Psycosmo
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
42
Posts :
787
Posted : Jun 27, 2007 02:27
Quote:
On 2007-06-22 22:45, Aluxe wrote:
I see what you are saying, like nothing is free. Though I think the point of the statistic is that with the resources used by the meat industry you can feed many more people if you use them instead to grow crops to feed humans.
-Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 250
-Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 40,000
But vegetables contain less protein per weight, so you need a larger poundage of vegetable matter to get the same amount of protein. Also you have to mix a few vegetables together to get significant quantities of all the essential amino acids needed for the body to produce protein.
Also, do these numbers take into account the increased yield of vegetables and animal feed that can be produced by fertilizing with the animals dung?
And is that 250lbs of meat per acre assuming that the animals are free range? I would imagine that meat yields are much higher for the less humane industrial style meat production.
full_on
IsraTrance Team
Started Topics :
279
Posts :
5475
Posted : Jun 27, 2007 08:22
Extinction is the only feasible solution.
Respect!
.
...Be gentle with the earth...
...Dance like nobody's watching...
.
...I don't mind not going to Heaven, as long as they've got Coffee in Hell...
Aluxe
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
25
Posts :
725
Posted : Jun 30, 2007 02:57
Quote:
But vegetables contain less protein per weight, so you need a larger poundage of vegetable matter to get the same amount of protein.
Also you have to mix a few vegetables together to get significant quantities of all the essential amino acids needed for the body to produce protein.
Yeah but then again you only need so much protein, and after that its even bad for the health. Plus I am not arguing you should necessarly stop eating meat, but rather stop eating so much of it. I think many meat eaters sort of fool themselves thinking that because they concluded that they do need meat, then it's ok for them to eat as much meat as they want, as if if more meat or less meat is all the same. But it's not, just the world reducing their meat consumption by 10% would mean huge environmental benefits.
But regardless a vegetable diet can sustain far more people per acre than meat. There is no comparison. Meat if anything should compliment a vegetable diet, not the other way around.
Quote:
Also, do these numbers take into account the increased yield of vegetables and animal feed that can be produced by fertilizing with the animals dung?
Wow, maybe that slipped. But you can go ask them, hehe. What I do know however is that all the shit from those animals is somehow ending up polluting all the rivers and natural water systems.
(in the US):
"According to the Environmental Protection Agency, hog, chicken and cattle waste has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states."
But whichever way you look at it, the amount of resources needed to sustain meat centered diets is simply monumental, so that can't be right because there are simply not enough resources in the world for that.
"Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90%"
"User of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock production"
"Calories of fossil fuel expended to get 1 calory of protein from beef: 78
To get 1 calory of protein from soybeans: 2 "
Quote:
And is that 250lbs of meat per acre assuming that the animals are free range? I would imagine that meat yields are much higher for the less humane industrial style meat production.
Are you suggesting less humane industrial style factory farms as a solution?
Magox
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
20
Posts :
2095
Posted : Jun 30, 2007 17:57
Since we are getting technical, i believe fertilizers have to be used for crops for our veggies right?
*Case Studies
Related Case Studies
Industry Description
The fertilizer industry is large – and touches most of our daily lives through using them around our own home to grow greener lawns or have more prolific gardens and through out the agricultural sector for produce. In fact, they are used globally as an important ingredient in crop production and are made of both organic and inorganic materials. The three most abundant inorganic – or chemical – fertilizer ingredients manufactured include:
Nitrogen
Phosphate
Potassium
These three are the basic components for both industrial and residential products. Although, they can be used alone – most fertilizers contain a combination of the three to produce a better product.
In manufacturing fertilizers, to minimize risks, controls are used such as: dust collection, electrical grounding and spark-proofing equipment (the combination of chemicals can be highly explosive), proper chemical and liquid storage and handling of gasses. Federal and state compliance must be in place for air, wastewater, and stormwater – as well as storage tanks.
As you might imagine, the potential for environmental exposure is large and there have been many well-publicized cases of environmental accidents for this type of manufacturer.
