as many cows pregnant as it can, instead of the two or three a year it gets in our controlled breeding environment. I'm pretty sure that natural breeding would INCREASE the number of cattle, as most species expand to the point where the local eco-system can just handle them.
The predation that Fryer mentioned of course would decrease the number of cattle, but I think the increased breeding would probably balance that out.
Why don't YOU try thinking things through before you say someone doesn't know what they're talking about?
|
|
We will especially stop breeding them in South America where the need for pasture is reducing the rainforest.Only if we could convince all humans to give up beef as a food source. I think that would be nearly impossible since many cultures rely on cattle not just for food but for status. The type of action you are talking about would all but destroy many Middle Eastern, African, Asian, and Pacific Island indiginous cultures.
Somehow this message went poof and vanished.
Somehow this message went poof and vanished.We will especially stop breeding them in South America where the need for pasture is reducing the rainforest.Only if we could convince all humans to give up beef as a food source. I think that would be nearly impossible since many cultures rely on cattle not just for food but for status. The type of action you are talking about would all but destroy many Middle Eastern, African, Asian, and Pacific Island indiginous cultures.
It's the message board faeries. They got angry. You wouldn't like them when they're angry....
|
|
So we have a controlled breeding situation, where the number of cattle inseminated is kept at a level managable by the rancher that owns them. You think turning them loose and allowing them to breed as they will is gonna REDUCE the number of cattle? A Bull is gonna get as many cows pregnant as it can, instead of the two or three a year it gets in our controlled breeding environment.
Feral pigs are an even bigger problem, because they are extremely smart and adaptable. Feral cattle in the United States would mostly settle into the Great Plains, filling the niche that the buffalo once filled, which kinda makes Chris's argument. Feral hogs can live anywhere and under any conditions that humans can, and within a generation of going feral they turn into something akin to a dire boar. Thus they will suffer much less predation then feral cattle will, and being omnivores, will very quickly establish dominance in any ecosystem and possibly upset it.
|
Chris,
In the vegan proposal, the cows are managed into decline. They live, they do not breed. We still control them. This is the basis of why going vegan, and reducing animal consumption, reduces greenhouse emissions. It is not a quick fix solution. As you answered the question about why it was a solution, I presumed you were aware of the basic details of the proposal. Next time I'll give a fuller answer the first time and not assume the audience has any prior knowledge.
|
|
Somehow this message went poof and vanished.We will especially stop breeding them in South America where the need for pasture is reducing the rainforest.Only if we could convince all humans to give up beef as a food source. I think that would be nearly impossible since many cultures rely on cattle not just for food but for status. The type of action you are talking about would all but destroy many Middle Eastern, African, Asian, and Pacific Island indiginous cultures.
This is true. It will be impossible to eradicate beef eating/cattle rearing. However, as most of the meat is raised for export to countries like the US and UK, it can be substantially reduced without affecting those cultures. It won't be, obviously, as we're far to selfish to give up a good steak, burgers, sausages, etc.
|
|
This is true. It will be impossible to eradicate beef eating/cattle rearing. However, as most of the meat is raised for export to countries like the US and UK, it can be substantially reduced without affecting those cultures. It won't be, obviously, as we're far to selfish to give up a good steak, burgers, sausages, etc.
the United States is the world's largest beef importer, it is true. However the United States is also th wod's second largest beef exporter according to the USDA. Statistically speaking, The U.S. does not import any beef from South America. he majority of U.S. beef is imported from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand where sustainable and humane practices are the norm. In fact, if the U.S. stopped exporting beef to Canada and Asia then we would need to import practically no beef at all.
Far more efficient than changing our diet would be for us to bite the bullet and control our own population, a la China. With only 1-2 billion people on the planet, everyone in the world can raise cattle for mass consumption, with significantly less impact on the planet than we have today.
|
|
Far more efficient than changing our diet would be for us to bite the bullet and control our own population, a la China. With only 1-2 billion people on the planet, everyone in the world can raise cattle for mass consumption, with significantly less impact on the planet than we have today.
