PDA

View Full Version : Vegetarianism for the Environment



strongvoicesforward
09-04-06, 10:54
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.

strongvoicesforward
09-04-06, 10:57
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

RockLee
09-04-06, 13:51
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.

strongvoicesforward
09-04-06, 14:02
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.

Revenant
09-04-06, 14:38
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).

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!).

nice gaijin
09-04-06, 15:06
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.

Thunderthief
09-04-06, 19:45
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.

bossel
10-04-06, 03:25
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).

strongvoicesforward
10-04-06, 04:22
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.

bossel
10-04-06, 04:32
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?

strongvoicesforward
10-04-06, 04:49
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.

strongvoicesforward
10-04-06, 05:17
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.

Reiku
10-04-06, 08:28
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 (http://www.milksucks.com/beersurvey.asp) 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. :okashii:

strongvoicesforward
10-04-06, 15:39
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.

strongvoicesforward
10-04-06, 16:15
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.

Mycernius
10-04-06, 17:12
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

strongvoicesforward
10-04-06, 17:25
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.

moffeltoff
10-04-06, 18:14
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 ;)

bossel
10-04-06, 19:06
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?
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?


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.

strongvoicesforward
10-04-06, 19:36
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.

bossel
11-04-06, 02:00
When you said my numbers were not quite right, you were referring to the numbers I stated for water usage.
Exactly. As I said: not quite right.


Yep. Don`t you read the OP of threads you join?
Oh, I do, but what matters more is what people post, & that's what I react to. Discussion, you know...


You began going off on the "something has to die" tangent.
That was in regard to a "positive" side effect of those bunkers.


It was clearly stated this thread is about the environment as it pertained to vegetarianism.
Just like my 1st post here was, which you reacted to, then my reaction to your reaction, a.s.o. That's a discussion for you.


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.
"brocali in leiu of animals"? Hmm...
I rarely open threads, I'm just an old reactionary: reacting, reacting...


How do you know I don`t have my forum?
I don't know, & don't even care. As I said, you could open one. Whether you already have one (or actually will open one) is irrelevant to me. I'm sure I wouldn't go there, anyway.


Keep the discussion on the environment, please, -- like the OP sets up the discussion for.
As I said, I'm just a reactionary. If you don't want me to go off-topic, don't post about the stuff that is.


"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.
Well, if you don't like "should", maybe I should (oops) rephrase my question again? Okay: Does your above remark (hopefully you remember it) mean that you think its alright for eg. cauliflower or broccoli to be killed for [insert vegetarian's name of your choice here]'s consumption?


The topic here is the environment and the thread was created to focus specifically on that.
Why then do you focus on my posts so much? Just ignore me, & that's it. Nothing to react for me, no reaction by me (well, usually).

strongvoicesforward
11-04-06, 04:46
Why then do you focus on my posts so much? Just ignore me, & that's it. Nothing to react for me, no reaction by me (well, usually).

lol. Good suggestion, since until now, nothing of substance has been offered by you on this topic. Do so, and you will have your discussion.

Tokis-Phoenix
11-04-06, 15:17
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.

Helloc.
So an environmentally oriented debate thread then SVF?

HmmcMorality and health aside then, lets discuss the Environmental aspects of animal agriculture and plant agriculture.
You seem to believe that if everyone were vegetarians (by this, I assume you mean true vegetarians that donft eat or use any animal products rather than say lacto-ovo vegetarians or semi-vegetarians etc, yes?).
Here are some interesting links on water consumption and meat and wheat and things;

Wasteful farming;

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32601

Water crisis;

http://www.vegansociety.com/html/environment/water/

Fertiliser definitions;

http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-1568_2390_19401-49341--,00.html

(More importantly) Fertiliser and crop type usage in the US;

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs155-99/fs155-99.html



The vast bulk of crops farmed for animals go into poultry. Cows can survive very happily on grass, water to drink and hay (dried grass) alone, they do not need cereal products. Most of the cereal products that go into animal feed are there to feed factory farmed animals because they cannot survive any other way, so the solution is to decrease factory farming and to increase the efficiency of crop farming.
Very little fertilisers go into crops intended for animal feed as they are not fussy about how big their wheat grains are or if their potatoes arenft the right shape and stuff, most fertilisers go into food used for human consumption or in countries where they suffer weather problems like water shortages (Potassium found in fertilisers helps facilitate sugar movement through plants, and boosts resistance to stresses such as drought and disease, so potassium rich fertilisers are essential for countries with low water fall, but this inevitably leads to more harmful nutrients running off into the water systems).

Less factory farming= big decrease in crops used for animals
No animal farming at all= big increase in crop farming= more artificial fertilisers= bad for the environment.
More fertilisers=more mining, more fossil fuels, more industrial activity= even worse for the environment.

Fertilisers obtained from animals make up a large percentage of fertilisers(I think something like 37% in the US), these animal fertilisers are often a by-product of animal farming. Without animal farming to supply these fertiliser needs, the need for artificial fertilisers rockets, and thus bad for the environment because that means more mining and more fossil fuels and poisoned rivers and stuff. It would also probably spell some of the Doom of organic farming as that relies heavily on natural fertilisers.
So more GM farming, which is even worse for the environment.

Also, on the subject of wheat versus beef water requirements, I found those statistics very misleading. All those statistics show is the water present in the plant/animal product at its finished state/final product. It does not take into account the serious problems with evaporation on fields or the polluted water run-off from them.
The other thing you need to take into consideration, is do you eat wheat dry? No, you have to mix it with water and other products to make it edible. While a piece of beef can happily fry or roast or whatever in its own water-rich juices, cereal products need to be cooked in some liquid product like water to make them edible- otherwise youfd just be eating flour, literally. And unless you make that into a soup or something, the water you boil it in goes down the drain unlike the juices from the beef which you consume.

Aside from the problems of crop farming poisoning the environment, you also have to consider what and increased demand for crops would do on the wildlife. Crop farming is NOT good for wildlife. Arable/crop farming as well as the use of pesticides and weed killers result in a loss of biodiversity, and with fields getting larger and larger now days this is becoming a major problem.
Crop farming upsets the ecosystems- for example, where there was once a flourishing meadow with thousands of varieties of grasses, plants and insects- now stands hundreds of acres of one plant, wheat. The natural food chain collapses. The farmer tries to combat the influx of insects that now have no natural food chain to keep them in check by using pesticidescBiodiversity is lost. The soils and waters are polluted, the hedges cut down because they are no longer needed to act as wind shields for animals. All is left is green desertsc
Take the plight of the English hare. This beautiful native animal is going extinct because its natural habitats are being destroyed by crop farming- where once it lived by the peaceful traditional life-rich cattle meadows, now it is stranded in a wilderness of endless one-plant crops. The hare needs a variety of types of plants, most found in meadows, to survive. With modern arable/crop farming, this way of life no longer is and it is going extinct.
If everyone ate plants, demand for crops farmed in poor countries would go through the roof, most poor countries in this world are dry and thus artificial fertiliser demand would also shoot through the roof, thus more fossil fuels, industrial activity, mining etc- unbalanced ecosystems would mean more pesticide use, which would be even worse for the environment.
Thousands of species of farm animals would go extinct with no need for them anymore as well- take the plight of the Essex Saddleback pig. Once, it used to be farmed for hundreds of years- until modern pig breeds came along and out-competed it. With no need for it anymore, its practically extinct now days with less than a hundred of them in the world or so. If you think its morally correct to cause animal species to go extinct, then I think you need to re-think your morals.
Think of the financial losses of animal products as well- no wool, no feathers, no leather, no gelatine etc. Seriously bad news for the economies across the worldc


SVF, to say that if everyone ate plants, the environment would benefit, is very delusional IMO.

My solution to all this- decrease factory farming, hopefully crushing its existence. Getting rid of factory farming would mean the high percentage of crops that go into animal feed would no longer be needed.
Secondly, increase efficiency of water and fertiliser management of agriculture across the world- a heck of a lot of water would be saved if this was done and gone about properly.
Thirdly- encourage traditional farming that co-exists with the environment/ecosystems and encourages biodiversity amongst wildlife.
As to the lakes & seas- encourage salt, brackish and freshwater farming instead of relying of the natural harvest of the seas. We are currently taking far more fish/water animals out of the worlds water systems that what nature can provide, what we really need to do is instead of relying on natures bounty, we need to create artificial systems like building lakes or sectioning bits off coastline for our needs instead of just taking life from everywhere- we know better than to act like hunter gatherers, so we shouldnft act like them.
Our civilisation was built on farming. The environment and farming used to co-exist fine with each other well for thousands upon thousands of years until we became greedy. We need to stop our greedy ways and learn to live with the environment instead of abusing its ecosystems with the likes of modern farming methods.
I believe in a world where tamed and wild plants and animals can live together, as they once did long ago.

strongvoicesforward
11-04-06, 17:15
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32601


From the first link above:


That conflict can't be resolved without growing food using a lot less water, Gleick said in an interview. "And that won't be achieved if everyone wants to eat as much meat as North Americans," he added.

China's rising meat consumption is cause for concern, he says, and the problem is made worse by the fact that China has badly damaged its aquatic ecosystems and polluted its freshwater limiting how much food it can grow.

Do you actually read the links you provide? This article is clearly hinting at the ill affects to the environment due to meat consumption -- which is what causes the large amounts of land to be cultivated and then in need of irrigation.

strongvoicesforward
11-04-06, 17:34
Water crisis;
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/environment/water/


And from your second link above:


THE LIVESTOCK CONNECTION

Worldwide, agriculture uses up 70% of fresh water resources. [10] This is largely because a lot of cropland has to be irrigated to make it agriculturally viable and to increase and improve crop yields.

As has been shown, much of this land is entirely wasted by being used to grow feed crops for livestock rather than food for people. The water used on this land - as well as that consumed directly by livestock - represents yet another wasted resource.

There has been much disagreement over precisely how much water is squandered in this way. Professor David Pimentel of Cornell University's Ecology Department has calculated that it takes 500 litres of water to produce 1kg of potatoes, 900 litres per kg of wheat, 3,500 litres per kg of digestible chicken flesh and a massive 100,000 litres for 1kg of beef.

A more conservative estimate comes from Beckett and Oltjen of the University of California's Department of Animal Science. [12] In a study partly financed by the California Beef Council, they concluded that wheat production requires 120 litres per kg and beef 3,700 litres per kg. It is interesting to look a little more closely at these figures as they show that, even by the most conservative of estimates, beef production still represents a scandalous misuse of one of our most precious natural resources.

1 kg of meat yields about 2800 kcal and 174 g of protein. 1 kg of wheat yields 3300 kcal and 110 g of protein (100g after adjustment for digestibility). According to Beckett and Oltjen, the kilogram of beef requires 3,700 litres of water and the kilogram of wheat requires 120 litres of water. If we put all of these figures together, we find that whilst wheat provides us with an average 27.5 kcal for each litre of water used, beef provides only 0.76 kcal per litre. This means that - based on the data presented to show that other figures were "overstated" - beef still requires 36 times as much water per calorie as wheat. When the same calculations are done for digestible protein, wheat comes out as 18 times more water efficient than beef.

By these figures, one kilogram of beef uses as much water as:

40 baths
300 toilet flushes
100 times the clean water needed by an individual according to UNESCO

Since a large percentage of the crops we feed to our farmed animals are grown on 'ghost acres' in developing countries, this wasted water is coming not just from our own reserves but from the very countries where drinking water is most scarce.


Again, your link supports the damage of meat production to the environment.

nice gaijin
11-04-06, 18:22
To be fair, bossel did suggest an agrarian solution that would address some of the environmental issues of raising livestock for meat. I'm not sure to what extent it would be a self-sustaining system, but he wasn't given much chance to air out his idea before being dismissed for not agreeing with the original post's contention.

Tokis-Phoenix
11-04-06, 18:32
From the first link above:

That conflict can't be resolved without growing food using a lot less water, Gleick said in an interview. "And that won't be achieved if everyone wants to eat as much meat as North Americans," he added.
China's rising meat consumption is cause for concern, he says, and the problem is made worse by the fact that China has badly damaged its aquatic ecosystems and polluted its freshwater limiting how much food it can grow.
Do you actually read the links you provide? This article is clearly hinting at the ill affects to the environment due to meat consumption -- which is what causes the large amounts of land to be cultivated and then in need of irrigation.

Do you actually read the posts i make? Read through the whole post again and you'll notice i adress those points. I included the links for reference as to what points i was adressing and why i disagreed with them and so forth etc.
So before you accuse me of not reading my links, why don't you read my posts first?

Mycernius
11-04-06, 18:54
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.
Let us try and clear this up.

Being a vegetarian means caring about the environment.
It doesn't in no form whatsoever. What about the huge gas guzzling harvesters used to collect grain crops? Tractors used to haul it off the fields, to farms where it is stored, prepared and shipped out on trucks. Farms use great amounts of electricity whether they are used for meat, diary or grain production, which mainly comes from environmentally unfriendly power stations. It is then shipped out to factories, mills, packing plants, in big gas guzzling trucks. The factories have to maintain hygenic conditions via chemicals. Packing plant use wood, paper, plastic packaging, using resources, no matter what is packed into them be it plant, vegetable or mineral. Then there is storage so you can eat your food out of season. Do you know that there are fruits that have been in storage for over a year before they get to the superstore? Back on food production. Crops require pesticides and fertilizer, not known for their environmental benefits. Plus all the fruit and veg which is not native to your country which are shipped by ship or air. More fuel guzzling. So, please tell me in what way in the above is being a vegetarian caring about the environment?

strongvoicesforward
11-04-06, 19:02
Do you actually read the posts i make? Read through the whole post again and you'll notice i adress those points. I included the links for reference as to what points i was adressing and why i disagreed with them and so forth etc.
So before you accuse me of not reading my links, why don't you read my posts first?

Tokis, I did read your post. You tried to mitigate the waste of meat production by saying we must move away from factory farming. That is irrelevant because meat production still requires more recourses per calorie than plant foods.

You made some assertions in your first paragraphs as if those points point to the fact that meat does not require more water. You didn`t show us how much that form of meat production by free range taxed water recourses. You just said animals "can survive on dry grass etc..."

70 to 80% of all cropland is harvested so that it can be turned into feed. You said that "most fertilizer" goes into crops meant for human consumption. However, I didn`t see that in the links YOU provided. Are you just guessing at that or is that just your opinion?

The first equation you created:

Less factory farming= big decrease in crops used for animals

You cannot expect the same number of animals in factory farms to be free ranging and still not consuming large quantities of water (not only calculated from what is taken from the plant life). In fact, being confined may allow them to directly consume less due to less affects from water depletion through movement and exertion.

Factory farming has come about because it is more efficient for the farmer allowing them to make more profit. Besides, you are ignoring the trend in farming. The profit incentive is causing more and more farmers to take up factory farming. That trend will not reverse if it means less profit and people want the cheapest product. Farmers will increase their factory farming in order to stay competitive.


No animal farming at all= big increase in crop farming= more artificial fertilisers= bad for the environment.

There would be a net decrease. Your equation is wrong. Can you show me a study that supports that? Your links above even hint at the opposite if you extrapolate the information.


More fertilisers=more mining, more fossil fuels, more industrial activity= even worse for the environment.

You are right in that animal waste is needed and used for fertilizer now. However, that doesn`t have to be for the future and a society that decides to move away from flesh consumption but yet still needs to keep its fields fertile. Human waste could be converted for the same purpose. While it may not be as good it most definitely could be used, and science could probably find a way to make it even better with more rendering of some sorts. While land use for crops for humans would decrease, land use for animal crops would decrease and would not do so proportionately. There would be a net loss in land use for crops and that would help alleviate soil erosion and run off.

strongvoicesforward
11-04-06, 19:07
Let us try and clear this up.
It doesn't in no form whatsoever. What about the huge gas guzzling harvesters used to collect grain crops? Tractors used to haul it off the fields, to farms where it is stored, prepared and shipped out on trucks. Farms use great amounts of electricity whether they are used for meat, diary or grain production, which mainly comes from environmentally unfriendly power stations. It is then shipped out to factories, mills, packing plants, in big gas guzzling trucks. The factories have to maintain hygenic conditions via chemicals. Packing plant use wood, paper, plastic packaging, using resources, no matter what is packed into them be it plant, vegetable or mineral. Then there is storage so you can eat your food out of season. Do you know that there are fruits that have been in storage for over a year before they get to the superstore? Back on food production. Crops require pesticides and fertilizer, not known for their environmental benefits. Plus all the fruit and veg which is not native to your country which are shipped by ship or air. More fuel guzzling. So, please tell me in what way in the above is being a vegetarian caring about the environment?

