Sustainability Vegetarianism for the Environment

Messages
1,290
Reaction score
23
Points
0
Ethnic group
The primordial soup
There are 3 reasons for choosing to become a vegetarian. Those are:

1. Moral/ethical (may be based on religious beliefs or not)
2. Health
3. Environmental​

This thread will focus on the environmental aspect of the argument for choosing a non-flesh diet.


-----------------------
*New thread opened to clearly separate the issues of health and morals which were being discussed on other threads. Having separate discussions clearly delineated will allow for a smoother flowing discussion staying more focused.
 
Choosing a vegetarian life style is one that would benefit the environment.

The intensive raising of animals for meat is an inefficient way to obtain calories and taxes recourses and the environment needlessly. Up to 80% of all meat produced is factory farmed and that trend continues to rise as more and more family farms cannot compete with the large agri-corporations that are gaining more and more of the market due to high demand for cheap meat.

As the world population increases and as more people seek to buy the cheapest products, it is unrealistic to expect that people will voluntarily choose more expensive raised animals. As long as people eat meat, for the most part, the general mass of the people will choose the cheaper products on a more regular basis.

However, if environmental costs are factored into the argument, we may see that even the cheap meat is not really cheap at all.

The danger to the environment is echoed by professors at universities as well. Peter Cheeke, agricultural professor at Oregon St. University calls factory farming:

?ga frontal assault on the environment, with massive groundwater and air pollution problems.?h
 
Do you honestly believe that if we all become vegetarians the world will become a better place, and the environment would be better?

Look, if you want to eat plants...be my guest!! But some people like a nice tasty steak once in a while. There has to be balance, else you'll get more of one thing and a shortage of the other. (Too many animals or too many vegetation)

You can debate your whole life about this, but I doubt it would make a difference.
 
RockLee said:
Do you honestly believe that if we all become vegetarians the world will become a better place, and the environment would be better?

Yes, I do. And so do many others. In fact, just look at the quote by Albert Einstein in my signature.

There has to be balance, else you'll get more of one thing and a shortage of the other. (Too many animals or too many vegetation)

So, you think that if we don`t eat animals we will be over run by cows, pigs, and chickens? Please go into a little more detail as to how not producing these animals because there is no demand for them, would cause us to be overrun by them.

You can debate your whole life about this, but I doubt it would make a difference.

You doubt wrong. Becoming socialy concientious of our choices does make a difference. Discussion and disseminating of information does cause people to consider the pros and cons of the argument being put forth. Listening in on these kinds of debates did help to change my opinion and move me on the issue.

However, the biggest battle is against the mindset of futility, which you seem to be putting forth. Many are stubbornly resistant to change.
 
RockLee said:
Do you honestly believe that if we all become vegetarians the world will become a better place, and the environment would be better?
In one asian country, a study was done on children, and those brought up in Buddhist households recovered more quickly from traumatic experiences than those raised in households of other belief systems. In this country, as it has quite a high Buddhist population, one will very rarely see a young child killing or tormenting even the flies or ants. They've been taught to have compassion for all animals, including those that most would consider pests, and perhaps the compassion they are taught makes them more resilient. Modern science and especially the advent of the fMRI has made a strong case for compassion as being a very healthy and positive emotion (who would have imagined that trying to feel another's suffering would be a positive emotion).
RockLee said:
You can debate your whole life about this, but I doubt it would make a difference.
I don't know, in part SVF's threads have caused me to more seriously consider going vegetarian (still fiercely opposed to your debate style in the religion and philosophy forum SVF!).
 
I'm afraid I'm too tired to address the topic at hand as much as I'd like, but I'll say that I still haven't and will not read your sig so long as it continually bounces like that. It's actually more cause for me to scroll past your posts than anything else. Sorry but it's just been bugging me.

Ok I really must go to bed, but I will say that I agree that a vegetarian population takes up less resources than a carnivorous one. That's not to say that they aren't still having a minus effect on the available resources (with few exceptions), but the differences between the two are quite staggering.
 