Most demographers agree that the higher a nations standard of living, the lower it's birth rate. In the United States, for example, The mjority of population growth is from first and second generation immigrants, according to the census department. When they are removed from the equation the population growth in the United States is listed as "stagnate to declining." In several European nations, like taly and Greece, the problem is that they have a population that is aging and nobody is being born to replace them. Therefore they have no money to pay for their versions of social security. Which presents the second flaw in the zero poplation argument. As the governmet takes on increases in social welfare responsibilities, restricting population also restricts the amount of money to fund such programs.
Then why did we evolve as omnivores?
** spoiler omitted **
Because before the agricultural revolution, being an omnivore was a big survival advantage. No longer. Ten thousand years is an eyeblink in evolutionary terms.
From an efficiency standpoint, though, it is pretty self-evident that the higher up the food chain one goes, the less efficient the consumption of resources becomes. Think of it this way: Everything below us on the food chain is just a way for us to get solar energy in a form we can use; the more layers of inefficiency (steps in the food chain) that energy has to pass through, the more is lost.
Which presents the second flaw in the zero poplation argument. As the governmet takes on increases in social welfare responsibilities, restricting population also restricts the amount of money to fund such programs.
Yes, if those programs are run as Ponzi schemes, which is essentially what Social Security is. Restructuring those programs would help in the long run, once past the initial hurdle.
Or are you attempting to make a case that we should massively explode our population, glut like hell on those programs while we still can, and hope not to live long enough to see the resultant famine and plague? Long-term strategies always face short-term hurdles.
Far more efficient than changing our diet would be for us to bite the bullet and control our own population, a la China. With only 1-2 billion people on the planet, everyone in the world can raise cattle for mass consumption, with significantly less impact on the planet than we have today.
I assume you mean the world? Because our population less immigration *isn't* growing, but it is aging.
Because our population less immigration *isn't* growing, but it is aging.
You got a problem with old folks? Damn whippersnapper!
I assume you mean the world? Because our population less immigration *isn't* growing, but it is aging.
Yes, by "us" I mean the world. I'm not totally U.S.-centric (although I can be lynched for that in these here parts).
Yes, if those programs are run as Ponzi schemes, which is essentially what Social Security is. Restructuring those programs would help in the long run, once past the initial hurdle.
Whoa! I don't think it's fair to call Social Security a Ponzi Scheme. It doesn't inherently rely on ever-increasing investment to continue (though with current demographic realities it sure does).
You got a problem with old folks? Damn whippersnapper!
I sure as hell do! What is the deal with the hair growing out of your ears, anyway?!?
You got a problem with old folks? Damn whippersnapper!I sure as hell do! What is the deal with the hair growing out of your ears, anyway?!?
That's so I don't have to listen to you little young bastards whine about how tough your life is. Tough! I can tell you about tough. I had to walk to school barefoot, through 10 feet of snow, uphill - both ways! And we didn't have books. All our lessons were engraved on stone tablets, and we had to carry 50 lbs of them around each day.
I assume you mean the world? Because our population less immigration *isn't* growing, but it is aging.Yes, by "us" I mean the world. I'm not totally U.S.-centric (although I can be lynched for that in these here parts).
I think global population control is a great idea on paper; there are tons of virtuous economic cycles that take hold when birth rates are brought under control. However, I think it is a practical impossiblity.
Then why did we evolve as omnivores?
** spoiler omitted **
Because before the agricultural revolution, being an omnivore was a big survival advantage. No longer. Ten thousand years is an eyeblink in evolutionary terms.
From an efficiency standpoint, though, it is pretty self-evident that the higher up the food chain one goes, the less efficient the consumption of resources becomes. Think of it this way: Everything below us on the food chain is just a way for us to get solar energy in a form we can use; the more layers of inefficiency (steps in the food chain) that energy has to pass through, the more energy is lost.
True to an extent. Not all environments are suitable for "crop" growth. Some areas do not make farming a good choice, but there are plants that grow there, plants that are not consumable by humans but are by other animals. Having those animals go and graze in those areas, thus gaining access to "energy" that was "going to waste", that we can now consume indirectly by consuming the grazing animals is not inefficient.