Myrcianus,

You are still not taking into account the value added that comes about from addding another step into calorie production. That is rather than going directly from plant calorie to final consumer, it makes another unnecessary stop to animal. In addition all those things of harvesting plant life is multiplied in field size and time and energy in getting all that to animals. Simply put, a larger space for plant cultivation because animals need large amounts of food, means longer hours of operating machinery over larger areas and requiring more transportation due to larger harvests.

strongvoicesforward
11-04-06, 19:30
To be fair, bossel did suggest an agrarian solution that would address some of the environmental issues of raising livestock for meat. I'm not sure to what extent it would be a self-sustaining system, but he wasn't given much chance to air out his idea before being dismissed for not agreeing with the original post's contention.

I don`t agree with that assessment.

He suggested an SF scenario -- a very improbable one due to economics, which he even admitted to. The water issue was not resolved. Just a general comment on it. He then began to go off on a reductionist ad hominem tangent on the moral issue, which is not the focus of this thread.

People are quite welcome in going against my contention that "vegetarianism is best for the environment." Tokis-Phoenix is doing that without going SF, or off on the moral issues, or off on a reductionist ad hominem tangent.

KrazyKat
11-04-06, 21:05
I agree with the sentiments expressed by many people above that factory farming has a negative affect on the environment. I don't think anyone has tried to challenge this.

I also agree with tokis that a completely vegan population would be less effecient than one with some free range farming. I think that some land is unsuitable for crops yet suitable for letting animals graze, I'm thinking more about goats and things here, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

While I understand that this thread is specifically about vegetariansim and the environment, I can't help but feel that it is just a part of a larger topic of diet and the environment. Other elements such as locally grown produce and organic farming are important aspects along with eating less factory farmed meat.

Tokis-Phoenix
11-04-06, 23:17
Tokis, I did read your post. You tried to mitigate the waste of meat production by saying we must move away from factory farming. That is irrelevant because meat production still requires more recourses per calorie than plant foods.

You made some assertions in your first paragraphs as if those points point to the fact that meat does not require more water. You didn`t show us how much that form of meat production by free range taxed water recourses. You just said animals "can survive on dry grass etc..."

70 to 80% of all cropland is harvested so that it can be turned into feed. You said that "most fertilizer" goes into crops meant for human consumption. However, I didn`t see that in the links YOU provided. Are you just guessing at that or is that just your opinion?

Firstly, I never said animals can gsurvive on dry grass etch, if you really did read my post then please quote my statements accurately.
Secondly, it was not 70 to 80% of all cropland is harvested so it can be turned into feed, I remember it accurately more as a round 70%, so lets not exaggerate statistics.
Thirdly, I have experience with farming, both crops and a variety of animals, and to be honest, I am in doubt of some of the statistics in these pro-vegan links.



You cannot expect the same number of animals in factory farms to be free ranging and still not consuming large quantities of water (not only calculated from what is taken from the plant life). In fact, being confined may allow them to directly consume less due to less affects from water depletion through movement and exertion.

That is just an assumption- stress makes animals sweat, particularly if they are obese, which many factory farmed animals are. A large amount of water also goes into keeping their crampt conditions sanitised- the dry artificial feeds needed to feed them also often need to be saturated with water to make them edible.


Factory farming has come about because it is more efficient for the farmer allowing them to make more profit. Besides, you are ignoring the trend in farming. The profit incentive is causing more and more farmers to take up factory farming. That trend will not reverse if it means less profit and people want the cheapest product. Farmers will increase their factory farming in order to stay competitive.

Er-herm, but it was me who explained to you the trends in farming in another thread- so please do not accuse me of ignoring these facts. I have a solution to this anyway which I will explain later.


There would be a net decrease. Your equation is wrong. Can you show me a study that supports that? Your links above even hint at the opposite if you extrapolate the information.

Wheat farming for example is terribly inefficient. Millions of tons of it are wasted due to quality issues- for example, if suddenly you get a problem with wild oats in your fields, you have no way to remove them without weed killers. Wild oats decrease the value of wheat. Wheat that is not pure enough gets wasted.
There are hundreds of things that can lower the quality of wheat apart from weeds, things like mites, rodent droppings, damp, fungus etc. If your wheat gets spoiled then thatfs a couple of hundred tonnes of wheat down the drain (often more though).

Crop farming only would be bad for the economy because of the loss of animal products- to be honest, I cannot think of any uses for wheat other than for it to be eaten, but I can think of at least 10 things cows are useful for other than being eaten. You stop animal farming, then all the other non-edible animal products go with it. Bad news for the economy, which would mean more industry to make up for the losses.

Anyhoo, you seem to believe that more water goes into producing beef than wheat yes because of the statics on the vegansociety website yes? Let me go into some things about those gstatisticsh, it says;

gAccording to Beckett and Oltjen, the kilogram of beef requires 3,700 litres of water and the kilogram of wheat requires 120 litres of waterh

a. Who the heck are gBecketth and gOltjenh?
b. What experiments were performed to come to those result conclusions?
c. What does grequireh mean exactly? The amount of water fed to the cow and wheat to keep it alive? The total amount of water in the finished product? The amount of water consumed by the cow and wheat? Etcc

Please answer these questions for me, since you seem to be relying on them heavily, I find these gstatisticsh very questionable without any evidence to back up who exactly they were done by, how exactly the experiments were gone about and what part of C. are they about.


You are right in that animal waste is needed and used for fertilizer now. However, that doesn`t have to be for the future and a society that decides to move away from flesh consumption but yet still needs to keep its fields fertile. Human waste could be converted for the same purpose. While it may not be as good it most definitely could be used, and science could probably find a way to make it even better with more rendering of some sorts. While land use for crops for humans would decrease, land use for animal crops would decrease and would not do so proportionately. There would be a net loss in land use for crops and that would help alleviate soil erosion and run off.

It shows how much you know about real farming experience- human waste has a hige amount of issues attached to it which is the reason why it is not favoured by farmers- firstly, its not very good for growing crops on. Its often way too acidic.
Plus a lot of crap gets mixed with human waste like bleach/toilet disinfectant, meaning you cannot dump the raw stuff on fields without killing off every bit of life. This means it has to be refined, making it less environmentally friendly (more industry, more pollution).
Thirdly, people donft like farmers who dump human waste on fields. If you thought pig poop smells bad, you shouldnft check out the human stuff- many villages down here are trying to take legal action against farmers who put human muck on fields because of the god awful smell it creates for weeks on end (no one wants to buy a house for example right next to a sewer, the same thing goes for people not wanting to buy houses next to fields which human sewage is dumped on).
You are also still not addressing the points I made on the loss of biodiversity I made and crop farming- you cannot deny these facts.


On the subject of the issues of profitability on factory farming keeping it alive, I did say I had a solution to that, which I will address now.
One of the main factors why factory farming is so profitable is because the government pays farmers money based on how much food they produce- more food production, more money. This is a major lifeline for GM and factory farming.
I say, lets do another option. Instead of paying farmers to produce loads of food for the country or for export or economy etc, lets pay farmers for how well they look after their animals or how environmentally friendly they go about crop farming etc. This would kill out a lot of factory farms and farms that arenft very environmentally in one swipe, and help encourage good farming practices.

bossel
12-04-06, 04:24
I'm not sure to what extent it would be a self-sustaining system
Only partially, since food has to be produced & for that you have to put more in than what comes out, but the need for resources (esp. water) would dramatically decrease.



He suggested an SF scenario
... which is pretty much always the case if you talk about the possible future.


-- a very improbable one due to economics,
Ah, but didn't you say something like "economy shouldn't play a role in this thread". Then you cannot really dismiss it for that reason. But then again, you don't keep to your own rules, anyway. Well...


He then began to go off on a reductionist ad hominem tangent on the moral issue, which is not the focus of this thread.
Asking for your opinion is going ad hominem?

M-W:
Main Entry: 1ad ho&#183;mi&#183;nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'h&#228;-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Which feelings did I appeal to or in how far did I attack your character?

strongvoicesforward
12-04-06, 16:28
Also, on the subject of wheat versus beef water requirements, I found those statistics very misleading.

Do you mean in the links YOU provided? Why provide them if you find the information in them misleading?


All those statistics show is the water present in the plant/animal product at its finished state/final product. It does not take into account the serious problems with evaporation on fields or the polluted water run-off from them.

That still won`t change the fact that more water goes into meat production because larger areas for crops are needed for supplying feed to livestock. That would mean more evaporation and more water run off.


The other thing you need to take into consideration, is do you eat wheat dry? No, you have to mix it with water and other products to make it edible. While a piece of beef can happily fry or roast or whatever in its own water-rich juices, cereal products need to be cooked in some liquid product like water to make them edible- otherwise youfd just be eating flour, literally. And unless you make that into a soup or something, the water you boil it in goes down the drain unlike the juices from the beef which you consume.

According to the link site YOU provided, and the conservative estimate studies partly financed by the California Beef Council, it takes 3,700 liters of water to create 1kg of beef. As for wheat it takes 120 liters of water to make one kg of wheat. Now, if one needs to take one more liter to add to your 1kg of flour in order to eat it so it isn`t dry, then it would be 121 liters of water for that one kg consumption of wheat -- still far shorter than the 3,700 liters needed to create one kg of beef.

Mycernius
12-04-06, 16:47
You keep on about water usage in meat production and how it is used more. The point is water is a recycleable resource, so how much is used for one or the other is not really applicable for a drain on the environment, especailly in the western world. Any waste of either crop or meat production is treated and returns back to the water cycle, which is a closed system. There is of course one of the most water intensive crop production for vegetarians and that is rice. We see those paddy fields full of water, but rice is a grass and doesn't need to be grown in water logged feilds. It is done so mainly to keep weeds down. Backto production of various meat products. Most meat produced in a lot of c.ountries is from that country, with the occassional import. Well for the UK at least. Beef, Pork, Chicken etc are produced locally and and bee done to feed a population. Vegetables and fruits on the other hand are not only grown locally, but a huge amount is imported. How else do you manage to eat out of season food, or even foods that cannot be grown in your country due to climate or possible pest risks. Soya, something vegetarians must eat to get their proteins comes mainly from China, the US, Argentina and Brazil, all exported vai planes and ships to the rest of the world. Not really very environmentally friendly.

strongvoicesforward
12-04-06, 16:48
SVF, to say that if everyone ate plants, the environment would benefit, is very delusional IMO.

You have attempted to define me as if I think it is a reality that the world would ever get to a place where everyone ate plants. Where have I ever said that? I live in reality, and I doubt that flesh consumption would ever disappear just as I doubt murder or rape, or crime in general would ever disappear.

I will say that the environment would benefit if as many people as possible could make the switch to a vegetarian diet.

I will continue to list the recourse drain and damages that meat production is wreaking on the environment.
[/QUOTE]

Tokis-Phoenix
12-04-06, 17:34
Do you mean in the links YOU provided? Why provide them if you find the information in them misleading?

Did I ever say you provided those links? Therefs no need to state the obvious here.
And yes, I am questioning the statistics/figures in the links because you have used those very same stats/figures many a time and Ifm sure you have also used those links in the past too- so if you do not like my links, can you provide any other internet sources which also have those exact stats.


According to the link site YOU provided, and the conservative estimate studies partly financed by the California Beef Council, it takes 3,700 liters of water to create 1kg of beef. As for wheat it takes 120 liters of water to make one kg of wheat. Now, if one needs to take one more liter to add to your 1kg of flour in order to eat it so it isn`t dry, then it would be 121 liters of water for that one kg consumption of wheat -- still far shorter than the 3,700 liters needed to create one kg of beef.

It never said gcreateh it said grequiresh- please answer these previous questions I asked on this part of the statistics debate before you continue to quote/use these statistics etc, particually C.;

ga. Who the heck are gBecketth and gOltjenh?
b. What experiments were performed to come to those result conclusions?
c. What does grequireh mean exactly? The amount of water fed to the cow and wheat to keep it alive? The total amount of water in the finished product? The amount of water consumed by the cow and wheat? Etcch


You have attempted to define me as if I think it is a reality that the world would ever get to a place where everyone ate plants. Where have I ever said that? I live in reality, and I doubt that flesh consumption would ever disappear just as I doubt murder or rape, or crime in general would ever disappear.

I will say that the environment would benefit if as many people as possible could make the switch to a vegetarian diet.

I will continue to list the recourse drain and damages that meat production is wreaking on the environment.

Erm, I donft think I am unjustified in assuming you believe that all animal farming is wrong and immoral and the world would be a better place without it, and that if you had your way you would stop animal farming etc- because you have debated that point of view in many threads with me.
You can do what you want, but it appears there are numerous people that disagree with the water part of vegetarianism being environmentally, and that growing crops is certainly bad for biodiversity.

Oh- and another thing. You apparently have pet dogs. May I ask where the animal products you are feeding them come from or what brand food you are feeding them?

Tokis-Phoenix
12-04-06, 17:36
You keep on about water usage in meat production and how it is used more. The point is water is a recycleable resource, so how much is used for one or the other is not really applicable for a drain on the environment, especailly in the western world. Any waste of either crop or meat production is treated and returns back to the water cycle, which is a closed system. There is of course one of the most water intensive crop production for vegetarians and that is rice. We see those paddy fields full of water, but rice is a grass and doesn't need to be grown in water logged feilds. It is done so mainly to keep weeds down. Backto production of various meat products. Most meat produced in a lot of c.ountries is from that country, with the occassional import. Well for the UK at least. Beef, Pork, Chicken etc are produced locally and and bee done to feed a population. Vegetables and fruits on the other hand are not only grown locally, but a huge amount is imported. How else do you manage to eat out of season food, or even foods that cannot be grown in your country due to climate or possible pest risks. Soya, something vegetarians must eat to get their proteins comes mainly from China, the US, Argentina and Brazil, all exported vai planes and ships to the rest of the world. Not really very environmentally friendly.


I agree, i would also have to say that a nutritious vegan diet without pill supliments is pretty much imposible without imported foods.

strongvoicesforward
12-04-06, 18:01
You keep on about water usage in meat production and how it is used more. The point is water is a recycleable resource, ...

Of course water is a recyclable resource in the long run. I mean eventually I would imagine that things do get replenished -- most probably once the heavy burden of population pressures are released, either through the decline of the human species or just a decline in population. However, to talk about water as a recycleable resource as if our use of it does not matter because it is just there in one way or another is wrong -- and I doubt if you will find many articles that say the problems of water shortages are not looming around the corner. Can you?



so how much is used for one or the other is not really applicable for a drain on the environment, especailly in the western world. Any waste of either crop or meat production is treated and returns back to the water cycle, which is a closed system.

I don`t think all run off is treated. Where is there a statement that all run off with pesticides is treated? Do you have that? Where is there a statement that says all fecal waste from factory farm does not spill over into local streams? Aren`t you aware of those kinds of disasters? Keep visiting the thread because I will be posting those disasterous episodes quite soon enough. And once I do, where does that leave your statement above?


There is of course one of the most water intensive crop production for vegetarians and that is rice. We see those paddy fields full of water, but rice is a grass and doesn't need to be grown in water logged feilds. It is done so mainly to keep weeds down.

I have no problem with them being converted to non wet fields. And, I am not aware of any place that says "water intensive crop production" is for vegetarians. Haven`t seen that before. Please direct me to that. The productoin of plant food can always be improved. Won`t deny that. Got to embrace as much efficiency as possible.


Backto production of various meat products. Most meat produced in a lot of countries is from that country, with the occassional import. Well for the UK at least. Beef, Pork, Chicken etc are produced locally and and bee done to feed a population.

As for U.K. pork -- here are some numbers from the industry just 3 yrs ago:


1. 85% of bacon in Britain is imported

2. 70% of these pigs came from countries that do not meet the minimum raising standards in Britain.

Read it yourself HERE (http://www.meatnews.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Article&artNum=7387).

Whether meat is imported or exported, its production has a net adverse affect on the world environment.


Vegetables and fruits on the other hand are not only grown locally, but a huge amount is imported. How else do you manage to eat out of season food, or even foods that cannot be grown in your country due to climate or possible pest risks.

Of course there is value added to those products. But, it still does not rival the production of meat and its damages and drain on recourses. I have yet to see a large number, if any, report on the recourse consumption and environment damaging effects of raising strawberries and blueberries. Can you direct me to some?


Soya, something vegetarians must eat to get their proteins comes mainly from China, the US, Argentina and Brazil, all exported vai planes and ships to the rest of the world. Not really very environmentally friendly.

Well, any use of fossil fuels for transportation/value added is not a "plus" in the column for good things about anything. However, DO YOU HAVE a comparative study that shows a net total drain on recourses and damages to the environment giving more responsibility to the growth of plant food for humans against the total impact of plant food grown for meat? I still have yet to see a damning report on crop consumption for human use that exonerates the negative effects of meat production by showing that the former is more damaging. Where are your numbers?

strongvoicesforward
12-04-06, 18:28
... if you do not like my links, can you provide any other internet sources which also have those exact stats.

On the contrary. I do like your links because they support MY position.