You seem determined to shove vegetarianism down everyones throat, but honestly I don't care about the environment, my own health, or if its ethical or not. All I care about that is meat tastes good and for that reason alone I will continue to eat it.
 
nice gaijin said:
Ok I really must go to bed, but I will say that I agree that a vegetarian population takes up less resources than a carnivorous one.
Good that the human population isn't carnivorous, but omnivorous. :)
Not necessarily does meat production take up more resources than vegetable production. We could build large underground bunkers (IE saving a large amount of surface) to keep animals & tanks in which their food is grown (algae or something), with attached automatic slaughterhouses. The waste products could be used as fertiliser & for energy production.
All this would also have the positive side effect that all those modern city-dwelling softies who are afraid to meet their future meals alive, would only encounter the end-product.
Well, positive... I'd prefer people would be able to face the realities of life: if something wants to live, another something has to die (except in case of parasites or pure fruit eating species).
 
bossel said:
Good that the human population isn't carnivorous, but omnivorous. :)

Yep. Being omnivorous means we can choose.

Not necessarily does meat production take up more resources than vegetable production.

Wrong.

It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat, while growing 1 pound of wheat only requires 25 gallons.-- Robbins, The Food Revolution, p. 236.​

We could build large underground bunkers (IE saving a large amount of surface) to keep animals & tanks in which their food is grown (algae or something), with attached automatic slaughterhouses. The waste products could be used as fertiliser & for energy production.

Yep. But won`t happen. It would be too much value added making it cost prohibitive. I guess we could terraform Mars, too, and it would be suitable for habitation in 20 or 30 thousand years after we cause a green house affect to warm it up, and then turn it into a huge farm, keeping all the environmental problems there and then ship the end product back to us here.

What "could" be done is just often too cost prohibitive. But sometimes the far out ideas are amusing since they are so farsical.

I'd prefer people would be able to face the realities of life: if something wants to live, another something has to die (except in case of parasites or pure fruit eating species).

Yep. Plants do have to die. No need to cause something to purposefully die for humans to survive.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Wrong.
It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat, while growing 1 pound of wheat only requires 25 gallons.
-- Robbins, The Food Revolution, p. 236.
Actually, that's not quite right, that's only for the current system (if that number of 2500 is right,anyway).


Yep. But won`t happen.
Of course. I forgot to mention that the above is pure SF. Much too expensive & unnecessary, anyway.

Yep. Plants do have to die.
Just like animals, agreed.

No need to cause something to purposefully die for humans to survive.
Oh, well. The meat's taste would suffer a bit, if we wait until the animals die by themselves. Then again, we could GM them in a way that they automatically die by the age of say 15 months.

BTW, does the above mean that you don't eat anything that is killed for consumption, like eg. cauliflower or broccoli?
 
bossel said:
Actually, that's not quite right, that's only for the current system (if that number of 2500 is right,anyway).

Well, just declaring it "not quite right," does not make it so. Do you have an aversion to details?

Of course. I forgot to mention that the above is pure SF. Much too expensive & unnecessary, anyway.

Yep. Agreed. Then why even bring it up? Just to cloud the issue? I don`t remember anywhere in the OP that this was a thread for SF musings. It clearly puts forth the topic of the thread as vegetarianism for the environment. If you think vegetarianism is not good for the environment or take issue with what I have put forth, then please exercise discipline and address those points.

BTW, does the above mean that you don't eat anything that is killed for consumption, like eg. cauliflower or broccoli?

I am not the issue of the thread. Are you wanting to turn it into an ad hominem discussion? Stay on topic.
 
Thunderthief said:
You seem determined to shove vegetarianism down everyones throat, but honestly I don't care about the environment, my own health, or if its ethical or not. All I care about that is meat tastes good and for that reason alone I will continue to eat it.

I understand how you feel. When people are young the focus is usually on themselves. When people grow in many ways, they become more apt to change. You are not there yet. Maybe you never will be. Lots of people die with the same attitude as they always have without experiencing any change.

However, when I look at a stagnant pool of water with its unchanging surface, I see very little that is attractive in its unchanging nature ...

Just keep visiting the thread. Perhaps the information could cause deeper thought with you on the issue. Perhaps not. I have no idea.