True to an extent. Not all environments are suitable for "crop" growth. Some areas do not make farming a good choice, but there are plants that grow there, plants that are not consumable by humans but are by other animals. Having those animals go and graze in those areas, thus gaining access to "energy" that was "going to waste", that we can now consume indirectly by consuming the grazing animals is not inefficient.
You're absolutely correct, but I did say "in a form we can use." Sometimes, animals are indeed a necessary part of the process, but I think we can agree that largely isn't the case with the cattle industry.
Edit: And please don't misunderstand; I'm not suggesting we outlaw beef, or anything ridiculous like that. I'm merely saying that becoming vegan for environmental reasons makes sense, even if it isn't a choice I'd make for myself.
That's so I don't have to listen to you little young bastards whine about how tough your life is. Tough! I can tell you about tough. I had to walk to school barefoot, through 10 feet of snow, uphill - both ways! And we didn't have books. All our lessons were engraved on stone tablets, and we had to carry 50 lbs of them around each day.You got a problem with old folks? Damn whippersnapper!I sure as hell do! What is the deal with the hair growing out of your ears, anyway?!?
No one wants to listen to you blowing wind, you old bastard. Kids these days don't want nothing to do with us older folk, least of all doddering old fools like you.
That's so I don't have to listen to you little young bastards whine about how tough your life is. Tough! I can tell you about tough. I had to walk to school barefoot, through 10 feet of snow, uphill - both ways! And we didn't have books. All our lessons were engraved on stone tablets, and we had to carry 50 lbs of them around each day.
Oh yeah? Well all of our lessons were engraved on our faces...by a fist.
And we liked it! :D
No one wants to listen to you blowing wind, you old bastard. Kids these days don't want nothing to do with us older folk, least of all doddering old fools like you.That's so I don't have to listen to you little young bastards whine about how tough your life is. Tough! I can tell you about tough. I had to walk to school barefoot, through 10 feet of snow, uphill - both ways! And we didn't have books. All our lessons were engraved on stone tablets, and we had to carry 50 lbs of them around each day.You got a problem with old folks? Damn whippersnapper!I sure as hell do! What is the deal with the hair growing out of your ears, anyway?!?
They don't want nothing to do with you because they're afraid they'd end up as part of your gingerbread house.
Though I do question the source of the calcium used to enrich said cereal and "milk."
You should. Read or listen to the audiobook of "Twinkie, Deconstructed". Also, a $100 investment of seed will produce roughly $2500 worth of vegetables with a modicum of effort and energy, and a more useful use of a house's yard space than a lawn.
This topic has drifted from the OP's intent though...I wish you the best of luck Radavel! Keep us updated on your progress with your mission.
We are also one of the few (maybe only, I can't remember my facts right now, so I'm not gonna paint myself into a corner) animals that does ingest what basically amounts to another species baby formula, and I'm also pretty sure we're the only ones that continue to drink milk beyond infancy.
We're also the only species that cooks our food. Should we stop doing that as well?
Raw meat for everyone! Woot!
Raw meat for everyone! Woot!Mmmmmm......raw brainnnnnssss.
Even better.
Sounds smelly.Damn those cows! They need to stop farting!Sorry. I've tried.
Heh heh...pull my finger!
The two links showed me a 'page not found' message. I've heard this before, but I don't understand--how does vegetarianism help the environment?I realize that veganism isn't for everyone (sigh!), but if everyone would commit to just one or two vegetarian meals a week (no animal products) it would make a huge difference. We only have one planet to live on-please be gentle with it, even if you don't care about animals.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html
I tried copying and pasting the links, and they worked OK. Maybe give it another shot. Other posters have given good answers. I want to add that the amount of excrement produced by food animals is staggering. This is addressed in the articles. Think about how many big animals we have and how much they eat. Where does it all go? It's not a trivial question. When you consider the scale of factory farming, it's quite horrifying, actually. Really disgusting, terrible for the environment, terrible for people.
I want to add also that I wouldn't feel right about eating meat unless I could look the animal in the eye and draw a knife across its throat, and deal with the mess and the emotional and moral aftermath. I don't feel that I have the right to go into a supermarket, swipe a card, and walk out with meat in a package. I can't let myself off that easily, by distancing myself from the source. That isn't right to me. I have to have the courage to face all the consequences of what I am doing.