Potential Environmental Exposures:
Fuel storage– both aboveground and underground storage tanks
Chemical storage
Air pollution equipment
Asbestos
Cooling water, process water and wastewater discharge
Stormwater runoff at the operation and areas treated with fertilizer
Loading and unloading hazardous waste and hazardous waste disposal
Disposal practices
Storage of flammable and combustible liquids
Electrical equipment that contains PCBs
Absent or inadequate emergency spill plans
End product causes environmental damage
Environmental Contaminants:
Nitric, sulfuric, and phosphoric acid
Anhydrous ammonia
Organics
Ammonium nitrate, sulfate, phosphate, chloride
Sodium nitrate
Urea: potassium salts, urea formaldehyde, urea ammonium phosphates, urea-sulfate
Superphosphates
Hydrocarbons
Other fertilizer formulas that use: herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and more
The fertilizer manufacturing industry is at great risk for environmental exposure through the nature of the business – fertilizer manufacturers have made headlines in cases ranging from water pollution to air pollution to toxic contamination of complete communities. Because the manufacturing of chemicals must be closely controlled – one missed step creates a large risk.
Here’s why –
The manufacturing process itself can lead to an exposure through release of toxins into the air, from spills and explosions.
Fertilizers are stored in aboveground and underground tanks – leaks can and do occur.
Due to the vast distribution system of fertilizers worldwide via rail, truck, water and air – there is the potential for overturns, spills, leaks and more.
Even though most fertilizers are applied with extreme caution – it doesn’t eliminate the potential they have to contaminate the soil, water reservoirs and wells. *
A few more observations -
* World food production is at risk from farming methods that have degraded soils, parched aquifers, polluted waters, and caused the loss of animal and plant species, according to a new report by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the World Resources Institute (WRI). Soil degradation has dramatically reduced crop productivity, with severe consequences likely for poor, heavily populated countries. Agricultural lands face an enormous challenge to provide food for the expected population surge of 1.5 billion people over the next 20 years.
Stanley Wood, IFPRI scientist , stressed that since agricultural land dominates the earth's populated landscapes, we need it to do more than produce more food. "We also rely on agricultural land to provide other goods and services, including clean water and habitat for threatened species," he said.
Wood added that agricultural lands could produce more food and help to prevent global warming by returning more carbon to the soils. "Unfortunately, many current agricultural practices actually contribute to global warming. A recent report by nearly 1,000 of the world's leading climate scientists demonstrates that global warming is increasing faster than originally estimated. In recent decades, scientists have noted an increase in the frequency and intensity of droughts in Asia and Africa," he commented.
The Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Agroecosystems also reveals that:
Soil degradation, including nutrient depletion, erosion, and salinization, is widespread.
Twenty to 30 percent of the world's forests areas have been converted to agriculture, resulting in extensive species and habitat loss. Agriculture is encroaching on many national parks and other protected areas.
Agriculture consumes 70 percent of the freshwater withdrawn annually by humans. Irrigation is draining more water than is being replenished by rainfall, causing water tables to fall. Moreover, many water sources are being polluted by excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides.
"We must not continue to take nutrients out of the soil faster than we replace them. We must not continue to deplete water resources faster than they can be replenished," said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Director General of IFPRI. "By analogy, you cannot continue to take more out of your bank account than you put in. Sooner or later, you'll run out of money."
"On the path of spirituality, one ventures to vanquish one’s own faults rather than to judge others"
Magox
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
20
Posts :
2095
Posted : Jun 30, 2007 18:11
and i believe pesticides are used for our crops for our veggies as well right?
*
PESTICIDE FACTS
Compiled by RATE
(Real Alternatives to Toxins in the Environment)
"Chemicals have replaced bacteria and viruses as the main threat to health. The diseases we're beginning to see as the major causes of death in the latter part of this century and into the 21st century are diseases of chemical origin." -- Dick Irwin, toxicologist at Texas A&M Universities
WHAT ARE PESTICIDES? Pesticides are poisons designed to kill a variety of plants and animals such as insects (insecticides), weeds (herbicides), and mold or fungus (fungicides). Pesticides include active ingredients (chemical compounds designed to kill the target organisms) and inert ingredients which may be carcinogens or toxic substances. They also include rodenticides and wood preservatives.