Btw, no, I have not used those particular links you posted. But like I said, since they do support my position, I don`t mind using them. I was not protesting their use. I liked them. I am just credulous that you put them up for -- and I just wonder for what purpose since they do not support your position.


It never said gcreateh it said grequiresh

The idea is still clear. Petty point.


ga. Who the heck are gBecketth and gOltjenh?

Mr. Beckett's intro can be seen here. (http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/faculty/adams/Associates/Beckett.htm)

Mr. Oltjen`s educational/professional bio can be seen here. (http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/faculty/oltjen/)


b. What experiments were performed to come to those result conclusions?
c. What does grequireh mean exactly? The amount of water fed to the cow and wheat to keep it alive? The total amount of water in the finished product? The amount of water consumed by the cow and wheat? Etcch

Why don`t you contact them and ask yourself? As the link you provided stated, there study was sponsored in part by California`s Beef Council. Maybe the beef industry refuted their own hired researchers. Check and find out. Until you find a refutation of their work, it stands as is.


... it appears there are numerous people that disagree with the water part of vegetarianism being environmentally, and that growing crops is certainly bad for biodiversity.

Sure, growing crops is bad for biodiversity. I am not arguing that. The point of contention is that with meat production that damage to biodiversity is multiplied. Vegetarianism is not the road to Utopia -- it is merely the better of the two choices when it comes to the environment.


Oh- and another thing. You apparently have pet dogs. May I ask where the animal products you are feeding them come from or what brand food you are feeding them?

They eat veggie dog food and road kill which we go out every morning to claim.

But, let`s say they do eat dog food of meat products; it still does not change the truth that a vegetarian diet for human consumption is best for the environment.

Mycernius
12-04-06, 18:31
But we can easily us domestic meat and still get by. Vegetarians might find their needs limited if they had to do the same.

strongvoicesforward
12-04-06, 18:32
I agree, i would also have to say that a nutritious vegan diet without pill supliments is pretty much imposible without imported foods.

So what?

We are living in a modern society where supplements exist for our convenience and benefit if we do so choose a diet without flesh.

Small trade off to take a B12 or iron supplement for a healthier environment.

strongvoicesforward
12-04-06, 18:38
But we can easily us domestic meat and still get by.

If it is so easy, then why don`t you?

There is nothing easy about economics and choices based on apathy, convenience or selfishness. It is rather complex.


Vegetarians might find their needs limited if they had to do the same.

Well, if society and civilization collapses, then I am sure a survival mentality will set in. But we are not in that situation now. We need not act like we are by choosing choices based on that mentality. The environment suffers from that if that is what you are basing continued flesh eating on when we are a society/civilization that are at the point where the choice to eat vegetarian can be followed with no problem.

strongvoicesforward
12-04-06, 18:43
Asking for your opinion is going ad hominem?

M-W:
Main Entry: 1ad hoEmiEnem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'haN-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Which feelings did I appeal to or in how far did I attack your character?

Fair enough on this bossel. I mispoke in the usage of the term. You did not attack my character. Sorry for the micharacature of your comment.

I am not above to admitting a mistake. I am not perfect. I have made mistakes in the past and will do so in the future. Accept my apologies, please. -- Thanks.

Mycernius
12-04-06, 22:00
The environment suffers from that if that is what you are basing continued flesh eating on when we are a society/civilization that are at the point where the choice to eat vegetarian can be followed with no problem.
The environment is suffering whether or not we are omnivores, vegetarian, vegan whatever other foods you wish to consume. Your opening post and this thread is you trying to prove that vegetarianism is good for the environment, but it isn't. You still consume fossil fuels, pollute the air, water, ground and no matter what you preach, and you do in the same way as a committed christian, the basic premise of this thread is not as solid as you are trying to make out it is. Humans, as a species seek to use whatever is available to them. It doesn't depend on whether we are or are not vegetarians, we will still rape and pillage the earth to further our own survival and that is our nature, to survive. Even you would eat meat, kill, become selfish if you were in a survival situation. You can deny it all you want, but it is our nature as an animal because that is what we are when you stripe away all our technology

KrazyKat
12-04-06, 23:22
The environment is suffering whether or not we are omnivores, vegetarian, vegan whatever other foods you wish to consume. Your opening post and this thread is you trying to prove that vegetarianism is good for the environment, but it isn't. You still consume fossil fuels, pollute the air, water, ground and no matter what you preach, ......


To say that vegetarianism isn't good for the environment because fossil fuels and pollution still occurs doesn't hold up. You might as well say that recycling is bad for the environment because pollution still occurs. We could say eating locally grown produce is bad for the environment because it generates pollution and uses resources.


The point being made is that an average vegetarian diet is better for the environment than an average meat eating diet. The issue is how much the environment suffers, not whether or not it does.

Tokis-Phoenix
14-04-06, 18:23
To say that vegetarianism isn't good for the environment because fossil fuels and pollution still occurs doesn't hold up. You might as well say that recycling is bad for the environment because pollution still occurs. We could say eating locally grown produce is bad for the environment because it generates pollution and uses resources.
The point being made is that an average vegetarian diet is better for the environment than an average meat eating diet. The issue is how much the environment suffers, not whether or not it does.

To say that vegetarianism is good for the environment and having an omnivorous diet isnft, is a very broad/vague statement to make.

One thing that has been a centre of discussion of this vegetarianism environment debate is the water consumption for beef and wheat and the amount of crops that go towards keeping animals worldwide.

Wheat is not a very water-demanding plant at all, and you cannot sum up all cows as essentially the same thing;
a. A dairy cow consumes far more water than a non-dairy cow.
b. A free range cow does not need to consume any crops at all apart from hay, which is just dried grass and essentially not a crop product anyway.
c. Cows support the environment when they are in the right climate- keeping fields full of grasses and plants, bugs and insects, so your cattle can graze there is far more environmentally friendly than ploughing the entire thing up and growing a single crop plant on it.


FACT: To produce one gallon of milk, a dairy cow must drink four gallons of water. It takes eight gallons of water to grow a tomato;

http://www.crcwater.org/wateruse.html

Growing tomatofs consumes far more water than raising non-dairy cattle- so saying vegetarianism is good for the environment in a water consumption sense is not always true just as much as saying the opposite is.
More water is needed to grow fruits and vegetables than what is needed to grow cereal crops, but most of the crops consumed by animals are cereals. The vast bulk of crops needed for animals goes towards factory farms, and poultry & pigs consumes the bulk of animal cereals.

If you are concerned about water consumption, here are 34 or so ways to help you save thousands of gallons;

http://www.monolake.org/socalwater/wctips.htm

Unless you turn into a complete vegan, you will continue to use animal products.


gAh-hemh- anyways, lets talk about SVFfs theory- there is actually a term given to this idea called the 'total vegetarian' solution. In theory, this sounds like a good idea. But the 'total vegetarian' solution also ignores the fact that a great deal of land, while of no use for crop-growing, can support grazing animals, especially upland sheep and goats and cattle on semi-arid land. So although it takes more water to raise a cow, most of that water is obtained from grass and that obtains its water from rain.
Here is a good site for some real solutions facing the water issue;


http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.more.water.html

The site talks about the facts, popular solutions and real solutions to our issues. Here is what It talks about on real solutions;
g5.1 DIY rainwater collection
Rainwater harvesting, say water scientists, backed by the UN Environment Programme, is the real alternative to huge dams. It involves direct collection of water on roofs and spare land. They calculate that millions of villages can meet their needs cheaply this way, and that cities could get a third of their water by collecting rain. [Fred Pearce, New Scientist; ibid]
5.2 Make agricultural water use more efficient
Various techniques are being explored. Some farmers are turning to 'surge-flow' irrigation to replace traditional flooding and channelling irrigation. This method involves a gated system with micro-processor controls. In Texas, it has led to a reduction in water-pumping of between 38 and 56 per cent. Another method being promoted is night-time irrigation which reduces evaporation, improving efficiency by two to three times. Low-pressure sprinklers can improve efficiency by 60 - 70 per cent compared with high-pressure sprinklers. Watering via the Low-Energy Precision Application (tubes extending down from the sprinklers right on to the crop) can push efficiency up almost to 100 per cent. There is even a more sophisticated system which delivers the water in drops. All of these methods grow the crops with less waste of water, but the greater the efficiency achieved, the more costly the system is to install, and the more energy it uses. So the farmer has a large loan to pay back and there is an added pollution burden from the energy used. [Pimentel et al. ibid]
5.3 Plant more trees
Shelter belts can reduce evaporation and transpiration from the field crops, and crops can be interplanted with such trees as Eucalyptus which bring water up to the surface, thus increasing water availability for the crop, without irrigation.
5.4 Stop rapid water runoff
When cropped soil is exposed, rainfall washes considerable amounts away. Water runoff and subsequent soil loss can be reduced by using ground cover. For instance if red clover is grown with silage corn, runoff can be reduced by 45 - 87 per cent. It results in more water being held back in the ground and available for plant take-up, and the reduction in soil-loss avoids plant stress.
5.5 End irrigation subsidies
Globally, there are a number of trends pushing the 'need' for more irrigation ever upwards: rising human population, the heavy water-requirements of high-yield 'green revolution' crops, increased affluence, and climate change. In many countries there are large state subsidies for irrigation: in 1997, according to Pimentel, Mexican farmers paid only 11 per cent of the real cost of irrigation water; farmers in Pakistan only 13 per and in California only 2 per cent. He estimated that every hectare of irrigated land in the American West received a subsidy of almost $1000 a year for irrigation, when the government costs of building dams, laying pipes, and providing power to move the water, are included. Such massive undercharging means that farmers may be careless of the need to use water efficiently, and often results in the irrigation of crops of low value. Pimentel's message is that subsidies must end.
5.6 Integrated water resource management
IWRM plans are what all countries have agreed to prepare by 2005; the agreement was made at the Johannesburgh World Summit on Sustainable Development in 1992. A survey of 96 developing countries undertaken by the Global Water Partnership in 2004 showed that only 12% will meet the targets set out at the summit, with the rest needing some support or substantial support to achieve the targets. There are some encouraging signs of governments beginning proper planning, such as South Africa's National Water Act, and the European Union's Water Framework Directive, which link meeting human needs to conservation and ecosystem health, but overall UNEP (the United Nations Evironment Programme) feels 'serious concern' for lack of progress [Our Planet, Vol 14, No 4, UNEP]
5.7 Halt population growth
Although the growth of the human population is cited as one of the major factors in the march towards a worldwide water crisis, nowhere is there a renewed call for an all-out effort to make reproductive choice available to everyone. Endless ingenuity goes into the measures invented to make water usage more efficient: from low-flush toilets, and eco-saver washing-machines, to drip-feed irrigation and feebates for low-water-use planning ("feebates" is an American term, meaning a system which penalises or rewards heavy or meagre use of a commodity, incorporating a fee-neutral balance point). But the unhappy lot of millions of women, bearing children year after year with little or no effective choice in the matter, and contributing by default to the growth of populations often in the most water-scarce countries - goes unregretted by policymakers. Also unregretted, apparently, are the activities of those political and 'moral' leaders in the USA who reneged on promises given at the Cairo Conference on Population in 1994 to provide millions of dollars for international family planning and reproductive health services - services needed by women, and needed for the survival of all. Gains are being made in cutting birth rates in many countries, but all too often an ingrained pro-natalist attitude prompts influential commentators and policymakers to fail to see the benefits of such a demographic trend.

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.more.water.html

RockLee
14-04-06, 18:49
Hmm, this looks like a battle between vegetarians and non-vegetarians :p Both defending their own believes. In the end being a vegetarian has zero advantages, nature still is screwed.

You don't like religion, yet you're even worse than a preacher !

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 19:45
Meat production is MORE of a drain on water sources than crop production for human direct use. To say otherwise is just wrong:


gAnimals need much more water than grain to produce the same amount of food ... ,

Scientists say the world will have to change its consumption patterns to have any realistic hope of feeding itself. ...h

and

gAnimals fed on grain, and also those which rely on grazing, need far more water than grain crops.h -- Anders Berntell, Executive Director, Stockholm International Water Institute

Here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3559542.stm)

Tokis-Phoenix
14-04-06, 20:02
Meat production is MORE of a drain on water sources than crop production for human direct use. To say otherwise is just wrong:

“Animals need much more water than grain to produce the same amount of food ... ,
Scientists say the world will have to change its consumption patterns to have any realistic hope of feeding itself. ...”
and
“Animals fed on grain, and also those which rely on grazing, need far more water than grain crops.” -- Anders Berntell, Executive Director, Stockholm International Water Institute
Here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3559542.stm)


Yes but people cannot survive on grain only, the news article only shows a very small part of the big picture- fruit and vegetable crops take up far more water than grain/cereal crops, particually plants like tomatoes. You also ignore the fact that not all animals need crops to survive, like grazing animals like cows and sheap. Grazing animals often take up land that is not suitable for crops too, as only the best and most fertile land is used for crops- so they don't affect the water resources taken up by crops.
So basically, giving up eating chicken would save on crop resources, but giving up free range beef raised in the right climate would not affect it all (i say the "right climate" as growing anything, animal or plant/otherwise in the wrong climate often ends up consuming far more water than what would normally be required).
Yes animals that are fed on grain or graze the land do require more water to survive on average, but then again grazing animals get almost all of their water needs from the grasses they eat which survives on rainwater anyway, which would take up water regardless.
There's a difference to using rain water and using water thats been gathered by people.

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 20:16
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) reporting on environmental degradation stated:


"Ranching-induced deforestation is one of the main causes of loss of some unique plant and animal species in the tropical rainforests of Central and South America as well as carbon release in the atmosphere," said Henning Steinfeld, Chief of the FAO Livestock Information, Sector Analysis and Policy Branch.

Here. (http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/102924/)

It specificlly singles out meat production as being one of the major causes to damage of bio-diversity and to deforestation. The report does offer solutions for better farming techniques, but those would only work if those techniques were adopted. There is not guarantee that those countries will be able to implement those recommendations.

What is certain is that meat production is one of the major sources fueling environmental damage in South and Central America. Lessening demand for meat would lessen production and lessen taxing the environment by livestock use/growth.

Tokis-Phoenix
14-04-06, 20:24
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) reporting on environmental degradation stated:

"Ranching-induced deforestation is one of the main causes of loss of some unique plant and animal species in the tropical rainforests of Central and South America as well as carbon release in the atmosphere," said Henning Steinfeld, Chief of the FAO Livestock Information, Sector Analysis and Policy Branch.
Here. (http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/102924/)
It specificlly singles out meat production as being one of the major causes to damage of bio-diversity and to deforestation. The report does offer solutions for better farming techniques, but those would only work if those techniques were adopted. There is not guarantee that those countries will be able to implement those recommendations.
What is certain is that meat production is one of the major sources fueling environmental damage in South and Central America. Lessening demand for meat would lessen production and lessen taxing the environment by livestock use/growth.


Very simple solution to that- don't buy beef that comes from central and south american rainforests. Just by meat that comes from places like britin where we don't cut down forests for agriculture like people in central and south america do. You don't need to become a vegetarian. And with the rainforest thing, that site still doesn't deny that rainforest is also cut down for crops too.

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 20:31
Yes animals that are fed on grain or graze the land do require more water to survive on average,...

Thanks for finally admitting that. Perhaps you did already. IF so, sorry for mentioning it.


... but then again grazing animals get almost all of their water needs from the grasses they eat which survives on rainwater anyway, which would take up water regardless.

And producing meat by grazing animals causes environmental harm in other ways. See my most recent post above on the threats to South and Central America.

Grazing animals on lands that aren`t suitable for growing crops can also exasperate a climate that is rather dry causing even further soil erosion.

Sheep and goat grazing notoriously turns tracts of land into areas susceptible to soil erosion for they often eat all the way down into the root.

Grazing large herds of animals in pastures with streams can often deteriorate the water as they past waste into the stream or as their wastes leak down into the water table.


...There's a difference to using rain water and using water thats been gathered by people.

Not always so. Waste run off and leaching into the water table can cause harm to underwater table levels and find their way into streams.

As mentioned before, the trend is toward factory farming and that isn`t being discouraged by governments. Tax and corporate incentives are accelerating that and pasturing animals due to the pressures for urbanization on land by population is becoming less and less.

Factory farming has seen lagoon wastes of fecal material spilling into waterways that have fed cities and towns their water causing alarm to residents and harm to aquatic life -- not to mention threatening the water supply of the communities.

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 20:42
Very simple solution to that- don't buy beef that comes from central and south american rainforests. Just by meat that comes from places like britin...

Not so simple. Labeling is sometimes deceptive. Meat demand is driving that and imports. If a country`s population, or many country`s populations exert self control and don`t buy meat from those places but purchase alll their meat from say, Britain, after a while those South and C. American beef producers will drastically drop their prices as they seek to dump their inventory. The price will drop so low as to make the Britain prices seem too high and the lower prices too low and a good bargain to refuse. The see-saw will come back down.


...where we don't cut down forests for agriculture like people in central and south america do.

You mean not anymore. You guys finished lopping away most of your "old growth forests" many many years ago. Right?


You don't need to become a vegetarian.

Taking yourself out of the equation by choosing the least damaging choice is the best way to help the environment.


And with the rainforest thing, that site still doesn't deny that rainforest is also cut down for crops too.

The report goes out of its way to specifically single out meat production as one of the major causes. I guess they had a good reason not to mention tomatos or anything else specifically. Do you think they were just being derelict and unprofessional. I would bet that more than just one person worked on the report and since it was done by the UN, in all probability they had a staff of well respected persons in that field who contributed to it.

Tokis-Phoenix
14-04-06, 20:58
Thanks for finally admitting that. Perhaps you did already. IF so, sorry for mentioning it.

That isn't the whole picture of what i said though, so please quote the statement.


And producing meat by grazing animals causes environmental harm in other ways. See my most recent post above on the threats to South and Central America.

So do crops. I don't support cutting down rainforests for crops just as much as i don't with animals- but that situation can hardly be compared to the world situation we are facing on the whole.
As i said before, you need to raise animals and plants in the right enviroment for them to work well. Riasing anything on de-forested land is not a good idea- you cannot say crops do not apply to this as well.


Grazing animals on lands that aren`t suitable for growing crops can also exasperate a climate that is rather dry causing even further soil erosion.
Sheep and goat grazing notoriously turns tracts of land into areas susceptible to soil erosion for they often eat all the way down into the root.
Grazing large herds of animals in pastures with streams can often deteriorate the water as they past waste into the stream or as their wastes leak down into the water table.

Same goes for crops- are trying to prove here that these situations only apply to animals? Not so. There's a little thing called "good farming management"- this applys to all farming. Growing crops does not mean they can be farmed badly just like animals.


Not always so. Waste run off and leaching into the water table can cause harm to underwater table levels and find their way into streams.

Same goes for crops- except i think that chemical fertilisers are probably more damaging to water streams and stuff than animal waste. When was the last time you heard of a cow being dowsed in fertiliser?


As mentioned before, the trend is toward factory farming and that isn`t being discouraged by governments. Tax and corporate incentives are accelerating that and pasturing animals due to the pressures for urbanization on land by population is becoming less and less.
Factory farming has seen lagoon wastes of fecal material spilling into waterways that have fed cities and towns their water causing alarm to residents and harm to aquatic life -- not to mention threatening the water supply of the communities.

Are you trying to imply that i support factory farming? I never have. I think the world would be a better place without it. There's no point in pointing out things that we both agree on- you don't need to eat factory farmed foods to be an omnivore, so i don't see what point you are trying to make that hasn't been raised already etc?

Tokis-Phoenix
14-04-06, 21:06
Not so simple. Labeling is sometimes deceptive. Meat demand is driving that and imports. If a country`s population, or many country`s populations exert self control and don`t buy meat from those places but purchase alll their meat from say, Britain, after a while those South and C. American beef producers will drastically drop their prices as they seek to dump their inventory. The price will drop so low as to make the Britain prices seem too high and the lower prices too low and a good bargain to refuse. The see-saw will come back down.

The same can be applied to crops as well. Are you trying to imply that vegetarians are free from this/don't face this very situation as well?



You mean not anymore. You guys finished lopping away most of your "old growth forests" many many years ago. Right?

What point are you trying to make here? The fact of the matter is we don't deforest our land for cattle, so buying british beef does not mean you will be supporting the deforestation industry.



Taking yourself out of the equation by choosing the least damaging choice is the best way to help the environment.

By being a vegetarian though you are not taking yourself out of the equation environmentally- you can still damage the enviroment just as much as any omnivore. Better than to take yourself out of the equation so to speak, would be better to financially support a better cause than none at all.




The report goes out of its way to specifically single out meat production as one of the major causes. I guess they had a good reason not to mention tomatos or anything else specifically. Do you think they were just being derelict and unprofessional. I would bet that more than just one person worked on the report and since it was done by the UN, in all probability they had a staff of well respected persons in that field who contributed to it.

Of course cattle ranching is one of the main causes of deforestation. Its an article about it as well. But crop farming is also a major cause of deforestation across the world. Just by becomming a vegetarian does not prevent you from buying crops that support deforestation. They are as bad as each other- are you trying to indicate that one form of deforestation is somehow better than the other? You are not taking yourself out of the equation as you put it just by becomming a vegetarian.

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 21:06
I have already shown you statements by well respected orgs singling out meat production as one of the major causes of environmental damage. Can you show me a similar document by a well respected org stating that plant food production for human use causes the same amount of environmental damage or more?

Where is there a statement saying that "tomatos, wheat, or corn" are threatening the world`s sensitive rainforests, using so much water sources that we are going to have to change our eating habbits because of that" ?

Where is a study or research paper by a world reknown reputable org on that, or a report on that that says crop production for human use is threatening our environment in similar ways or on the same alarming level as meat production?

I`ve shown you mine (and I have more), now where are yours?

KrazyKat
14-04-06, 21:08
To say that vegetarianism is good for the environment and having an omnivorous diet isnft, is a very broad/vague statement to make.

Well that isn't quite the point I was trying to make. In the first place I would rather use the words better and worse than good or bad in this situation.

Additionally when I was saying an average meat eating diet, I was referring really to factory farmed meat as this consists of most meat. I should really have been clearer there. To be honest I have never read about the enviromental impact of free range meat before your posts here, its very interesting. It seems clear from what you are posting that different methods of meat production have different enviromental impacts, some less than equivalent productions for a vegetarian diet.

However, I still think that a typical meat eater's diet has more enviromental impact than a typical vegetarian. But within that broad overview there will be places where omnivourous diets are more eco-friendly that vegetarian ones, depending on the type and production of food in consideration.

Thats why I feel that this whole topic is flawed in arguing 'go vegetarian for the environment' when the real issue is simply 'how can I change my diet to make it more environmentaly friendly'. Certainly for many people this will probably involve eating less meat and/or more environmnentaly porduced meat but that will only be one aspect, and not in all cases.

I hope some of that made a little sense.

Tokis-Phoenix
14-04-06, 21:17
Well that isn't quite the point I was trying to make. In the first place I would rather use the words better and worse than good or bad in this situation.
Additionally when I was saying an average meat eating diet, I was referring really to factory farmed meat as this consists of most meat. I should really have been clearer there. To be honest I have never read about the enviromental impact of free range meat before your posts here, its very interesting. It seems clear from what you are posting that different methods of meat production have different enviromental impacts, some less than equivalent productions for a vegetarian diet.
However, I still think that a typical meat eater's diet has more enviromental impact than a typical vegetarian. But within that broad overview there will be places where omnivourous diets are more eco-friendly that vegetarian ones, depending on the type and production of food in consideration.
Thats why I feel that this whole topic is flawed in arguing 'go vegetarian for the environment' when the real issue is simply 'how can I change my diet to make it more environmentaly friendly'. Certainly for many people this will probably involve eating less meat and/or more environmnentaly porduced meat but that will only be one aspect, and not in all cases.
I hope some of that made a little sense.


I agree with you very much here :cool: .
The point i have been trying to make to SVF throughout this entire thread is just that- that becomming a vegetarian does not automtically make you more enviromentally friendly (although i know SVF will probably disagree with me on that to the ends of the earth "sigh"). An omnivorous and vegetarian diets can both be enviromentally friendly as each other if you go about them correctly- simply blindly swaping one for the other does not get you in the environmenal clear though so to speak.
I support both vegetarians and people who lead omnivorous diets depending on how they go about them and i believe both can be enviromentally friendly as each other when gone about correctly and it is also completely posible too as well "nods" :) .

strongvoicesforward
15-04-06, 10:58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mycernius:
The environment is suffering whether or not we are omnivores, vegetarian, vegan whatever other foods you wish to consume. Your opening post and this thread is you trying to prove that vegetarianism is good for the environment, but it isn't. You still consume fossil fuels, pollute the air, water, ground and no matter what you preach, ......


To say that vegetarianism isn't good for the environment because fossil fuels and pollution still occurs doesn't hold up. You might as well say that recycling is bad for the environment because pollution still occurs. We could say eating locally grown produce is bad for the environment because it generates pollution and uses resources.

The point being made is that an average vegetarian diet is better for the environment than an average meat eating diet. The issue is how much the environment suffers, not whether or not it does.

Yes, KrazyKat. Sadly though, those points you have highligted are just lost on some people. They seem to reel at the suggestion when I state it. Perhaps they will accept you saying it. Let`s see.

strongvoicesforward
15-04-06, 11:18
I agree with you[KrazyKat`s most recent post -- scroll up to see] very much here.

But not totally? Which part do you disagree with?


The point i have been trying to make to SVF throughout this entire thread is just that- that becomming a vegetarian does not automtically make you more enviromentally friendly (although i know SVF will probably disagree with me on that to the ends of the earth "sigh").

There is nothing automatic about anything. In general however, a vegetarian diet lifestyle is better for the environment than a flesh eating diet because a flesh eating diet and all its production has shown us through research that it has been damaging the environment.

Can you please show us some research by reputed orgs that implicate the human consumption of crops and their raising directly for our use as having a more negative impact on the environment than meat production? I have asked you that several times now and you have yet to show us anything. I on the other hand have shown you articles referencing research by orgs that have singled out meat production as threatening and damaging the environment in large areas.

Where is your data singling out crop production for human use as being a serious threat to the environment on a much larger scale than meat production? We are waiting.

If you don`t have that, then your argument is just one of "what can be" and that is not the reality in which we are facing. And if you don`t have that research, then the research I have put forth still stands singling out meat as the diet which is threatening and damaging the earth most. You have been weighed down and you have yet to counter that weight with balance.

nurizeko
15-04-06, 11:26
Yep. Being omnivorous means we can choose.

Aslong as its the right choice, ey SF?.

Seriously though, why do you continue to beat the same arguments which have been shot down consistently?.

Your going to have to do better then harping about enviromentalistic myth and legend with little basis in reality.

The fact is we eat meat, and vegetarianism is neither wrong or right, its merely a personal choice based on belief.

Not fact, not science, not biological, or real enviromental conditions, its based on the fact you personally dont enjoy the idea of that little piggy fulfilling his bloody death destiny.

I wont kill a mouse just because it escapes me every time, i dont kill bumblebee's and i enjoy growing plants and looking after them and gardennig and stuff, so im not a nature hater, but im not a dreamer either, i eat meat, my species has eaten meat all its existance, its going to continue to eat meat long after you and i have died.

So until such a time as we descover a grey paste that someone fulfills all out nutritional needs and actually tastes good enough to eat day in and day out over and over again, and doesnt kill anything, then were going to eat meat.

I must also point out, why is a pig more worthy of life then a plant?....if were playing the life is precious game, then my cactus ive had since i was 11, and have been growing since then, is just as deserving of life then that chicken which has been alive alot shorter then my cactus, and was born and bred for egg production/meat production.

I just dont get it, you say humans dont have respect for life and stuff, but what respect do you have for it?.....your couldnt give a **** that feilds are sown, rare plants are destroyed, all to save the lives of some pigs on a farm in sussex.

I have respect for life, i just recognise thati need to eat, and the natural order of things has decided i and my species eat meat.

omnivore means we have the choice to east what is avaliable at the time, not choose to become herbivores because the church of PETA says the animals are morew entitled to lfie then an ancient tree.

The problem SVF is that your not consistant with your beliefs, you claim to be an enviromentalist yet you preach to folk to become vegetarians despite the fact everyone here but you knows that a purely vegetarian society just means more wild land cleared for agriculture, and millions of farm animals having to be culled anyway, and not even to be eaten, just to be dumped and left to rot.

strongvoicesforward
15-04-06, 11:43
Nurizeko,

Most of your post above is off topic. You mostly discussed moral issues/what is natural and health issues in regards to vegetarianism. Other threads are handling those discussions and your points have been addressed on those. I don`t mind addressing them again (since they are easily put to rest) if you can find your way to those threads and post in there.

The very first part of your very last para did however finally touch on the topic of this thread: The environment. Here is what you said:


The problem SVF is that your not consistant with your beliefs, you claim to be an enviromentalist yet you preach to folk to become vegetarians despite the fact everyone here but you knows that a purely vegetarian society just means more wild land cleared for agriculture,...
[That`s it. Out of all that long post above, you only managed to stay on topic of the thread for about 4 or 5 lines.]

Everyone does? Do they? Look at what the research says. Can you show me some research saying what you have stated in blue above?:

There would be a net decrease of land under cultivation if flesh consumption were given up. Up to 70 to 80% of all cultivated land has their product going to being turned into animal feed. Animals raised for flesh simply cosume more of plant life than we do. Their absence would not cause us to increase our diets to consume that amount -- let alone cultivate more land causing a net increase of land under cultivation.

Go back through the threads and read the reports by orgs and researchers singling out meat production as the threat to the environment and causing damage.

strongvoicesforward
15-04-06, 13:19
70`90% of all hogs in the U.S. are raised in factory farms. Factory farms allow for the cheapest production of pork. The trend toward pork production on factory farms is increasing. The U.S. for example, is an exporter of pork providing other countries with cheap meat. For other countriesf local farmers and businesses to stay competitive in their markets, they in the face of cheap U.S. imports, must adopt practices that will allow them to compete with American meat. The market therefore pushes them to adopt factory farming also.

All is not well on the flesh farm. If the present is any indicator of the damage and threats to the environment, the future does not bode well:


JEFFERSON CITY, MO \ The state has again sued pork giant Premium Standard Farms, Kansas City, MO, the country's second largest pork producer, over a series of hog waste spills it says repeatedly violated the state's clean water law.

This is not the first time they have been sued for violations and contaminating the environment. They have repeatedly been sued in 1996, 1999, and 2000.


...the attorney general's office charges Premium Standard has violated the state's clean water law more than 12 times, allowing pig waste to reach public streams and lakes, ....

The last time in May of 2002:


... a pipe burst and spilled more than 1,000 gallons of manure and urine into a tributary of Little Medicine Creek.

Company CEO John Meyer said he was disappointed that the state filed the suit for incidents that happened before the company settled with the federal government over yet another set of environmental problems,...

Full story HERE. (http://www.watertechonline.com/News.asp?mode=4&N_ID=31980)

Tokis-Phoenix
15-04-06, 14:54
But not totally? Which part do you disagree with?

Whatever gave you that impression? I think i made a very clear post there.


There is nothing automatic about anything. In general however, a vegetarian diet lifestyle is better for the environment than a flesh eating diet because a flesh eating diet and all its production has shown us through research that it has been damaging the environment.
Can you please show us some research by reputed orgs that implicate the human consumption of crops and their raising directly for our use as having a more negative impact on the environment than meat production? I have asked you that several times now and you have yet to show us anything. I on the other hand have shown you articles referencing research by orgs that have singled out meat production as threatening and damaging the environment in large areas.
Where is your data singling out crop production for human use as being a serious threat to the environment on a much larger scale than meat production? We are waiting.

Currently some forms of meat production is more damaging to the environment than plant production- but the opposite is also true. You are trying to suggest that all animal farming is more damaging than plant farming- this is simply not true and you have no statistics that say this.
There is no solid evidence that taking animal farming out of the equation will make farming more environmentally as such a thing has never been done, all you are showing is statistics, and even they do not show the whole picture of things, as you should know- there are no statistics or figures that say if we took animal production out of the equation farming would become a lot more environmentally friendly.

For example with wheat, sure it doesn't need a lot of water to survive, but it needs a heck of alot of industry to make it into some sort of edible product. You need machines to plough the soils, pesticides/weed killers to make the plant thrive, fertilisers to make it grow, combine harvesters working around the clock to gather it, machines to dry it out and store it, lorries to transport it to the mills, machines to grind it down into all its purest forms.
And only then, do you end up with flour, which could go into dozens of different processes to make it into something more edible and nutritious like bread or a cake or somthing.
Such a process is very unevironmentally friendly, you cannot argue with that. The process of meat production often is far simpler, and thus less industry intensive.





If you don`t have that, then your argument is just one of "what can be" and that is not the reality in which we are facing. And if you don`t have that research, then the research I have put forth still stands singling out meat as the diet which is threatening and damaging the earth most. You have been weighed down and you have yet to counter that weight with balance.

Your arguement is just "what can be" as you put it, other people have pointed this out to you as well. Do you disagree that it is posible to have an enviromentally friendly omnivorous diet?

strongvoicesforward
15-04-06, 15:04
Whatever gave you that impression? I think i made a very clear post there.

So that means you agree with everything krazyKat said in his previous post?

Tokis-Phoenix
15-04-06, 15:08
So that means you agree with everything krazyKat said in his previous post?

It means, as i said, that i agree with the things said in his post i quoted.
Do you disagree that it is posible to have an enviromentally friendly omnivorous diet?

strongvoicesforward
15-04-06, 15:26
Currently some forms of meat production is more damaging to the environment than plant production- but the opposite is also true.

Tokis, where have I ever said there is ZERO damage to human use of the environment from plant production for human use? Of course there is! I have nothing to cede because I have never said plant production for human use doesn`t cause ANY harm AT ALL.

IN GENERAL though, meat production is more harmful and taxes recourses more than plant production for human consumption. We are not talking in absolutes. We are talking in generalities. There is no Utopian perfect answer to eliminate ALL damage -- for as long as we are here we will leave some print of our activities, nudging out nature as we do so. The point is we should choose that lifestyle which leads to the LEAST of those activities and impacts. Lessening demand for meat by limiting our meat consumption would help us achieve that. The more we lessened the more effective we would be in doing that. Eliminating it, in effect chosing a vegetarian lifestyle, would mean no more environmental damage due to flesh production.

In all probability a world where there is no meat consumption will never come about. But, each person taking themselves out of the equation by chosing a non flesh diet will decrease demand and production for flesh and lessen the taxing of recourses and the damage caused by livestock. It is simple economics of supply and demand and resultant impact.

You keep using the word "some" because it allows you to breath without admitting that the two (i.e. plant production for direct human use vs flesh production) are not equal in their damage and taxing of recourses.

Are you just going to keep straddling the fence and say both are equal when looking at the data you have been shown -- which stands up to ZERO of which you have proffered.

You know, you can still say some meat production is not harmful to the environment but admit: In general overall, meat does tax recourses more and does cause more harm to the environment than meat.

But, I am almost sure you won`t.

strongvoicesforward
15-04-06, 15:46
It means, as i said, that i agree with the things said in his post i quoted.

Then, this is part of what he said:


KrazyKat:
However, I still think that a typical meat eater's diet has more enviromental impact than a typical vegetarian. But within that broad overview there will be places where omnivourous diets are more eco-friendly that vegetarian ones, depending on the type and production of food in consideration

Thanks for agreeing to that. I won`t quival over the second part where some anomalies may exist that show meat eating may be less taxing on recourses or less environmentally damaging. The important thing is that we have come to a consensus that: a typical meat eater`s diet has more environmental impact than a typical vegetarina.


Do you disagree that it is posible to have an enviromentally friendly omnivorous diet?

No, I don`t disagree with that. In small localized areas that may be true. But typically, for the majority of the world and her population because of the increasing world population, pressures on land space, deforestation, economics where consumers want the lowest price in general, etc... environmentally friendly omnivorous diet is very localized and small in area.

It is almost impossible to do that with western nations and many asian nations who have multi-national firms shipping meats to all parts of the world to supermarkets, restaurants, and fast foods. A flesh eater in those societies would never be able to cut out meats that perhaps could have originated in places where large environmental damage was occuring due flesh production.

One may say, that is why one should know a trusted butcher and believe what he tells you where your meat comes from. Well, that is good if you are going to cook in your home all the time. But what about eating at a friend's house or going out to dinner. However, even butchers could be decieved by distributers and labels have been known to be falsified.

In the end, it would usually not be realistic to think that someone living in an urbanized society where multinational agribusinesses and flesh products are well entrenched could be sure where there flesh was coming from every time they purchased or consumed it. The variables are just too large.

Now, if you are a traditional family farm -- then yes. But the majority of people do not live on traditional family farms and the trend is even accelerating further from that living style. The cities will not empty and everyone go back to agrarian societies. If meat demand continues to rise then the environmental impact will become more severe.

Tokis-Phoenix
15-04-06, 15:48
Tokis, where have I ever said there is ZERO damage to human use of the environment from plant production for human use? Of course there is! I have nothing to cede because I have never said plant production for human use doesn`t cause ANY harm AT ALL.
IN GENERAL though, meat production is more harmful and taxes recourses more than plant production for human consumption. We are not talking in absolutes. We are talking in generalities. There is no Utopian perfect answer to eliminate ALL damage -- for as long as we are here we will leave some print of our activities, nudging out nature as we do so. The point is we should choose that lifestyle which leads to the LEAST of those activities and impacts. Lessening demand for meat by limiting our meat consumption would help us achieve that. The more we lessened the more effective we would be in doing that. Eliminating it, in effect chosing a vegetarian lifestyle, would mean no more environmental damage due to flesh production.

You talk about a vegetarian lifestyle as if it is the only answer- third time around, Do you disagree that it is posible to have an enviromentally friendly omnivorous diet?

Your entire thread is flawed because;
a. Its completely posible to have an environmentally-friendly omnivorous diet.
b. Having a vegetarian diet does not remove you completely from the need for farmed animal products, unless you go vegan- but this thread isn't about vegans anyways, its about vegetarianism.
c. Vegetarian diets can be even worse for the environment than omnivorous ones, so saying vegetarianism is good for the enviroment isn't true.




In all probability a world where there is no meat consumption will never come about. But, each person taking themselves out of the equation by chosing a non flesh diet will decrease demand and production for flesh and lessen the taxing of recourses and the damage caused by livestock. It is simple economics of supply and demand and resultant impact.
You keep using the word "some" because it allows you to breath without admitting that the two (i.e. plant production for direct human use vs flesh production) are not equal in their damage and taxing of recourses.
Are you just going to keep straddling the fence and say both are equal when looking at the data you have been shown -- which stands up to ZERO of which you have proffered.
You know, you can still say some meat production is not harmful to the environment but admit: In general overall, meat does tax recourses more and does cause more harm to the environment than meat.
But, I am almost sure you won`t.

What sort of vegetarianism are we talking about here? Lacto-ovo vegetarianism, ovo-vegetarianism, semi-vegeterainism etc?
The only form of vegetarianism that completely removes itself from animal farming is veganism- and even so that isn't just diet, you aren't even allowed to use animal products in any situation at all.
Perhaps you should title your thread next time "Vegans- good for the environment" lol?

strongvoicesforward
15-04-06, 16:05
Cargill Park Inc., a pork producing farm of 17,000 hogs in Martinsburg, Missouri has pleaded guily to violating The Clean Water Act and must pay the EPA a $1,000,000 fine.


gCargill Pork will also pay $51,000 in restitution to the state of Missouri for natural resources damages ...

and


g... The defendant admitted illegally discharging hog waste from holding ponds at its facility into the Loutre River, which is a tributary of the Missouri River.h ...

and damaging the environment and causing death to aquatic wildlife...


g... After the release, 53,000 fish were killed along a five-mile stretch of the Loutre River. ...h

and


g... The hog slaughter and processing company admitted to conspiring with its employees to intentionally discharge processing wastes and human wastes from its facility through a drainage pipe into Tyson Marsh that empties into Contentnea Creek, a tributary of the Neuse River. ... g

and


gThe amount discharged averaged approximately 30,000 gallons per day, said EPA. The discharge of animal processing wastes into surface waters can make them unsafe for drinking and can promote the growth of microorganisms that can be harmful to fish, wildlife and humans. h

See the full story HERE. (http://www.watertechonline.com/News.asp?mode=4&N_ID=30050)

Tokis-Phoenix
15-04-06, 16:08
"Sigh"...You aren't even going to respond to why your thread is completely flawed?

strongvoicesforward
15-04-06, 16:10
You talk about a vegetarian lifestyle as if it is the only answer- third time around, Do you disagree that it is posible to have an enviromentally friendly omnivorous diet?

I answered this in the 2nd part of my post #70. I said "no," that I don`t disagree and then went on to add comments to qualify that. Please go back and read it.

strongvoicesforward
15-04-06, 16:13
"Sigh"...You aren't even going to respond to why your thread is completely flawed?

Geesh, Tokis, give me a break. It`s only been a few minutes since you posted it. Do I do that to you? Hold on. A reply is coming.

I am generally a fast typist, but I may have to go to the bathroom from time to time or may get a phone call. I may be in the middle of writing another post or answer to one as well.

Geeeeesh. What`s your problem that you can`t wait 5 or 10 mins for a reply?

Tokis-Phoenix
15-04-06, 16:26
Then, this is part of what he said:
Thanks for agreeing to that. I won`t quival over the second part where some anomalies may exist that show meat eating may be less taxing on recourses or less environmentally damaging. The important thing is that we have come to a consensus that: a typical meat eater`s diet has more environmental impact than a typical vegetarina.
No, I don`t disagree with that. In small localized areas that may be true. But typically, for the majority of the world and her population because of the increasing world population, pressures on land space, deforestation, economics where consumers want the lowest price in general, etc... environmentally friendly omnivorous diet is very localized and small in area.
It is almost impossible to do that with western nations and many asian nations who have multi-national firms shipping meats to all parts of the world to supermarkets, restaurants, and fast foods. A flesh eater in those societies would never be able to cut out meats that perhaps could have originated in places where large environmental damage was occuring due flesh production.
In the end, it would usually not be realistic to think that someone living in an urbanized society where multinational agribusinesses and flesh products are well entrenched could be sure where there flesh was coming from every time they purchased or consumed it. The variables are just too large.
Now, if you are a traditional family farm -- then yes. But the majority of people do not live on traditional family farms and the trend is even accelerating further from that living style. The cities will not empty and everyone go back to agrarian societies. If meat demand continues to rise then the environmental impact will become more severe.


You could have just said "yes" :blush: .
But anyways...I have an environmentally friendly diet and it is, dare i say it, omnivorous. And it is completely affordable (and no, i'm not rich). And i live in an urbanised town. And it is a western country.

You spent all that post trying to make how difficult it was having such a diet...Trust me, it really isn't that difficult even if you do live in an urbanised western country- but realy, you are advising people against somthing that you havn't even tried.

So you agree that its completely posible to have an environmentally-friendly omnivorous diet. So you don't need to act like a vegan is the only path to save the environment anymore etc. Woo.


One may say, that is why one should know a trusted butcher and believe what he tells you where your meat comes from. Well, that is good if you are going to cook in your home all the time. But what about eating at a friend's house or going out to dinner. However, even butchers could be decieved by distributers and labels have been known to be falsified.

And by the way, it is illegal to sell organic free-range british beef when it isn't just that.
You are making another thin-air point again- the same situation could be applied to a plant situation, example: how do you know that you can trust your green grocer, and that those vegies you are buying aern't actually from some slave labor rainforest deforestation camp where they dowse their veggies is pesticides and use starved animals to toil the soils etc?

strongvoicesforward
15-04-06, 16:29
Your entire thread is flawed because;

We will agree to disagree on that.


a. Its completely posible to have an environmentally-friendly omnivorous diet.

Never said it wasn`t. Again I explained in post #70 why it can be in some cases. The vegetarian, or better yet, the vegan diet is even better.


b. Having a vegetarian diet does not remove you completely from the need for farmed animal products

Never said it did. I have already told you: generally, it is simply the better of the two for causing less impact on the environment. Go back and look at the water usage for meat/calorie production vs calorie production by crops (research which used data partly financed by the beef industry).


..., unless you go vegan- but this thread isn't about vegans anyways, its about vegetarianism.

Vegan is most definitely the better of the choices. But a vegetarian diet is still better than a flesh diet as for causing less environmental impact.


c. Vegetarian diets can be even worse for the environment than omnivorous ones, so saying vegetarianism is good for the enviroment isn't true.

Where is your data to support that? How many times have I asked you for that? You have yet to give me a report or research from an org of high repute with a statement to support a statement like that above. Please provide one.

You sure do leave a lot of my comments uncommented on. I guess I should hurry up and rush you for your answers like you feel the need to do to me. However, I have been waiting several days for your replies on comments.

If a particular diet in general lends itself to causing less stress on natural recourses and less destruction, it is true. Have you read the hog waste stories above? Lots of farms getting fined for terrible environmental damage. Haven`t seen tomato growers nailed like that.

Tokis-Phoenix
15-04-06, 16:40
Where is your data to support that? How many times have I asked you for that? You have yet to give me a report or research from an org of high repute with a statement to support a statement like that above. Please provide one.
You sure do leave a lot of my comments uncommented on. I guess I should hurry up and rush you for your answers like you feel the need to do to me. However, I have been waiting several days for your replies on comments.
If a particular diet in general lends itself to causing less stress on natural recourses and less destruction, it is true. Have you read the hog waste stories above? Lots of farms getting fined for terrible environmental damage. Haven`t seen tomato growers nailed like that.

Well simply put- do you agree that some vegetarian diets are not environmentally friendly?

strongvoicesforward
15-04-06, 16:45
You could have just said "yes"

I did, but read the qualifications carefully. It was quite qualified.


But anyways...I have an environmentally friendly diet and it is, dare i say it, omnivorous. And it is completely affordable (and no, i'm not rich). And i live in an urbanised town. And it is a western country.
You spent all that post trying to make how difficult it was having such a diet...Trust me, it really isn't that difficult even if you do live in an urbanised western country-

Most people would not be able to account for all the variables, such as eating out at a restaurant, a new one or an old one, a friend`s house, or a relative`s house. It would require a lot of asking and research unless one limited themselves to eating veggies when not eating at home.


...but realy, you are advising people against somthing that you havn't even tried.

Do you think I was born vegetarian?

I am suggesting a "positive" -- that people choose a vegetarian lifestyle because in general that does have the less impact on the environment and recourses (which you agreed to in KrazyKat`s post).

[quote]So you agree that its completely posible to have an environmentally-friendly omnivorous diet.

I already answered that and I had never denied that. Everything is possible to an extent, which I qualified above and which you have not replied on.


So you don't need to act like a vegan is the only path to save the environment anymore etc.

Being a vegan or vegetarian is the better way in general with the realities of the world in which we are faced with. Anomalies may exist, however.


And by the way, it is illegal to sell organic free-range british beef when it isn't just that.

Well, Britain is not the whole world. And that is not the only problems when
it comes to flesh production.


You are making another thin-air point again- the same situation could be applied to a plant situation, example: how do you know that you can trust your green grocer, and that those vegies you are buying aern't actually from some slave labor rainforest deforestation camp where they dowse their veggies is pesticides and use starved animals to toil the soils etc?

We don`t know that. But, has that scenario you painted been put to the front as one of the leading causes of taxing the recourses and damaging the environment? Please show me where it is said to be.

strongvoicesforward
15-04-06, 16:48
Well simply put- do you agree that some vegetarian diets are not environmentally friendly?

Anomalies may exist. In general however, vegetarian diets are more environmentally friendly than flesh eating diets.

Tokis-Phoenix
15-04-06, 17:05
Most people would not be able to account for all the variables, such as eating out at a restaurant, a new one or an old one, a friend`s house, or a relative`s house. It would require a lot of asking and research unless one limited themselves to eating veggies when not eating at home.

The same applies to a vegetarian diet. What point are you trying to make about omnivorous diets that doesn't apply to vegetarian ones already? Or is this just another thin-air point that applies to my side of the debate just as much as it does to yours?



Do you think I was born vegetarian?

Nope, but then again you never implied that you've ever tried to lead an environmentally friendly omnivorous diet either so i have no reason to think otherwise of you.



I am suggesting a "positive" -- that people choose a vegetarian lifestyle because in general that does have the less impact on the environment and recourses (which you agreed to in KrazyKat`s post).

KrazyKat never said that exactly. I've already noted you on quoting people's words acuratly, i believe what KrazyKat said went more along the lines of;


However, I still think that a typical meat eater's diet has more enviromental impact than a typical vegetarian. But within that broad overview there will be places where omnivourous diets are more eco-friendly that vegetarian ones, depending on the type and production of food in consideration.
Thats why I feel that this whole topic is flawed in arguing 'go vegetarian for the environment' when the real issue is simply 'how can I change my diet to make it more environmentaly friendly'. Certainly for many people this will probably involve eating less meat and/or more environmnentaly porduced meat but that will only be one aspect, and not in all cases.

To see KrazyKat's full post, check out post 59.



I already answered that and I had never denied that. Everything is possible to an extent, which I qualified above and which you have not replied on.

Which part do you want me replying on that has not already being adressed?


Being a vegan or vegetarian is the better way in general with the realities of the world in which we are faced with. Anomalies may exist, however.
Well, Britain is not the whole world. And that is not the only problems when
it comes to flesh production.

Of course britain isn't the whole world. Neither is america. I was making a valid point/example though that pretty much applies to all food production- its illegal to sell a food product as somthing that it is not unless of course there are no laws against that sort of thing- but i can think of very few if none at all examples of countries that don't have laws against that sort of thing.



We don`t know that.

Exactly. So what point were you trying to initially make with this butchers telling lies example etc?


But, has that scenario you painted been put to the front as one of the leading causes of taxing the recourses and damaging the environment? Please show me where it is said to be.

I wasn't aware that you were asking for one of the leading causes of taxing the recourses and damaging the environment- if thats what you want in this debate, then a lot of your points on farming in america or cattle destroying the rainforest are completely irrelevant from your point of veiw in this sense.