When it comes down to it, because of all the resources and chemicals that go into meat production (grain for the animals, water for the animals, water to raise the grain, pesticides for the grain, antibiotics for the animals, oil to transport all these resources, the amount of forest that gets destroyed to create grazing land), going vegan is one of the best things a single individual can do to help the planet, let alone their own bodies.Then why did we evolve as omnivores?
** spoiler omitted **
Actually, there's a popular theory that humans were not meant to be omnivores, but herbivores. Reasons: Our teeth, for one. For another, our inability to eat meat raw. Finally, our slowness. There are a buncha other reasons, too, but I can't remember them. :D
|
|
Though I do question the source of the calcium used to enrich said cereal and "milk."You should. Read or listen to the audiobook of "Twinkie, Deconstructed". Also, a $100 investment of seed will produce roughly $2500 worth of vegetables with a modicum of effort and energy, and a more useful use of a house's yard space than a lawn.
This topic has drifted from the OP's intent though...I wish you the best of luck Radavel! Keep us updated on your progress with your mission.
Thanks, Lilith. I hope to inspire other gamers to go for the big game.
A point of fact, it's not that expensive to prepare seedlings for the forest I envision. Just provide students with some mangos have them eat them (sort of a reward) and then plant them in a pot. Once the plants are big enough, the process of transplantation can begin at the project site.
It would appear that I underestimated the price. The cheapest seems to be about $25. Sorry about that.Thanks, Lilith. I hope to inspire other gamers to go for the big game.Though I do question the source of the calcium used to enrich said cereal and "milk."You should. Read or listen to the audiobook of "Twinkie, Deconstructed". Also, a $100 investment of seed will produce roughly $2500 worth of vegetables with a modicum of effort and energy, and a more useful use of a house's yard space than a lawn.
This topic has drifted from the OP's intent though...I wish you the best of luck Radavel! Keep us updated on your progress with your mission.
Actually, there's a popular theory that humans were not meant to be omnivores, but herbivores. Reasons: Our teeth, for one. For another, our inability to eat meat raw. Finally, our slowness. There are a buncha other reasons, too, but I can't remember them. :D
When it comes down to it, because of all the resources and chemicals that go into meat production (grain for the animals, water for the animals, water to raise the grain, pesticides for the grain, antibiotics for the animals, oil to transport all these resources, the amount of forest that gets destroyed to create grazing land), going vegan is one of the best things a single individual can do to help the planet, let alone their own bodies.Then why did we evolve as omnivores?
** spoiler omitted **
As opposed to our ability to process raw vegatation with our single stomach, lol.
|
Dude, I have specially adapted abilities that help me eat vegetables.
I have adapted a truly advanced running style that allows me to run down my veggie prey.
I have these amazingly blunt and well manicured fingers to help me to hold my prey fast whilst I administer the killing blow.
I have developed the ability to Julianne veggies so as toast their carcasses in an oily batter.
I am a veggie-killing machine and I am here to graze, baby!!
|
|
In all seriousness, any talk of real actions to try and ensure our planetary environment remains capable of sustaining human life is moot if other countries don't agree to help. I'm not saying that means we should do nothing, but we must also be reasonable about what we do. I don't litter, do recycle, try not to waste electricity or water, and the wife and I ride to work together as often as possible. Those are my small contributions, and I'm happy to make them.
Also, we have to ask ourselves - is there, ultimately, anything we can really do that will have any impact. There are things that are out of our control - natural aging of the planet/sun/etc, asteroids, and who knows what else.
Addressing the first point: We need a strong UN-like international code/task force to make all countries conform, and have sanctions for those who fail to meet the standards.
The second point: If that stuff doesn't happen, then we'll be left with a bad planet anyways. Isn't it better to make some changes than to do nothing and say that the universe could be destroyed any second? You're going to die anyways, so why bother eating healthily and getting vaccines?
As opposed to our ability to process raw vegatation with our single stomach, lol.Actually, there's a popular theory that humans were not meant to be omnivores, but herbivores. Reasons: Our teeth, for one. For another, our inability to eat meat raw. Finally, our slowness. There are a buncha other reasons, too, but I can't remember them. :D
When it comes down to it, because of all the resources and chemicals that go into meat production (grain for the animals, water for the animals, water to raise the grain, pesticides for the grain, antibiotics for the animals, oil to transport all these resources, the amount of forest that gets destroyed to create grazing land), going vegan is one of the best things a single individual can do to help the planet, let alone their own bodies.Then why did we evolve as omnivores?
** spoiler omitted **
My question: Do you see bonobos and chimps eating meat?
My question: Do you see bonobos and chimps eating meat?Actually, there's a popular theory that humans were not meant to be omnivores, but herbivores. Reasons: Our teeth, for one. For another, our inability to eat meat raw. Finally, our slowness. There are a buncha other reasons, too, but I can't remember them. :DAs opposed to our ability to process raw vegatation with our single stomach, lol.
Yes. But not for dietary reasons.
Edit: Oops, I was wrong. But nowhere near as much meat as humans (over-)consume.
My question: Do you see bonobos and chimps eating meat?As opposed to our ability to process raw vegatation with our single stomach, lol.Actually, there's a popular theory that humans were not meant to be omnivores, but herbivores. Reasons: Our teeth, for one. For another, our inability to eat meat raw. Finally, our slowness. There are a buncha other reasons, too, but I can't remember them. :D
When it comes down to it, because of all the resources and chemicals that go into meat production (grain for the animals, water for the animals, water to raise the grain, pesticides for the grain, antibiotics for the animals, oil to transport all these resources, the amount of forest that gets destroyed to create grazing land), going vegan is one of the best things a single individual can do to help the planet, let alone their own bodies.Then why did we evolve as omnivores?
** spoiler omitted **
Ah, NIMBYism never dies. I'd love to hear the studies the Delaware and Cape Cod dwellers use to back this up. I'm all for protecting the animals, but only if someone proves that they're in danger. Bats are one thing, they seem to get swatted by wind farms regularly, but birds?
Yeah, I hear that's the same excuses the Cape Cod dwellers used to try and prevent a wind farm from spoiling their view.
Oh what a train wreck that whole thing is here on Cape Cod. The only funny thing about it is watching the alt. energy folks beef with the pristine wilderness folks. The new thing the 'no wind farm' folks are trotting out to block construction is our local Native American tribe. Thay are now claiming that their ancestors back in the day used the area they want to build the wind towers on as a sacred burial ground. They want all of Nantucket Sound declared a sacred heritage site.
Personally I'd love it if they built this project, studies show that it could provide most of Cape Cod's energy needs. But it will never be built, the Islanders are fully against it (and they are all multi-millionaires for the most part) and the Kennedy political machine is arrayed against it as well (wouldn't want to mess up the view from the compound, don'tcha know).
My take on this whole boondoggle is this: Do your part. Take a little responsibility in your life. Take a look at what you are tossing in your trash can. If you have a yard, cordon off a section and pile all your organic wastes there. It makes kick-ass fertilizer in about six months. Plant native plants that sustain local wildlife with seeds and fruit. Don't fall for the media hype of a perfect lawn. Weeds are wildlife's food source. Herbicides, pesticides, and non-organic fertilizers from RESIDENTIAL sources are a major pollutant, because so many people don't bother to read directions and over-apply. Grass is a waste, and mono-cultural grass is a total prima donna waster of resources, especially water.
If we all managed to do our bit: send a few bucks to those charities that work on these issues by conserving land for wildlife, practiced organic recycling in our yardwork, practiced recycling in our own lives, etc. we wouldn't NEED to empower some useless committee of arguing bureaucrats at a billion a year to craft boring PSAs and fine businesses. Oh yeah, and stop eating at fast-food places. Those places buy their meat at the bottom dollar. They deal with the scummiest ranchers around the world, and those ranchers trying to do the right thing get the shaft. Think on that next time you cruise the Dollar Menu and pontificate on how someone should Do Something.
As this is a board for gamers, anyone have ideas on educational games that would teach environmental awareness?
Why, yes. Now that you ask, I've got plenty of ideas on how to indoctri...I mean, educate our children. Remember kids, this is the only planet I have!