HOW DO PESTICIDES REACH US? Pesticides can be absorbed through the skin, swallowed or inhaled (most toxic). During application pesticides drift and settle on ponds, laundry, toys, pools and furniture. People and pets track pesticide residue into the house {3}. Only 5% of pesticides reach target weeds. The rest runs off into water or dissipates in the air. Drift from landscaping ranges from 12 feet to 14.5 miles {1}. More serious effects appear to be produced by direct inhalation of pesticide sprays than by absorption or ingestion of toxins. {2}
ARE REGISTERED PESTICIDES SAFE? NO. Many of the "safety tests" used to test these products are fundamentally inadequate: they test for the acute (not chronic) effects of single (not multiple) chemicals on healthy (not sick, chemically sensitive or immuno-suppressed etc.) adult (not feta l or young) animal (not human) subjects exposed over short (not long) periods of time {10}. Some of the companies testing pesticides have been charged and convicted of falsifying residue and environmental studies that were used to support pesticide registration in the US and Canada {10}. Some pesticides become even more toxic as they break down. (In the US it is a violation of federal law to state that the use of pesticides is safe.)
Pesticides initiate and propagate multiple chemical sensitivities. About 16 million US citizens are sensitive to pesticides (i.e. they have compromised immune functioning as a result of pesticide exposure). {10}
BESIDES SENSITIVITY AND TOXICITY WHAT OTHER HEALTH RISKS ARE THERE?
increased risk of leukemia
cancers (lung, brain, testicular, lymphoma)
increase in spontaneous abortions
greater genetic damage
decreased fertility
liver and pancreatic damage
neuropathy
disturbances to immune systems (asthma/ allergies)
increases in stillbirths {1}
decreased sperm counts
WHAT ARE THE MAIN RISKS FOR CHILDREN?
cancer: leukemia and brain cancer
asthma and allergies
polyneuritis with numbness and pain in lower limbs. {5}
altered neurological functioning and long-lasting neuro-behavioral impairments. {10}
birth defects
neurotoxicity
gangrene (tissue death) of the extremities
Children whose homes and gardens are treated with pesticides have 6.5 times greater risk of leukemia than children living in untreated environments. {1,2}
WHO IS MOST SUSCEPTIBLE?
Children, infants and fetuses - relative to adults, children have more rapid breathing and metabolic rates, greater surface to body mass ratios, thinner skins, spend more time in contact with the ground, more frequently place their fingers in their mouths, and are less likely to be able to read hazard signs.
Adults - especially those with asthma, lupus erythematosus, vasculitis, dermatitis and chemical sensitivities {1}.
Animals - pets, wildlife of all kinds and their habitat.
WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS ON ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE?
Birds die after eating granular pesticides.
Animals may develop:
cancer
abnormal thyroid function
decreased fertility
decreased hatching success
demasculinization and feminization of males
alteration of immune function {10}
Contamination is found in one third of all Canadian pesticides
is present in pesticides and fertilizers found in stores under names that sound safe like "Weed 'n Feed"
is a component of Agent Orange
contains dioxin contaminants {10}.
Known Effects:
developmental and behavioral effects in various animal species.
associated with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. {10}
reproductive and endocrine disruptions. {13}
associated with a cancer in dogs (canine malignant lymphoma) {10}
increased number of abnormal sperm in exposed farmers. {8}
(ie. Reyes Syndrome was linked to an ingredient additive that allowed the pesticide to stick on the trees.)
Fertilizer sprays also may contain poisonous solvents.
Applicators do not know the danger of their product because they don't know the identity of the"inert" ingredients.
Inerts sometimes include benzene, known human carcinogen (if it were spilled on the highway, it would be considered a toxic chemical spill.) {11}*
So there are environmental risks to both sides, to the livestock and agricultural side that both need to be worked on.
Let's get off our Veggie high horses here and see what's really happening. If you want to eat strictly vegetables, or eat small amounts of meat, then gooooood for you!!
That is your decision, and i will respect it, but if other people choose to have different diets, then this is their decisions and try to respect it as well.
"On the path of spirituality, one ventures to vanquish one’s own faults rather than to judge others"
Aluxe
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
25
Posts :
725
Posted : Jul 1, 2007 11:44
Quote:
I believe fertilizers have to be used for crops for our veggies right?
But actually no, we do not need fertilizers or pesticedes, that is (like HELLO!!!) also part of the problem. Try researching a bit on permaculture, there is some cool shit there.
Quote:
If you want to eat strictly vegetables, or eat small amounts of meat, then gooooood for you!!
That is your decision, and i will respect it, but if other people choose to have different diets, then this is their decisions and try to respect it as well.
Yeah well if others people's diets are a cause of monumental enviromental problems that affect us all, what are we supposed to not say or do anything because we have to respect others decisions even if they affect us in a negative way?
