Sustainability Vegetarianism for the Environment

[Tokis-Phoenix]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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]

Add-on

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

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Mycernius]

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]

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.

 

[KrazyKat]

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]

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]

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

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

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.