Tokis-Phoenix
15-04-06, 17:08
Anomalies may exist. In general however, vegetarian diets are more environmentally friendly than flesh eating diets.

So the statement you made in your second post of this thread;


Choosing a vegetarian life style is one that would benefit the environment.

Is not true, because you have agreed that
a. You can lead an environmentally friendly omnivours diet.
b. You can also lead a non-environmentally friendly vegetarian diet.

So choosing a vegetarian life style does not always benefet the environment.

.... .... ....

strongvoicesforward
15-04-06, 19:23
Well, Tokis,

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Keep peeking in though, because I will be commenting on many of the flesh producing cases which have damaged and continue to threaten the environment/recourses, along with the reports/studies which have and continue to make news on the issue.

IF you ever get a report or research from a reputable org with a statement that vegetarianism (or growing crops for human direct consumption) is in any way less better for the environment than a flesh eating diet (raising livestock for consumption), or that the latter is better, or even equal, then please post it.

Tokis-Phoenix
15-04-06, 19:49
Well, Tokis,
We will just have to agree to disagree.
Keep peeking in though, because I will be commenting on many of the flesh producing cases which have damaged and continue to threaten the environment/recourses, along with the reports/studies which have and continue to make news on the issue.
IF you ever get a report or research from a reputable org with a statement that vegetarianism (or growing crops for human direct consumption) is in any way less better for the environment than a flesh eating diet (raising livestock for consumption), or that the latter is better, or even equal, then please post it.
Actually no ,we won't agree to disagree. You debated at the beginning of this thread "Choosing a vegetarian life style is one that would benefit the environment"- you have agreed that this is not the case. But you do not admit you were wrong in saying that in the first place.
I want you to admit you were wrong in saying that and that it is not the case. A vegetarian lifestyle will not benefet the environment anymore than an omnivorous lifestyle can.
Agriculture accounts for 76% of the country's land use and is responsible for 70% of all nitrates and 40% of phosphates entering the UK's water supply. Saying that eating crops is environmentally friendly is hardly the case here. As i have pointed out before, there are plenty of meat sources that do not rely on crops at all like beef and lamb. Agriculture is the main contributer to water contamination in the UK;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3815415.stm
A vegetarian diet/life style does not mean a lifestyle that will benefet the environment. If you continue to use propaganda against an omnivore diets in an environmental sense or bashing omnivore diets like you are currently doing without making any efforts to show the other side of the picture/debate i will lose a lot of respect for you due to your arrogance on this subject.

Omnivorous and vegetarian diets can be as environmentally friendly as each other, not one more than the other.

strongvoicesforward
15-04-06, 20:15
Actually no ,we won't agree to disagree. You debated at the beginning of this thread "Choosing a vegetarian life style is one that would benefit the environment"- you have agreed that this is not the case.

lol. No, I have not agreed that that is not the case.


But you do not admit you were wrong in saying that in the first place.

Because I am not. Choosing the less damaging of choices of the two, between flesh eating and vegetarianism, the environment stands to benefit by not having to be taxed with the practice that is more damaging.


I want you to admit you were wrong in saying that and that it is not the case.

You haven`t worked hard enough to get what you want.

I am not wrong. And, it is the case. You need to go back over the numbers.


A vegetarian lifestyle will not benefet the environment anymore than an omnivorous lifestyle can.

Already addressed. You know my position.


Agriculture accounts for 76% of the country's land use and is responsible for 70% of all nitrates and 40% of phosphates entering the UK's water supply. Saying that eating crops is environmentally friendly is hardly the case here.

And what is the breakdown percentage of where those crops go to? Directly to people or first to animals. The story you quoted didn`t say, did it? So why are you assuming those crops in those figures are due to direct consumption by humans? Do you think people, or the people of Britain, eat more of the total crop output than the livestock?

In American I know that figures cite between 70 to 80% of plant food grown goes to livestock. That would mean that livestock is responsible for 70 to 80% of the contamination that is due to crop growing.


As i have pointed out before, there are plenty of meat sources that do not rely on crops at all like beef and lamb. Agriculture is the main contributer to water contamination in the UK;

You haven`t shown us that those agriculture numbers which is grown, is for human consumption. Show me something that says something like, "the majority of contaminants and damage to the environment from growing plant food is from food destined to go directly to human consumption." That article and the numbers above do not detail that.


A vegetarian diet/life style does not mean a lifestyle that will benefet the environment.

In general, yes it does. Sorry you are not able to extrapolate that information from what you have been shown as of yet.


If you continue to use propaganda against an omnivore diets in an environmental sense or bashing omnivore diets like you are currently doing without making any efforts to show the other side of the picture/debate i will lose a lot of respect for you due to your arrogance on this subject.

Well, then I geuss I have lost your respect. Feel how you feel you must. But, for the record, the omnivore diet has not been bashed by me -- it has merely been shown for what it is -- in this thread less good (or more bad) for the environment than a vegetarian one.


Omnivorous and vegetarian diets can be as environmentally friendly as each other, not one more than the other.

Not in the reality of the world presently on a wide scale and in general, and not in the future as poplulation pressures increase. Perhaps in some SF world then your "can" qualification may be able to fly. But as of right now, it is seriously not a very smooth flight.

Tokis-Phoenix
15-04-06, 20:30
lol. No, I have not agreed that that is not the case.

What of post 82 do you disagree with then?


Because I am not. Choosing the less damaging of choices of the two, between flesh eating and vegetarianism, the environment stands to benefit by not having to be taxed with the practice that is more damaging.

You talk of flesh or animals as if they are all the same thing or the same situation.
Not all animals need crops to survive in a farming environment. This means that you can eat animals/animal products that have nothing to do with crops, meaning they are not one of the main threats to the loss of biodiversity to the environment- meaning, if you live solely off crops like a vegetarian does, you will always be tied to the way of farming, but being an omnivore means at least you can choose otherwise.
Crops rely on fertiliser- if this is natural, it comes from animals, meaning that you will be supporting animal farming regardless as this is the only way it can be obtained currently, if it is artificial, it means you are supporting a more environmentally damaging form of farming. So, you can see how vegetarianism supports animal farming regardless unless you don't want to be environmentally friendly and instead opt for herbicides, pesticides and chemical fertilisers etc?

Mycernius
15-04-06, 23:16
SVF, I have a couple of questions for you. Do you eat dairy products? You know, eggs, milk, cheese etc. Do you use woollen or silk clothes? You probably know where this is going to go, but all I require is a simple yes or no.

strongvoicesforward
16-04-06, 10:14
SVF, I have a couple of questions for you. Do you eat dairy products? You know, eggs, milk, cheese etc. Do you use woollen or silk clothes? You probably know where this is going to go, but all I require is a simple yes or no.

Yes, I know where it is going. It is going off topic.

You can get your answer HERE (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=335112&postcount=2) and please be sure to ask all future personal questions related to my persona there.

strongvoicesforward
16-04-06, 10:37
What of post 82 do you disagree with then?


You saying I have agreed that my statement gChoosing a vegetarian life style is one that would benefit the environment" is not the case. I have not agreed that it is not the case. It is the case. I am not talking about anomalies. Anomalies exist.

Your use of the word gcanh is merely a qualifier. It falls outside of what is the ggeneral case.h In general with the world today, what the past has shown us, and what the trends are, a vegetarian diet is better for the environment than a flesh eating diet.

Mycernius
16-04-06, 10:56
Yes, I know where it is going. It is going off topic.
You can get your answer HERE (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=335112&postcount=2) and please be sure to ask all future personal questions related to my persona there.
It is not going off topic. It concerns the topic. If you are not willing to answer just say so, but is your vegetarian diet really not using animal products from herds? All I need is an answer, then the topic can continue.

Edit: Sorry found the answer, which could have been easily answered here

strongvoicesforward
16-04-06, 11:00
You talk of flesh or animals as if they are all the same thing or the same situation.

I speak in general terms when I say "a vegetarian diet would benefit the environment in comparison to a diet that includes flesh." I am not talking about individual cases here and there separately. I am talking about the aggregate of all the effects, plus and minuses.

In the aggregate as we see today and in the past, with continuing trends, meat production consumes more water recourses and poses greater dangers to the environment.

I have shown you research and studies that point to those dangers and consumption of recourses. You have yet to show me anything from an insitution or org of well repute. Why not? Can`t you find anything?


Not all animals need crops to survive in a farming environment.

Why don`t you address the general state of the present, the past, and the trends? Why are you always trying to wiggle out with the "not all" phrase? Do you hide your argument in the anomalies for protection?


This means that you can eat animals/animal products that have nothing to do with crops, meaning they are not one of the main threats to the loss of biodiversity to the environment-

Again, "CAN". More hiding from what the past, present, and future trends depict. I don`t live my life by anomalies, but perhaps you do. I am suspicious of something like: A convicted pedophile can work at Disneyland cleaning bathrooms that are not specifically for adults only, meaning they are not one of the main threats of loss of 'innocense' to children.

That statement is constructed on your construct and uses the "anomaly" argument to allow for something -- even when that something poses a danger and threat (in this case to a child or the environment).


...meaning, if you live solely off crops like a vegetarian does, you will always be tied to the way of farming, but being an omnivore means at least you can choose otherwise.

We are tied to civilization and the world economy. As long as both are running smoothly we can make choices that satisfie our health requirements based on concern for the environment or other things. If things collapse, then a survival mentality could set in and people will definitely choose do that for what is convenient for survival and not for careing about altruistic or environmental concerns. We are not in that situation now and therefore can choose to be vegetarian.

strongvoicesforward
16-04-06, 11:07
It is not going off topic. It concerns the topic. If you are not willing to answer just say so, but is your vegetarian diet really not using animal products from herds? All I need is an answer, then the topic can continue.
Edit: Sorry found the answer, which could have been easily answered here

It is off topic. You even admitted as much by stating after I answer your personal question, "then the topic can continue." It means you have blocked it, or else it would not be in a state in which it is supposedly 'not continuing'.

Your post served only to "bump" the thread up.
Thanks for helping to feed the thread so that more eyes can come across it. I am always happy by the high hit ratings of my threads. You help me.

Your question has been answered in the appropriate thread.

nurizeko
16-04-06, 11:07
Anything SVF cant immediately confront with a response he fills supports his position is considored off-topic or somethnig similar.

I still find vegetarianism a flawd philosophy, nothing more nothing less, a harmless lifestyle choice which shouldnt, and doesnt ussually effect me.

Its the annoyance of vegetarian missionaries trying to force it upon others, or bogging down Japan forums and the likes with these debates.

We've discussed this god awful subject to death, in any other forum, people would be banned for continously posting these same beaten to death topics.

Your a vegetarian, we get it, woopty f***ing doo.

Were omnivores, were going to remain omnivores, so why is this topic still being discussed, is there not other enviromental issues to discuss, like solutions to over-farming border-land around deserts?, or how best to preserve the wild-life while still being able to farm our countryside?, can we have a real important issue for a change instead of these ideological religious fundie style enviro-activist VS everyone else debates long bereft of any real value of discussion or importance?.

Its like ID Vs science debates, its fun the first time but by the 50th it just gets old.

strongvoicesforward
16-04-06, 11:29
Virtually all above posted by Nurizeko is off topic. His comments have been addressed HERE (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=335150&postcount=6) for those who would like to see them.

His post above has acted merely as a bump.

Mycernius
16-04-06, 11:53
It is off topic. You even admitted as much by stating after I answer your personal question, "then the topic can continue." It means you have blocked it, or else it would not be in a state in which it is supposedly 'not continuing'.
Your post served only to "bump" the thread up.
Thanks for helping to feed the thread so that more eyes can come across it. I am always happy by the high hit ratings of my threads. You help me.
Your question has been answered in the appropriate thread.
It is not offtopic. Your talking about it is, so in effect you have taken your own subject offtopic, but the question wasn't. I wanted to know because your discussion or OP was about the vegetarian diet being good for the environment and how you think you hold the moral high-ground. Vegetarians still rely on herd animals to provide diary products. Thes animals still take up land and provide for a majority of vegetarians. You might be moving towards a vegan diet, but you are still reliant on animals to provide for your current needs. So your own diet is not environmentally friendly because even you are using herd animals. Even so I think Tokis has provided enough links and info for you to read and look at, even if you seem to dismiss them out of hand.

strongvoicesforward
16-04-06, 12:27
It is not offtopic. Your talking about it is, so in effect you have taken your own subject offtopic, but the question wasn't. I wanted to know because your discussion or OP was about the vegetarian diet being good for the environment and how you think you hold the moral high-ground.

It is off topic and I have addressed why HERE. (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=335167&postcount=7)


Vegetarians still rely on herd animals to provide dairy products. These animals still take up land and provide for a majority of vegetarians.

Yes, they do and your statements are correct. However, their vegetarian diet means less cattle and therefore less recourses going to support cattle.

As I have said before, the vegetarian diet does not lead to "zero" impact on the environment and recourses -- it merely leads to much lesser impact.


Even so I think Tokis has provided enough links and info for you to read and look at, even if you seem to dismiss them out of hand.

I have not dismissed them out of hand. I have addressed them. Which links are you specifically referring to that supported what you think she is saying or that goes against that a vegetarian diet has less impact on the environment?

----------------------------
*Some personal off topic comments to me were not addressed here. If you wish to view them and my response to them, click here to go to: ;-)*The Strongvoicesforward Thread. (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=335167#post335167)

KrazyKat
16-04-06, 13:06
I have a feeling that SVF and Tokis actually agree with each other, but for good reasons are unable to accept the way the other wishes to present the conclusion.

(I may be way off here but this is how I see it)

I think that we agree that:
1) Modern meat farming is bad for the environment
2) There are exceptions/anomalies in that a minority of meat, such as free range grass fed animals, can be produced in a more environmentally friendly manner. (How easy it is to eat this diet, how much a share of production this is and exactly how enviromentally friendly it is may or may not be so much agreed on however)

Now SVF wants to present this as:
"vegetarianism is good for the environment"
I agree with this general statement, as point 1 shows. However because Tokis eats what is probably an environmentally friendly omnivourous diet she cannot accept this conculsion and presents it as:
"omnivourous diets can be just as good for the environment as vegetarian ones"
I agree with this too. Its an important point to make, to show that SVF's conclusion isn't always true. Eco-friendly omnivourous diets can be eaten and bad vegetarian diets can be eaten. However, SVF is unable to accept this conclusion as it seems to present meat eating as environmentally friendly, which as we have seen usually isn't the case.

Since the title of this thread is specifically "Vegetarianism for the Environment" I offer the conculsion of:
"a typical meat eater's diet has more enviromental impact than a typical vegetarian"
which is what I said before with just the explanation taken away. Maybe the wording isn't quite perfect though. Lets see if everyone can agree?

strongvoicesforward
16-04-06, 13:35
Yes, KrazKat, I will agree with that because you rightfully qualified everything with the words "anomaly, can, and typical" -- all of which I have been also trying to get across to Tokis.

However, I would add a #3 and #4 to the two you listed above:


1) Modern meat farming is bad for the environment

2) There are exceptions/anomalies in that a minority of meat, such as free range grass fed animals, can be produced in a more environmentally friendly manner. (How easy it is to eat this diet, how much a share of production this is and exactly how enviromentally friendly it is may or may not be so much agreed on however)

3) The trend toward modern flesh production practices which have thus far taxed recourses and damaged the environment, are on the rise, and if the past is an indicator of what the future has in store for society, then the negative impact on the environment will increase even more.

4) That negative impact of the present and future can be decreased by as many people as possible lessening demand for flesh by as much as possible. Becoming a vegetarian or vegan would lessen the demand the most (and quite drastically if many were to give flesh up), but even a decrease in portions of meat consumed by omnivores would also help (however, not as much as giving it up completely).
Good post above, KrazyKat.

strongvoicesforward
19-04-06, 17:18
More damage for the environment by cattle -- and this time the buffalo in Canada have to pay.

One of North Americafs last original free roaming herds of buffalo is going to get knocked off for the beef industry. When settlers first began ranching their cattle in Canada, their cattle, infected with bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis diseases, gave it to the buffalo. Since then those diseases have been cured from the cattle herds -- and have been for decades. However, the buffalo still have it amongst themselves. [I guess that was a gift that kept on giving from the beef industry.]

Now the cattlemen worried about their profits have lobbied for and gotten the permission to have a government slaughter of one of the last and largest original herd -- 4,500 buffalo in Wood Buffalo National Park.

Their plan -- to wipe out the whole herd. Any stragglers that escape the main hunters will be deceived into giving themselves up by judis buffalos with radio tracking collars on them. [Oh... got to love technological advancements for increasing killing efficiency for beef interests at the expense of natural environment and fauna.]


It's a plan that has its critics, some of whom say the consequences for the park cannot be predicted. Without bison to eat the vegetation, the wildfire risk could rise, or plant diversity could be threatened without the herd to work the soil.

"We have no idea what the consequences are going to be," said Faisal Moolah, director of science at the David Suzuki Foundation in Vancouver, an environmental lobby group.

Yes, and how will this affect the wolves, caribou, and moose? To take out a main animal such as the buffalo will alter the ecosystem.

But, the flesh eaters need that beef and the environment is to come second to their palate.

Just don`t MOVE OVER buffalo to give us more space. Would you please be so kind to not make our task of killing you too difficult? It`s for the good of our profits and we`d apprecieate it if you didn`t get in the way of that. And to guarantee our profits, we need to wipe the whole lot of you out to the very last one -- particularly you in the herd of the Wood Buffalo National Park. I know, it sounds like a home named after you -- but, you should appreciate the irony. You as icons and symbols of our western heritage need not be taken into consideration when it comes to the beef industry.

See the Reuters news article here: Canada Studies Cull of its Largest Bison Herd (http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35961/story.htm)

Tokis-Phoenix
19-04-06, 17:55
Yes, KrazKat, I will agree with that because you rightfully qualified everything with the words "anomaly, can, and typical" -- all of which I have been also trying to get across to Tokis.
However, I would add a #3 and #4 to the two you listed above:

1) Modern meat farming is bad for the environment
2) There are exceptions/anomalies in that a minority of meat, such as free range grass fed animals, can be produced in a more environmentally friendly manner. (How easy it is to eat this diet, how much a share of production this is and exactly how enviromentally friendly it is may or may not be so much agreed on however)
3) The trend toward modern flesh production practices which have thus far taxed recourses and damaged the environment, are on the rise, and if the past is an indicator of what the future has in store for society, then the negative impact on the environment will increase even more.
4) That negative impact of the present and future can be decreased by as many people as possible lessening demand for flesh by as much as possible. Becoming a vegetarian or vegan would lessen the demand the most (and quite drastically if many were to give flesh up), but even a decrease in portions of meat consumed by omnivores would also help (however, not as much as giving it up completely).
Good post above, KrazyKat.



Do you always tell everyone what they can and cannot say or what they should say etc SVF? Actually, that was a stupid question. You do. This thread is as good as dead. "Sigh"...Its like you believe you are some moral high ground to everyone else, and whenever somone questions parts of your beliefs or makes points about them that could shake them, you ignore them- you would do well to learn a little more in the way of "tact" and "respect" with other members here if you want to more people to participate in your threads positively.
Anyhoo...'Nuf said. I don't agree with your opinions, but then again you barely even consider mine, so the way i see it, i have no reason to take yours into consideration anymore seriously.
This has nothing to do with your belief that the reason why people don't listen to you is because of what you preach.

Good luck with your converting of people to veganism because you cannot hack people killing animals for food in any circumstances in the western world unless they are starving, because you are going to need it with the way you are going, 'cos to be honest i don't think you are doing much positive for the image of vegetarians and animal rights activists a like here on this forum in general currently.
My Uncle died a couple of days ago so think carefully before you try to make any comments on this post as i am not exactly very long-tempered right now.

strongvoicesforward
19-04-06, 18:49
Do you always tell everyone what they can and cannot say or what they should say etc SVF?

Where have I done those? I merely quoted KrazyKat, agreed with his analysis and then added some more to tighten it up a little.


This thread is as good as dead.

It`s life doesn`t depend on your participation.


"Sigh"...Its like you believe you are some moral high ground to everyone else, and whenever somone questions parts of your beliefs or makes points about them that could shake them, you ignore them-

You haven`t made any strong points backed up by research or data to shake my beliefs. I haven`t ignored your points. I have showed why they are not valid. But I did accept anomalies. You rested your beliefs on anomalies and possibilities -- and not on the reality of the situation.

I wouldn`t be debating my side if I didn`t think I was right. If you want to assign that the moral highground, then be my guest. Gandhi, too, that that vegetarianism was the moral choice to make, but that is a different thread.


...you would do well to learn a little more in the way of "tact" and "respect" with other members here if you want to more people to participate in your threads positively.

Where have I disrespecte you?


Anyhoo...'Nuf said. I don't agree with your opinions, but then again you barely even consider mine, so the way i see it, i have no reason to take yours into consideration anymore seriously.

I have considered your opinions. I found them lacking in regards to the reality of the situation. Your reason to consider my opinion should be based on the data and real world cases I have given you.

Remember, I had offered you several posts ago for us to end with "agreeing to disagree," but you went spastic on that ranting.


Good luck with your converting of people to veganism because ... to be honest i don't think you are doing much positive for the image of vegetarians and animal rights activists a like here on this forum in general currently.

People change slowly. I have no expectation that someone will read a post and have an epiphany. However, I had the same view of people who championed vegetarianism strongly before I adopted it, but, their words did seep into my mind and wiggle around after time. I don`t think I am so unique that there aren`t others who may view these threads and be given thought as I was on the topic. As for me, I was able to divorce the messenger from the message. I think others here are capable of that as well.


My Uncle died a couple of days ago so think carefully before you try to make any comments on this post as i am not exactly very long-tempered right now.

Sorry to hear that. My condolances to you.

Take care and keep lurking in on the thread when you can. Participants and sideline observers are welcome.

strongvoicesforward
20-04-06, 15:52
It has already been shown in this thread the damage from cattle to the environment/fauna in South America and Canada. This post will now focus on damage caused by cattle in Africa.

Take the grasslands of Bostwana for instance. There are 3 million heads of cattle on the grasslands, more than double the human population.

Because of European restrictions on the fears of disease from imported beef from Africa, these animals must be confined. That has caused large savana/grazing areas to be fenced, which in turn causes migratory routes to be broken restricting animals from reaching water and food supplies when seasonal changes causes drought or famine.


Scientists invited by the government of Botswana to study Botswana's cattle problems, concluded that "when the interests of wildlife and cattle come into conflict, the wildlife loses".

and


Cattle rearing in the southern African state of Botswana is decimating the country's wildlife, according to a stinging rebuke published last week by a team of scientists who visited Botswana at the government's invitation.
'Vast areas of natural habitats have been degraded in many parts of the country,' says the scientists' report. 'The main cause is the expansion of the cattle industry.'

and


But some 3000 kilometres of fencing around cattle pastures blocks these migration routes. During droughts, thousands of animals die at these fences trying to reach water.

Excerpt from New Scientist Magazine. See story extract here: Beef for Europe threatens Botswana's wildlife (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13418221.600.html)

Rich303
20-04-06, 16:31
Dear SV-F,

I appreciate your views, and I can see the point you are trying to make.

Mankind's industialisation of farming has created many problems (BSE, Foot and Mouth disease, destruction of rain forests etc...) + all the other day to day wrongs you mention.

However, I don't think you should use JREF as a platform to force your views on people. Many people here have strong views about various things, but I think you are a little confrontational in your approach.
Just my humble opinion.

Peace!

strongvoicesforward
20-04-06, 16:45
However, I don't think you should use JREF as a platform to force your views on people. Many people here have strong views about various things, but I think you are a little confrontational in your approach.

Dear Rich30-3,

I can`t force my views on anyone. How can I do that? If someone were sitting next to me, I guess I could try to force them to drink a coke, or sit on the sofa and watch a TV show, but how can I force a view on someone through the internet? There is no "forcing." I am however, stating my views and putting them out there for rebuttal -- which you are invited to do.

What sentence in particular do you feel is so "confrontational" that makes it not worthy for being presented and if those are against forum rules please be so kind to outline how? You may be able to find a few "confrontational" sentences, but to say that the majority of my sentences are "confrontational" is quite off the mark. Merely stating opinions or facts without adding "IMO" or "I think" does not mean they are confrontational or objectionable in what is often used in public debate.

But to be fair, a certain degree of confrontation is needed for those who seek out strong debate. "Confrontation" is not bad so long as it does not devolve into name calling, expletives, and threats.

I asked you a few questions above. I would appreciate it if you could answer with a little more detail on those matters.

"Peace!"

Rich303
20-04-06, 16:58
I'm not even going to try, because I know you will do me every time.

I actually agree with many things you say.

You've obviously got your sh*t together much more than me, but I just think you should be rallying parliament or something, rather than a Japan information website.

strongvoicesforward
20-04-06, 17:16
I'm not even going to try, because I know you will do me every time.

I wouldn`t refer to it as "do." I would be rude to do so in that way.


I actually agree with many things you say.

Glad to hear.


You've obviously got your sh*t together much more than me, but I just think you should be rallying parliament or something, rather than a Japan information website.

I, along with other activists, DO do that. We write, we try to visit offices, we petition, we leaflet, demonstrate, etc... However, when I have time at home, I would rather engage others than watch TV or play computer games.

Just because you see activity here, don`t let that make you think that is all there is. Engagement here is just one prong of the things I or other activists do.

I choose a Japan site because I live in Japan and this is my community. Japan lags far behind the rest of the world in Animal Rights. It took a while for the UK to export to American their views on AR, and now we are trying to get a foothold in Japan with more stronger agitation for AR.

Just takes time.

Rich303
20-04-06, 17:58
I wouldn`t refer to it as "do." I would be rude to do so in that way.[QUOTE]



Don't worry, I wouldn't think you were rude if you did.



[QUOTE] I, along with other activists, DO do that. We write, we try to visit offices, we petition, we leaflet, demonstrate, etc... However, when I have time at home, I would rather engage others than watch TV or play computer games.
Just because you see activity here, don`t let that make you think that is all there is.[QUOTE]



Fair enough, glad to hear you are making some inroads
I don't watch TV much myself, and have never owned a games console in my life, so that's something we have in common!



[QUOTE]and now we are trying to get a foothold in Japan with more stronger agitation for AR.
Just takes time.



Good luck with that. I respect your efforts.
from Rich

strongvoicesforward
23-04-06, 16:18
In the journal Earth Interactions, assistant professors Eshel and Martin from the University of Chicago of Geo Physical Sciences opined:


The duo have said that the average American diet requires the production of an extra ton and a half of carbon dioxide-equivalent, in the form of actual carbon dioxide as well as methane and other greenhouse gases compared to a strictly vegetarian diet. Plant-based diets are healthier for people as well as for the planet.

See full article here: Vegetarianism may also be healthier for planet, claims study (http://www.newkerala.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=42266)

strongvoicesforward
25-04-06, 03:53
Fair enough, glad to hear you are making some inroads
I don't watch TV much myself, and have never owned a games console in my life, so that's something we have in common!

lol. Yes, indeed.


Good luck with that. I respect your efforts.
from Rich

Thanks.

Keep checking in on the thread from time to time, Rich.

Tofu
25-04-06, 18:12
Let us try and clear this up.
It doesn't in no form whatsoever. What about the huge gas guzzling harvesters used to collect grain crops?

I think Bio-Diesel is the most common fuel over here in US for farming, because farmers can just use leftover or bi-product of their crops to make the fuel. Though even if thta's not the case, it is not a good reason to cause more harm to environment or any living things.

Revenant
21-05-06, 11:08
I thought I should add this. Vegetarians could be at risk of a vitamin B12 deficiency. But Vitamin B12 is actually not naturally found in animals, it is introduced into animals via bactaria on plants, thus the animal becomes a source of vitamin B12.

A reliable source of Vitamin B12 for strict vegetarians would be Red Star Nutritional Yeast. A couple of table spoons a day easily fulfils the daily RDA.

There are other plant food that sometimes have B12, such as natto, tempeh, seaweeds, etc. However these are not reliable sources.

RockLee
21-05-06, 13:42
I thought I should add this. Vegetarians could be at risk of a vitamin B12 deficiency. But Vitamin B12 is actually not naturally found in animals, it is introduced into animals via bactaria on plants, thus the animal becomes a source of vitamin B12.
A reliable source of Vitamin B12 for strict vegetarians would be Red Star Nutritional Yeast. A couple of table spoons a day easily fulfils the daily RDA.
There are other plant food that sometimes have B12, such as natto, tempeh, seaweeds, etc. However these are not reliable sources.What coincidence! I was reading the wikipedia site on vegetarians yesterday and found out they could risk a vitamin B12 shortage.

Maciamo
21-05-06, 14:33
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
I haden't joined this discussion so far. So here I am. I haven't read replies yet, but here are my views about the original post. For the record I am not a vegetarian and never wanted to be.

1. Moral/ethical : carnivorous animals would eat us if hungry. I don't this the wrong in eating them (e.g. fish, frogs, pigs... can all eat meat). As for non-meat eater, they would be eaten by carnivorous for carnivorous to survive. So refusing to eat meat for the sake of not killing would mean that strictly carnivorous species (including your pet cat) should disappear for the animal world to be moral. I prefer to keep these species and let the law of nature apply. Otherwise the oceans and rivers would be empty of animal life.
Incidentally, I see humans as just another animal species. So if we humans refrain from eating animals to avoid killing them, why would a different rule apply to other animals ? We cannot put ourselves in a lower position than other species.

2. Health : If eating too much red meat is not healthy, not eating meat at all isn' better. The body needs proteins, and not just muscles. Humans got bigger brains in a stage of their evolution because they became meat eater. We wouldn't be discussing the morality of eating meat had our ancestors never eaten meat. Never forget that.

3. Environmental : I agree that endangered species shouldn't be eaten. I also agree that keeping farm animals create a lot of CO2 and uses a lot of vegetal resources. But let's not forget that there has never been so many chickens, turkeys, cows and pigs as today, because we raise them to be eaten. If we stopped eaten them, it could even be argued that some of these species would disappear, as they cannot cope by themselves in today's world (well, depends how industralised the country is).

Note that eating eggs or drinking milk create as much CO2 as eating these animals' meat. We still need to raise them and feed them as much. There is not the slightest moral reason to eat eggs and drink milk though. It's also good for health. So point 3. would occur even in absence of point 1. and 2.

This being said, I haven't eaten beef in 5 years because of BSE risks. I go for ostrich or kangaroo instead when it's available (i.e. not in Japan).
I also agree that meat should be eaten in moderation. Fish can be eaten more often. It's important to keep a diversified and balanced diet, but meat should be part of it.

strongvoicesforward
21-05-06, 15:06
I haden't joined this discussion so far. So here I am. I haven't read replies yet, but here are my views about the original post.

Hi Maciamo. I was wondering when you would join it. Glad to see you here.

Ok, I will address the three points in seperate posts so that the lengths will be cut down. The environment is the main theme of the thread so I may probably focus on that more here. The other two I think had been gone into greater detail on a couple other threads. I might bring those back up.


For the record I am not a vegetarian and never wanted to be.

lol. I had the same thought at one time. Not saying you will change -- but I had never even imagined I would become a vegetarian.


1. Moral/ethical : carnivorous animals would eat us if hungry.

Non-human animals are captive of their passions. We are not. Our desires do not control us. We have the ability to control our desires from within of our own choice. Carnivorous animals are opportunistic and satisfy their hunger when they can take advantage of a situation. We have the ability to extend "the principle of equal consideration of interests." I guess some would say that is the "Golden Rule." It is irrelevant if animals can extend that to us because they are unable to. We do not have "inability" as an excuse.


I don't think it is wrong in eating them (e.g. fish, frogs, pigs... can all eat meat).

I don`t think it is wrong in eating anything if it comes down to survival. But in today`s modern world (except for some jungle or Arctic tribes) we are not eating to survive. We are butchering to please the palate -- even when science has shown that a modern vegetarian diet is just as healthy as a flesh eating diet -- and the vegetarian diet offers benefits.


As for non-meat eater, they would be eaten by carnivorous for carnivorous to survive. So refusing to eat meat for the sake of not killing would mean that strictly carnivorous species (including your pet cat) should disappear for the animal world to be moral. I prefer to keep these species and let the law of nature apply. Otherwise the oceans and rivers would be empty of animal life.

The animal world, being captive of their passions, are unable to live morally. We can. Their inability and our ability is a standard that sets us apart from one another on what we can choose to do to lessen suffering.

By humans not imposing our wills on animals would in fact probably mean those animals which were bread for our interests may disappear. But, cows going extinct or persian cats going extinct would do nothing to the echo-system in a negative sense. It would probably be beneficial. There is no suffering in death and many would want death to release them or hope that their children not be born if they knew they were going to be sentenced to an eternal Holocaust.


Incidentally, I see humans as just another animal species. So if we humans refrain from eating animals to avoid killing them, why would a different rule apply to other animals ? We cannot put ourselves in a lower position than other species.

I see ourselves as another animal species as well. But, we have a different ability than the other animals which I already mentioned above. By refraining from exploiting animals for our palate, and still being able to survive quite well (if not healthier), then I am hard pressed to see how that would put us in a lower position. Why would we be in a lower position if we can survive in the modern world just as well on a modern vegetarian diet -- with the added benefits it offers health wise and environmental wise?