Sorry I don't quite get it.
It's like not only do we expect to have the right to create hell in this world, but on top of that we also expect the right to not have someone point out to us that we are creating hell in this world, and all out of respect? Hilarious.
Magox
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
20
Posts :
2095
Posted : Jul 1, 2007 13:18
In most cases mr. Aluxe the veggies that you eat, there are fertilizers and pesticides that are used. Of course there are exceptions as there are with livestock.
The same argument can be made against agricultural produce and how it effects the environment. Did you not read both the posts above? If you did, then you will see what i am saying or did you just conveniently disregard them.
Here let me show you again. Read it this time, I promise you, it's not long.
*
The Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Agroecosystems also reveals that:
Soil degradation, including nutrient depletion, erosion, and salinization, is widespread.
Twenty to 30 percent of the world's forests areas have been converted to agriculture, resulting in extensive species and habitat loss. Agriculture is encroaching on many national parks and other protected areas.
Agriculture consumes 70 percent of the freshwater withdrawn annually by humans. Irrigation is draining more water than is being replenished by rainfall, causing water tables to fall. Moreover, many water sources are being polluted by excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides.
"We must not continue to take nutrients out of the soil faster than we replace them. We must not continue to deplete water resources faster than they can be replenished," said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Director General of IFPRI. "By analogy, you cannot continue to take more out of your bank account than you put in. Sooner or later, you'll run out of money."
*
And about "Creating hell in this world" ??? Pretty dramatic my friend.....
So now just because i eat poultry and some meat, i am contributing to bringing hell into this world. hahahaha pretty funny shid my man.
Let me get this straight.... How about if you have 2 people. One who consumes a lot of meat and one who consumes meat once in a while. Does that mean that the one who ingests lots of meat brings tremendous amounts of Hell to this world, and the one who ingests meat once in a while, just brings mild amounts of torment to this world? Or does the person who eats mild amounts of meat is exempt from bringing torment and hell to the world because he was "conscience" of the amount of meat he ate, because it is ok to eat a little bit of meat and not more than just a little. Says who????
I'm sorry my friend, your getting no where, and your getting there very quickly.
As far as you not getting it. Well, if you don't get it, then you just don't get it.
I still will respect your wrong opinion.
"On the path of spirituality, one ventures to vanquish one’s own faults rather than to judge others"
Aluxe
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
25
Posts :
725
Posted : Jul 2, 2007 10:55
Quote:
Magox wrote:
In most cases mr. Aluxe the veggies that you eat, there are fertilizers and pesticides that are used.
Yes, and I AGREE, but my friend that is also part of the problem, something THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE AS WELL and NOT an excuse to avoid dealing with bigger problems like those caused by the meat industry. But YES the fact is fertilizers and pesticides are also fucking up the planet. Ya mon, we don't need that shit either, lets move it forward in every direction. And there are plenty of proven alternetives which is why I suggested reading about permaculture.
Quote:
Of course there are exceptions as there are with livestock.
The same argument can be made against agricultural produce and how it effects the environment.
Yeah but remember much of the argricultural produce is used to feed livestock.
"
-75% of Third World imports of corn, barley, sorghum, and oats are fed to animals, not to hungry people.
-More than 80% of corn and 95% of oats grown in US are fed to livestock in US.
-The world’s cattle alone consume a quantity of food enough to feed more than the entire human population on Earth.
-It takes 16 kg of grains to produce 1 kg of beef; as such, a person eating a meal of beef is depriving 15 other men from filling their stomach.
-Animal protein production requires more than 8 times as much fossil fuel energy as production of comparable amount of plant protein.
-The same area of land can feed 20 times as many people eating a vegetarian diet than a meat diet."
As you can see my friend, if we put the veggie centered diet and a meat centered diet together to compare how destructive they can be, well.. There is simply no comparison. But you are damn right, agriculture to feed humans is also ill in its use of chemicals to grow the crops.
Quote:
And about "Creating hell in this world" ??? Pretty dramatic my friend.....
Oh you mean our monumental enviromental problems are just drama after all? Wow, thanks for the newsflash, I feel so much more relaxed now. 3 king size harmburgers please, with extra boxes and extra non recyclable plastic straws for my pepsi (Buuuuuurp)
Quote:
So now just because i eat poultry and some meat, i am contributing to bringing hell into this world. hahahaha pretty funny shid my man.
Well "some meat" really doesn't sound that bad TOO ME (personally), I admit to also eat some meat. But as funny as it may seem to you the reality is that everything we consume has a consequence. Look just start paying close attention to every bite of the food you eat and how its connected to the health of our planet. And you will start getting a more clear picture of how funny things really are.
Quote:
Let me get this straight.... How about if you have 2 people. One who consumes a lot of meat and one who consumes meat once in a while. Does that mean that the one who ingests lots of meat brings tremendous amounts of Hell to this world, and the one who ingests meat once in a while, just brings mild amounts of torment to this world? Or does the person who eats mild amounts of meat is exempt from bringing torment and hell to the world because he was "conscience" of the amount of meat he ate, because it is ok to eat a little bit of meat and not more than just a little.
Amigo its like driving a truck to work when you could instead use a small car or even a bike. Or using paper plates everyday when you could wash your plates instead. It's the same thing with our food, we need to be counscious and responsible of every bite we take and where it comes from and what it is supporting. It all starts at a personal level.
Quote:
Says who????
Be your own judge, but make an effort to be aware.
Quote:
I'm sorry my friend, your getting no where, and your getting there very quickly.
Actually washing our hands off of the responsability of our actions is what IMHO is getting us absolutely KNOWHERE. And honestly I think the world today is at a turning point where things could get really nasty, so a radical transformation is needed URGENTLY. Like we have to stop worrying about making certain segements of the population feel guilty and desrespected because we point out some of the consequences of their actions. We don't have time anymore for that BS, people need to snap out and start growing a bit of awarenes and responsability for all they consume. ANd I think it all starts at a personal level through personal transformation.
Quote:
As far as you not getting it. Well, if you don't get it, then you just don't get it.
Excuse me but what part of the enviromental problems that are caused by the meat industry that I have pointed out are you not really understanding? Or are you actually denying they are true? which exactly?
Quote:
I still will respect your wrong opinion.
Yo mon, and I respect you, see..
On top of the world:
Magox
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
20
Posts :
2095
Posted : Jul 2, 2007 17:16
Ya mon, and i respect you, see....
On top of the world "On the path of spirituality, one ventures to vanquish one’s own faults rather than to judge others"
Did You Know?
A 2006 U.N. report concluded that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined.
Producing one calorie of animal protein requires more than 10 times as much fossil fuel input—releasing more than 10 times the amount of greenhouse gasses—than it takes to produce one calorie of plant protein.
Being vegetarian is more effective in the fight against global warming than trading in your “regular” car for a Toyota Prius
According to the United Nations, the meat industry “emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.”
Global warming has been called humankind’s “greatest challenge” and the world’s most grave environmental threat.1 The scientific community says that there is no doubt that global warming is real and that humans are largely to blame. Human activities are emitting vast amounts of “greenhouse gases” that prevent heat from escaping from the Earth’s atmosphere. Scientists report that this phenomenon will increasingly lead to catastrophic natural disasters, such as more frequent and intense droughts, floods, and hurricanes; rising sea levels; and more disease outbreaks. Scientists also warn that global warming threatens the lives of millions of humans and countless other animals. Many conscientious people are trying to help reduce global warming by driving more fuel-efficient cars and using energy-saving light bulbs. Although this helps, science shows that going vegetarian is perhaps the most effective way to fight global warming.
In a groundbreaking 2006 report, the United Nations (U.N.) said that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined. Senior U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization official Henning Steinfeld reported that the meat industry is “one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems.”
Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide together cause the vast majority of global warming. Raising animals for food is one of the largest sources of carbon dioxide and the single largest source of both methane and nitrous oxide emissions.
Carbon Dioxide: The burning of fossil fuels (such as oil and gasoline) releases carbon dioxide, the primary gas responsible for global warming. Producing one calorie of animal protein requires more than 10 times as much fossil fuel input—releasing more than 10 times as much carbon dioxide—than does a calorie of plant protein.3 Feeding massive amounts of grain and water to farmed animals and then killing them and processing, transporting, and storing their flesh is extremely energy-intensive. In addition, enormous amounts of carbon dioxide stored in trees are released during the destruction of vast acres of forest to provide pastureland and to grow crops for farmed animals. On top of this, animal manure also releases large quantities of carbon dioxide.
You could exchange your “regular” car for a hybrid Toyota Prius and, by doing so, prevent about 1 ton of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year, but according to the University of Chicago, being vegan is more effective in the fight against global warming; a vegan prevents approximately 1.5 fewer tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year than a meat-eater does.4 The math is simple: You could spend more than $20,000 on a Prius and still emit 50 percent more carbon dioxide than you would if you just gave up eating meat and other animal products.
Methane: The billions of chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cows who are crammed into factory farms each year in the U.S. produce enormous amounts of methane, both during digestion and from the acres of cesspools filled with feces that they excrete. Scientists report that every pound of methane is more than 20 times as effective as carbon dioxide is at trapping heat in our atmosphere.5 The Environmental Protection Agency shows that animal agriculture is the single largest source of methane emissions in the U.S.
Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous oxide is about 300 times more potent as a global warming gas than carbon dioxide. According to the U.N., the meat, egg, and dairy industries account for a staggering 65 percent of worldwide nitrous oxide emissions
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Terry Pratchett
Psycosmo
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
42
Posts :
787
Posted : Jul 5, 2007 23:32
Still, for me those are arguments for smarter agriculture that uses the waste to produce energy.
Furthermore, those arguments have nothing to do with being vegetarian and eating meat, they are all about how the meat is gotten. If I go and shoot a deer, none of those arguments hold up.
Anyway, I wonder how much energy is used to run the system at a trance party? How much pollution is created in the production of that energy?
@psycosmo .............. this is not a win loose game in a debate ........but what gaspard and others are saying are the hard facts , your argument breaker quotes will not erase the reality the earth "mother earth " is facing , what can help her cause is to try and reduce greenhouse gases and reverse the atrocious cycle which shall be devastating in few years from now if kept unchecked .
Is trying to justify meat eating "habits" so important than realizing the truth ...................... eat meat but in a way that does not disturb the womb we live in ...............is all can add ............... be wise not blissful by willful ignorance . Thanks
peace
To focus sometimes you need to spin hard on your soul's axis..... just don't ask how and what it means ;)
Psycosmo
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
42
Posts :
787
Posted : Jul 7, 2007 06:43
Yeah I am pretty much just arguing on minor details at this point.
Vegetarianism is clearly a more efficient use of resources. Although I would still debate the exact numbers, it is an undeniable fact that every time you go up a link in the food chain, you lose energy. It is a basic fact of physics that no energy transfer is lossless, and everytime the energy changes forms (ie from plant to cow) some of that energy will be lost. So there is really no way that it can be possible for raising meat to rival the efficiency of rasing plants.
Although hunting I gets around many of these arguments, clearly everyone cannot hunt or there wouldnt be any animals left.
For myself I really like the taste of meat, and I really do have a hard time eating the volume of grain that I need to fullfill my energy requirments. I try to get my meat from diverse sources and not totally pig out on it, and for the moment that is good enough for me.
I guess the reason that I object reflexivly to a lot of vegetarianism stuff is that a lot of it has a shrill tone of almost religious sounding moralism. I dont really trust people who think it is morally wrong to eat an animal to make these arguments to me because I think they are making them to get me to live by their morals. I would much rather figure out more efficient and cleaner ways to produce meat and/or cut back, rather than give it up entirely. I dont think this is what a lot of veg advocates want.
I am interested in ethics, and I admit that eating minimal amounts of meat would be a more ethical way to live. However being against the actual consumption of meat at all is too much like the religious morals that I am allergic to.
I hope that someday we can grow good tasting and safe flesh in a test tube. Till then I guess Im gonna keep eating dead animals, although perhaps I'll cut it back a tiny bit, and eat them a bit more thoughtfully after this discussion.
peace
To focus sometimes you need to spin hard on your soul's axis..... just don't ask how and what it means ;)
sure_smoke_alot
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
45
Posts :
6874
Posted : Jul 13, 2007 09:16
i cant belive that ppl. actually think that u cant be healty if u dont eat meat.
or to put it in a better way that u have to eat a lot of vegetables to be healthy coz u dont eat meat.
know ur body n how it works how every food u intake changes the working of the body, how the properties of each diff type of food change the way u think.
if u research on this (mind u every person has a diff metabolism & the climate he stays in differs as well so there cannot be a genral theroy) u'll be surprised to see how much food ur body actually needs.
peace
the problem with valuing art is, till u dont understand it, it's worthless but wen u do understand it, it's priceless!!