But in no way am I able to cram anything down your throat. You are free to do as you will.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Well, just declaring it "not quite right," does not make it so.

Well, that about sums up my thoughts on the vegitarian issue:

In spite of massive contradictory evidence, some vegitarians insist that everyone should adopt their lifestyle and beliefs because eating certain foods is "not quite right."

Personally, I think PETA's "Got Beer" Anti-milk campaign was "not quite right"--considering that alchohol is literaly poisonus and cows milk is--well--not...

...not to mention all the other falsehoods and deceptive statements made on that page. There's a differance between promoting your point of view, and encouraging college students to drink poison. :eek:kashii:
 
To the above post: This thread is about vegetarianism as it relates to the environment -- not health or the morals and ethics of eating flesh. There are separate threads for those.
 
Up to 1/3 of all fossil fuels in the U.S. goes toward producing flesh for consumption. Looking at the stages of value added to flesh, it is easy to imagine all the fossil fuels going into this product.

1. Grow large quantities of grain, soy beans, and corn to feed the animals. Do this by intensive tilling of the land, crop dusting, and harvesting, and irrigation pumping systems.

2. Transport the oil and fossil fuels that are demanded by the flesh industry from the oil fields to the points of processing.

3. Transport this refined fuel to the gas stations or companies that fuel their ships and trucks.

4. Ship the grain in gas guzzling semi trailers to companies that will turn it into feed.

5. Power the companies that turn it into feed.

6. Add in the costs of workers of the companies that use their gas fueled vehicles to arrive to work and return from work each day.

7. After the feed is produced, ship this feed back in gas guzzling trucks to those who will feed it to their animals.

8. The workers at the factory farms need to come to their jobs by gas vehicles.

9. Transport the animals to slaughter on trucks, again consuming more fossil fuels.

10. If the slaugherhouse does not package the meat, transport the carcases to a meat packing plant using trucks.

11. Add the costs of government officials which must drive across their large regional territories to check on sanitation, disease control, animal cruelty etc, at the farms and slaughterhouses.

12. Use large trucks and more fossil fuels getting the flesh from the meat packing plants to the supermarkets.

13. Keep the electric running strong in the stores to keep the meat refrigerated or frozen.​

At every step in the processing of flesh one can see the value added and the massive use of fossil fuels that goes into the production.

And what do most scientists and position papers say about the use of fossil fuels? -- They believe they are one of the leading causes, if not the number one contributer to the Greenhouse Effect.

Being a vegetarian means caring about the environment.
 
Er, can't most of the above points be said for the same for mass production of vegetarian food. After all gas guzzling trucks are used to transport veg and fruit from A to B. Refrigderation is used to store veg and fruit. In fact I can't see a single one of the above list that cannot be said for the same for the production and fruit or veg. Becoming a vegetarian does not mean you care about the environment because the list still uses fossil fuels, pesticides, non-biodegradable packaging etc. You might want to revise your last comment
 
Mycernius said:
Er, can't most of the above points be said for the same for mass production of vegetarian food. After all gas guzzling trucks are used to transport veg and fruit from A to B. Refrigderation is used to store veg and fruit. In fact I can't see a single one of the above list that cannot be said for the same for the production and fruit or veg.

Er, first of all, not as much grain would need to be produced if the calories went directly from plant to final use. That cuts out stages in transportation. That cuts out more demand for fossil fuels.

Er, 2nd of all, factory farms require electricity to run at a high capacity as they provide lighting and in some cases heating for animals.

Er, slaughtering, butchering, and meat packing facilities have more employees using more machinery and using more vehicles every day to drive to and from work than grain silo operations.

Er, while some of those stages (definitely not all) are required for the production of crops, MUCH MORE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF CROPS are needed to feed the animals -- more so than what would be needed for only human consumption.

Becoming a vegetarian does not mean you care about the environment because the list still uses fossil fuels, pesticides, non-biodegradable packaging etc. You might want to revise your last comment

I never said a vegetarian diet doesn`t result in the use of fossil fuels. Vegetarianism is not a perfect choice leading to Utopia as it concerns the environment. It is merely a better choice of the ones that exist -- and in the case of fossil fuels, it most clearly is the one choice in regards to diet that decreases the use of fossil fuels because of less transportation and less intensive farming due to lesser land area that would be used for the growth of plant food.

My last comment still stands as it is.
 
Humans are Omnivors so erveryone should decide for himself ,if he wants to eat meat or not and saying eating meat is immoral is just without any substance there is a reason for us beeing omnivors.
And even if you think what you are doing is the "right" thing to do dont try to force people to believe in beeing vegetarian it might work for some but it probably will never work for all ;)
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Well, just declaring it "not quite right," does not make it so. Do you have an aversion to details?
Which details? Eg. that you overlooked the fact that food production for animals in these underground bunkers would be an almost closed system? Hence the need for fresh water would be much lower than in the current system.

Then why even bring it up? Just to cloud the issue?
Don't you read your own thread?
nice gaijin said:
a vegetarian population takes up less resources than a carnivorous one
That's what I answered to. & what nice_gaijin wrote is not a necessity, but depends on the agrarian system.

I don`t remember anywhere in the OP that this was a thread for SF musings.
It isn't? Oh my. Why then did you muse about Mars? Why not just ignore the point?

please exercise discipline and address those points.
I address what others write, whether it is directly related to the thread title, or not. If the discussion drifts too far away, we can always split the thread. If you want to dictate what others write on your threads, you could always open your own forum, where you make the rules.

I am not the issue of the thread. Are you wanting to turn it into an ad hominem discussion? Stay on topic.
You said
No need to cause something to purposefully die for humans to survive.
What makes it so personal if I address this statement? But, if you like, I rephrase my question:
Does the above mean that you think, nothing that needs to be killed for consumption should be eaten, like eg. cauliflower or broccoli?

strongvoicesforward said:
Er, slaughtering, butchering, and meat packing facilities have more employees using more machinery and using more vehicles every day to drive to and from work than grain silo operations.
More employment, then. Good for the economy. Since Germany has such a massive unemployment problem, we should become a carnivorous society.

My last comment still stands as it is.
As wrong as it is: vegetarianism is not equal to caring about the environment.
 
bossel said:
Which details? Eg. that you overlooked the fact that food production for animals in these underground bunkers would be an almost closed system? Hence the need for fresh water would be much lower than in the current system.

When you said my numbers were not quite right, you were referring to the numbers I stated for water usage. That is what I was replying to. Then you went off on your SF musing.

Don't you read your own thread?

Yep. Don`t you read the OP of threads you join? You began going off on the "something has to die" tangent. It was clearly stated this thread is about the environment as it pertained to vegetarianism.

If you want to talk about killing cauliflower or brocali in leiu of animals, or go off again on a reductionist argument, then make a thread for that or discuss it on the threads where that has been a focal point of discussion.

That's what I answered to. & what nice_gaijin wrote is not a necessity, but depends on the agrarian system.

Yes, I know. The plan with animals in the underground bunkers. <snicker>

It isn't? Oh my. Why then did you muse about Mars? Why not just ignore the point?

I guess I am not immuned to getting pulled off.

I address what others write, whether it is directly related to the thread title, or not. If the discussion drifts too far away, we can always split the thread. If you want to dictate what others write on your threads, you could always open your own forum, where you make the rules.

How do you know I don`t have my forum? I will leave you to guess.
But anyway, did you make this forum? Don`t think you did. But, FYI here is one of the rules for you to review:

STAY ON TOPIC:
Avoid posting messages that are out of context or irrelevant to a topic.


Keep the discussion on the environment, please, -- like the OP sets up the discussion for.

What makes it so personal if I address this statement? But, if you like, I rephrase my question:
Does the above mean that you think, nothing that needs to be killed for consumption should be eaten, like eg. cauliflower or broccoli?

"Should" is implying or insinuating morals or right/wrong as it goes to taking life for consumption. This thread is not about the morals of killing animals or plant life for that matter. If you want to talk about the morals of killing plant life create a thread for it. If you want to talk about the morals of killing animals for consumption, visit one of the threads that already has an active discussion on that.

The topic here is the environment and the thread was created to focus specifically on that.
 

This thread has been viewed 80502 times.

Back
Top