Mycernius
21-05-06, 15:17
Non-human animals are captive of their passions. We are not. Our desires do not control us. We have the ability to control our desires from within of our own choice.
Oh yes we are. We might be able to control them a bit better, but our basic desires are still there and it doesn't take as much as you think for them to come to the fore. Just look at the wars we have fought over territory, hatred of our neighbours, even soccer caused a war in South America. If we could control our base emotions as well as you think then our world would be a peaceful planet with no crime or hate. Even reading something that doesn't fit with our opinions brings anger to the fore. How many times have politicians got you worked up into anger?

Maciamo
21-05-06, 15:24
Non-human animals are captive of their passions. We are not. Our desires do not control us. We have the ability to control our desires from within of our own choice.
I think that some mamals are also able to control their desires. I am pretty sure that some dogs (depends on their intelligence and upbringing) would never kill their masters, or even any human (even a baby) if they were extremely hungry, and would rather die of hunger instead. They'd rather sacrifice their own life rather than harm a beloved one. This is almost like us humans. Don't forget than cannibalism has long existed among humans, and even civilised people have eaten other dead humans to survive (that story about the plane crash in the Andes, if you have seen the movie).

If a dog can refrain from eating a human or another dog, then more intelligent mamals (pigs, dolphins, whales...) also could. Depends a bit on their personality and "culture/education" like for humans.

Btw, cats are supposedly carnivorous and not omnivorous like humans, pigs or dogs, but I have had a kitten that was always hungry and would eat the vegetables and potatoes from the dog's bowl (and not just occasionally, everyday !). This can became omnivorous, and at one point almost vegetarian ! If cats can do this, other mamals can too.

strongvoicesforward
21-05-06, 15:43
2. Health : If eating too much red meat is not healthy, not eating meat at all isn' better.

I think you would not find an indepth study by a well reputed org or research institute not biased to the meat industry which would explictly back that sentiment up.

If you look on from post #112 on (where I entered the conversation) the "Are You Vegetarian" thread here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3232&page=5) (I think you created that), you will see some posts on the position paper of the "American Dietetic Association" (The largest association of dietetics in the world). You can link to their position paper from my posts or just follow my posts for a while to get a jist of what they have said on vegetarianism for health. Their paper is well referenced for their sources.


The body needs proteins, and not just muscles.
We agree. But, all proteins can be supplied adequately from a vegetarian diet.


Humans got bigger brains in a stage of their evolution because they became meat eater.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I don`think that has been definitively decided. Besides, even if I do concede that point, that point relies on the immediate task at hand -- survival in a world where taking opportunity of anything by any means meant the difference between life or death when not knowing where your next meal is going to come from. Today we do not exist in such a situation. Humans' brains did not get large just merely because they ate meat -- they got large because they could satisfy their protein needs.

The form of the protein is not important. Today we can get all our dietary protein needs by plants. If we could at that time, it would only be logical that our brains would have had the same enlargment effect as eating meat -- provided that that was the only reason for getting a large brain, which I am not sure it was. Are you sure that was the only reason?


We wouldn't be discussing the morality of eating meat had our ancestors never eaten meat. Never forget that.

Do you think past traditions should dictate future actions? If evolution means change and it is good, then we can choose to evolve by changing an act that we need not keep.

More and more the positive benefits of a vegetarian diet are coming to light with more studies, as well as the negative effects meat production is having on our environment.

Let`s face it. We no longer live in a hunter gatherer world and therefore should not keep to traditions that are less beneficial to us and the world when others present themselves. Why not be the opportunists we naturally are and embrace that lifestyle that will serve to benefit us and the environment we live in? Do we not do it just out of tradition and the pleasure of the palate?

strongvoicesforward
21-05-06, 15:54
Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
Non-human animals are captive of their passions. We are not. Our desires do not control us. We have the ability to control our desires from within of our own choice.


Oh yes we are. We might be able to control them a bit better, but our basic desires are still there and it doesn't take as much as you think for them to come to the fore.

Of course we have passions and they can come to the fore. But, we can control them. In fact, our legal systems expect us to control them because governments know it is within our ability to do so.


Just look at the wars we have fought over territory, hatred of our neighbours, even soccer caused a war in South America. If we could control our base emotions as well as you think then our world would be a peaceful planet with no crime or hate. Even reading something that doesn't fit with our opinions brings anger to the fore. How many times have politicians got you worked up into anger?

lol. Believe me. I have no delusions for a Utopia of non-violence to set in. It takes effort to control our passions and many have the other vice that often prevents that -- laziness or apathy.

But, it quite within the realm of possibility of man to choose to not eat meat when all his dietary needs can be satisfied via a non-flesh diet.

strongvoicesforward
21-05-06, 16:14
Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
Non-human animals are captive of their passions. We are not. Our desires do not control us. We have the ability to control our desires from within of our own choice.


I think that some mamals are also able to control their desires. I am pretty sure that some dogs (depends on their intelligence and upbringing) would never kill their masters, or even any human (even a baby) if they were extremely hungry, and would rather die of hunger instead. They'd rather sacrifice their own life rather than harm a beloved one. This is almost like us humans.

Agreed. But dogs are an anomaly. They are not representative of most natural carnivores. But like you said -- it depends on conditioning (or training) and perhaps intelligence at the hands of humans. A ferrel dog may be a more apt model for carnivores if we are talking about natural behaviour and controlling passions.

I would probably trust my neighbor's labrodore retriever sitting on the sofa next to my baby before I would with my baby on a picnic blanket with ferel dogs circling. The labrodore has had its passions controled somewhat through humans who see the value in controling passion and hence have to some degree grafted them onto the dog.


Don't forget than cannibalism has long existed among humans, and even civilised people have eaten other dead humans to survive (that story about the plane crash in the Andes, if you have seen the movie).

Yes, excellent movie. Have read the book, too. Highly recommend it. But, made my fear of flying even worse.

But I am not sure what point/connection you are trying to make with cannibalism and controlling passions so that we can choose an alternative to supply all our needs. Cannibalism can be opportunistic for survival (as the Andes plane crash) or it can be to degrade another or obtain the power of another. The latter two are usually myth, superstitious or religious based.


If a dog can refrain from eating a human or another dog, then more intelligent mamals (pigs, dolphins, whales...) also could. Depends a bit on their personality and "culture/education" like for humans.

Yes, and they do. Most animals have a preference for what kind of meat they prefer. I am sure there is a scale of degree to what amount of passions animals can control. Ours however, is by far much greater and wider in range.


Btw, cats are supposedly carnivorous and not omnivorous like humans, pigs or dogs, but I have had a kitten that was always hungry and would eat the vegetables and potatoes from the dog's bowl (and not just occasionally, everyday !). This can became omnivorous, and at one point almost vegetarian ! If cats can do this, other mamals can too.

If your cat went too long on a vegetarian diet, Maciamo, it would die. Cats need a certain protein from meat that needs to be digested in their system.

If other mammals can, then that should be left to them to decide to do it or not. We should not base our actions on the failings/successes or choices or non choices of other animals. Do you think we should? If so, why?

Maciamo
21-05-06, 16:56
Agreed. But dogs are an anomaly. They are not representative of most natural carnivores. But like you said -- it depends on conditioning (or training) and perhaps intelligence at the hands of humans. A ferrel dog may be a more apt model for carnivores if we are talking about natural behaviour and controlling passions.
I would probably trust my neighbor's labrodore retriever sitting on the sofa next to my baby before I would with my baby on a picnic blanket with ferel dogs circling. The labrodore has had its passions controled somewhat through humans who see the value in controling passion and hence have to some degree grafted them onto the dog.

And don't you think that some (primitive) humans also lacked such control ? What about prehistoric humans ? I believe that civilisations gradually taught humans (and domesticated animals) to change their natural behaviour. But in a "wild" (precivilisation) state, I don't think there is so much difference. A well-trained labrador may be more able to control its "passions" than a primitive human.


If your cat went too long on a vegetarian diet, Maciamo, it would die. Cats need a certain protein from meat that needs to be digested in their system.

That was his choice. Sometimes he would just eat the vegetables and not the meat (cat or dog food) next to it !

Mycernius
21-05-06, 22:37
Cats a picky eaters, but they are a carnivore by nature, not omnivores. Sometimes a cat will eat vegetable because there is a taste or smell of meat on it. Two of my cats eat chips, probably because of the smell of fat on it, but as SVF says a cat will die if kept on a vegetarian diet.

strongvoicesforward
22-05-06, 02:15
And don't you think that some (primitive) humans also lacked such control ? What about prehistoric humans ? I believe that civilisations gradually taught humans (and domesticated animals) to change their natural behaviour. But in a "wild" (precivilisation) state, I don't think there is so much difference.

Sure, Maciamo. That is all possible. But, not being in a primitive state now, we have much more self control and the opportunity to exercise it more by the abundant choices our modern infrastructure and supermarkets have to offer us. We need not act as we did in primitive times -- to eat opportunistically. Wouldn`t you agree to that?

strongvoicesforward
22-05-06, 03:23
3. Environmental : I agree that endangered species shouldn't be eaten. I also agree that keeping farm animals create a lot of CO2 and uses a lot of vegetal resources.

Then, logically, why would you want to produce more CO2 when the alternative to having less of it without losing any ability to supply all dietary needs and still have health benefits associated with a vegetarian diet is readily available?

In addition CO2 is not the only thing 'farms' are producing as bi-product from animals. Animal waste run-off and spillage has also resulted in environmental damage to aquatic systems and have leached themselves into the underground water table.


But let's not forget that there has never been so many chickens, turkeys, cows and pigs as today, because we raise them to be eaten. If we stopped eaten them, it could even be argued that some of these species would disappear, as they cannot cope by themselves in today's world (well, depends how industralised the country is).

Why would it be a loss to the world`s ecosystem if man made species dissappeared? What value are they other than to serve us as slaves for exploitation? There is no suffering in death and if they pass from us the environment stands to benefit.

Some people will say, "well, if we stopped eating them, then we would have to let them lose and they would die suffering because they could not survive on their own." My answer to that is it is highly unlikely that all humanity will stop on a dime and one day say, "no more eating meat from today," and then be in a quandery as what to do with all the domesticated animals on farms. No, in reality if vegetarianism picks up speed and spreads faster, the simple rules of supply and demand will cause the farms to empty due to economic forces and perhaps gradual legislation.


Note that eating eggs or drinking milk create as much CO2 as eating these animals' meat. We still need to raise them and feed them as much. There is not the slightest moral reason to eat eggs and drink milk though.

Agreed. Veganism has the least impact on the environment and if one becomes a vegetarian first, they may want to consider moving as much as possible on the spectrum over to veganism.



It's also good for health. So point 3. would occur even in absence of point 1. and 2.

You mean "milk" and "eggs" good for health, right? In some ways, perhaps. In other ways, perhaps not. I will go into milk and eggs in more detail later. But, for right now, the mass producing of these products definitely impacts on the environment through waste and methane production. A degraded environment does nothing for health.


This being said, I haven't eaten beef in 5 years because of BSE risks. I go for ostrich or kangaroo instead when it's available (i.e. not in Japan).
I also agree that meat should be eaten in moderation. Fish can be eaten more often. It's important to keep a diversified and balanced diet, but meat should be part of it.

Diversified is good, but it does not need to include any meat for optimal health. The ADA link in post 112 (I think) of this thread clearly puts for their professional opinion on this matter. They are the world`s largest association of professional dieticians and their position paper is well referenced to original source and scientific data research.

btw, glad to see you not eating beef.

strongvoicesforward
22-05-06, 03:26
Just to be clear, Maciamo, post #112 I meant to say is in the thread "Are You Vegetarian" and can be seen here: Are You Vegetarian? #112 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=330487&postcount=112).

It is a short post but I follow it up with other posts as my discussion with Tokis-Pheonix continued.

Maciamo
12-06-06, 21:50
Then, logically, why would you want to produce more CO2 when the alternative to having less of it without losing any ability to supply all dietary needs and still have health benefits associated with a vegetarian diet is readily available?

I don't see CO2 as negative for the environment. In fact CO2 is 'food' for plants, so it stimulates vegetal growth. The media often sound confusing in this regard. CO2 is only "bad" because it fosters global warming - but is that such a bad thing in itself ? The Earth has been much warmer than now in the past and life thrived. Areas like Canada, Northern Europe and Russia would be advantaged by global warming rather than suffer from it (at least if dikes are built to prevent floods from rising sea levels). All we need to do is live with changed conditions (e.g. by irrigating better hot and dry areas to prevent desertification).



In addition CO2 is not the only thing 'farms' are producing as bi-product from animals. Animal waste run-off and spillage has also resulted in environmental damage to aquatic systems and have leached themselves into the underground water table.

It's mostly a matter of better recycling and waste management. Organic waste can be used as fertiliser.


Why would it be a loss to the world`s ecosystem if man made species dissappeared? What value are they other than to serve us as slaves for exploitation? There is no suffering in death and if they pass from us the environment stands to benefit.

Pigs may be "man-made" (I prefer "fostered by humans"), but they are also some of the most intelligent mamals on earth. I tend to put more value in preserving intelligent species at the top of the evolutionary ladder (e.g. big mamals) over others.


Agreed. Veganism has the least impact on the environment and if one becomes a vegetarian first, they may want to consider moving as much as possible on the spectrum over to veganism.

As I said before, had our ancestors be vegan we would not be discussing this, as out brain wouldn't be so big. Think about future generations over the coming millenia.

strongvoicesforward
13-06-06, 03:50
I don't see CO2 as negative for the environment.

A lot of low laying island nations' people will disagree with you.


In fact CO2 is 'food' for plants, so it stimulates vegetal growth. The media often sound confusing in this regard. CO2 is only "bad" because it fosters global warming - but is that such a bad thing in itself ?

Personally, I like it hot.


The Earth has been much warmer than now in the past and life thrived. Areas like Canada, Northern Europe and Russia would be advantaged by global warming rather than suffer from it (at least if dikes are built to prevent floods from rising sea levels).

Yes, but the warming or lowering of temperature trends in the past have happened very gradually, allowing for species to adopt or evolve with the changes. Sure, probably some had died off due to the change, but the biodiversity of the planet probably did not experience much of a set back. The rate in which species are being threatened now is overly accelerated due to our activities and warming trends at this speed will not allow for adjustments which will cause fish species to come under threat which will work its way up the chain, not to mention much habitat loss and wetland lost due to rising seas.

Sea walls and dikes are not the answer to protect ourselves from the damage to ecological life. Shallow sandy areas and marshy with reeds and coral on coasts and on rivershores are essential for smaller animals which are fed on by the larger animals -- not to mention places for depositing eggs. Take that out of the mix and a lot more than just the scenery could be affected.


All we need to do is live with changed conditions (e.g. by irrigating better hot and dry areas to prevent desertification).
It's mostly a matter of better recycling and waste management. Organic waste can be used as fertiliser.

Agreed, and in fact -- we don`t have a choice. It is imperative that we do so. However, if we are in the process of breaking something that has served us for our entire civilization, I think it is more wise to try and value what we know that works -- i.e. no need to re-invent the wheel. Why not work hard to maintain this wheel we have? -- and in the process of doing so even repair some of the places that are damaged.


Pigs may be "man-made" (I prefer "fostered by humans"), but they are also some of the most intelligent mamals on earth. I tend to put more value in preserving intelligent species at the top of the evolutionary ladder (e.g. big mamals) over others.

Preserving them for existence for their own sake? I have no problem with that. Preserving them for existence for suffering and butchering? In that case they are worse off for their intelligence -- for to know what the screams are meaning in front of them as they are pushed toward the "stick pit" makes their intelligence a cruel thing to have.


As I said before, had our ancestors be vegan we would not be discussing this, as out brain wouldn't be so big. Think about future generations over the coming millenia.

That is an assumption. And if our species destroys ourselves due to our folly or intelligence -- then what has that existance served, or for that matter even this conversation served? But that, too, is an assumption.

If we were not to be having this conversation now due to not getting to such an advanced stage, then so what? The conversation would not be missed or mourned by us because it would not be on our perceptual screen -- just as advanced conversation or the technology that would be allowing it to happen 5,000 years from now in the future; it, too, is not on our perceptual screen, but are we mourning it because we have not obtained it or can`t conceive of it? No. And if we destroy ourselves before we reach it, then it never existed in the first place. Why mourn non-existance?

MagnusAurelius
01-03-17, 19:39
I like carrots.

Guivre
16-05-17, 20:45
Well, since this thread was bumped, I thought I might add that vegetarianism/veganism for environmentalism would appeal to the young over other motivations. It was the one thing that tipped me over the edge when I was in HS. I felt concerns about other issues, but when you are young health does not seem as vital as it does when you are older and compassion is always better but every day we are surrounded by animal products and to me it was not enough for me to say "no". Except for pork, which I gave up long before becoming vegetarian (and later vegan) for multiple reasons.