Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 128

Thread: Vegetarianism for the Environment

  1. #76
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom





    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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" .
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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?

  2. #77
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    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.


    "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
    --Albert Einstein

  3. #78
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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?

  4. #79
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    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.

    [quote]...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).

    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.

  5. #80
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    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.

  6. #81
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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;

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    We don`t know that.
    Exactly. So what point were you trying to initially make with this butchers telling lies example etc?

    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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.

  7. #82
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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;

    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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.

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

  8. #83
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    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.

  9. #84
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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/b...re/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.

  10. #85
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    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.

  11. #86
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    lol. No, I have not agreed that that is not the case.
    What of post 82 do you disagree with then?

    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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?

  12. #87
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    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.

  13. #88
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    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 and please be sure to ask all future personal questions related to my persona there.

  14. #89
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    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.

  15. #90
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Add-on

    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Yes, I know where it is going. It is going off topic.
    You can get your answer HERE 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

  16. #91
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    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.

  17. #92
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    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.

  18. #93
    Banned Achievements:
    1 year registered
    nurizeko's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-01-05
    Location
    aberdeen, scotland
    Age
    34
    Posts
    149


    Ethnic group
    Half scottish half Germanic, i got blood from austria, germany, scotland england, im a mongrol.
    Country: United Kingdom



    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.

  19. #94
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Virtually all above posted by Nurizeko is off topic. His comments have been addressed HERE for those who would like to see them.

    His post above has acted merely as a bump.

  20. #95
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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.

  21. #96
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    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.

    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.

  22. #97
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    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?

  23. #98
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    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.

  24. #99
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    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

  25. #100
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Your diet's impact on the environment
    By KrazyKat in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 22-09-19, 11:47
  2. What are you doing to help the environment?
    By CC1 in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-02-15, 17:14
  3. How aware are you of the State of the Environment?
    By CC1 in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 25-09-13, 00:04
  4. Slovenia's President, Dr. Janez Drnovsek, speaks about vegetarianism
    By strongvoicesforward in forum EU politics & government
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-09-06, 04:52
  5. Famous Vegetarians on Vegetarianism
    By strongvoicesforward in forum Opinions
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 17-04-06, 05:55

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •